While most of us were painfully aware of Representative Todd Akin's "Legitimate Rape" lunacy, few of us are aware that over a thousand state provisions to limit women's reproductive rights were introduced in 2011 alone. The first part of 2012 has seen nearly a thousand more legislative efforts to limit or abolish abortion including the infamous "transvaginal ultrasound," whereby a device is mandatorily inserted into a pregnant woman's vagina. Before she is allowed to terminate her pregnancy, she is required to undergo this violation, and forced to observe an image of the fetus and listen to its heartbeat - an obvious attempt to shame any woman considering an abortion.
"We are a culture obsessed with finding fault and assigning blame," asserts shame expert Brene' Brown in her book, I Thought It Was Just Me. " . . . we often use blame to discharge overwhelming feelings of fear and shame." While taking responsibility for our actions and our choices is vital to our emotional health and the integrity of our relationships, shame and blame serve to entrench behaviors we might prefer to eliminate. Shame and blame also drain society's energies with the enforcement of punitive measures which rarely if ever have the desired deleterious effect on the behaviors we wish to control.
Is it really the business of government to control our sex lives? Should there be laws which diminish our ultimate authority over our bodies?
If we had a sexual bill of rights, would we affirm a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy if she deems this the best choice, without being subjected to shaming? Would we affirm a woman's right to have sex in any way she wants with other consenting adults?
If we had a sexual bill of rights, would we also affirm our right to be protected from sexual predation? Would we protect the rights of those who are underage (or who otherwise possess a compromised ability to consent)? Would we honor a woman's right to ultimate authority over her body?
In the absence of such rights, traditional thinking assumes that women need to be "protected" and "rescued." While it is admirable to lend a helping hand to others who possess less power, the practice of "protection" and "rescue" is often disempowering. Rather than strengthen a woman's right to determine her own destiny, such efforts often define her as a victim and reinforce paternalism.
Proposition 35 goes before California voters in less than a week and its proponents are passing it off as a well-intentioned bid to "rescue" sex trafficking victims. Well, it may be well-intentioned, but Proposition 35 has little to no support from organizations which are actually involved with assisting those who want out of the sex trade. It does absolutely nothing to empower marginalized people to make their own decisions and navigate their lives with dignity. The potentially horrific impact of this measure on the lives of sex workers who choose the profession is mind boggling. It would be a major step backwards for women, and for the effort to secure for all of us a meaningful and life-affirming sexual bill of rights.
For more about Prop 35, I invite you to view the six minute statement I made last week for a panel discussion at Stanford University hosted by the Program on Human Rights. And to listen to my recent debate on Capital Public Radio with the measure's originator, Daphne Phung (scroll down to October 26).
It has not been easy for anyone to come out against this measure. At first glance, it's intentions certainly seem humanitarian. But Prop 35 is something other than it first appears to be. It is, in fact, another face of the war on women's rights.
Thankfully, many experts are finding their voice on behalf of empowering trafficking victims. This is a vital step in the direction of according rights and dignity to women, to people in the sex industry, to marginalized populations as well as to people who have been trafficked.
Whether California's Prop 35 passes or not, the broader issue of our rights to sex without shame will remain. With an eye to moving toward a sexual bill of rights for adult, consensual behavior, I have begun a rough outline of what that might look like. Would you like to add your voice to the discussion? If so, I would love to hear from you.
A sexual bill of rights is something our constitution does not currently afford us and because we are not accorded ultimate authority over our bodies and our sexual and loving choices, we can be subjected to outlandish insults to our ability to control our own lives. It seems that states can enact any Draconian measure they deem fit, whether that entails outlawing abortion, invading your vagina with a probe or sending you to prison for possessing more than five dildos ( which actually happened in the state of Texas in 2007!).
How would you rewrite this first draft of a Sexual Bill of Rights?
1. The Right to Say No
2. The Right to Say Yes
3. The Right to be Different
4. The Right to Change Your Mind
5. The Right to Pleasure
6. The Right to Be Free of Shame
7. The Right to Love Whomever You Choose
8. The Right to Form a Family with Whomever You Choose
Veronica Monet, ACS, CAM