82 I Making the Connections

. particularly if it relates either to sexuality or to the distributio

of wealth. Issues of sexuality and the social allocation of goo
affect everyone, and to leave them unexamined is to give assen SEXUALITY AND SOCIAL POLICY*
to unaccountable power. The practice of the churches in mystify
ing injustice is therefore a consistent theme in these selections,
is Harrison's calling the churches to account to engage the projec
of making right relationships. The Contradictions of Liberal and Conservative
Theological Approaches to Sexuality

In our present society, and far too frequently in our churches as

well, persons of very different theological and political persua-
sions - conservatives, liberals, and radicals - coconspire to keep
in place assumptions about human sexuality, ethics, and social
policy that block a much-needed rethinking of how our human
capacity for intimacy and love and our aspirations for a just so-
cial order coinhere. Taken at face value, this claim may seem in-
credible. Surely, the conservative who longs for clear and precise
normative rules about the rights and wrongs of sexual acts on the
one hand and who wishes to keep religion out of social policy or
politics on the other appears to have little in common with theo-
logical liberals or radicals. After all, the latter usually put concern
for the justice of social institutions squarely at the center of their
religious commitment and are quite likely to take the position
that the ethics of sexuality is merely a personal issue and a matter
of relative indifference compared with the II grave" issues of social
justice. The fact is, however, that both positions accept a set of
assumptions about our human personhood that badly need to be
challenged. For both, the personal and the political are sealed
from each other, and the dynamics that make for social and per-
sonal well-being are not deeply interconnected. The conventional
wisdom that sustains this split is precisely what needs to be chal-
lenged, I believe, if we are to rise to a major responsibility in our
time: rethinking our understanding of human sexuality to ap-
propriate a sexual ethics deep enough to clarify the relation be-
tween our capacity for interpersonal love and our ability to strug-
gle effectually for social justice in our common life.
Without a better grasp of the intimate connection between
personal and social well-being" 0\1r sexual ethic will simply rein-
force a growing trend towa~,d privatism and the churches' with-
drawal from social engagement.~ljUfequally problematic would

* This essay combines social policy material prepared for discussion in the
Consultants Panel of the Sexuality Study of the United Church of Christ and
a related article prepared for the Tournai of Current Social Issues, 1978.

83
84 / Making the Connections
be any renewed concern for social justice that is devoid of awar,
ness of how our social passivity is rooted in. the dynamics of 0
interpersonal, primary relationships. The churches are alw3:
tempted to avoid altogether the volatile questions of human se
ality, abandoning people in the confused struggle to find mot
adequate paths to personal fulfillment and human intimacy. Wh
~~~lll"j.§!i~~~~.~y~g,eis the. cQnQ~(;!~o~bet\\Teen.our silence
sexuClli,tyCl~d 0llr general conventionality t0W"arg, SQ(;iglI'~la!ic:l~
Even our presumed "social action" often suffers from lack of crl"
ativity and imagination.
That we need a new understanding of the dialecti~~~twe~
~~ve and justice i.~~~.c:l~g~..~!~.tl:1e way that both~c:~.!!
and1ib~f<5IO,gieswithin Christianity lead .!c:l0bvious contra
d!ct!~ns~£!.i~l1sand strateg!~~ of their respective proponentsI.
For theirpart, man.y Christian social activist liberals are perplexed
at a growing political apathy in the churches and seem unable to
find ways to mobilize social conscience except through the meth-
ods of rhetorical moralizing} which were the very means deplored'
as overindividualistic in the past. At the same time, conservatives'
who have long cried out for clear-cut standards of right and wron
in personal sexual ethics and who always have insisted that
rigid line be drawn between religion and ethics on the one han
and politics and economics on the other find themselves mobiliz
ing politically to change the direction of social policy to preven
further changes that they deem immoral. So religiopolitical move
ments against the defeated Equal Rights Amendment and agains
legal abortion and the civil rights of homosexuals flourish. Tha
many who support these efforts are violating their own deepl
held convictions against government interference with or regula
tion of individual liberty only underscores the inability of esta
lished social theory to encompass our lived-world reality.
The complexity of the relation between sexuality and soci
order becomes clear when we observe how little impact su
largely successful political mobilization has on our culture's pr
occupation with human sexuality. Legislators can gain support b
turning back permissive social policies, but our fascination wi
genital sexuality and explicit sexual themes seems to increase
We even see the emergence of groups, such as the Total Woman
Movement, that combine a celebration of heterosexual genit
se~::d liberation in marriage with a militant reassertion of tradi-
tional notions about "woman}s place" in home, family, and so
ciety. Evidently, the pleasures of genital-sexual eroticism are here
to stay, whatever the outcome of social movements aimed at jus-
tice for women. This trend is further confirmed by the response
of several television networks to complaints about gratuitous
Sexuality and Social Policy / 85
physical violence during prime-time programming. In a number
of cases, detective shows and adventure stories have given way to
situation comedies that feature a new and presumably '''daring''
explicitness about sexuality. Since the television media often
know more about our collective tastes and attitudes than we our-
selves do, the substitution of the titillations of expliCit sex for the
presumed excitation of physical violence suggests that we are a
long way from any shift back toward more traditional sexual
reticences.
The fact is that explicit sexuality is very big business in this
nation, and our fascination with the technologies of sex, with
sexual therapies, and with the paraphernalia of sexual experi-
mentation is flourishing. Those who cry out for a tightening of
sexual standards notwithstanding, "sexual liberation," in its taw-
dry} commercial guise, will not abate until the profit wanes. The
anomaly of our situation can be measured by the way in which
sexuality is becoming part of the performance- and achievement-
oriented ethic characteristic of a business society. We appear so
preoccupied by sexual performance that some commentators
wonder whether capacity for sexual pleasure may not be giving
way to ennui and boredom. If greater sexual genital expression
were, in itself} a panacea for what ails us} we would expect clear
evidence that a sense of personal well-being was on the rise in
our society. In fact} there is no indication that we are experiencing
a reduction in loneliness} isolation, competitiveness, or alienation
from community.
In the face of all this, thetrivialization of sexuality by those
whose concerns are presumably focused on the "more substan-
tive" questions of social justice is understandable. Such people
consider preoccupation with sexual concerns and sexual pleasure
to be a cause of our social malaise. There has been much loose
talk about a "new narcissism/' turning to self-preoccupation that
presumably threatens our capacity to take the reality of other per-
sons seriously. The problem with much of this sort of social diag-
nosis is that it does not probe deeply enough to lead to a rein-
tegrated sense of ho~iQ!~rpersonal well-being interacts with the
wid~.r social realltie; that shape our experience. The analysis of
our presuiiled ria!s!§§ism too often confuses "cause" with social
"§~~~I:Il'.;I1TIi.e almost desperate search for physical pleasure
and personal intimacy that pervasively characterizes our culture
1S much more a symptom of the lack of humanly fulfilling oppor-
tunities in work and frustration at depersonalized, bureaucratic
institutional patterns that suffuse our life than a cause of our so-
cial ills. And the tragedy is that the simple pleasures of sex, while
real, are not a sufficiently powerful antidote to the wounds to
 86 / Making the Connections
self-respect we endure elsewhere. Genital sexuality, narrow!
conceived, is simply too weak a reed to bear the overloaded e
.pectations that people in our society are encouraged to place 0
it. WJ:1~,~!p:<:>§tD.eeded is an approach to sexuality tllat aims t
be holi~ti£,!:b.at sets what we k:n.ow of ourselves as sexual person
in the hroadest possible context of our lives within our existin
so~i;f~der.
Sources, Principles, and Priorities for a More
Adequate Ethics of Sexuality
The time is ripe for a reappraisal of our understanding of sexual-'
ity, ethics, and social policy, in spite of the controversy such reap-
praisal engenders. There are two salient and appropriate pressures
for a reevaluation in contemporary society, and both provide re-
sources for recovering a deeper, holistic understanding of the na-
ture of our sexuality. The first of these pressures derives from the
, emergence of basic paradigm shifts in social scientific conceptions
~
of the nature of gender difference and "normal" sexuality. What
we are discovering today is how little we really have ever under-
. stood about ourselves as sexual persons. The new paradigms of
.I psychosocial development make clear that the meaning of our
sexuality involves the integration of many levels of biological and
social determinants. More and more, we are coming to realize the
full range of possible healthy sexual development that character-
izes human life. New knowledge per se does not yield new ethical
awareness, but the emerging paradigms are themselves more open
to humane value questions. 2 Th~~~.j1~~~~~~~tif~S . ~sp:cthres
afford us opportunity to appropriate a more adequate sense of
hI!ma.fl.diversity in sexual deyelopment and expression. They~r.;
relate well with the best insights of our religious and moraTtraCll-
fiOn:::gJ2,§:gt. the in terre] atjou~uz:':~.~,~~"~~~~~~"~,!p:~raJ.
responsibility. ~"~
'-'~H~r, Christians have as yet been reluctant to embrace
an ethic of maturity where sexuality is concerned. In many di-
mensions of our life as human agents, Christian ethicists have
insisted, explicitly, that we must both accept our power as agents
and learn to express that power responsibly, without recourse to
unexceptionc::.l rules. In relation to our actions as sexual beings,
however, there rem~EJs~E:~~.Ii~!~~!~~~Jh"~J::~~J::r.Ei:!1_1!"~J:::
capacity ofmorar-agents
~-"~-~ ...
"~._".~~""_
to live
....
"_.~,..
/,~rohiDitive an~l?]Jtictin.~action ~id,:s.3
_._
res~onsibly
.....
apart 1rom
_"~-, ....
.' .--,,_ -
J9I&ely
/J/ .• ~o;;d PliS§.12:: aJ::~~r~~~~~!~~:JQi",r~gpPIg!~g"L~L~~~~~!
Vthi~s_~,~_:,J!,~~ the fruit· of women's efforts to achieve IuIl~<:>-
Sexuality and Social Policy / 87
/3:::""~"'--"
.,gial recoWJ!mi:~~,."· rsoi.,,,In our time, It is the women's move-
ment and, m€ re tly, the gay and lesbian liberation move-
ments that have. called into . n,. many of the traditional
i
views formerly held to be 'scientific.~l At the deepest level, the
insights of contemporary f" -. ·srrI ~d to reappropriation of the
meaning of our sexuality, which runs counter to the narrow II sex-
ual liberation" fixation on genital sexuality.
What women have discovered, signaled in the phrase II we are
our bodies, ourselves," is that in the absence of freedom to un-
derstand, control, and direct our own sexuality, our power as
self-regulating moral agents does not develop. Numerous femi-
nists have formulated telling critiques of traditional erotic pat-
terns, insisting, for example, that our modern romantic ideals of
love between the sexes involve the celebration of dehumanizing
seduction and conquest on the male side and feminine passivity
and denial of pleasure on the other.'" A clear break with male
myths regarding female sexuality has enabled women to recog-
nize to what extent such myths "have been generated to keep
women obeisant to the social function of procreation. The reli-
gious dictum that the only moral expression of sexuality is that
which is at least open to the possibility of procreation has been a
source of many women's inability to achieve a self-defining role
in relation to their bodies. Many women have denied their own
needs for bodily pleasuring as the cost of being II good" women.
