Tying the Knot: Gay Marriage

Marriage equality continues to dominate the gay rights debate, both in the United States and abroad. Yet, only 10 countries and 11 U.S. states currently recognize same-sex marriages. Even in the United Kingdom, which has shown strong leadership in international affairs and equal rights movements, gay marriage remains a contentious subject, with many politicians opposing its legalization. The continued controversy over gay marriage in Northern Europe, a bastion of LGBT toleration, is indicative of the movement’s struggles. Meanwhile, Spain and Argentina, with strong Catholic influences, are unexpected countries that legalized gay marriage.

Even more surprising, with the African continent’s historical hostility to gay rights, South Africa legalized gay marriage in 2006. Timothy McCarthy, a Harvard Kennedy School Professor and founding member of President Obama’s National LGBT Leadership Council, told the HPR that, “in the aftermath of the fall of apartheid, there was a nearly unprecedented commitment to reconstructing the country in such a way that no one would become the victim of the kind of repression, violence, prejudice, and discrimination that black South Africans had been subjected to.” Indeed, the horrors of apartheid led to strong demand for protecting all individuals.

Infected: Blood Donations

These advances are evidence that universal marriage equality is a closer possibility than expected, despite the challenges faced. However, less glamorous elements of the gay rights struggle remain unresolved, among them blood donations from gay men. Since the outbreak of the HIV epidemic, most nations have prohibited gay men from donating blood. Chris Viveiros from Fenway Health, a Boston-based health provider for the LGBT community, tells the HPR that this occurs because, “men who have sex with men have higher rates of HIV infection than the general population.” In fact, the Centers for Disease Control reports that gay and bisexual men comprise a majority of new infections, accounting for 61 percent of new HIV transmissions in 2009.

However, many countries have relaxed their policies regarding gay male blood donations. France and Italy, for example, no longer question their donors about their sexual history, and with great struggle activists in Britain reduced the lifelong donor ban on gay men to one year for only those that are sexually active. One important factor in this trend is the realization that other demographic groups are also at increased risk. Thus, singling out all homosexual men for life-long bans imposes an unjust stigma, especially when heterosexuals with HIV-positive partners are not subjected to the same standards. But even though this issue is arguably more scientific than social, some countries have adopted relatively liberal policies: Russia, with its general restrictions on liberty, nevertheless lifted all blood donor restrictions in 2008.

Homosexuality and Transsexuality: A False Dichotomy?         

The area of transsexuality precisely highlights the inconsistency that pervades LGBT policies around the world. In the otherwise liberal country of Sweden, legislation related to gender reassignment surgery has sparked controversy and international attention. Dating back to 1972, Sweden imposes sterilization and divorce upon individuals undertaking gender reassignment surgery. Despite the outdated nature of this policy and clear support from many in government for repealing it, the process has been delayed due to the opposition of a small conservative party in the governing coalition.

Conversely, in Iran, where homosexuality is legally punishable by death, transsexuals enjoy relatively positive treatment. Gender reassignment surgery is preferred over having transgender individuals retain their birth sex. Afsaneh Najmabadi, Harvard Professor of Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality, tells the HPR that a, “sex change [operation] is explicitly framed as the cure for a diseased abnormality, and on occasion it is proposed as a religio-legally sanctioned option for hetero-normalizing people with same-sex desires and practices.” There, transsexuality is viewed as a condition that can be remedied through surgery. While this justification is founded on discriminatory assumptions, it has allowed transsexuals to live safer and more fulfilling lives.

The Future of Gay Rights

The road ahead for international gay rights is characterized by the difficult need to prioritize goals. Marcelo Ferreyra, a program coordinator for the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission, tells the HPR that, “the pace of progress around civil and human rights throughout the world is frequently slow [and] uneven… The right to marriage seems to be in the foreground these days: it is one that affords recognition, dignity and parity to openly love your partner of choice.”

