Wednesday, January 16, 2008

ACLU's Anti-Human Exceptionalism Claim of Constitutional Right to Indulge Sexual Urges in Public

One of the attributes of human exceptionalism is our capacity to control even the most urgent biological urges rather than being controlled by them. If we are hungry, we can decide not to eat, for example. Or, even if we really want that juicy steak that the wimpy looking outdoor diner is eating, unlike animals, we don't steal the food out of his mouth. We also have the capacity to delay sexual gratification and control where and with whom we express that aspect of our nature. Even if we strongly feel the "have sex" biological urge, that doesn't mean we have to get right to it in the Pavlovian sense.

But just as some seek to elevate animals to the human moral status, we also see advocacy that would effectually undermine this difference by elevating the importance of the urge and our "right" to indulge--just like animals do. And indeed, the ACLU is proclaiming what would essentially be a right to have sex in public. Its lawyers don't say it that bluntly, of course. Instead, they have filed a legal brief in the Larry Craig case that, if followed, would create a constitutional right to get it on in public bathroom stalls--ironically in the name of protecting privacy. From the story:

In an effort to help Sen. Larry Craig, the American Civil Liberties Union is arguing that people who have sex in public bathrooms have an expectation of privacy...

The ACLU filed a brief Tuesday supporting Craig. It cited a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling 38 years ago that found that people who have sex in closed stalls in public restrooms "have a reasonable expectation of privacy." That means the state cannot prove Craig was inviting an undercover officer to have sex in public, the ACLU wrote. The Republican senator was arrested June 11 by an undercover officer who said Craig tapped his feet and swiped his hand under a stall divider in a way that signaled he wanted sex. Craig has denied that, saying his actions were misconstrued.

The ACLU argued that even if Craig was inviting the officer to have sex, his actions wouldn't be illegal.
Human freedom also brings with it human responsibility. And that includes controlling our desires. The ACLU may not know it, but its advocacy says that we really are mere animals that should not be expected to control ourselves when we have the urge.

Labels:

10 Comments:

At January 16, 2008 , Blogger Lincoln Cannon said...

Wesley, you are over-stating your case, as you would be if you suggested that persons using toilets in public restrooms are indulging defecating urges in public. There is obviously a degree of difference between communally accepted behavior in open public places and that which is communally accepted in public restroom stalls. I'm not suggesting that I entirely agree with the ACLU, but I do think you've over-stated your case.

 
At January 16, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Really? We have toilets to permit us to defecate where appropriate. Otherwise, we'd have to go behind a tree. And eventually one must eliminate or one will lose control.

A public toilet is not an appropriate place for sex. To say that those who like that kind of thing should have the right to indulge their urges is to say they cannot control them.

 
At January 16, 2008 , Blogger Lincoln Cannon said...

Precisely: behind a tree. There are obvious differences between open public and public restroom stalls.

 
At January 16, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

Right. And sex in populated areas isn't appropriate for either. We exercise control.

 
At January 16, 2008 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey let's just create public "sexrooms" and get it over with.... 8)

 
At January 16, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

They have them in San Francisco; Sex clubs where people pay to gather to have group and public sex. But those are at least places where people know what they are getting involved with. I mean you don't walk in looking for a cup of coffee.

A public bathroom is not a private place--not even in a stall. It is open to everyone for a specific purpose. Claiming that there is a private right to have sex in a stall is to say that we have no obligation to control our sexual desires, which diminishes human exceptionalism. When animals want to have sex, they have sex. They have no concept of modesty, decorum, or privacy. We do, or at least we are supposed to.

 
At January 16, 2008 , Blogger K-Man said...

I suppose that while waiting for this case to be resolved, Sen. Craig is impatiently tapping his foot...

 
At January 16, 2008 , Blogger Wesley J. Smith said...

K-man: Ha! Thanks for the good laugh.

 
At May 25, 2008 , Blogger Joshua said...

So, how is it that one of these capacities of human exceptionalism - the ability to delay gratification - is found in chimps (and to a lesser degree in monkeys)?

Or does this hinge on the definition of 'urgent biological urge' or how much we can control them?

 
At February 13, 2009 , Blogger hopikrishnan said...

It is interesting that among the three phases of waste that people generate (solid, liquid and gas) people can get away with one of them in public. The more "public" the venue, the easier it is to hide out !! "Love Hotels" in crowded asian countries rent rooms by the hour. Very often married couples with parents and teenagers at home need to arrange to go there to be affectionate. The clients do not meet any hotel staff in the transaction - the payment, receiving the key and chekcout all done rather deftly. This brings the question of whether or not the senator "used a penny" to go to that closed stall. If he had paid by a coin to get in, then he may as well claim he was in a love hotel sort of arrangement that offered privacy.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home