Conversely, when w9men have been sexually active or self-
initiating, society has defined them as IIwhores" or IIdeviants."
In the positive reappropriation and appreciation of ourselves as
embodied persons, women are regaining the capacity to celebrate
our sexuality as inherent in our own embodiedness. But the experi-
ence of genuine embodiedness also leads to rejection "of the view
that sexual pleasure is limited to genital contact or that women's
sexuality is passive, mediated exclusively through active rela-
tionships with men. The feminist insight is that sexuali iSJ!ill:/
tu~~~~",!!J.~.~~!1~~~!,~!g~D.c~1E~~,~~J::!?-~s . . a..~c"c~!!ll!!!!~£y.
That such communication is of~~l~ronly when it iS~
shaped by procreative potential or procreative intent - the Chris-.
tian teaching, at least as it applies to women - is simply linger-
ing male supremacist doctrine that reinforces male control of \
women's self-definition. 1
The SOCIal criticism generated bJl: f~ . alsQ has l~_gto a
fresh anarY~af_t!?-e:wiim~Y{,f!i..<:Qse:x: rolel?gtterns in ~fa1!lily
o~tructiv~!yjp.relat~o":~.!!1~!l~§§.~1f~~§t~.~m.These
sex role expectations have~"sUbtly conditioned us, men and women
alike, to accept inequities of power and differing capacities for
self-direction between men and women in the broader society.5

88 / Making the Connec tions
- resist conform ity to these conven tional roles does their environ -
It is one thing, however, for groups of women - and, increas
e men - to begin to diagnos e the destruc tive
'\inglY, for sensitiv
aspects of sex role socializ ation as they affect the lives of indi-
viduals and the broader commu nityi it is anothe r to begin to re-
. verse these powerf ully ingrain ed pattern s of traditio nal gender
. nor suppor t for their exercise of women 's "traditi onal" role. Rac-
.socialization in society.
... .
movem~ nt:
T~~olJl~ll~m.~~eID.ent and the gay and lesbian
are 'resources an(f··pressii.ies~forchan~ut illey cl<rn6t £!oYid e
§~!~~~§g;, . .~o
'··~~~~t~tg.1?~~2.~~
as these movem ents are lim-
sexuality and social policy. Insofar
'I·.· itecroy·tll~oryor'praciIc~to the rea li~ ~.~ ~OI...
i~~
fai1~ddress the dYE: a~~~ ~tif iedllt
\, i!ladegu~te. In addition, public knowle dge of feminis m and gay
1and lesbian liberati on
1
movem ents is filtered through and condi-
r
tioned by the mass media that aim to minimi ze offense to some
\ presum ed "genera l public" and therefo re also aim to mute seri-
J ous systemic criticism. This means that it
is mostly the priorities
\ for social policy change that resonat e with already existing "pub-
I lie opinion " that are called to our attentio n. The full implica tions
\ of a serious feminis t social policy are rarely underst ood in public
,debate.
I The corrective for uncritic al accepta nce of media- interpre ted
priorities of these social movem ents, however, is deeper listenin g
and involve ment and a greater effort to respect the princip les
underly ing the specific priorities of all social justice movem ents.
For example, in the wome~'s movem ent, the princip le of bodily
self-determination underli es the emphas is on the need for acces-
sible contrac eption and the availab ility of legal abortion. The
same principle, applied in the context of the existing race and
class dynamics of this society, requires equal attentio n to the
abhorre nt social practice of developing contrac eptive devices
through medical experim entatio n on poor and nonwh ite women
and the too frequen t practice of forced steriliz ation, especially of
poor and nonwh ite women . Yet the media focus only on the
6
former issues, leaving concern for the latter, widespread in the
women 's movem ent, undiscu ssed as a serious social evil. The
fundam ental social attitude toward women - that our compe-
tence as moral agents vis-a.-vis our bodies and reprodu ctive
capacities is not trustwo rthy - inevita bly results in diverge nt pat-
terns of social control across race and class lines. Many middle-
strata white women experie nce social depriva tion only when
they insist on self-de termina tion that flies in the face of tradi-
tional female roles. They may count on family and commu nity
support and personal affirma tion if they choose childbe aring and
functio n as "good" mother s and homem akers. Only when they
Sexuality and Social Policy I 89
ment grow hostile or suspicious of them as women . Poor and
working-class women , by contras t, suffer more acute depriva-
tioni they have neither easy access to preven tion of pregna ncy
ism and poverty functio n as coercive pressures against even tra-
ditiona l fulfillm ent through procrea tion.
The point is that the social policy priorities of groups aiming
at liberati on from the various forms of sexual oppression are ade-
quately liberati ng only insofar as these priorities are defined by
how they touch the lives of persons on both sides of the institu-
tionaliz ed and interstr uctured pattern s of race and class oppres-
sion. Andrea Dwork in has put this point forcefully:
The analysis of sexism ... articulates clearly what
the oppression of women is, how it functions, how it is .
rooted in psyche and culture. But that analysis is use- /
less unless it is tied to a olitical conscious~.~\
commi"trllent w .iC.~l totally· redefine commu nity. t
One ~e'e ,'ne ver,not ever, in an unfree world, '\
and in the course of redefin ing family, church, power
relations, all the institut ions which inhibit and order
our lives, there is no way to hold onto privilege and
comfort. To attemp t to do so is destructive, crimina l,
and intolerable":',;,,,
The/ah ;lysis ,[ ~t,'isexism] applies to the life situa-
tions o' all women but all women are not necessarily
in a st timary emerge ncy as women . What I
mean by this is simple. As a Jew in Nazi Germany, I
would be oppressed as a woman , but hunted , slaugh-
tered as a Jew. As a Native Americ an, I would be op-
pressed as a squaw, but hunted , slaughtered, as a Na-
tive American. The first identity , the one which brings
with it as a part of its definiti on death, is the identity
of primary emergency. This is an import ant recognition
because it relieves us of a serious confusion. The fact,
for instanc e, that many Black women (by no means all)
experie nce primar y emerge ncy as Blacks in no way less-
ens the respons ibility of the Black commu nity to assim-
ilate this and other analyses of sexism and to apply it
mine] 7
in their own revolut ionary work. [Empha sis
This same insight must be extende d to gay and lesbian analyses
and sensibilities. The social priorities of gay men do not always
adequa tely incorpo rate the needs and sensibilities of lesbians or
of black people or the poor. In the churche s and in the wider
',/v , i;!iaWI.l.6 'LUi;;;. L0I.lilCI-L1Ui..::'
gay movement, white gay men are often those who specify the
agenda for change in relation to heterosexism. Setting adequate
priorities for just social policy in relation to human sexuality will
occur only if we learn to ask How do the matters that are central
to I!l~J~~Eont2J!E~lL~~"~fth~sewhoaf~~~!~!!IDly~
oppres~ed? ,We must learn to shape our tormulation of sexual
justi'ce- Wlth,!his-ttuestf5n"~~these persons in view.~~.Ji,~~ual
e~~~~!~_llDJ~s ~r,:SQ!Jl~~_~ full a~reci~.~-
of ,ike Int~I£tr!!ctunng o~ oppreSSIOn.
ir,
For example, eco-
./'~". _-_.;#-"j __ __
,~~-==-,_"_, ,,,,,-~""_," .. ~'_" "'-'fr-.;--",,,-~,~
. access ~d genuIne participatlQ!LjnJ~-1ml~ I _ .=#,"''''',;'t:F''''''···''''''=-..
wealth is also a con.dit:ion-of genuine sexuaLfI~edom. All dis-
t~ society reveal themselves in the inequity of
power dynamics in interpersonal life. An adequate normative
sexual ethic will be predicated on awareness that where people
Imen, women, and children) are socially powerless, they are vul-
nerable to irresponsible and inappropriate - that is, nonvolun-
tary and/or nonmutual- sexual transactions. The goal of a ho-
listic and integrated sexual ethic is to affirm sexual activity that
enhances human dignity, that entails self- and other-regarding
respect and genuine communication. Such an ethic must chal-
lenge actions that degrade, disempower, and reduce oneself's and
others' esteem or that aim at control, objectification, or manipu-
lation of another.
The basic theological and moral principles implicit in the
feminist and gay liberation movements - the affirmation of the
goodness of sexuality as embodiment, the respect for bodily in-
tegrity, and the appropriateness of self-direction and noncoercion
in expressing sexuality - are constitutive of everyone's human
dignity. They are foundational to all claims for human well-
being, as fundamental to the eradication of racism and ethnic
oppression as to women's and gay men's historic emancipation.
As such, they are criteria for a sexual ethic that genuinely affirms
personal freedom, community, and responsibility.
Difficulties of Constmctive Social Change
in Relation to Human Sexuality
Another awareness that must inform our efforts to translate so-
cial policy priorities into strategy is a recognition of the difficulty
of finding effective loci for social change in this society. Genuine
implementation of change in relation to our well-being as sexual
persons is difficult to achieve. Liberal social reform efforts tend
to focus trategies for change primarily thr~Qyemmellt~:.,.
Sexuality and Social Policy / 91
in~egal reform and governmenLadmmistratL~.eh-ange~
Neither-legal IiO'raciiiiinistrative reform can be neglected in ef-
forts to implement new policies with respect to gender and sexual
justice. But it is important to be clear abo~,-ancLa~~"
~i!!!~ocedu~~~~,L~~lsf~mi~yn­
derstand the role thatIaW' plays in strategies for change~ In our
s6cictY;rnndamenrnt- legal change lmcludmg constitutional
change, as, for example, the Equal Rights Amendment) or the
,''';_V;"_'0_._~'''0~ • •
achievements of administrative fairness are always as much a
response to already partially realized conditions for justice as they
are initiators of such change. The initiation of conditions for so-
cial justice always begins with social movements. Legislation is
important because without it or without administrative fairness,
the relevant conditions for sustaining justice will never approxi-
mate "normalcy" in the wider society. Reversion to repressive
policies is always easier if the requisite legitimations in law and
administrative procedure have not been realized.
Nevertheless, it, is critical to be .~,ware of the actgs,LLi,ial€ctiG r' ',cc,c:
between such ~ ~ n d wid~~~Jlge. ~ne ,
c~ange is always the result of hard-won struggle from belQYV. )
So.me groups a~~ ~I!Le in,stit~fs m!!§t be.&!n to shape a liberat-j
in2:,'praxis wit In the society be ore there is-sufficient pressure' ~~~.