Nevertheless, international trends hint at movement toward a more open dialogue about LGBT rights. Waqas Jawaid, a second year graduate student and an LGBT freshman proctor at Harvard University, spoke to the HPR about the policies in his home country of Pakistan. He notes that, “especially in the cities, there’s a lot of conversation, activism, and support. It has to do with the globalization that has allowed the conversations happening here [in the West] to percolate within the global community, and the cities in Pakistan are part of this global community that has become very accepting.”

Overall, the belief that Uganda and many other countries need fundamental change in their treatment of LGBT individuals is uncontested by many. However, too often advocates forget to fight for closing the gaps in liberal states where other human conditions are satisfactory. By drawing attention to these cases and commending progressive policies wherever they might be found, equality can finally be realized throughout the world.

Source: wkzo.com

The judicial opinion issued Tuesday by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which struck down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional, has charted a new path forward for advocates of marriage equality. Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Romer v. Evans, the Appeals Court ruled that Proposition 8 does not satisfy the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws because it irrationally takes away a right that gays and lesbians had previously enjoyed in the state of California: the right to marry. Tuesday’s narrow ruling, however, skirts the issue of whether the Constitution guarantees a right to same-sex marriage as a matter either of Due Process or Equal Protection. Although the invalidation of Proposition 8 is welcome news, gay rights activists should not settle for this narrow ruling; rather, they should press the judiciary for a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

An Explanation of the Ruling

Bracketing the issue of whether the Constitution requires all states to allow for same-sex marriages, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals instead chose to answer whether voters in California may,

“…single out same-sex couples for unequal treatment by taking away from them alone the right to marry, and [whether] this action amounts to a distinct constitutional violation [since] the Equal Protection Clause [under Romer v. Evans] protects minority groups from being targeted for the deprivation of an existing right without a legitimate reason.”

Backers of Proposition 8 resisted this framing of the issue, insisting that the fact that gays and lesbians enjoyed the right to marry in California for a brief “143-day hiatus,” prior to the passage of Proposition 8, was an irrelevant fact. The Appeals Court disagreed:

“Withdrawing from a disfavored group the right to obtain a designation with significant societal consequences is different from declining to extend the designation in the first place, regardless of whether the right was withdrawn after a week, a year, or a decade. The action of changing something suggests a more deliberate purpose than does the inaction of leaving it as it is.”

The Court then proceeded to scrutinize the purpose and constitutionality of Proposition 8 under an extremely differential standard known as rational basis review, wherein the judges merely ask whether the law under consideration furthers any legitimate state interest. Proponents listed several “ legitimate interests” advanced by Prop 8; the Court struck down every purported interest as irrational. At one point, backers of Prop 8 argued that the purpose of marriage is to reduce the “threat of unintended pregnancies out of wedlock” and so foster “responsible procreation.” Because same-sex couples are not at risk of accidental pregnancies, the argument continued, there is no need to offer them access to the institution of marriage. Further still, proponents also contended that prohibiting same-sex marriage would strengthen “traditional” families. The Court’s response to this claim bordered mockery:

“It is implausible to think that denying two men or two women the right to call themselves married could somehow bolster the stability of families headed by one man and one woman. While deferential, the rational basis standard is not a toothless one. Even the standard of rationality must find some footing in reality.”

Exhausting the list of interests offered by proponents, the Appeals Court concluded that Prop 8 was merely the product of animus and served only to “lessen the status and human dignity” of LGBT people.

What The Ruling Means Moving Forward

Because of the operating structure of the Ninth Circuit, Tuesday’s opinion merely reflects the view of a panel of three judges who sit on the Appeals Court (the vote tally was 2-1, with Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins siding with marriage equality advocates while Judge Smith wrote in dissent). Prop 8 backers will almost certainly appeal their loss, though they have the choice of appealing either to a larger panel of the Ninth Circuit Court (on which sit 11 judges) or of proceeding straight to the Supreme Court. Commentators have speculated that proponents will most likely appeal to the larger panel before requesting review by the High Court.

