The Instigator
bsergent
Pro (for)
Winning
31 Points
The Contender
ekagarwala
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Freedom of sexuality is a human right.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/12/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,386 times Debate No: 1726
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (12)

 

bsergent

Pro

The suppression of sexual activity of any sort between any number of consenting sentient humans is the most insidious method of control ever devised by organizations with an interest in the control of human behavior.

Sexual repression leads to psychosis, and this mechanism has been exploited to render most industrial populations functionally insane for the purposes of exploitation and profit.
ekagarwala

Con

Let me first say that I respect that people have different sexual orientations and that I see nothing wrong with that. I accepted this argument on the basis of what you posted in your argument.

Firstly, I believe there are many sexual activities between consenting sentient humans that have every right to be regulated by the government. A government should be able to place some limit on where sexual activities occur. For example, the government could order no sexual activity in public places. Considering your statement about consenting adults, I will assume that at the initiation of the act all present knowingly consent to what is going on. However, there is certainly a risk that another non-consenting member of the public may happen in upon the act. Even if the activity were to occur in locked, sound proof room but that is meant for public use, the government should have the right to limit what actions take place in that room.

Secondly, I think there are far worse methods for controlling human behavior than the suppression of sexual activity. Limiting freedom of speech, freedom of religion, quartering troops in your home and most of the other rights in the Bill of Rights are far more important than ones sexual freedom.

Thirdly, I don't think sexual frustration has driven industrial populations functionally insane. The vast majority of sexual acts that people wish to engage in are legal in most industrial nations. I don't see how the limitation of sexual acts has led to exploitation (oppression perhaps) or profiteering.
Debate Round No. 1
bsergent

Pro

"A government should be able to place some limit on where sexual activities occur."

Only in so far as the protection of property rights are concerned. Like i should not have to worry about people making out in my living room, but as far as people in public, to me its like you're advocating the government being able to dictate taste.

I hate seeing gangsta kids limping along like its cool, ut just because I don't wanna see it means it should be illegal.

"The government should have the right to limit what actions take place in that room."

I disagree, so long as the actions taken harm no one, and i mean harm, not annoy or disgust. I think Jello is disgusting, but I don't need it to be illegal to eat it in public. Like everything else sex in public would self segregate just because mimes are legal in public does not mean mimes will be camping out everywhere.

"Secondly..."

None of those are basic animal needs, suppressing sexuality is like controlling people with starvation or thirst, which is far more monstrous than any of your examples.

"The vast majority of sexual acts that people wish to engage in are legal in most industrial nations."

That's not true, sodomy and fellatio are still technically illegal in many places while it may be a majority I object to the use of the word vast. In fact I'd say between sodomy, homosexual acts, and fellatio and cunnilingus, most sexual acts engaged in, in industrial societies, are illegal or potentially so, doubly so when you include the sexual activity of teens, and traditional sex crimes.

Besides something does not have to be illegal to be oppressed. Take communism in the McCarthy era, or race issues. Social oppression is just as bad if not more so than legal oppression, because at least when a law is oppressive there is an established mechanism for repealing it that you may attempt.
ekagarwala

Con

Forcing someone else to engage in a sexual act is immoral and falls under the range of acts that the government has every right to prevent and prosecute. Engaging in sexual conduct in public view is essentially forcing a level of participation on the observers. There are many sexual activities and kinks that involve other people watching. It is morally wrong to force people to do so, and should be legally punishable.

Sex is not a need. However much one may desire it, one does not need it. I cannot see how you can equate the need for food and water to sex. No one has died from a lack of sex. Plenty of people do not have sex and live successful lives (by their own estimation). Personally, I feel that my ability to speak, gather with people, be free from unjust imprisonment, and believe what I wish to believe is more important than rutting in some particular fashion.

While some are technically illegal, they are not practically illegal. They do not tend to stand up to judicial review and in general people are not charged with those crimes (fellatio and sodomy). I also said most industrial nations. Europe and the industrial nations of South America are quite liberal in what is allowed. You said that industrial populations had been driven functionally insane and I don't see how that is at all likely when most of those nations have very few limitations on sexual behavior.