~--~ ~~-
tp actualize humane co.~tn~gicallib-
era ism has mIsunderstood t is fact, which is why liberal church
activism for justice has been so inept. Tragically, liberal Chris-
tians who aver that the church should avoid controversy until
issues are respectable and who refuse liaisons with social move~
ments and activist social policy groups are those who ensure that
Christianity will never play an active role in shaping policy de-
velopment within our society. To "get involved" only when con-
sensus about positive legal change has developed means that such
Christians are never influential in the process of change. Social
movements are the means whereby any positive change emerges,
and the politics of mainstream theological liberals are never en-
gaged enough to interact with such movements. ,
In sum, double ~t~turalal}Qkg.alJev-(
els of~en~Qp_~iQ.Ltransrom3iB:gcthe''i;pHtchet;:w:.ooR~w.hat
is p~sll~~,~~E~~:~ ,~~~~~!!S~~,g~c~h~!"!.§"Q~!!,~2,,Q~~,,!!J:~!~!y
IJ,<:rs0!1al~~te, a split that reinforces and legitimates our
wides read moral schizophrenia and keeps sexual oppression in
Dlace. Th~~~al for "rad~~izin~! peoples broader awareness_
of th im ortance of soc· I 'ustice . atiJbeiL8.e.llSibil:
ities,,~~ualj.!1stice lies precisely he_~~: t is worth emphasizi;;'i"
again that the conventionamyorour F€' igion is maintained by
our fear of honestly and openly facing issues of human sexuality.
92 / Making. the Connections
The Role of Liberal Churches in Social Change
If exclusive reliance on the power of government to initiate
change is one fallacy of much liberal social strategy, the tendency
to overestimate the capacity of formal education to transform
personal values is another. "Public" education (and, by default,
most "private" education as well) is in a weak position to challenge
the dominant or established understandings of human sexual-
ity that are transmitted powerfully in our society. ~ion",
in . our schools .can at. ~g~~c,h.all~Il;g~!h..~.g!iaJ~m,Clor!P:~
to!JU~a:iglpl~iiidIci~~IiJi~~!~~m.~.£L!2~.~~~~~~~!~al~~Y.
Furthermore, what actually goes on in the name of "sex educa-
tion" has some way to go to reach even this minimum standard
of effectiveness and moral adequacy. The truth is that our so-
ca!~d.~public.JichQols.ar~, often rendered educationally ineffectual
1Qec~oc of fear of confl~ wltli respect to sexuamy;as"'at's'o"~'
m.aIlY"~·t'.h:is'fearoften results in an educational strat-
egy that postures ~~~l~~Jl~aEEroach.Sex-
uality is dealt with from a physiological stance in which human
reproductive biology is taught abstractly, in an environment
where discussions of values are avoided to evade conflict. 8 The
result is a bland conventionality that is more devastatingly effec-
tive in reinforcing the status quo than a more explicitly reaction-
ary stance would be.
A strong case can be made that on this issue, at least, the lib-
eral churches (regretfully, by default) have a genuine opportunity
to serve the social good by a humane educational approach to
human sexuality. Yet because of sexism, that is, the disvaluation
of women, and fear of sexuality, the churches are not better
equipped than other institutions for this task. Liberal churches,
in particular, need a critical perspective on their own past social
praxis in relation to public policy. Most of the public utterance
of liberal churches vis-a-vis social policy questions has taken the
forI!! of voicing support for "the rights of i:I?:s!ividu~I~~~~ggin~
stCl~~veii~"'mostlIDeraCof our
churches have gone ~ so far as to ground sUEPort fQLsex.ual·~··
liberati~ in ~~~ffirm in<3.LYi~ual ciyil~Jiherties.~.
Some liberal churches have urge<ftn:e state to aVOId heavy-
handed enforcement of sexual moralitYi they have affirmed
women's individual freedom of conscience in seeking access to
legal abortioni they have accepted the appropriateness of civil
liberties for gay people. Such a posture and such policy positiOIis
have been legitimated with reference to a theology that is not
substantively social. The bottom line for the liberal churches has
been to oppose policies in relation to sexuality that deny status
Sexuality and Social Policy /93
~ ~the~vidual 'Yithin-~he.'~Puh!i£~:'*~E:I~&~!~,~.These
policy positionSliave hclPe<ItO reduce pressure from other, more
reactionary quarters fQLm,gi=@~~J!W.i£.J1Ql!£i~§I.blltthe¥ ..
lack mor~l vision. We need to recojWize tha! a more ade9.Eat~lY-J-LlLi
. socIal theOIOgy wou~ substantiye p()sitiy~. Eolitical
ratioila e t at wou go beyond this indIVidualisti~·~()ttoI!!Ji:Il{;.
Asitis;l1beraI!>IOteSfailt"churches have a puDTfc· poliCY stance
that suggests that it is acceptable for us to be "political" only if I
and when individual rights have been demonstrably violated. III
Whether or not the social system itself is just appears, from this I
perspective, to be a matter of indifference. j
The very fact that we resort to such individualistic justifica- I i
I
tions - ~1Ljndividu!.~~ ..~!.Y!!Iigl!!§.:r.athe;.m~nembrac- I'
ingl?2§~a:I?:~.§.gJ:>~~:Il~~~~"!!1QIaLRr!:Il£!pl~~!00t{;(:l in an gde- \
qilate .visi2!!="of ".SO~!:l!. jll§!!£{;:::- bespeaks the disorder of the (
churches'~ theolOglCalapproach to sexual ethics. Because this is
so, such defensive, "individual rights" policy stances are ineffec- ...
tual. They appear to the wider society as hypocritical because!
they are predicated on a moral double standard that all the world \
reads (and reads properly) as Christian double-talk. Gay people, /\
we claim, deserve "civil rights," but they do not receive full hu-
man affirmation and respect in the churches. Women should
have the "civil right" to elect legal abortion, but abortion con-
tinues to be viewed as, at best, morally dubious, an evil necessity.
The churches have not affirmed eo Ie' u ell-bein as
. t ersona "dignity. The state is not charged to SUPPOlt~! t\ /
citizens! sexual well-being but simply to desist from meddling. ... '.,l
B"cause the churches do not embrace
nonfunctional good of hU!ILID~ex:t!~1i~QL_affirm th~. Pos~!~~e I
th~!2gi~llyQ1~ositiv~ ,-r
p~Ples. related to se,,-~well-be;ng.as SUb~~i:1vii!Ym~~. uri
"liberal" sta . dismissed s mere accommodation to modern
cult~. Because we do not accept the man ate to-actlVesorraar-
i~those who are the victims of sexual oppression, our SO-f
ciaI policy positions appear equivocal. We deny our own best'
understanding of the inherently theosocial nature of persons and
community, and speak instead as individualists whose message
to society is that lrmusta~0l'tamoaeratetOIe~oTE:trmalr~~.?E:
uat:gpr~!l;=a~~!iI~~_~]J:w~WitIi!iiTIli~c111]iches,
are not eve:u..wiJ]jng to ~~!!l.I>~ly tn..~l,H--own--eemmunit¥"~""I~~
There is a long roster of social policy concerns that come into
view when we actually embrace a positive, holistic understand-
ing of sexuality. In addition to the policy issues I address here,
this roster should include the qllestion of hQ)£I"chiMren~:rnrr-the
sexu'af·weII:l3e1n:g-·~e~y=:aliIe![~!l . bep.rotected&fld-,--
how'~itIon'Drlninatesof "total institutions" can
. .~, _ _~ _ _~'N,,00~- ~'"'"'''~-~__" ' ' _ ' _ ' ' ' ' ' ' '__ ''_W_~_' ''_0~"'_'
. '_._"'.,.,.'-,.,",.>-, , .,M",.''., ..,,,"',.;'.;,__~~ __
94/ Making the Connections
be prevented. Here I have limited my discussion to analyzing
way in which an adequate view of human sexuality requires us
'to take an inclusive view of women's lives and to identify some
of the needed social policy concerns affecting men, gay men and
lesbians, and families.
As ~~!~:~~~~~!~~!L~y~jg~!ltified$QQig,LtlQHc~
issue as an economic'F~g,s:peet>Amn~g",otherthings, this means
-that t ~~esshere gaill"their urgency as social policy
questions from the fact that they hold no "priority" in the regu-
lar, day-to-day workings of our present political economy. Serious
social vulnerability in this society rests on economic marginal-
ity; hence, children and older people, all women and gay males,
as well as nonskilled males (mostly, though not exclusively, non-
white) are vulnerable as groups, which also makes them espe-
cially susceptible to sexual exploitation, violence, or forms of
"benign neglect. 11 Since the capacity to produce income and to
accumulate wealth (not to be equated with wages) is the measure
of personal worth in this society, anyone who does not partici-
pate in money-making will also be a priori a victim vulnerable
to sexual oppression or to being treated as a nonperson sexually.
The elderly or physically handicapped, for example, are fre-
quently characterized as "beyond sexuality" for just this reason,
a point that I develop in the essay "Older Persons' Worth in the
Eyes of Society" later in this collection.
In keeping with the principles identified earlier, we need al-
w~~ these policy matters affect persons differ~Q"Y,
hQ~~~tb&.~§'1J1i~~~~tgIe,~~,"~Ild,. . ~hi!~,.,~1!P!~m;!J;y..i1Lterse~t ..:wi1
the social dynamics of human"sexu~l!1y,,~g~q._
""·'H"_,"_"=,_-". '~n* . _..
gender differenc
,,*~,~_=.~~===,=,,,,,,,,,~,,=.",,=".~---,.,~=-
. ''''''''''''''''
Women's Sociosexual Oppression
It is not easy to develop the sensibility to recognize how many
social policy changes related to women's lives are morally re-
quired. Recent discussion by feminists has stressed that a genuine
feminist social policy agenda must incorporate changes of policy
in two directions. GhgI!~§_Jll!Jst~£Q1J:1-e.~Q.fuJ!!~!!!~~Qi:risiQ.~.Q!
labor in the faDJ.il:~·LaM.jlLL~latiQ!!~ .. wQmen's-ac~esLill-~
wl:rflqlliiC~1 industrial societies, more and more women are
e~oth domestic and wage labor, a change generated not
by feminist ideology but by structural shifts in the economy
that make two incomes necessary for minimal freedom from pov-
erty for a low- to middle-income family - the statistically typical
U.S. family. The need for change in both domestic and wage
labor sectors is made clear by the experience of socialist societies.
Sexuality and Social Policy / 95
Even where women are more justly treated in the workplace, as
in socialist nations, changes in women's lives have been insuffi-
cient precisely because change in the domestic sphere has been
neglected. lO
The single most powerful source of women's sexual subjuga-
tion remains women's lack of deep and genuine economic equal-
ity because economic inequality goes well beyond the need for
"equal pay for equal work." Among other things, there must be
a transformation of the castelike character of the work women
are allowed to perform in the economy for wages. l l Current em-
ployment patterns segregate groups of women into low-paying
job categories. For example, racial and ethnic women work in the
lowest-paying jobs as domestics, piece workers in industry, as
maids or attendants. 12 The vast majority of all women, white and
racial ethnic, are dead-ended in the work force in pink collar, sex-
segregated jobs that parallel women's domestic role in the home.
Women work chiefly as waitresses, laundresses, nurses, cooks,
and retail salespersons for smaller goods - cosmetics, small
housewares, clothing, and the like. Women function as secre-
taries, typists, file clerks, or performers of other routine labor,
completing the pink collar pattern. A twofold social policy change
is requiredP Gender segregation by job category must end, but
in addition the wage rates of pink collar job categories must be
raised to equal the rates in comparable male job categories.