Once the case reaches the Supreme Court – something that is now almost a certainty – the Justices will have three choices available to them: 1) they can reverse the ruling of the lower Appeals Court and uphold Prop 8 as constitutional, something that is very unlikely given the current makeup of the Court; 2) they can employ the same narrow argument used by the Appeals Court to strike down Proposition 8; or 3) they can strike down Prop 8 with a broad ruling that simultaneously finds a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. The choice of path will undoubtedly fall on the shoulders of the Court’s swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has written passionately in favor of LGBT people in the two landmark gay rights cases the Court has considered (Romer v. Evans 1996 and Lawrence v. Texas 2003). Although Kennedy showed restraint in Romer, his ruling in Lawrence was exceptionally broad, overturning the 1986 case of Bowers v. Hardwick and striking down anti-sodomy statues in 13 states.

A broad ruling in the Prop 8 case by the Supreme Court, along the lines of Lawrence, could legalize same-sex marriage across the country, sticking down anti-gay marriage laws in 37 states and potentially invalidating the federal Defense of Marriage Act in one fell swoop. A narrow ruling along the lines of Tuesday’s Ninth Circuit opinion, by contrast, would only strike down Proposition 8 in California and, presumably, Amendment 1 in Maine – both of which stripped gay people of their right to marry after they had enjoyed the right for a brief interim period.

Several factors will work to determine which path the Supreme Court will take. Perhaps the most significant, however, will be the amicus briefs submitted to the Court by marriage equality advocates. Such briefs assist the Court in reaching an opinion and are typically submitted by advocacy groups or prominent legal scholars. Concerned with a serious public backlash if the Court rules broadly in favor of same-sex marriage, gay activists may purposefully submit briefs that push the Court to issue a narrow ruling. In the wake of the broadly reasoned Lawrence case, for example, state legislatures across the country moved with great speed to pass constitutional amendments and statutory enactments prohibiting same-sex marriage. For this reason, there is worry that another broadly reasoned ruling may do more harm than good and may lead the 37 states that currently reserve the designation of marriage for heterosexual couples to push for a federal constitutional amendment barring gay marriage across the country.

Personally, I am hoping for a broadly reasoned ruling. The threat of amendment to the Federal Constitution is one that should not be taken seriously. Although the number of states that have already prohibited same-sex marriage,37, is perilously close to meeting the threshold required for ratification of a constitutional amendment,38, these are not the only votes that matter. Before such an amendment could be sent to the states, it would require the approval of two thirds of both chambers of Congress. The likelihood of securing such a large swath of votes in both chambers of Congress is, in my view, a near impossibility. Moreover, the other track available for constitutional amendment, which bypasses Congress and instead calls for state constitutional conventions, has never been used in this nation’s 230-year history. There is no reason to suppose a federal marriage amendment would prove the exception.

What is more, the idea that a state-by-state push for gay marriage represents a long-term strategy for equality is absolute nonsense. In a couple of years, campaigners for marriage equality will exhaust the list of states that have not amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage. Once this happens, the only option left to activists will be to propose constitutional amendments that nullify the previously enacted anti-gay amendments (since courts and legislatures in states constitutionally prohibiting same-sex marriage are barred from taking up the issue). This cumbersome process will take decades, if not a generation. The reality is that, at some point, the Supreme Court will have to wield its power to strike down these state constitutional amendments if marriage equality is to be a reality across this nation in our lifetime. The question is whether that moment is now, or a couple of years from now.

Waiting for a future case is risky business. There are essentially five votes on the Court right now sympathetic to marriage equality. These votes, however, are not the votes of young justices. In particular, gay activists may soon lose the vote of Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is quickly approaching retirement. If a more conservative justice is appointed as her replacement, the opportunity to legalize same-sex marriage nationally will be lost for quite some time. Marriage equality is an issue that should be resolved now. To this end, lawyers in the Prop 8 case, as well as groups submitting amicus briefs, should press the Supreme Court for a broadly reasoned opinion. Suggesting we wait a few more decades before fully pressing the Court on this matter is a luxury only the young have. For the generation of gays and lesbians who rioted in front of Stonewall in 1969 and who have purchased progress with their blood and sweat, there is no more time. If marriage equality is to be a national reality in their lifetime, the Supreme Court must decide on the matter sooner rather than later. And if that means an intense public reaction, so be it.

