Last week the issue of “sexual maturity” was introduced and the conclusion today commences with an exploration of the roots of our immaturity.
There are many roots of sexual immaturity and one of the most obvious is also the most controversial – religion.
It is difficult to speak to this issue without speaking to religion and, of course, without “mashing corns”. Nevertheless, something needs to be said about the role of religion in society and why we need to be careful to identify a role for the church and a separate one for the state.
Religion has always fundamentally spoken to the ideal or the “ought”, while the state has a responsibility to chart a course based on human realities which are often very different. The Catholic position is rooted in the assumption that people “ought” to have sex for the purpose of procreation and even then, only after a marriage ceremony performed in the church, in the sight of God.
The reality, however, “is” that the vast majority of people who get married today had been having sex long before they were married and will continue to have sex long after without any intention to conceive on most occasions.
Indeed, the reality is that it appears that most of us have a variety of sexual partners before marriage and, in many instances, during and after, if indeed we bother to get married at all. This is the reality of life today and while this type of behaviour is not necessarily always good, the world is not a perfect place either.
So the question is: do we premise our development on the wish for a perfect world or do we plan for our development based on an appreciation of what is likely so that we would be prepared?
In light of our imperfection, governments do have some options which are undeniably controversial. In the case of Barbados, we have occasionally been progressive as reflected in our approach to the issue of abortion. Prior to 1983 a woman who fell pregnant had two options, which were to either have the child, or risk her life under the knife of some medical practitioner who was ill-equipped to perform a successful abortion.
Again, here, we have a clash of the “is” and the “ought” since women (and men) “ought” not to get pregnant unless they are prepared for the baby, but it “is” a fact that they do. In such circumstances, an unplanned pregnancy can impact negatively on their development to the point that they would risk their lives to receive a backstreet abortion.
Doctors also “ought” not to perform abortions in circumstances where it is illegal, but a combination of concern for their patients’ well-being and the financial incentives are such that the backstreet abortion was as much of a reality as the fact that women would routinely bleed to death after such operations.
Thankfully, a brave and mature Government went to Parliament in 1983 with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill which was promptly passed into law. As such, Barbados was able to address that social issue.
We can still debate the moral basis of abortion and indeed we always will. There will be women who will never be comfortable with the idea of having an abortion and there will be some for whom an unwanted pregnancy will be a greater threat. This legislation does not attempt to change the mind of the person in the former category, but it ensures that the woman in the latter category will not bleed to death in a corner.
Another evolving issue related to our sexual maturity is currently being championed by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which has articulated a Declaration of Sexual Rights. The declaration is grounded in “core international human rights instruments, authoritative interpretations and additional entitlements related to human sexuality” and is clearly long overdue.
The concept of sexual rights completes the picture of human development since it has finally acknowledged that sexual expression is innate to our humanity and central to human happiness.
In politics we speak of ontological needs because we try to understand the motivation of people to behave in various ways and appreciate that the pursuit of such needs will always motivate human behaviour.
Similarly, we have finally started to appreciate that sexual expression is very much central to our existence and expression as people. In instances where we are prevented from pursuing our sexual identities, we might well react in the same way that we react when we are deprived of food or sleep with the logical implications.
The appreciation that there is a realm of sexual rights speaks directly to instances in Barbadian society where our sexual maturity is sophisticated, as well as instances in which it still operates in the dark ages. The 1982 Family Law Act reflects a modern appreciation of what could be considered sexual rights, since this allows the couple to determine the type of arrangement that is best suited to them and conveys the state’s blessing.
The same cannot be said, however, about our state’s attitude towards same-sex relations which continues to be based on Victorian laws and understandings of how humans “ought” to behave. Ironically, we are constantly told about what is normal sexual behaviour, forgetting that there is evidence of homosexual behaviour in biblical times and during every phase of human development since then.
As is the case with earlier references to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, this reflection of our sexual immaturity has already had significant social consequences and perhaps we “ought” to learn an important lesson from this.
• Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES).