Second, we must cease to treat domestic labor in the home
as socially nonproductive labor. At present, housework and child
care are not in any way recognized as value-adding labor. At the
~~"_.~ ~_,~,~_"'*"'"' __ ~'~'_'_'".,,'''"'_''''"~'''_~''' __,,_
level of minimum reform, we need to provide social security
coverage for full-time homemakers, male or female. Those who
do housework and raise children deserve to be counted among
those doing socially valuable labor, and "wages for housework"
may be a key to such value in our money society. The realists
among us will note immediately how wildly utopian such a pro-
posal is under existing political and economic arrangements. Yet
there never will be genuine economic justice for women until
greater justice prevails between domestic labor and labor outside
the home. 14 The fact remains that women's psychic and social
vulnerability is so deeply conditioned economically (and some
women's reputed "conservatism" follows from this) that only this
two-pronged strategy will begin to affect women's lives deeply.
Sexual politics will not be eradiciated until and unless this sort of
social change occurs.
Needless to say, the presumed resistance of many men to eco-
nomic justice for women might shift if there were wage compen-
sation for work done in the home. As it is, some men resent

96 / Making the Connections
women's competition in the workplace precisely because they
have dependent spouses and imagine (usually wrongly) that other
women could choose to stay at home as welL Resentment of both
women's economic dependency and the threat of increasing num-
bers of women in the workplace increases men's hostility to
women. The psychological dynamics of male-female and female-
female relationships also might improve if the trade-offs between
domestic work and wage labor in the workplace were different.
At present, the relation of dependency flows from those who
work at home to those who labor in the workplace. Therefore,
the domestic sphere is disvalued. If housework carried financial
remuneration, it would be more respected by society and recog-;
nized for the difficult and socially necessary labor that it is. Cori~,
versely, any relative reduction of women's actual economic de~
pendence on men would enhance homemakers' expectations for
fair and respectful treatment from men. Women who have been
least identified with a feminist analysis, namely housebound
women who concur with their husbands that they should nQ
work, olten understand that if they did work, the jobs open')
them would involve an additional dose of drudgery just like .
done at home. If the two sources of economic injustice for wo
are linked, these women may come to understand how ana'
quate feminist agenda touches their lives.
It is, of course, extremely naive to imagine that the c
tions for economic change at this level will come suddenl
that prospects for any such substantial changes are brigh
cent Department of Labor statistics signal an accelerating ()
downward trend in the average per capita income of wo
relation to men.15 A few women have gained access
paying work, but as the proportion of women in relation
the labor force continues to increase, so does the n~
women entering the job market at the lower end of th.
scale. Females from racial ethnic communities, such as Ii
women, are overrepresented among the newly employed,
in the work force and make up a substantial proportio
new working poor population.16 In addition, the compe
tween women and nonwhite men for skilled middle-'
low-paying, low-skilled white collar jobs is a dramaticJ~
the .present economic scene. Tensions between nonw·
white women may well increase unless our analyses :1'
clarify what is happening and why. Michelle Russe'
minded us that
in contemporary America we experience at
many varieties of subjective human alienation as
Sexuality and Social Policy / 97
are job categories in the system. Our immediate im-
pulse as individuals fighting for self-respect is to legit-
imize only our particular form of victimization. But
that simply isn't enough. We unfurl the flag of our
separate and personal situation and make that. our
moralityP ,
Small gains made in the last decade around all issues of gen-
der justice are jeopardized in large part because overall economic I
r
inequity is increasing so rapidly. This is why we must always \
count e~~tice as a foun~onal consid~ra~2![3Q""t'[e"'\
sex~ell-being ,?!~':;;0~~I! ~.El~P.,,;iJl:=~~~~ m&.. . .l
gin~TIZat
.. a ti~.~ ~..!:1.Q..~.§. ~stru....~~an ~ ~~X~~l.~.~~tic. e r ~.e g.g ~~.s ~s o i a1
g
pre~~!e ..1Qr..c91.!!E~~0. ggll.·.n.
..g~,. . funles~t
O
thedi~adv?-I!!gg~<;l~o!ga- C I.\
nize ..GQ~~ ...£esi£t~!1£e~.. I
Other, more explicitly sexual issues continue to mobilize the
energy and the anger of large groups of women because direct
sexual exploitation is on the increase. M,?~..an.d.m.oxe..wQmenaof.e
learning to recognize the cQnn,eGJion15et~~en..~onttQlli!lgo.ne~s
o~nDoay and one's self-r~e~ As I have already observed, the
bro~erminationand control of our own pro-
creative power remains critical, though women's understanding
of what policies really create such self-determination vary in
elation to class and frequently in terms of race.
Leo Kanowitz has contended 18 that laws relating to sexual
onduct continue to b~ a primary source of legal discrimination
gainst women. For example,laws against prostitution ~oJten~
ntml and penalize women' prostitutes more than . theiLl'uillt:
stamers. Patterns of law enfo~t ftirtl1eHe.;nIorce the bias
such laws. ~ evidence and legal requirements for rape
,victions are especially stringent, and married women are not
tected against marital rape or abuse in most states. Further-
re, women are more likely to be stigmatized and penalized for
've s~~arrtY~Inen are tiRe1y to lose custQd'Y::atrlDjdr~n1:t~
a1l1ffiisconau~!"!~QY~==~"~~'~
ccess to legal abortion, the prevention of sterilization abuse,
uate women's health care, including the availability of safe
aception, must be integrated into any political strategy for
eative choice. Accelerating efforts to prohibit the use of
'caid and other federal funds for abortion continue to affect
Women's .lives, and other ways 'of'blocking access to abor-
ontinue to be discovered/ 9 so organized efforts to secure
ative choice for women II:\ust continue. The scandal of the
politics of reproduction is revealed in a /l catch-22" situa-
which political pressure against safer and more reliable

98 I Mak ing the Con nec tion s
sim ulta neo usly wit h effo rts to
mea ns of birt h con trol escalates
rly, the aim of man y in
secure anti abo rtio n legislation. Clea
e of "nec essa ry" chil dbe arin g.
society is to retu rn wom en to a plac
rese arch on biol ogic al fer-
Fun ds from all sources exp end ed
for
e 1972; and u.s. gov ernm ent
tilit y hav e stea dily decl ined sinc
the face of the Rom an Cat holi c
fund ing con tinu es to decl ine in
grou ps' mou ntin g opp osit ion
bishops' and righ t-wi ng Pro test ant 2Q
. In spit e of the wid espr ead
to federal fund ing for such rese arch
t effective "ba rrie r" met hod s of
reco gnit ion that all but the leas
birt h con trol invo lve prob able seri
ous side effects, ther e is littl e
al con trac epti ve rese arch . In
pub lic pres sure for fund ing add ition
of mon ies exp end ed in activo:
fact, it is prob able that the amo unt
the fund s inve sted in med ical
ity agai nst abo rtio n far exceeds
research to prev ent unw ante d preg
nancies.
2" situ atio n also falls on
The othe r side of this "cat ch-2
tion to test birt h con trol tech-
wom en. Nea rly all exp erim enta
largely unk now ing pop ulat ions
nologies has bee n carried out on
whi te wom en here and abroad.
of poo r and pred omi nan tly non
c of the wid er dyn ami cs of class
Suc h practices are char acte risti
esti mat es 80 perc ent of all med i
and race oppression, for by som e
States is carr ied out on po .<
cal exp erim enta tion in the Uni ted
subjects. Several mal e inte rpre ters
of scie ntif ic rese arch hav e a
kno wle dge d the exis tenc e of the
serious abu ses in con trac epti
rese arch ers and the lack of f,
research. 21 The pau city of wom en
mal e part icip atio n in the dev elop
men t of exp erim enta tion poli
ume nted . Cer tain ly this pub lic p
and prac tice are also well doc
icy patt ern, alon g with the prac
tice of dum ping uns afe con
thir d wor ld nati ons , acco unts
cept ive technologies on so-called
large part for the wid espr ead susp
icio n amo ng poo r and non w
" func tion s in the dom inan t w.
people that "fam ily plan ning
genocide tow ard non whi te '1'
com mun ity as a eup hem ism for
of ster iliza tion by tuba l ,.
ple. 22 The not unc omm on prac tice
as a mea ns of birt h con trol par
tion s or hyst erec tom ies, used
lady in med ical facilities that
trea t poor wom en, is ano
ofte n than not, wom en of c
source of hos tilit y because, mor e
s. Some pub lic hea lth grou ps'
are the vict ims of thes e practice
erec tom ies in trai ning hos pita ls I:.
lieve that the rate of hyst
surgical exp erie nce for me
late d to the "ne ed" to prov ide
le mea ns of birt h con trol "c
residents and that othe r, reversib es to be a prin
Ster iliza tion has beeD;~lld s?n tinu
trol in Pue rto Ric 6~ whe re a freq uen tly
"me ans of birt h con
lJ
of chil dbe arin g-ag e wom en
figure indi cate s that 35 perc ent
med amo ng Am eric an In
sterilized. A sim ilar rate is clai
eral " peo ple to app reci ate the elem
wom en. The failure of "lib
of coercion ope rati ng here is illus
trate d by the Fam ily Pl
Sex uali ty and Social Poli cy /99
for Fam ily Plan ning Services,
Digest, pub lish ed by the Cen ter
ldin g une quiv oca lly the grow-
whi ch in Ma y 1972 was still hera
as an effe ctiv e con trac epti on
ing imp orta nce of ster iliza tion
abus es. Not all of thes e unn ec-
with out any awa rene ss of thes e
forced ster iliza tion , but suc h es-
essary hys tere ctom ies qua lify as gain-
tima tes imp ly the mag nituthei de of pres sure s aga inst wom en's
.-vis r bod ies.
ing self -dir ecti on vis-a
furt her rests on the abil ity,
Wo men 's sexu al ema ncip atio n
dubious-kgg~y<of.cJ}llf:lJ.sionhe_
of all of us, to face our cult ure' s
usu ally con ced ed to be the
twee~ sexuali!yy.JJ..d-1tiolen~e.Rape is in the Uni ted States. We
viol ent crim e mos t on the incr
ease
al crime. Tho ugh data are ad-
thin k of it erro neo usly as a sexu
we are witn essi ng both an ac-
mitt edly imp reci se, it app ears that
of rape and wom en's mor e fre-
tual incr ease in the freq uen cy
always bee n a freq uen t crim e.
que nt pub lic repo rtin g of wha t has
ber of rapes in rela tion to the
If, as I believe, the abso lute num
atic ally , such that viol enc e
female pop ulat ion is risin g dram
in all social classes, we nee d to
against wom en is on the incr ease
vari atio n of the old them e that
ask why this is hap pen ing. A new
e" for rape and othe r viol ent
wom en are som eho w "res pon sibl
argu men t that this incr ease d
acts aga inst them emerges in the
en is the resu lt of wom en's
viol ent "act ing out" tow ard wom
of "wo men 's lib./I Like othe r
"gre ater aggressiveness" beca use
to "bla me the vict im," 23 this ex-
forms of our cult ural proc livi ty
sequ enc e of social chan ge. The
plan atio n con fuse s caus e and con
is occ urri ng in just thos e pop u-
largest incr ease of repo rted rapes
by the wom en's mov eme nt: the
lations oJ Women leas t affe cted
the mos t reti cen t and vuln erab le
elderly and the poor, freq uen tly
a sign ifica nt incr ease of repo rted
among wom en. The re has bee n al ethn ic wom en.