Photo Credit: Episcopal Digital Network

A fringe-sect family crosses the street in Beit Shemesh.

Marina opens a very compelling feminist take on civil unrest in a religious Israeli town by writing, “As a Jew, a liberal, and a lover of the State of Israel, it is with great sadness that I reflect on what has transpired over the last few days in Beit Shemesh, Israel.” As a friend, I know that Marina and I share very similar feelings about Jewish identity and State of Israel – and despite differences in degree and flavor, belong to the same general tradition of Enlightenment liberalism. However, her examination of the situation in Beit Shemesh hints at a stark difference in the priorities of our different liberalisms.

Beit Shemesh presents a classic paradox for good contemporary liberals the world over: the row between ultra-Orthodox and secular Israelis is a conflict between an illiberal minority group and a basically liberal majority. Like many present-day problems of religion in society, this case puts the liberal sympathy for minority cultural preservation at direct odds with universal liberal values like women’s rights, freedom of conscience, and creativity.

From her treatment of the subject, it seems as though Marina privileges the relativistic side of the Beit Shemesh issue quite a bit more than I would. I’m writing to tell you why – amidst her very important argument – she misses the point, by partially forgiving the people who would much sooner throw rocks at her than thank her for defending their perspective on femininity.

I don’t mean to wax Manichaean: most Haredim, like most people of any kind, think that they’re doing the right thing and are perfectly pleasant on an individual level. But I have nothing for their community’s intolerance but equally sharp intolerance in return. I’m of the Christopher Hitchens/Ayaan Hirsi Ali school of liberalism (not at all neatly conterminous with American political liberalism), which is unafraid to privilege liberalism and its practitioners over the atavistic illiberalism of religious and cultural fundamentalists. Remember, neither side of this exchange between my friend and me would be possible in Beit Shemesh, or in Mecca for that matter. Nor would this magazine’s publication. Point being, I’m not ashamed to say that our culture is superior to theirs.

If there’s one good thing about the degree of religious polarization in Israel’s Jewish population, it’s that most non-Orthodox Jews would probably agree with my assertions – at least in private. I implore them to go public, as some have begun to in the streets of Beit Shemesh and Jerusalem. More critical to Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state than conflict with Arabs beyond the Green Line or unequal birthrates within it is the threat posed by a Haredi minority growing in size (thanks to massive government welfare for large families), political influence, and disregard for civil behavior.

In a society where atheists constitute about a quarter of the total population, the Haredi political parties manage to wrest absurdly illiberal concessions from the government, like the closure of public transportation on the Sabbath, the removal of women’s images from billboards in the nation’s capital, and the toleration of de facto modesty laws for women in select neighborhoods. It’s no wonder that secular protestors have taken to chanting, “This is Israel, not Iran!”

And as their community leaders have repeated time and again, Haredim hope and expect to take over Israel within a few generations. Never mind wondering how the state would earn its keep (sympathetic right-wing Russian-Israeli oligarchs in gated Tel Aviv suburbs?) or maintain its massive defense infrastructure (African mercenaries?) – a Haredi Israel would become a place highly hostile to Arabs, women, gays, foreign laborers, and ordinary secular Jews like Marina and me. It’s hard to imagine either of us continuing to identify as ‘lovers of the State of Israel’ if the Jewish state were to join the ranks of Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Marina is right to note that the West is far from blameless in its routine objectification of women as sex objects. But let’s not rush to draw equivalencies: in Israel, as in all Western countries, women are expected to govern their own affairs, make their own decisions about sexuality and family, and dress however they damned well please. This rarely comes without a small dose of paternalistic flak, but the notional equality of women finds support in every corner of liberal Western society.

