Society for Sacred Sexuality

Gary Joseph · Posted: August 9, 2004

This Topic presents the legal issues involved in allowing lawful sacred sex instruction by certified teachers for hire. In addition, this Topic offers a forum for discussing these points.

This Topic is for debating legal points ONLY; to discuss/debate the issue itself (i.e. whether sacred sex instruction for hire should be legal), post a reply in the Sister Topic in this Forum. To discuss certification issues for teachers, use the Voting Topic.

-----------------

Idea

The Society for Sacred Sexuality's position on this issue is that sacred sex is distinct from common sex both in method (how it is practiced) and in its effects (resulting experience and impact on individual & social life). Both these distinctions are verifiable and measurable. Sacred sex therefore merits distinct and appropriate legislation governing it.

America is founded on individual rights & freedoms. These belong to the people unless they infringe upon the rights of others or social harm results. Since adult consensual sex does not infringe on the rights of others, prostitution and similar sex laws are based on the pretext of negative social impact. However, sacred sex has only beneficial impact, therefore justification for restricting individual rights is unfounded.

Distinctions between common sex and sacred sex:

Method - sacred sex uses various methods including conscious breathwork, creative visualization, therapeutic sound, meditation, muscle techniques, and semen retention for men.

Effects - sacred sex produces positive benefit in three areas: personal experience & growth, physical health & healing, and social attitudes & behavior.

Personal experience & growth: sacred sex brings about distinct mental states that can be measured by EEG brain wave activity. These subjective states are similar to spiritual experiences described in documented studies of other meditative disciplines. Similar emotional growth is likely verifiable through personality studies.

This heightened subjective experience translates into measurable personal growth in areas of self-esteem and personality integration. It also promotes healthy sexuality as evidenced by reduced sexual addiction and deviance.

Physical health & healing: sacred sex brings about measurable biochemical changes in the body (distinct from common sex) and overall vitality and rejuvenation. It also proves effective in treating specific conditions of sexual dysfunction, and in healing sexual abuse.

Social attitudes & behavior: the personal growth mentioned above leads to measurable social benefit in several areas, including more positive attitudes toward the opposite sex, improved gender & marital relations, reduced domestic violence and abuse, and reduced tendency toward sexual harassment, aggression, and violence, including assault/rape.

These values clearly and concretely benefit individuals, families, and society as a whole, in sharp contrast to the negative social influence of common sex for hire that is used to justify current sex laws.

The above positive effects of sacred sex benefit both client and instructor alike. Again this contrasts with the perceived negative effects on professionals engaged in common sex for hire.

We invite scientific study to verify these distinctions, and also discussion of other areas of distinction. Beyond that, we advocate public education to inform society and legislators of this distinction, and encourage new laws more specifically tailored to minimize negative social impact while allowing for sex-positive teachings.

Supporting Precedents:

Legal acceptance of sexual touch - Joseph Kramer, director of The New School of Erotic Touch in California, he has received State of California approval for a curriculum in Therapeutic Genital Touch, and offers a program where people can get licensed to do therapeutic genital touch in California.
(User Gayle Michaels provided this information to the Society.)

Sex-positive workers recognized by medical professionals - Sexual surrogates, professional sex workers who treat clients for dysfunction, abuse, and other medically diagnosed conditions, likely share our position on existing sex laws (though perhaps on purely medical grounds). These practitioners, while not legally recognized, work with the approval and under the professional guidance of licensed medical doctors and psychologists (for reference, see www.surrogatepartners.org ). Thus many educated and trained professionals acknowledge the positive value of sexual interaction in prescribed ways.

While not a legal precedent, this shows other professional sex workers, as well as medically trained professionals have similar arguments against current sex law.

Gayle Michaels · Posted: August 11, 2004

...that in order to win this lawsuit, you would have to convince the government that the public is protected from STDs.

Right now, the CDC says abstinence is the only way to protect yourself from HPV. Condoms won't work. If this is correct, then apparently genital warts are congregating at the base of the penis and the opening of the vagina.