rape amo ng blac k and othe r raci
n mad e by law enfo rcem ent
Tho ugh som e efforts hav e bee
e the crassest and mos t inse nsi-
agencies and hos pita ls to elim inat
man y of thes e efforts now are
tive responses to rape vict ims ,
bud get cuts and pers onn el lay-
thre aten ed, as in New York, by
ed rem ain low, with con vic-
ffs. Arre st rate s for rape s com mitt
y of rape vict ims kno w or hav e had
·ons eve n low er. The maj orit
assailants, whi ch ofte n mea ns
Orne prev ious con tact with thei r
they den y prov oca tion . And
ome n are rare ly beli eved whe n
in mos t states. Tho ugh · mas sive
arital rape is not eve n a crim e
s groups to buil d sup por t for.
fforts hav e bee n mad e ~y\Vomfn' to come' <forward to cha rge <
'P.pe vict ims , to enc our a.ge woi nen
thei r attackers, the pros pec t for
ffenders, and to test ify aga inst
rape, give n the con diti on of
creased succ essf ul pros ecu tion for
s, is not enco urag ing. The or-
r crim inal cou rts and social etho
to press such char ges and sus-
eal that wom en mus t go thro ugh
 100 I Making the Connections
min their cases has not abated. As a result, rape remains a largely
I unpunished crime in this society, and rapists know that.
Analysis of the sociology of rape has sharpened awareness that
l it is not an isolated "sex crime" -"- the result of erotic attraction
- but a long-established and legitimated institution of male con-
\ trol and punishment of women. 24 Among women there is now a
9rowing awareness that .w e must remove rape from the legal cate-
1gory of sexual offense. Rap~~~ sexua . and violence are, we must make the connections between our
\heinous form of crimin'afassault, aimed a.t I:::umili~!!t!K!h~.Y!~­
t~are nS't movedJry~.d~jii~-Ratnei~~-cj;,~Q:at
~ ~ocially accepted pattern whereby women (or powerless men
Iwho are perceIve as "feminine") are "putm~fnelI"praCe.'T}\1.ale
icontempt for women is ritualistically expressed through rape,
usually by males who themselves feel powerless and otherwise
exhibit low self-esteem. Often men use rape to express resent-
ment toward other men; females are perceived functionally as
"belonging" to men, as their extensions. Yet nowhere is rape
classified as a nonsexual offense. Legal reform will be necessary
to alter the machismo image of the rapist, who deserves to be
viewed not as one having sexual prowess but as a thug. Several
years ago, San Francisco newspaper columnist Charles McCabe
made this point well by proposing to women who had been raped
that they charge their assailants with indecent exposure. In so
doing, he argued, women would be denying the rapist the sanc-
tion of male approval and would appeal to the widespread ma-
chismo prejudice of law enforcement officers. A charge of inde-
cent exposure, he reasoned, would assure disdain for the rapist
rather than identification with the rapist's behavior as sexual
prowess. Sadly, McCabe's tongue-in-cheek proposal is on target.
Indecent exposure, though only a legal misdemeanor on first
conviction, becomes, in some states, a felony after a second con-
viction. The growing gravity of the problem of rape and the en-
trenched prejudice that makes it so difficult to mobilize social
pressure to stop it may make such strategies, proposed in jest, a__
serious option for women. .,-
Rape does not, of course, exhaust the spectrum of violence
against women in the guise of sex. As more women gain the cour-
age to talk about their personal lives, the magnitude and extent
of violence and coercion via sexuality becomes clear. Violence in
marriage increasiIlgly appears to be as much-the rule as the ex-
ception, including those forced genital assaults not even counted
as rape.25 Sexual harassment in the workplace and in academia is
widespread, taking overt and covert forms. Many women tolerate
physical advances, verbal exploitation, and inappropriate inti-
mate behavior from men out of fear of economic and professional
Sexuality and Social Policy / 101
reprisals, failing grades, or professional or academic badmouth-
ing. As Marilyn Frye has observed,Y:len of~-Pre£llID.e-a~&&~t9'~~"~"
women'.~_ bodIesmd- emotions _~h~~htfut.l:2.~~.y~£t.§2~!glly
sanctiOJ).~([i:iiak-siij}Iemaq.~~~:Whiles omeoItIie connections be-
tween male supremacist ideology and social violence have begun
to be explored, much more analysis is needed. To appreciate how
deep the ramifications of our Q!1tuIQ£Q!~!:g~-al2Q],lLerQtiC~IQ.
em~re1ations~Iiiatiol1'?! ~~p~£~or71n­
ferlo! power, a~~~fe~r~oriilitiQii§~oreqll~~!~!r . . aI?:~. in-
ti-macy. Sadomasochistic human relationships, Whe'iner subtle or
openly violent, permeate our society and our social institutions. 2i
Two rel I S S profou~~~t female sexuality in this
culture. ornogra anJi..-l'6fostitutio~!are pervasive social real-
ities, an ~lo do (al:)Qu1tne~ hotly debated among femi-
nists. There are strong disagreements about what evaluations are
to be made of prostitution and what strategies are appropriate
contain pornography. A much debated issue is how law and
enforcement should shape public policy on prostitution and por-
nography. With respect to prostitution, feminists are well
of the antifemale effects of enforcement of antiprostitution laws.
Furthermore, enforcement of antiprostitution laws falls unequally
and most heavily on the poor and nonwhite prostitute, who
often works the street rather than the "social club."
are usually women, and while, from one point of view, they
"sell" their bodies as' commodities of exchange and live by this
"sale," feminists recognize that women's exchange of sex for
economic security is a general characteristic of female existence,
given patriarchy, and is hardly limited to female prostitution.
Self-righteous stigmatization of prostitutes is hardly in order if
we acknowledge that throughout history women have had to
"sell" themselves as sexual beings into marriage or long-term
sexual liaisons to survive. For considerable segments of socially
marginated females, women's "oldest profession" often has also
been women's only profession. To comprehend the dynamics of
sexual politics is to be rightly reluctant to join the social censure
of the female prostitute.
Even so, feminist social policy discussion about prostitution.
divides cOEcerned~me~~~t..£e.minist&··agree·in·uppomfl:g a(
sh.~is,i~9~~lg~!!3~OlN~~~~?l}:;.Suehipolicy sta~ps the seal
ofpublic:rJ~EIQyal·~s~~!~l~L~~QLP2Y)\
ing fotthe "usel l of women's bodies, and invariably places prosti- )
tutes'theIh~s"(lirectryuITdersta~tcensing and control. Women /
are required to "register" to practice their "profession" and must I
submit to regular medical examinations. Many feminists argue for \
(
 Sexuality and Social Policy / 103
102 / Making the Connections
tivity of others. Civil libertarians, including many feminists, have
~~al,~licy~~i~~1!gJjziM-PLO£t~t1Ui£lgl,~el;lJ-OV~~,
. !.:gl~~S serious reservations not only about current Supreme Court policy
and regulatiOils thafeither prohibit or sanction tIle practice.Tnls
but also about .. , . . at some
mitigates the double stigma women who are prostitutes bear. The
strategies against pornography can set pree~n+
decriminalization of prostitution does nothing to reduce its social
censorship that could be turned on feminists.
functionality because the institution is deeply rooted in sexism,
FortIiose who belIeve that tne roleo!" the state with respect
including those deeply ingrained patterns of economic exploita-
to sexuality should be less directed at imposing uniform personal
tion of women already analyzed. Furthermore, the line between
moral standards on adults than at adjudicating competing claims
legalization an~siecrim~~§!lizationse~ID;sJ:l;~,!!Q",~~rk. ~~, ~r:~:~~e. and interests, pornography poses vexing issues. No one should
l~cGim-;-W-l7aecrimrrialiZeTr~PIostitution,~Diit' tignf gov-
/ ernmental supervision creates a de facto situation of "legalization," obscure the fact that pornographic material does encourage ex- \,\
f by placing prostitutes under tight state control. In any case, those ploitation, especially of women and children, bllt therea~~ !~~~~
whQ~ seek~ccess to it. nevertheles~~JIL. .a.n..;r-..(;aseT~mmfsr::ittoitS: .
I negative public dimensions of prostitution such as pandering and
to c!~IIIy:,·ai.Iferences between~erotica and obscenity should ta!get
I aggressive, offensive street solicitation are better controlled by 00 -~~~--~-,,_ • • .~~~"~o._~~~_.~'_ ~"--_ ~~-.'~~a.~
our o~tions.to porncigIap1iyT~n terl;lJ-s. ofvi()lencean . control,
~

I vigorous enforcement of public nuisance ordinances and financial

I penalties than through criminal law.
\/""-'Wh'at. constitutes constructive social policy in relati to por-
~" ..cc.,~' :il~~~~~~;;~~~ftyQ~~~~~!t::ra~~~s::~":s~ {I
It is the sadism of pornography - the imposition and enjoyment
nograph_~)oses
~-"-'- -,_._"."
far more.. difficult
, " ,"_
issues _~..
_~ --_
and has bitterly .,
...., ,

emmists.29 There is, inevitably, a fine line'oetween what consti-

"." "" ,
," ,
of another's suffering - that is morally reprehensible, not the ex-
plicitness of sexuality. F~l;lJ-inist efforts to .~ and ~r.edit
tutes appropriate, sexually explicit material, or erotica, on the
one hand and obscene or pornographic material on the other. hard-S~~~~~se~~·rm. . . £.:ull~.a:w.are: .
nessthat strong traditions of respect for the constitutional liberty
Determinations of criteria for distinguishing erotica and por-
nography are difficult at best. Under current law, especially, the of fr~~~h-iS-Jnllili~~~~i~~c::~",,!~!~~. i\T..2'§~:ri.~~l:)~!­
sel~. We cannot summarl1y dIsmiss" such concerns: It would be
distinction is distressingly unclear. Recent Supreme Court rulings
on the matter make no attempt at a principled solution. It is now
riiiVeto assume that any dubious legal tactics aimed against por-
nographers would not subsequently also be used against us.
left to local communities to determine what is "obscene," which
I believe that feminists should expose publicly the names of
opens the way to a crazy-quilt diversity of criteria across the
those who control and profit from the pornography industry, that
country. What is obscene in one area is considered appropriate
we should boycott pornography in selected instances, and that
artistic expression in another. Our situation is an inducement to
we need well-conceived public demonstrations to make people
ambitious local politicians to cultivate and cater to repressive
aware of women's objections to the pervasive pornography of
local political pressures. In ~st of this, feminists haY~.