I don’t for a second buy the Haredi rationalization (or other religious conservatives’ rationalizations) of protecting modesty as a means to liberate women from Western objectification – it’s a cheap ex post facto argument crafted for the ears of gullible liberal relativists. A matter of anthropological fact: from time immemorial, fathers have been shutting their daughters up in towers, draping them in veils, suffocating them with corsets, and cauterizing their genitalia in order to signal possession, chastity, and restriction of movement. The invocation of the Abrahamic god in the matter changes nothing. Because conservative religions create an air of forbidden sexual mystique around femininity, women walking the streets of north Jerusalem and Cairo in modest clothes face notoriously worse harassment than women walking the streets of Stockholm and Sydney in ‘immodest’ clothes.

For the sake of women, Israel, and the forward march of human progress, we must not fall into the trap of relativism – which privileges group norms over individual opportunity. This is not an easy commandment: to be sure, it’s against the basic nature of liberals to be uncompromising. But let’s be proud to admit that an open, liberal society is the best kind of society – lest we be outbred by people who think otherwise.

Harvard FML, the addicting symposium of academic and sexual frustration, shows that not much has changed in the 120 years since Frank Wedekind’s “Spring Awakening” was written. There are posts about pregnancy scares and abuse. There are frustrating questions submitted to the void about not knowing if Harvard is “worth it,” about ignorance and depression.

However, there seems to be something strange about one of the first college productions of “Spring Awakening” taking place in the People’s Republic of Cambridge; in a considerably liberal college environment, the issues that were viewed as so taboo in 1891 such as masturbation, sex and even general rebellion against society become that much harder to present as “controversial.” Most people at Harvard have a good knowledge about what sex is, and pre-marital sex is generally accepted as a fact of life. Therefore, it is interesting that the most-charged moment in the musical’s performance at OBERON was between the two homosexual characters, Hänschen and Ernst. It brings back the observation first shared with me by a professor in a class on capitalism and democracy in the former Soviet bloc: Great art is made easier by oppression.

Take Melchior Gabor, for instance. He is the protagonist of the musical, an academic superstar who cares not a whit about his perfect Trigonometry and Latin record. He instead spends his time scribbling about the adult society that suppresses him in the form of his draconian instructor. There is Moritz Stiefel, who struggles with his studies because of insomnia-inducing sexual dreams. There is Wendla Bergmann, who could be on the TV Show “I’m Pregnant and I Didn’t Know It.” However, in a 21st century context, all of these struggles are hardly taboo. Masturbation and sex are not unmentionable topics, and creative endeavors and radical social thought are not viewed as destructive.

Therefore, when the audience experiences a moment between two male German youths, Hänschen and Ernst, some of the real “forbidden” aspect finally comes through in the acting. An entire play, built on the relationship of two heterosexual characters, holds but one five-minute interlude of something that truly is rebellious in the 21st century.

I think this unearths a question that has a nebulous answer: Should plays and musicals only chronicle things that have yet to be breached? Is there a place for more dated stories such as Porgy and Bess (another recent A.R.T. production) or, indeed, Spring Awakening, which was immensely controversial at the time of its writing? And, in a related vein, is it a more personal, subjective experience that makes one scene seem more controversial than the next? I hail from rural Texas, in a town where pre-marital sex was viewed as in much of the country: a fact of life. Homosexuality, on the other hand, was viewed as grounds for harassment.

Yet keeping this more contemporary bias in mind, it still stands that the audience has a remarkable ability to engage with drama on the work’s own terms—no matter how far removed from the present. “Les Miserables” still makes audiences bawl the world over even though no one is really dying on the barricades. “The Lion King” holds the spot as many individuals’ favorite musical even though the characters live in a world unfathomable in the modern era. So it is interesting that “Spring Awakening” was unable to convince my theatre-going compatriots and I that the relationship between Melchior and Wendla was forbidden instead of inevitable. It could be the particular production; it could be the story itself. But nevertheless, I wonder how far the dramatic envelope can really be pushed within the play’s antique, more Puritanical parameters.

