MARCH 29 — There is ongoing controversy over the Federal Court’s ruling which rendered unconstitutional a provision in the Selangor Shariah law criminalising unnatural sex.
Our country’s antagonism towards and policing of LGBQT activities is one of many symptoms of some institutional need to police how people have sex (without, tragically, doing much about child marriages).
One can only imagine the amount of time, man-power and documentation expended to dictate what people do with each other’s bodies.
But let’s not spend so much time on the motives behind the need to manage and rule over people’s sexual preferences based on a pre-determined view of what’s considered “natural.”
Let’s talk instead about the effectiveness of such policing and, also, ask what is “natural” about sex anyway.
In other words, are people actually motivated away from so-called “deviancy” because of laws? And is there anything “natural” about human sexual practices in the first place?
Spoiler alert: It’s “No” to both.
1. Policing the erotic tends to eroticise the “crime” being policed.
Try to tell people they’re not allowed to love in a certain way and you may as well try to put out a fire by dousing it with RON95.
Prohibit a transgression, especially an erotic transgression and you’ll make the transgressors (or would-be transgressors) yearn even more for “it.”
This is why virtually all attempts to stamp out this “problem” tends to back-fire.
For the nature of sexual desire is one of liminality ie it’s about “crossing lines” (in every tantalising sense of the word). Human sexuality involves taking risks (will our friendship be damaged if I declare my affection for her?), taking leaps (whatever her “answer”, things will never be the same), switching categories (after today, I am her “boyfriend”) and so on.
Granted the Shariah Council aims to protect sexual boundaries. In fact, I can’t imagine any traditional religion not attempting at least something similar.
The esteemed members of the Shariah court may succeed in punishing one “inappropriate” liaison but that won’t stop many other couples.
Intimacy is a tough deal to handle; wielding the strong arm of the law is practically the least effective way to go about it.
As a Christian, I’m not about to publicly promote LGBQT sex but neither— crucially — do I feel I have a right to publicly condemn anybody who doesn’t practice heterosexual or “traditional” sex.
It is, quite literally, none of my business how two consenting adults have sex.
We can discuss. We can debate. We can dialogue. And we must.
Hence, my second axiom which I’ll phrase in the form of a question:
2. What counts as “natural” sex anyway?
Isn’t the very process of human romantic courtship sorta unnatural?
Do we see dogs flirting before, quite nervously, asking each other out for an “official” date?
Do we observe cats blushing when another cat they find attractive pays attention to them, only for them to later agonise over “what the other may have meant” by brushing its tail against it?
Of course we don’t, but aren’t ALL the above part and parcel of how people express their sexual desires, and aren’t they all completely “unnatural”?
Or, when we so severely punish what we consider “unnatural” sex, shall we only limit it to physical copulation, as if human sexuality is exclusively about the act of intercourse (and nothing more)?
Doesn’t the sexual act include elements like kissing, licking, biting, sucking, talking dirty and all sorts of strange “positions” (which heterosexual couples also do) which would stretch the use of the word “natural”?
Isn’t the exclusive focus on the act of intercourse itself, in fact, a very NON-HUMAN way of thinking about sex?
Therefore, to draw up criminal legislation based on one group’s understanding of “natural” is, well, anachronistic (to say the least).
One final note: Am I therefore saying that all kinds of sexual relations should be permissible?
Again, it’s none of my business how people want to love each other. But, more importantly, sex and sexuality is something that cannot and should not be an issue for legislation UNLESS we’re talking about protecting the vulnerable (hence, issues like child marriage, rape, etc.)
Let’s quit using the law to make our version of morality — especially in relation to what people do in their bedrooms — the only acceptable one in the land.
* This is the personal opinion of the columnist.