this culture. We need to know who profits from porn and identify
bilized to protest the s~nard-core pornogranh~at...makl
the celebration of domination that it is transmitting. However,
w o ~ .objects of male se~. ~al~~~!~I:J:l.~,:pQI~,
we also need a vivid sense that there is a difference between erotica
raEhy is a vast, ~.g,...ffi:g~ctor.-nL..our--eoonom.~ and porn and avoid antisexual or antisensual attitudes. Our
antipornograp~emjnists Iight!:y,-eontend ~h~t . S~!rentJ??,,~~~t awareness must be keen that efforts to erode "rights to privacy"
raphy broadcasts the m~sage that W:~I:J:l.~!?:.~!i~!. ,,!9... be 11S~c:lJ?J threaten social radicals whenever it suits those in power to dis-
men and actually enjoy male exPlOitation and contror:'In spite
credit political opposition.
of controversies aoout how n:rucb:-exposure' to'thls-soifof por-
nographic material actually affects people's behavior patterns, it
is incontrovertible that pornography on a grand scale feeds a so-
Men's Live5 apdSpdal Policy
cial ethos of violence arid .exploitation of women.Jtis also true
that current law has opened the way for ambitious politicians
Men, qua male, do not suffer from the range of sexual inequities
and law enforcement officers to harass pornography producers
before the law that women do. Except in those cases where an
and distributors. Legal action is taken arbitrarily, closing or bank- earlier "soft-feminism" led to changes in marriage, divorce, and
rupting some pornography entrepreneurs while ignoring the aC
 1041 Making the Connections
custody laws that extended compensatory favors to women, the
legal and social disadvantages men suffer are related to race and
poverty rather than to gender. Two areas most often singled out
for legal reform by men are provisions for alimony that do not
take into account a woman's capacity to earn a living and child
custody laws that presume the mother possesses "natural" com-
petence in childrearing that fathers do not share. These are areas
in which injustices sometimes do occur, though it also needs to
be observed that changes in men's favor here often have been
more rapid than changes in areas where women are disadvan-
taged. Furthermore, even where child support and alimony set-
tlements are mad.~ formally in women's favor, enforcement of
these settlements is notoriously weak. Women usually have to
rely on men's voluntary cooperation.
Our sexist presuppositions about sex roles, including pre-
sumptions about women's special responsibility for parenting, do
not encourage men to exercise genuine responsibility for chil-
dren's continued economic well-being after divorce. Therefore,
until and unless women's broader economic vulnerability in so-
ciety is rectified, m~st women will continaht.o. su.:I2£?It the " fav2E:
itisJ?" im~lic:~tjn di~~~~ . j:~Ja~~.~~£~E~~~~~~lon
for ~~_~bJ~~E~CQ!l~().J:!!~~.g.!.sa~~~~~;1~~.. !!:~.!J~gJ:g§§QJarge.lU.QUr
lives. Many women's only alternative to alimony and child sup-
port is the welfare system, with all the personal degradation it
entails, or low-paying work, the only sort of employment avail-
able to the growing number of female single-parent heads of
households. As a result, divorce and child custody are both acri-
monious issues that are difficult to resolve by legal reform. Only
if support for men's claims to justice in family law are balanced by
i unwavering commitment to improving women's disadvantaged
I economic situation and to changing men's parenting roles in the
I family can we avoid a further deterioration in women's situation
\ ! by legal reform in this area.
\.~ The key to construct!~.~-.£~ar;ge.in family policy .li~ .i1!.~!~e
V direc.!!Q~~e meanlI?:g_.QLQa~~~ig__~Qsiety. For
men to acce12t I~Q.u~onsi~..paren1:s;-brmrd=1Ja·sl
c~~E.gesJ?:i11~L~~E: ..~9f special importance are changes in the
structure and organization of the work men do. At the very least,
me~~~g-ha~ern~~~h~.!l.J!~~~l~~;1a~~~.~!>l~JO
limit claims on their time madeqyeIllployers or clients. Th~cur~
rent· expectation-that merrs-rrveS-are~tO~'b~im:mersed totally in
work thwarts and undermines voluntary male change. Male pro-
fessionals, incl~iD.z cl~gyL ot~~~rsLDffende-f.~~
g!~~ting their fa~~iusi~~!!!ti~~.12~S2:E.~~ ...!!leir
social~ imply "total access" for their clients. Both men
Sexuality and Social Policy 1 IDS
and women need to be able to adjust work schedules to permit
some flexibility in sharing the care of children. In principle, pro-
fessional people often have the advantage over wage earners be-
cause the latter are constrained by a regular and rigid work day.
Social pressures, however, do not encourage men in any social
stratum to reorient actively their lives toward parenting. Upward
mobility in corporations and professions increasingly requires
that family life be neglected and that one parent, usually the
woman, take on childrearing full time. Only a sustained reorien-
tation in the organization of work in our dominant economic
and social institutions could alter this dynamic. Many couples
now are seeking genuine role-sharing, including "shared parent-
ing," 30 but because their efforts cut against the institutional grain,
such couples often must make economic sacrifice and positive
life changes only by dint of extra energy. No social or institutional
support exists to facilitate these conscientious and constructive
efforts of sensitive people.
Those of us concerned with Christian ethics need to under-
score the extent to which the church is a serious offender in rela-
tion to shared parenting. As institutional employer, the church
requires its clergy "professionals," men and women alike, to be
"totally available." Invariably such expectations operate to the
detriment of the family life of clergy. Religious organizations need
to b~jndeQ that th~eal illttdrresponsiblhty for Iong:stana::
ing "modeling" .JL~~~Q!!§.JJjltt~m~It is not an over-
statement to say that male clerical parenting has long expressed
itself as a form of active child neglect. The time has come for the
church to rectify such disastrous practices. Criteria of ministry for
married persons should presume that professional competence
entails the capacity for responsible parenting so that married
clergy with children come to be expected, always, to make child-
rearing a personal-professional priority.
Heterosexism and Social Policy vis-a.-vis
Homosexual Persons
There are, of course, numerous dimensions of social policy that
4~Ge.to·-l.':J:t)ft.heteros~:tl.~\
mu . 0 e
ang to tl:.e prevalent ~~~~~~ll~J:!!.Qemj:,li:l~J:g.:Becauseof the
stre~ili~of institutionalized heterosexism in this society, includ-
ing i~~Jh€~"w.Qrkpla~L..J:!!~!L~nd . . lesbians ar~_ubj~~"W~OTf:;""~~'~~
tinl!.Qll~!1g""acrbitrnr~iscrir.tliI11!
tion~'Legar-piotections to ensure
the civil liberties of gays and lesbians, even when these exist, do
not usually touch the depth of active homophobia. Like nonwhite
106 j Nlaking the Connections
persons, gays and lesbians are subject to subtle or vicious and di-
rect retributions, to which heterosexuals can remain oblivious.
address to social policy questions in light of heterosexism as a
system of social oppression can ignore the varied and widespread
injustices gay men and lesbians endure.
The public policy stance of liberal religious groups in support
of the civil liberties of homosexual persons is, as indicated} equiv-
ocal and frequently halfhearted. ~llhll£J2gli£L.R~iti~Jll­
suc~ gr~~"m~~lie-a.rena~@Ga:a~f
exclusi0!1 of gays and lesl2i~1!§.lrQlILQI4i!lgtj.1uLand~frQm~ther~m-~"
dices oQ~g".E~[g:j?~gQ£_!g""!E"~Jj.feJ)Lxh~huI"ches. The tepid
and reluctant entry of churches into public debate about gay civil
rights is greeted with contempt by mature gay men and lesbians
who do not wish to be patronized and who rightly refuse the
church's feeble "charity." Homophobia is so deeply rooted in ec-
clesiastical culture that facing its depth requires painful self-
awareness.
At the public policy level, two areas for legal change are often
targeted by gay men and lesbians seeking to overturn those laws
that have most destructive consequences. Many gay men and les-
bians object to the lack of legal protection afforded to their rela-
tionships, which makes mutual care between them and their lov-
ers difficult. Second, a prejudicial legal pattern jeopardizes les-
bians' and gay men's custody rights to their own children or
makes it difficult for them to choose to adopt or bear children.
For heterosexual couples and families, the legal status of mar-
"riage conveys some rights and protections and much morallegiti-
macy. Gay and lesbian couples committed to each other have none
of these legal protections, even when the lived-world character of
their partnership has exactly the same qualities as the hetero-
sexual marital arrangements so celebrated and sanctified by re-
ligious communities. Without access to the prerogatives and pro-
tections of legal marital status, gay and lesbian couples can be
prevented from carrying out their commitments to each other in
numerous ways. In the event of injury to one partner, the mate
cannot easily provide the health care benefits or continuing eco-
nomic security that heterosexual partners take for granted. The
death of one leaves no economic security to his or her mate as
does the death of an insured heterosexual man or woman. Often
lovers are not permitted to participate, as family members auto-
matically are, h'1 decisions regardihgpotential medical treatment
of their closest loved one or to intervene in case of medical emer-
gencies. It seems..,~e"""tB:at~th~moscfilmirrfarcIalriis-"6rriistice
requi!~~"~L!efo:tJJ1~~!haL~~!1~able,g;~Y""1!1kU~~l1~d-lt?~!:>!'!.!1§~!()
defint.~~~~~=~e,~"~~~~~~~~~"~~~e,~~.!()~!:>~"~~~~-E:~!_~~~~~!~_
Sexuality and Social Policy / 107
and lesbians seek or want such relationships, but those who do
should have equal protection under the law and legal sanction of
the commitments they make.
Obviously, a related question for religious communities con-
cerns whether they will recognize, sanctify, and celebrate "mar-
riages" or partnerships between same-sex persons regardless of the
state's responsiveness or lack of it to claims of equal justice before
the law. It is ironic that religious people frequently criticize gay
men and lesbians for their "promiscuity" and "laxity'} while ada-
mantly refusing to support committed same-sex relationships
they support heterosexual coupling.
HeterosexisIl1-amldiscrimination a~~i~:y:£"~Hentty""f1rlls­
espe~i'l"aLcro n . _ t t - l e s invQlving cllild:t:@B:
Reputed homosexuality is one of the few "accusations" that all
but guarantees that a woman will be judged incompetent as a
mother before the court. But gay men are also penalized in this
regard. Beneath these social practices lurks a deep-seated! though
mistaken, view that homosexuality is "contagious," along with
the vicious and erroneous belief that lesbians are less capable
than nonlesbians of extending positive nurturance and healthy
support to children. Perhaps a majority of lesbians do marry and
bear children prior to clarifying their own mature emotional
needs, but most are highly competent nurturers precisely because
of their hard-won level of self-awareness. ~~~ alJ.Q]"lLpar-eutal "
comp~~ence.JJl!lsUe mad~jQl:"~"~~Ql1~Jll~l~3!1jl-l~~ale­
on actual performance, not on stereotype or social phobia. Until
the moral dubiousness of treating homoeroticism as a "problem"
is recognized, along with the questionableness of extending auto-
matic, uncritical moral endorsement to so many loveless, grace-
less heterosexual relationships, Christian moral teaching on sex-
ual relationships is not likely to gain the respect of any but the
socially conventional. If heterosexuality and heterosexual mating
continue to be given uncritical religious and moral sanctification
and legitimation simply because they are heterosexual, how can;
we teach anything morally normativ.. e a.bout what constitutes/
humane interpersonal relationships? §,(:>-1nng_a£~~e~3:!-CD-U{,
pIing c~l!tinues~~~1!!~IQLoperat~cl1,1sionar*.plin~i:
pIe an:Q~1 constraint in our religious con::~~~iti~s, we
will p~!~te an uncriticaI;~;:s:exaal-et1Ti~.a",
ther th~~fl:tl:.e~~thicof inter:pcrsm:l..all~l.d~
resPoI1~~anwhile,in;the ~er-~ty, the movement
for gender Justice and for gay and lesbian self-respect and rights
will continue to be pressed at the public policy level by those
wounded by traditional Christian teaching. As our society's un-
derstandings of human sexuality become ever less stereotyped, the
 108 / Making the Connections
gap between church teaching and mature human experience will
widen, reducing further the credibility of the churches' presumed
((ethic" of sexuality. By marginating themselves from constructive
and humane social struggle, religious communities become not
more righteous but more rigid and less alive to movements of the
Spirit.