It is a fact that many people are spreading HPV without even knowing it because genital warts are contagious long before they get big enough to be seen with the naked eye.

Your most difficult obstacle, in my opinion, is how to overcome the public health risk objection, if you want sacred sex for money to be legal. Personally, I'm not sure if it is possible to have sacred sex and charge for it. But that's another issue for another board. Sacred sex education, however, is already legal. There is no restriction on the sharing of information about sacred sex.

If you were to win, it would also be important to craft alternative legislation to replace the arcane laws that are on the books now, or the next thing we know legislators would be come up with new laws that are just as ridiculous as the old ones.

Imagine undercover cops posing as clients to make sure sacred sex workers use condoms. Imagine sacred sex workers having to spend one day per week at the health department, and 25% of their income obtaining documents to prove they don't have VD.

Pardon my Orwellian paranoia, but this is the kind of thing that happens when the government feels the need to regulate an industry.

It is important for sacred sex workers to self-regulate and work within the existing framework, considering both the letter of the law and the intentions of the lawmakers.

It would be more difficult for the Supreme Court to rule against you on the grounds that the public must be protected from communicable diseases, if absolute safety were an industry standard across the board, as it should be.

Sacred Sex Workers must do no harm.

The public must be educated with regard to the need for and the presence of legitimate and ethical sex workers in society.

Legislators must be educated on why a change in the existing law makes sense. They will have to be convinced that passing the legislation won't cost them any votes, or their jobs, as in the case of judges who are appointed and legislating from the bench.

The industry itself needs to craft new laws that make sense and really protect the public.

There is also a desperate need for simple hands-on adult sex education that doesn't necessarily include sacred sex philosophy. Agnostics and athiests aren't particularly interested in finding God through sex, but they need to learn how to have better sex.

There is a distinct human rights violation for handicapped people, many of whom live out their entire lives with no sexual contact at all. Sexuality is a significant and important aspect of the human experience. Laws against prostitution make it more difficult for handicapped people, who cannot find a sexual partner, to feel integrated and whole as human beings.

If you were to get the prostitution laws re-examined, there is still another
challenge. Have you read the laws about therapeutic interaction?

They were designed to prevent psychologists and psychiatrists from having sex with clients. Essentially it is considered sexual assault to have sex with a person, once you've taken money from that person for any kind of therapeutic treatment. And it doesn't matter whether the client initiates and wants to have sex with you or not. I believe people can actually go to prison for this.

Why are people so afraid of sex?
Because of pregnancy and deadly diseases...

Gary Joseph · Posted: August 16, 2004

These are good points; I'd like to respond to each.

1) Public Health Issues - while public health is certainly a valid concern and may justify curbing individual rights to protect social welfare, it is not the point of contention in this challenge -- money is.

If one wants to argue that sex, whether protected or unprotected, is a public health threat due to communicable disease, and therefore that individual rights to engage in it should be restricted to protect society, then ALL sex - paid or unpaid - must be prohibited (except in monogamous relationships where both parties have been tested). This includes all casual, consensual sex.

By the same token, the following must be illegal due to public health risks and other social harm: cigarette sales, all gambling (inc. state lotteries), pesticide use on crops, fast food & food ingredients with known health risks, pollution-emitting cars, etc., etc. Even sending your sick kid to school is a public health threat.

If an individual freedom is restricted due to some social concern, than that act must be prohibited whether you pay for it or not. The fact that a client pays a sacred sex instructor for services doesn't increase the likelihood of disease.

2) Crafting Alternative Legislation - I agree completely. Ultimately the responsibility must fall to the lawmakers, but we can & should present an outline of such law first to show that it can be done, and second as a framework on which to open legal debate.

(It's worth pointing out that parts of Nevada that have legalized common sex for hire have successfully drafted laws regulating it.)

3) Self-Regulation vs. Government Regulation - I think a proper balance between these two will evolve over time. Certainly it's in the workers' and the industry's own interest to self-regulate -- each worker will seek to protect him/herself from disease. That supports self-regulation and also strengthens the case that it is not a public health concern.