I would argue that it should be illegal to have sex with a two year old. If we can agree on that, there must be some sort of age where it should no longer be illegal. The question of where that boundary exists is a legal definition and therefore must decided by government. We can argue over exactly what that age or criteria is, but it must be defined in the law.
Debate Round No. 2
bsergent

Pro

"Forcing someone else to engage in a sexual act is immoral and falls under the range of acts that the government has every right to prevent and prosecute."

For one, I don't know if it's the government's job to dictate morality. For two, sexual assault should have no greater significance than any other property right violation. Protection from assault of any form is a fine thing. But there is no logical reason for me to give up my sexual freedoms in order to enjoy protection from assault. Like any freedom, freedom of sexuality ends where another's begins. Obviously I'm not attempting to justify rape, and I dislike the implication that I was.

"Engaging in sexual conduct in public view is essentially forcing a level of participation on the observers."

False logic, else all forms of protest or public display of any sort should be illegal. I hate football but I have to tolerate crowds of fans and idiots in costume. I hate KKK, yet I have to tolerate rallies. I hate the shame of democracy yet I have to tolerate photo ops and parades and signs. Everywhere we look there are things occurring some of us disapprove of. The nature of a free public is the requirement to tolerate that in exchange for the knowledge that others would have to tolerate us. Sex is only different because of our puritanical roots and corp/gov/church support of mass sexual tension.

"Sex is not a need."

The Quakers would disagree. Sex is as much a need as food or air. Just because the individual can theoretically physically survive without it does not mean it is no less a need. Besides as humans we have higher needs. If I were to keep you strapped to a bed but kept alive, would you still claim your needs were being met? I would go so far as to claim that the stress of being deprived of all higher needs would radically shorten your life span.

"No one has died from a lack of sex."

Prove it, since you've made the claim. I think I could show sexual repression as an instrumental factor in many deaths.

"While some are technically illegal, they are not practically illegal."

So it doesn't matter what the law says so long as we can get away with it? How disgusting. I suppose the black should not have fought for their civil liberties just because they could get away with using the white only fountain at times. The enforceability of a law has no impact on its ethical standing.

"…most of those nations have very few limitations on sexual behavior."

Your definition of sexual behavior leaves a lot to be desired. Sexual code fills volumes anywhere you go. I think you radically underestimate the importance of sex in our daily lives. Take for example dress code, bathrooms, slander, sexual harassment, marriage laws and related code, even disturbing the peace, or code related to "lewd" conduct. Our sexual conduct is EXTREMELY limited. The insanity I speak of is precisely the type of cognitive blindness you've just exhibited. We have less sexual freedom now both practically and legally in some places than we have ever had since the industrial revolution. A study of the history of prostitution and serial sex crime alone makes that quite clear.

The insanity I speak of is walked around in a maze of sexual codes both social and legal and being trained to ignore them.

"I would argue that it should be illegal to have sex with a two year old."

Should it also be illegal to think there are CIA men in your attic waiting to plant bugs in your teeth? What should be a health code issue only becomes a crime because the state has such a vested interest in sexual control of its populace. Pedophilia is criminal insanity, not pure criminality. Criminality is breaking social rules for profit, such as dealing drugs, or robbing a bank. Stabbing your mother because the dog told you to or because you have a brain lesion or deformity that causes you to see her as a walking nightmare is not pure criminality.

Further, while sex with a child of such a young ago may be reprehensible to you and the exceedingly vast majority of others for valid genetic and socioethical reasons, you need to realize that making it a state issue beyond the protection of the child's rights brings up an important question about that same protection applied to the child's parents. A ‘child' in our society has no real rights. The only rights they have are general state protection of future worker rights. Which is why it's legally required to send children to school, not because they care about the child's knowledge level, but merely its indoctrination level.

Again, playing the kid card is just as underhanded as playing the rape card, you're stalling; we both know I'm not advocating child rape. But I'm pleased you resort to such underhanded measures, it means you have nothing legitimate to offer and thus I've crushed your point.

"The question of where that boundary exists is a legal definition and therefore must decided by government. We can argue over exactly what that age or criteria is, but it must be defined in the law."