Families and Selected Aspects of Marriage
That Require Social Policy Review
The problematics of existing social policies affecting families and
the institution of marriage are so complex that I can touch on
only a few obvious issues here. It should be clear that I do not
believe that a sexual ethic can any longer give direct, or even in-
direct, support to the notion that living one's life in the hetero-
sexual, lifelong family unit places one in a status of special moral
merit or that this lifestyle warrants superior theologicallegitima-
tion. Long-term, committed relationships do provide a strong en-
! vironment for personal growth and for childrearing, so there is
~
' ~.}~,._
e.a.s~,n.
/ / ~~,peop~s~ption
goo.. . to •,. .m.S.i.,.S.t.. . t.for
.h.., atthis sortp.. O.liCies.
SOCia.1 of family
supp,.,.,o,
/// . i,)flagine, howeyer, that what some.J1jUt~the~/c!!§l&-OLth
// .' ~mUt' - tpzt is, the grClm~ rate .Q£~di.YQrce,.=isalto..
nezat~.E.!_~-N5I··~Sh~'uld we-a~me that the growing num-
I
~ f failed marriages are caused merely by changing individua
attitudes toward the family, as if the divorce rate were chiefly
result of personal inability to make a ((go" of family life. Soci
institutions and political-economic structures operate on the fam·
ily, locking it in or changing it. The family pressures that childre
women, and men find dehumanizing are generated from chang,
in the wider social structure, which in turn occasion the "crisis
of the family. In the broad~~QLill.1Lso~.-wh€regen'
ine e~~king-.--=-fl~he_J22-~mon..&-Se
skilled .POQL~?:~,JabuL~aIL~Q!1.~-vu!nerable. t0Il:l
ginali t)I1_~an:y-ef~wht)m,flre-·B:e-1=lW1r.it~=-the cooent-dynamlcs
the economy and some public policies actually operate directly
destroy the family unit. Public welfare payments, limited to d
pendent children and their mothers, drive fathers out of the hom
rev,Tard so-called illegitimacy, and encourage family breaku
Among the working poor, where wives often must work, pro
for adequate day-care facilities for children is very rare, y'
mother's wages are critical to the continued economic viabili
the family unit. No one should imagine that the need for ad
day-care programs is a ((woman's issue." Adequate day c
Sexuality and Social Policy / 109
is basic to the well-being not only of whole families but of soci-
ety itself.
Younger people who understand some of the positive possibil-
ities of new lifestyle alternatives place increasing emphasis on liv-
ing with another person prior to marriage as a means of testing the
long-term viability of a relationship. ~_believe thaL[bLG~~!IiaLn:.;;,
lationshi¢!--she:u.l.Q.b~QUI.egedas positive and ethic~l!Y~E­
J?[Q]2riate__At the public policy le~erwenee'~rtoasy'wnEtIiersuch
living arrangements and covenant commitments that fall short of
the "death-do-us-part" intentions of traditional marriage should
be extended some legal standing. Extending civil legitimacy to
such arrangements would lower the pressure and stigma against
them. As long as the state regulates marriage at all, it is probably
wiser to provide for dual-level legal relationships between cou-
ples. Couples might enter into a simple legal status, easily dis-
solved, unless or until they were prepared to function together as
a childbearing, childrearing unit. The first level, an easily dissolv-
able, legal contractual relationship, 'would not involve all of the
current common-law assumptions about the ((one-person status ll
of a married couple. T~rst-level'~~:_
~o ~.e,.'~ l.~.,gn~l::y.,,_,.~o !!~~.,_
~~3~ ~L~.~~.~ ~!~g~i!!K~pder\,
pIes _. . e.. ,.. ..n
law tn:at they.ggL~~.j:Q.,g§.s.UIl1e,. .. could vary
. h.•._ Such arrangements
..
relation.
W ~t.ha."n
. ,.,r.. •,.t. rather. ~ust not·
.... con-
somewhat from couple to couple. The second-level, more inclu-
sive legal marriage provision involving common-law precedents
could come into play only when couples wished it or when cou-
ples agreed to have childr:en.
Such a social policy direction certainly carries attendant prob-
lems. One might be the possible increased complexity of litigation
surrounding marginal circumstances not explicitly covered by the
first-level law. The proliferation of marriage law could mean a
proliferation of the legal services needed to cope with such laws
unless continued progress is made to simplify legal procedures for
interpersonal coupling. Another might be the reinforcement and
extension of the social norm of coupling as the expected lifestyle
in our society. On the other side of the question, though, we need
to acknowledge that current social policies penalize and often
stigmatize responsible persons who perceive that they are not yet
ready to enter into marriage as currently defined by law but who
have accepted some of the mutualresponsibilities of relationship
and cohabitation. Just as th~,ullav:ailability of married status
penalizes many same-sex couples who live a paired lifestyle, 'so
our all-or-nothing approach to marriage works to discourage ma-
ture, step-by-step relational commitments.
Recent legal reform has established a trend in marriage law
that deserves continued support. Many states have moved to in-

lID/Making the Connections
s ~ ~ W h i l ethe form of these
laws varies considerably from state to state, most aim to open the
way for couples who have mutually agreed to end their marriages
to do so without harassment or great legal expense. These new
laws no longer require one party to accept the divorce and the
other to assume "blame" for the failure of the marriage. The end
of a marriage is always painful, at best, and most often debilitating
to both parties involved, whatever their circumstances. Reform
that facilitates the process of securing a divorce by removing the
power of the court to adjudicate blame and that maximizes the
competence of partners to deliberate the conditions of the dissolu-
tion of their marriage represents highly desirable change. In mat-
ters of intimacy, social policy should involve the least amount of
intrusion by the state that is commensurate with the dignity of
the persons involved, with the well-being of their children, and
with the greater social vulnerability of women in cases where that
applies.
To cease giving overriding direct and indirect ethical sanction
to lifelong heterosexual monogamous marriage would not, I sub-
encourage us to antifamily attitudes or to opposition to life-
long relational commitments between two persons. ~
recggni~e-4.a~m~m~!lQl-fQIeYeQ~At_the-sametiIn~,"-Y!e
ca.n and sh~lJld.Ai!irm~.cel~!~t~c::l;:mt§!!I'P9JtJlJLS~QY~:Q~.!!~!
latI~ ~!:! ..ge.e.lLen _~I.capa(~ity_f9.I_intimacy, C!~g!i:y_e_~9Lk,
a~mmm3itYJ ..F~~~!~E.g~ttJh.(~:L~~~2rd. with.J:h~.cJlI:.
rent}_it~ons of I.!!arriage. S~ce.marri~~ in,
our society is primarily a le~elationship, we should make mar:
ri~ ab as possible to _th0~~!2ns._Q.L
a_ults. Reli~sly and .. y,~ne~~:L1Q._.difier.ent4Gte··rn
sh~e leg~ti9Il of marri~~.frQm.t~religious.rela.".
tiOnship of covenant between per§2!!JL!hat ()~rr~!~g!()!1:§ ..~!~~S§~:g.d
theclogy embrace as normatlve fo!jiiiiiiaJi~~~l:h~in.g.~.·Simul-
taneoi.iSI¥:iliongh~li~.ciri:o~aC1{now~~t~;
Where the legal status of marriage is not available, long-term
committed relationships are harder to sustain within our social
order. We need to support legal efforts to create the conditions
that sustain them.
A fundamental rethinking of the ethics of marriage and fam-
ily life: £I. reconsideration that delivers us fr()II:l.Confusing existing
social institutions with ethically and theologically envisioned
standards of relationship, is, to say the least, long overdue. A pro-
found ethic of sexuality could help us gain a more adequate per-
spective on the diversity of failures that characterize committed
human relationships. Brok~e..d.marr.iages~
pr~mary relationships
_ _ _<=_'" _ _
frequently involve. ~-w.!!!2!!!J.~l!lt.but
,-------------~-~~.~.--~~~~-~~c.,.~.~
. ~.
Sexuality and Social Policy / lllf1/
ways~~vorce~o~rEla.tionalcloslL1J!!$".m:~1iJ.!.(Jf!'.osi- :-"'0'
tiv,e moral gro:w.th.~ courage.S ! We need to be able to help peo-
ple recognize that there-··aremoral reasons as well as morally
dubious ones for ending relationships. Few efforts have been made
in religious ethics to identify positive justifications for such ter-
mination. And even when moral failure is involved, such failure
surely should not lead to the condemnation or exclusion of the
persons who have failed. It is ironic that we Christians, who pro-
fess to be a community of sinners in need of forgiveness, often are
unable to help persons in our own midst accept, live through, and
learn from primary relational failures in a way that enables them
to experience forgiveness, healing, and growth.
Conclusion
Many of the thorniest questions of sqcial policy in relation to sex-
uality will continue to pose dilemmas for morally concerned per-
sons whatever happens in the future. Even if we succeed in deep-
ening our awaren~s..DLtbe cpnnections b~tween per@l1alintim-aey~
patterns and thesociopolitical and eco~Qm.i~....fQrc~§.~!h~!~()!~~ur
liv~~cliY~~J?LIlg.llf Oiii~P~!~.2g.al-~2£!glI~lgtiQ:g.§liips
. . re- is-a ~~allenge th~~!10Lad.mi:!_~~~Y.~QJill~g!!§.How SOcieties~
shou function, rough government, to influence individual be-
havior is always a difficult question. How and in which ways sex-
ual behavior should be shaped is, perhaps, the hardest question of .
alL I
Efforts to regulate sexual conduct between consenting adults
are notoriously difficult and, as I have observed, are fraught with
potential for the abuse of state power. Enforcement of laws regu-
lating sexual conduct are more the exception than the rule. The
temptation of government authorities to use techniques of police
entrapment to catch "sexual offenders" seems inexorable, and
the tendency toward corrupt use of public authority in enforce-
ment is strong. This state of affairs is probably inevitable because
sexuality involves intimate spaces - where we sleep, dress, and
retire for privacy. Given our dominant value patterns, such en-
forcement will always catch the poor, relatively powerless, socially
marginated offenders, while more privileged lawbreakers go free.