Some recent news this year (2004) shows an interesting point: the adult industry in California temporarily nearly shut itself down over 3 or 4 cases of HIV (apparently picked up in Brazil where protective measures are less in place). Aside from the efficiency of the shutdown (far greater than most government operations), the news was significant for what HASN'T happened -- namely a huge outbreak of STD's due to the multi-billion dollar adult industry's activities over the last two decades. In fact, this was only the first or second outbreak of any size in it's history; none have been significant.

This is not to condone or defend the adult industry, it's just to disprove the notion that sexual freedom equals more disease.

Whether the adult industry is self-regulated (probably) or government-regulated, I don't know. In the case of sacred sex, it is likely to begin with more regulation, then ease up as experience shows it's safe.

Regardless, this is a secondary issue that must be addressed AFTER a favorable court ruling; it doesn't/shouldn't impact the ruling itself.

4) Public & Government Education as to the Value of Sacred Sex - This is certainly useful and helpful, but ultimately, if the courts decide it is unconstitutional to prohibit it, lawmakers must abide. As for judges fearful of losing jobs over this, hopefully they are above that, but in case those in lower courts are not, our ultimate recourse in the Supreme Court is before justices appointed for life.

The Supreme Court typically isn't afraid of controversial rulings, especially in the area of individual freedoms. If I recall, Hustler's Larry Flynt won a Supreme Court ruling protecting his freedom of expression. Certainly sacred sex offers more social benefit than that!

5) Benefits to Individuals with Otherwise Restricted Sex-Lives - I agree with your point and it strengthens our case, however the benefits are not exclusive to sacred sex (though other similar-type benefits may be). While they may help argue the case, they don't ultimately justify general legalization of sacred sex instruction for hire.

6) Sexual Exchange in the Context of Paid Therapy - This is certainly a valid issue that must be addressed in the regulation of sacred sex instruction and/or by certification of teachers. But I would argue that if a client agrees to see a sacred sex instructor who includes sexual exchange as a method of teaching, then that is a conscious choice the client makes and there can be no question of manipulation by the instructor after that choice is made.

Perhaps sacred sex workers will be required to identify themselves to potential clients as sexual or non-sexual instructors, so that those who wish to ensure there is no sexual exchange can feel safe.

I also think there must be some distinction between educator/instructors and therapist. A sacred sex client comes to learn new practices & techniques (that these may have therapeutic value is incidental, even if one of those benefits inspired the client to learn). In contrast, one sees a psychologist to solve a problem, for which the counselor 'gets into the client's head' where he/she can presumably manipulate them into a sexual encounter.

I realize there may be some gray areas that need to be looked at more closely, such as when clients come to sacred sex instructors for help with relationship problems, sexual dysfunction, etc., but I think that ultimately, the choice to enter into a relationship with a sexual instructor who teaches sexual practices through sexual exchange eliminates any question of manipulation.

Even in rape cases, which are far more coercive than what we are discussing here (at least on a physical level), defendants are often acquitted if evidence of consensual agreement is there. Requesting sexual instruction of this kind must qualify as that. Certainly if a client specifically declines sexual exchange and an instructor coerces them into it, that is an entirely different matter to be dealt with by existing assault laws. But that results from a complaint filed by the client, not automatically on account of the therapeutic relationship.

I'm curious to know if these laws apply to ALL types of therapy; for example, it would seem unjust if a massage or physical therapist and his/her client were prohibited from having consensual relations.

I invite users to comment/respond to all these points.

Gary Joseph · Posted: May 2, 2006

Another point that may carry some weight in arguing this case is to point out the distinction between the spirit or intent of the law, and the letter of it.

Sex laws are enacted to protect against individual victimization and degrading social influence. If sacred sex instruction results in neither of these, yet is restricted by the letter of laws relating to such issues, then the laws need to be more specifically defined. They should prohibit the types of sexual exchange that do create these negative issues, while protecting the freedom to engage in sexual exchange that produces positive benefit for individuals and society.