—

SPRING AWAKENING SUMMARY:

Last Wednesday, a Harvard student production of “Spring Awakening” ( premiered at OBERON. The rock musical, which chronicles sexually blossoming German youths, predictably skyrocketed to national prominence in 2007 when it grabbed eight Tony Awards including Best Musical.

In his article, Max responds to a post by Tyler Cowen where Cowen compares the right of an individual to engage in unprotected sex to an individual’s right to borrow money at high risk.  Max rather misses the point and defends sex in general (instead of just unprotected sex) against the evils of risky lending and Capitalism.  Max’s indignation about the comparison and passionate appeals to the moral superiority of sex over market transactions largely drowns out a valid point.  Why do we allow risks in the bedroom but not in the boardroom?  Furthermore, and much to Max’s presumed chagrin, I found his article provoked quite a few connections between sex and Capitalism.

Max starts off by pointing out the obvious; sex is not APR financing.  I could be wrong, but I doubt Cowen ever meant having sex was literally like taking out a loan. If so, someone should tell him he’s doing it wrong. More likely, Cowen was comparing the financial risks involved in payday loans and the sexually transmitted risks involved in unprotected sex.   Yet only a superficial look at most payday loan recipients shows that the vast majority understand the risks and pay back the loan when due.  In fact, the removal of payday loans hurts the borrowers as well as the lenders (why would they take out a payday loan if they didn’t need it?) Even the New York Fed does not consider payday loans “predatory.”

Cowen’s point is a good one.  When two consenting adults can engage in risky behavior with their personal lives why not with their livelihoods?  To allow one but not the other would suggest the government cares less about your health risks than your wealth risks.  How shallow!

Then Max goes on to make his larger point, “love-making is not a market transaction.”  This is not exactly a controversial claim but let’s see how he proceeds to justify it.  Unlike in the free market, he argues, love is not meant for profit or pleasure maximization on the individual basis.

Well frankly, I find this point arguable.  Consider love without individual interest or selfish motivation.  That makes for a rather awkward Valentine’s Day; “Roses are red, violets are blue, I take no pleasure or profit from being with you.”

Max further maintains that the risk of unprotected sex is a “a byproduct of something otherwise wholesome and a demonstrably positive sum.” The same can be said about risky financial decisions. Any trip to the New York Stock Exchange shows that borrowing can also be a ‘demonstrably positive sum.’  The free market, or as Robert Nozick famously described it, “Capitalist acts between consenting adults,” can be a beautiful thing.

Now I’m not saying that Greg Mankiw wrote the book on love, but I do think love has both value and conditions like any other market transaction.  One thing I took away from my intro economics course is that money is nominal, not real.  So let’s substitute other values for money.  It sounds morally repugnant to put a price on someone’s head but it’s safe to say that you value the one you love.  Now the value may be beyond money, but there are still conditions.  The condition to love someone is, as Josh Groban puts it, ’You’re still you,’ or ‘he’s still him,’ ‘she’s still her’ and ‘it’s still it’ (in some circles).  This condition must stand.  Imagine the person you love with one less identifying feature of their personality.  For example, they gain weight or change political parties.  You would still love them probably (depending on which political party) but imagine them without any recognizable feature of their previous self.  Of course you would no longer love them. In fact, you would probably stop loving that person long before they became a completely different person.  Why? Because love has conditions.  That’s what makes it love.  Imagine the reverse; what if you loved someone without conditions.  You would still love “them” if they had the emotional or intellectual depth of a sponge!  Now that is the devaluation of love.

The way I see it, economics is ultimately the study of incentives and I simply cannot think of a greater incentive than sex or love.  Max goes so far as to call “sex without consequences” the “anticapitalist experience par excellence.”  Well I think sex with consequences is what makes it love, and love with a hint of Capitalism makes it the summum bonum.