Conversely, sexual entrapment can~lwaysbe used against those
whose political views are unpopular. Nothing can reduce the ten-
sion between those provisional rights to privacy that we all need
and initiatives to use law to encourage a positive moral climate
regarding sexual conduct because monitoring sexual conduct re-
quires intrusive observation. As a result, our presumptive stance
not al-
.._ " " '
112/ Making the Connections
should be that restrictive law needs to be used sparingly where
sexuality is involved. In the face of this fact, all of us should ex-
ercise caution in looking to government for simple redress of
grievances because others' sexual conduct offends our personal
moral sensibilities. In spite of considerable social pressure on the
churches to demand legal action to curtail /ldubious" sexual be-
havior, we need to exercise critical sensibility and a healthy dose
of skepticism as to what such laws actually accomplish.
How a society may best live with this tension between the di-
verse personal sensibilities of adults and the need for a degree of
public order will always be subject to debate. I have already made
it clear that we would be well served by considerably /ldesexualiz-
i~~!iminal~§~ Mo:ally~~~g.J?~~viQLa.~~:
quently classified as sex offenses - molestation or .exploi,.tation"
of y~uf~eIl,IaP~~~Mg-Gf~ly
explicit Q!~~scene material, ~nd the of~i¥e-h,a.wki~ef-~x~-~
evic;t~~ including s91icit2-tiQ1119LP,.Iostitution~,-are wrong, in
ifferent de&!ees, not bec~use they involve genita~
tivi~~§ibec~;~erre~­
tio~le- physical and psychic assault or ObVIOUS
insensitivity to the dignity of another person's rights and capacity
for self-direction. The most heinous of these so-called sex crimes
are not more /lespecially wrong" than other acts of violence, un-
'i
justified coercion, or manipulation, tho\lgh in a s~eJ.C~JiligJL~QCi~~
l
ex,-SIlm~s" ..Jlre exp~!i~nJ~e!L~as,,~~[ReC~iL~J)I,~:pollY4:ffi.g.
hese acts are wrong because they involve the harassment or the
buse and degradation of persons who are relatively powerless to
esist. Such acts intend humiliation or control. Genital or sexual
tntrusion is perceived as the best way to express contempt or to
stablish power over another person. Legal changes th~ desex!'!;;:
alize
':1'
criminal law while strengthening legal san~tiQ~gainsJ any
-=~-_.~~=-=,=,=~",,,,,,",,.,.=,,,="-,,,,=,,,-,,,,"#,,~_.,,, . _ --
boaTIy ~ar~ss,merit or. assault to'ward" children <?r nonconsen~
adults ·~mii~~:~Tong"'~a)r-towarcr·'h~{IDilg~'iJs -dTs~~gl~(-
fears of'stxuality hom our .fears of being humiliated by otller
person~,thr.ill!&li~oni~in~~~~,~~~laJ?E2.~j1tQ,~f!!li~!fiost
vulnerable areas-9Lour bodies. No unjustified violence toward an-
othe7s~bOdy~-;gainst that person's will, should ever be construed
as a sign of positive erotic capacity or mature action. Rather, such
actions are usually rooted in fear of closeness and mutuality. They
express a needior control and a disordered inc~pa6ityJor relation-
ship over an appropriate capacity for interdependence. Victims of
so-called sex crimes often are more stigmatized than the perpetra-
tors of the crimes because such offenses stereotype victims as sex-
ually /limpure." It is time to recognize that those who are recipi-
--_··T·'CS.'_.""""~"-;_ ", _.",_~"",a~="'c_'._.'_, . "",.,,,,·,,··",,=,~,,,,,,"·~-·~
Sexuality and Social Policy / 113
ents of violent IIse~al" acts are not sexually polluted; they have
been victimized by ugly acts of human retribution, evil because
of the contempt, for persons they express rather than the genital
contact they involve.
If acts of coercion and violence involving genitals are ~
}laliz " nd understood as crimes of ass ult a bodil intrusion,
It may be pOSSI e to see more clearly why minimal regulation ot
sexual conduct between consenting adults by the state is desirable,!
even a positive moral good. If there is any "zone of privacy" that
requires, seriously, to be sacrosanct and respected, it is a person's
right to bodily integrity. Our body-selves, the zone of body-space
we possess by virtue of our being embodied persons, deserve ex-
plicit prote . n arbitrary interference and unjustified co-
ercion.' onsent'~~t this level is a conditio~!Jl~vin~~E~!
rela~ionsliip. r~ a moral point of view, embracing~~QD,SCIlt.'L~~,
a criteri()n is nQLto deny a norm or t9 b~E1erely"p.~:J:missiY~." In
our mostin.tImate interpersonal rel.ations~sent or self-direc-
j
tion is a critical condition of human well-being. Space in which it
can be expressed is a social good. Those who govern with regard
for the conditions of a just society do well to respect this reality.
Honoring the decisions regarding sexual expression between con-
senting adults is not a negative moral norm but a positive moral
value. We ought to possess the conditions for nonconstrained
expression of intimacy.
We must not be romantic about the quality of sexual com-
munication that characterizes our society. We are sex-preoccupied
but neither genuinely sensual nor genuinely pleasure-oriented.
Because much that passes for sexual~s..~a b]end-uL~~
alie~~llSD.eSs-.Wt~,no=-.
-~_ . "~"'_ .. -~""",._, .. -==;,~""",~-
tions 91_wha~od male/ f~I!l:g1e . . eIoticism.·invel¥e-s--=,notionsl ,.
alas, oft~Ej~d in~s~~i~e~~J:!1.::=we·navelIDfeasontu····~,­
celebrate the actu~quality"of the presumed new "sexual libera-
tion" overall. Nevertheless, there are hopeful indications that
through "our bodies, ourselves," some of us are learning to ground
our capacity for personal fulfillment and for ge~:t:!.!.!!~!P:llt~ality.
The affirmatioIl,JtLoYr'eapacit'Y-Jer-gtving'an(Creceivingpleasur~"
and foi·~llpr~p·riatiugJlllL.sel£~-h-.m..-,aa4".rhrottgh-uurhodtes--·· .
has also .be~!!-.Jo lead to~..~or~em~~!!Q!L~f9Jl-!,,~~~-
l,l ality. 11:le·anci~a ' " elf is an i :titmat;attelr,···~".·
c~.11Qwer, deeply foreign to our peisoria.Finte~Jtyand out- .. ~.
side the range of our seH-directiQ1l,i~givingwayt9 new integr~:_..
tions of pS)rcl'lo~xua.Lid~JlliL~~th..socially ·fulfilligK.~n. The
fact that some caI!...!l.0w C~!~ __~~](uali!y_as an important, -aI5ert'"---
not all-control~~ctof selfhoosLJ:laviiig]~ameCltOVaruert
114 / Making the Connec tions
as a deep mode of commu nicatio n, is a great step forward . Sexual-
ity ~volves pleasur e and erotic intensit y, but it also expresses
playfulness, tendern ess, and a general ized sense of well-being.
Our culture expresses simulta neously an animal istic affirma-
tion and prim denial of sexuali ty. We do not yet see clearly that our
capacit y for caring, for expressing and receivin g deep feeling, for
reachin g out to others is ground ed in and through our bodies or
not at all. Gi~ this insight, the way is n~~~a:t~
genuine ly what we have long given lil2- ser,yice to in our theolog ies
-"1E:-*:::s®:::ss~~;g;srlit}C::hGCg!tt:gt::GQO"~affir~~~on OrOU!.
sens~1i!r}eads~""!~~J?:~~~tand~~~~~~~b.en W~Q.!!:?~~ __our
sexl:!:?-li ~~~~.!~~aus~~w.~"]i.aYe-"he.ell-~!oo J!~~ or~90 permis:
sive or too spontaueQ.us. Rather, it is because our capacit y forjp-~~
._~
tunacy and sensual co~muD.ic;tiOiLhas-o:een...tW1SIea.aiid..dist~~t
.gd
..
by manipU1atiV:~ and ~on~~i1i~~Qg!tems...QL.I.elatio.TlShip.If we
canhotr orefale" mutUarIyTespectful and mutual ly enhanc ing erotic
commu nicatio n, if we prefer relation al pattern s of conque st or
subservience, sadism or masoch ism, or if we are stuck in compul
- My profess ional peers who are my oppone nts on this questio n
sive, inappro priate, and repetiti ve pattern s of action, it is be-
cause we have failed to find the positive power of our own being
as sexual persons. If this is so, no repudia tion of sexuali ty, as such,
will deliver us. Rather, what we need is a deepen ed and more
holistic sense of ourselves that will enable us to grow sexuall y,
to celebrate, and to respect our own sexuali ty and that of others.
Today no Christi an ethics of sexuali ty can straddle the fence or
hedge positive affirma tions with qualifie d Victori an bets of modi-
fied prudery. Too many have learned to celebra te the wondro us
gift of our created being to want to go back on the discovery.
THEOLOGY AND MO RAL ITY
OF PRO CRE ATI VE CHOICE*
With Shirl ey Cloyes
Much discuss ion of abortio n betrays the heavy hand of misog-
yny, the hatred of women . We all have a respons ibility to recog-
nize this bias - sometim es subtle - when ancient negativ e atti-
tudes toward women intrude into the abortio n debate. It is morally
incumb ent on us to convert the Christi an positio n to a teachin
g
more respect ful of women 's concret e history and experie nce.
feel they own the Christi an traditio n in this matter and recogni ze
no need to rethink their position s in the light of this claim. As
a
feminis t, I cannot sit in silence when women 's right to shape the
use of our own procrea tive power is denied. Women 's compet ence
as moral decisio n makers is once again challen ged by the state
even before the moral basis of women 's right to procrea tive choice
has been fully elabora ted a"nd recognized. Those who deny women
control of procrea tive power claim that they do so in defense of
moral sensibility, in the name of the sanctity of human life. We
have a long way to go before the sanctity of human life will in-
clude genuin e regard and concern for every female already born,
and no social policy discuss ion that obscures this fact deserves to
be called moral. We hope the day will come when it will not be
called "Christ ian" either, for the Christi an ethos is the generat ing
source of the current moral crusade to preven t women from gain-
ing control over the most life-sha ping power we possess.
Althou gh I am a Protest ant, my own "moral theolog y" 1 has
more in commo n with a Catholi c approac h than with much neo-
orthodo x ethics of my own traditio n. I want to stress this at the
• This essay was adapted from articles appearin g inth~~:Ju~~~~Iid
1981 issues of Tbe Witness (vol. 64, nos. 7 and 9) and in Edwardf
Septemb er
iatchelor , ed.,
Abortion : Tbe Moral Issues (New York: Pilgrim Press, 1982J.'T
he
author could not face a further revision of this essay, so its greater reluctant
a result of Shirley CIayes's collabora tion. For a fuller discussio n clarity is
of these issues,
see Beverly Wildung H2rrison , Our Rigbt to Cboose: Toward
a New Etbic of
Abortion (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983).
115