So you need a government to validate every ethical position you arrive at? What if the government decided that children were property and we and they could do whatever they please to them until they turn 30? Would you then simply accept the position because it came from authority? Of course not, so don't expect me to.

Children only need government protection because government has created a situation ripe for their abuse. If the government stayed out of sexual affairs entirely sex crime in general would vanish. Go look up the history of serial rape and sexually motivated serial murder. Sex crime is relatively new, and is a direct result of intense sexual regulation. And as the regulation becomes stricter, the proclivity for sex crime advances proportionally, just like drug law yields drug abuse, and poverty yields theft. The government creates problems so that they can sell us solutions in exchange for our freedom.

Would you submit to a law saying that you could only have sex once a year and only in missionary position? On what grounds would you refuse to submit to such a law?
ekagarwala

Con

ekagarwala forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
I'm very flattered that you think highly of my work. As you may have noticed I expect zero support from the current generation.

There are many of us that think this way. Million agree with me in part. My gift, if any, is the collection, the big picture. Each of my views flows logically from the other. The problem is getting people to think generally.

Most people are specialists, and this is understandable, this tenancy has allowed our species to survive. But we also need generalists, and pure philosophers.

Sexuality is a very important subject. It is the most repressed animal need, and as a result a great many social ills stem from it. Just as pain stems from poverty or starvation, pain stems from sexual repression, and the first step to repair is admitting that sexuality is a need and not merely a recreation to be bought from Kay jewelers or Ferrari.

If you really like my work, I have tons of it. Underlore.com links to everything. Thank you for your words of encouragement, but keep in mind I'm sure there's something we disagree on. :)
Posted by dano2 9 years ago
dano2
bsergent, you're a badass. I loved this debate. A very unpopular stance on a very important subject (assuming quality of life is important).

"I think I could show sexual repression as an instrumental factor in many deaths."
You could start here, http://www.suicideforum.com...

"The government creates problems so that they can sell us solutions." Nice. I didn't know anyone else thought like this.

Thanks
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Also I use Maslow all the time, read my other debates blogs book etc. underlore.com
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
SportsGuru

Right but what i meant by sex crimes were many of the acts now called sex crimes, like rape and the like. The motivation for rape is largely a consequence of lame laws. But yes I see what you're saying, I should have worded it differently.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
"You can't fire me, I quit."

P.S.

"Your comments don't appear to be grammatically correct. Try adding more content to your comments."

Uhhhh, remove this 'feature'.
Posted by ekagarwala 9 years ago
ekagarwala
I am sorry I was unable to post the last argument. I was out of town. My last point in this debate is that you did not demonstrate that sexual repression was the worst form of control ever devised nor that it "leads to psychosis, and this mechanism has been exploited to render most industrial populations functionally insane for the purposes of exploitation and profit."
I would again like to say that any act between consenting adults in private should be free of control by the government. I still, however, disagree with your initial claims. Thank you for the debate.
Posted by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
bsergent: Although you won the debate, I noticed 1 fallacy in your last argument.

"If the government stayed out of sexual affairs entirely sex crime in general would vanish."

That is only because if the government stays out there would be no legal definition for a sex crime. This is similar to the "If you make guns illegal only criminals will have guns" statement. It is inherent that only criminals would have guns under a "no guns" law because have a gun would be a crime. The government not making a law about something does not make it go away.

Also, an alternative argument for Sex = a need would be a look at Maslow's Hierarchy of Human Needs.
Posted by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
Sorry for the typographical issues :)

"just because I don't wanna see it does not mean it should be illegal."

Is what I meant.
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by shadow835 6 years ago
shadow835
bsergentekagarwalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by TonyX311 9 years ago
TonyX311
bsergentekagarwalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by mrmazoo 9 years ago
mrmazoo
bsergentekagarwalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by dano2 9 years ago
dano2
bsergentekagarwalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bruindebater 9 years ago
bruindebater
bsergentekagarwalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
bsergentekagarwalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
bsergentekagarwalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by aliveinwildpaint 9 years ago
aliveinwildpaint
bsergentekagarwalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
bsergentekagarwalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bsergent 9 years ago
bsergent
bsergentekagarwalaTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30