------------------------------------------------------------------------
* G * O * A * N * E * T **** C * L * A * S * S * I * F * I * E * D * S *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARCA BRANCA
VACATION ACCOMMODATION
LOUTULIM, SOUTH GOA.
For R&R; modern/clean amenities; serene, healthy and wholesome location
Visit http://www.garcabranca.com for details/booking/confirmation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IS CONSENSUAL SEX OKAY ?
Averthanus L. D'Souza
Recent public discussions in at least three areas has shown up some
intriguing twists in the thinking of some people. The discussions, some of
which were aired on NDTV's "We the People" and some of which took place on
the internet, show that many contributors (and participants) are not very
clear about the definition of "criminality" One of the basic requirements of
public debate is that the subject of debate be clearly defined. What in
fact, happens, is that a subject which is emotionally charged, and which is,
therefore, "topical" is thrown open to public debate without the terms of
reference being made clear. The time constraints (in the NDTV debates) and
the large number of participants, all of whom want to add their two-pence
worth to the discussion only add to the obfuscation of the issue under
discussion. The NDTV programmes are particularly vulnerable to the charge of
being very superficial. They are more in the nature of a "spectacle"
(tamasha) than a serious discussion of important social issues. The
discussions generally skim over the surface of the real problems and are not
brought to a definite conclusion. One gets the impression that the NDTV is
more concerned (understandably) about increasing its viewer ratings than in
arriving at a better understanding of the nature of the problem/s being
discussed.
The confusion in the minds of the people who participate in such TV debates
(if they can be designated as "debates") has become more pronounced in
recent times in three specific areas: Adultery, Homosexuality and
Prostitution. In these areas of discussion, one noticed a clear propaganda
to exonerate behaviour as being non-criminal simply on the ground that such
behaviour is "consensual." The impression projected is that if two (or more)
persons agree to a particular action (consensual action) such as adultery or
prostitution or homosexual intercourse, then such action should be
considered as socially acceptable and should be "decriminalized" The
argument (both implicit and sometimes explicit) is that the agreement
between two persons to do something renders such action socially and
ethically innocuous by the mere fact that the action is "consensual."
If such a premise were to become the norm of social life, then there would
be utter social chaos and a complete breakdown of social institutions such
as marriage and the family. The concept of "contract" would dissolve into
meaninglessness. Let us take the example of adultery. The National
Commission for Women has proposed to the Commission for the upgrading of the
Criminal Law that adultery should not be treated as a criminal offence but
merely as a "social offence." This distinction between criminal offence and
social offence is too tenuous to stand the scrutiny of logic. Our long legal
and moral tradition teaches us that certain actions have been made criminal
offences precisely because they are socially (and morally) unacceptable. To
now propose that adultery should be considered a social offence but not a
criminal offence is to turn the clock back and to spit in the face of
tradition which has proven to be both consistent and sage. The mere fact
that two parties "agree" to breach their marital contracts and indulge in
sexual activity outside their marriages cannot be considered to be socially
responsible behaviour by any standards.
Similarly, the fact that two individuals indulging in casual sex in exchange
for a monetary consideration cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be
upheld as a norm for good social behaviour. Prostitution has always been
considered to be socially abhorrent and destructive of the integrity of
society. Glossing over the social cancer of prostitution by euphemistically
describing it as "commercial sex work" cannot in any way make it more
acceptable. Prostitution by any other name is as ugly and destructive of
social life.
We need not go into the peripheral arguments surrounding this issue. The
fact that most women who are involved in prostitution are "forced" into it
either physically or by economic circumstances; or the fact that organized
gangs have turned prostitution into a lucrative commercial venture and that
many gangsters have enriched themselves on the earnings of prostitutes; or
that even children have been forced into (or cheated into) selling their
bodies are all very sad and distressing outcrops of the social evil of
prostitution, and are indications of weaknesses in the social fabric and the
breakdown of social values. The answers which suggest themselves to this
social malaise are that society should provide meaningful employment
opportunities to all its citizens - specially women. Women should be trained
to take up skilled occupations which do not violate their dignity as human
beings. To argue, as is being done by so many "social workers" that because
prostitution is hard to eradicate it should be "legitimized" is to indulge
in sheer intellectual nonsense. If such thinking is taken to its logical
conclusion, society will soon have to "legitimize" all kinds of social
aberrations including petty thievery, wife beating, cheating in
examinations, and even murders, because society has not been able to either
eradicate or even to minimize murders.
The important point to be borne in mind is that the quality of an action is
not defined by the "consent" or lack of consent of an individual or a group
of persons. An action is considered to be socially undesirable because it
destroys the ethical foundations of a society. Adultery, prostitution and
homosexual activities clearly fall within the ambit of undesirable social
activities. Civilized societies have always condemned such activities as
being detrimental to social stability. To argue, as the National Commission
for Women is now doing, that a distinction should be made between what is
socially unacceptable and what is criminal, is to indulge in mental
obfuscation of the worst kind. As it stands, all criminal actions are
considered to be socially unacceptable. For citizens who argue that
prostitution or homosexual actions should be "legitimized" because society
has not been able to eradicate or control them, the only advice available to
them is: Go back to understanding your fundamentals.
Averthanus L. D'Souza,
Dona Paula, Goa
