Sexing the Constitution - Geoffrey Stone

Geoffrey Stone gave a talk in the Chicago's Best Ideas series on January 12, 2006, entitled "Sexing the Constitution." The talk lays out some of the preliminary research that Geof has done for a future book on how sexuality and sexual behavior is treated in constitutional law. This talk deals with the history of how sexual behavior has been seen and treated in various societies over time. There is some frank talk in here, so I wouldn't play this with your young kids in the room unless you want to answer a whole lot of questions for them. Regardless, well worth your time. You can listen to the talk and discussion here.

As always, instructions for listening and subscribing, should you need them, are available here. The blurb Geof used for the publicity for his talk is below the fold.

Sexing the Constitution
What is the proper role of sexuality in constitutional law? To what extent is the Court acting responsibly when it protects sexually explicit art, of a right to use contraceptives, or a right to abortion, or a right not to be prosecuted to be a homosexual? In his current research, Professor Geoffrey Stone will attempt to address those question not from the perspective of legal doctrine, but from the perspective of 2,000 years of history. He asks why do we have the sexual attitudes we have? Whence do they derive? Are they natural and inevitable? If they are not natural and inevitable, do we have an obligation to try to change them? And what role might the Court appropriately play in this endeavor?

Comments

[Kimball Corson]

Geof asks why do we have the sexual attitudes we have?

I think any good answer would have to take into account our evolutionary genetic heritage well discussed in Frans de Waal’s Our Inner Ape and also the tension in attitudes between the uses of sex for lustful diversion, fun, release and recreation, on one hand, and procreation, hopefully in the context of a structure to raise children, on the other. The first approach howls of decadence for too many, while the latter seems to oppress with exclusivity and responsibility. We react to both attitudes with discomfort, especially when we cannot find natural limits to the former approach or comfortably reconcile it with the latter. Too, the technology of birth control changes faster than attitudes can or have and further muddies the water. Befuddled, we therefore sometimes let circumstances control our behavior, as when a black out in New York City years ago produced a spike in the City’s birth rate nine months later. The truth is I think we do not have an approach to sex that most of us can comfortably live without feeling either hampered or guilty. One result of this quandary is more auto-eroticism then might otherwise be the case, an endeavor well supported by the pornography industry. It has been said that electronic pornography and games are the driving force behind improved computer video technology. What is sexually sensible and appropriate and at what point in our lives is not subject of any clear consensus I know about. Indeed, we seem not even able to discuss these matters candidly or well for the most part. And that problem has been reinforced by religious doctrine which is too ready with pat and unsatisfactory answers that do not help and often induce only guilt and sexual repression. We are a confused bunch compared to the rest of the animal kingdom which seems to have a better go of it.

P.S.
It would be nice to see a cleaned up version of Geof's talk presented here in print so we don't have to suffer through kaleidoscopic or psyadelic images as we listen.

[Nina]

Such a topic name of the post.

[Kimball Corson]

On January 19, I wrote above:

"Indeed, we seem not even able to discuss these matters [why we have the sexual attitudes we do] candidly or well for the most part."

Indeed, the number of posts after that to Geof's article and this site would seem to make this point quite clearly, and I cannot believe for a second there is no interest in the topic.