Photo Credit:   Sarah Siskind

The unprotected sex is riskier and less prudent than borrowing money at an annualized rate of two hundred percent.  Why prohibit one and not the other? Many of the borrowers are being fooled, but others have legitimate reasons to seek the money, such as wanting to buy a birthday present for a visit to one’s child, living with a separated spouse.

On a prima facie level, I think it’s fairly obvious that making love to a woman (or a man) is not like taking out a high interest loan from a payday loan boutique. There are a lot of ways I can think that sex differs from 200% APR loans…but the way that counts here is basically a category issue. In short: love making is not a market transaction.

For one, you shouldn’t assume that your consensual partner is pursuing a profit or pleasure maximizing strategy. Some partners might be, but they’re the exceptions that prove the rule. For the most part, lovers are couple-regarding: they’re interested in maximizing the pleasure of both parties, not themselves alone, and especially not one at the expense of another.

That’s obviously not true of payday lenders, whose very business model depends on the suffering of their clients. They exploit information asymmetries and pray on the people least able to make good decisions, in order to maximize their revenue. With sex, risk is a byproduct of something otherwise wholesome and demonstrably positive sum; with payday lending, one party’s suffering is a core feature of the larger system it exists within.

This whole rather ridiculous debate speaks to a larger issue with economics as an analytical tool. The fact is, transaction models are not the appropriate metaphor for love, or love-making, or friendship, or any of that. No matter how many books Cowen writes, that still will be true. The very fact that danger incurred by one partner in unprotected sex is shared by the danger incurred by the other, in a roughly symmetrical way, indicates the larger point that sex between men and women / men and men / women and women is consensual and other-regarding in a way that buying something from a firm can never be. To capture the essence of that non-utility maximizing connectivity — that Oneness, as some might call it — you need to get very far away from economics, towards something like art or religion.

Maybe the best way to end this is to just quote at length from Mark Greif’s piece On Repressive Sentimentalism, from N+1. (Harvard Magazine’s take on the journal here, if you’re unfamiliar). To me, this piece is deeply flawed in a number of ways, but he’s dead right when he says the following. Note, this gets us very far away from payday loans…but that’s sort of the whole point, isn’t it?

You have to defend sex because we still have no better model than the actual, concrete sexual relation for a deep intuitive process opposed to domination. We have no better model for a bodily process that, fundamentally, is free and universal. It does not produce (there is no experiential remainder but pleasure) nor consume. It is cooperative (within the relation of the lovers) and, in that relation, seems to forbid competition. It makes you love people, and accept the look and difference of their bodies. Production comes back in with pregnancy and “labor”—that’s why contraception means so much. Competition can come back in with the conquest of partners, and a brutality or technical objectivity in lovemaking that allows men to remake cooperation as if it were struggle—hence utopians’ funny, sentimental insistence on love in the act. Sexual cooperation is the other side of our basic human nature, and matches and disarms economic competition….

“Sex without consequences” becomes the metaphor for cooperative exchange without gain or loss. For basing life on the things that are free. For the anticapitalist experience par excellence.

Photo credit: Katu

This call for solidarity is in the same spirit of mischevious defiance against extremism as Jon Stewart’s response (the “go f*** yourselves now” choir) and the decisions of newspapers across the world to reprint the Danish Muhammad cartoons in 2005, but it also seems just a little gratuitous. The right to freedom of expression is a beautiful thing, but do we need to beat all (or most) Muslims over the head with it to prove that point? Part of the humor of the South Park episode was that Muhammad was only perceived to be the figure in the bear suit; it turned out to be Santa Claus in the end.

When  I imagine the depictions that are likely to emerge from this contest, I tend to think that they will be more like the painting of the Virgin Mary covered in elephant dung that so enraged Christians back in the pre-9/11 era.

We all have a right to free speech, including speech which denigrates religious figures, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t have a modicum of respect for people who have a legitimate reason to be offended. I don’t agree with most restrictions on hate speech, and I certainly don’t believe that anyone has a “right not to be offended,” but that doesn’t mean that I go around shouting racial slurs at people.