Topics Sex

Question Why is sex (a legal act) censored to a much higher degree than extreme violence (an illegal act)?

Accepted:
December 7, 2005

Comments

A full answer, I suspect, is evolutionary and not merely cultural. Sex is pretty universally a more private activity than, say, eating. (I'm not the one to tell you why this is so, but I gather that it is.) By contrast, it's hard to see how hunting and warfare, which are obvious sources of our attitudes towards violence, could or would be carried out in much privacy. And it's not surprising that our culture (or any culture) might be more squeamish about publicizing private acts than public ones. But even if this does explain the greater censorship of sex than violence, it's not clear (as the statement of your question implies) that this should be so.

I agree with Joseph Moore's insight, but have some reservations about the question itself. As squeamish as our own culture is about sex, I think it would not be wise to generalize this fact about our culture to all others at all times. The varieties of practices and taboos across cultures can be striking. The degree to which prostitution, for example, is anathematized in our own culture is not at all to be found in many other cultures. For the ancient Greeks, prostitution was entirely socially acceptable ("everything in moderation" still applied, of course), whereas free males were expected never to commit oral sex (on any sex partner, male or female).

Most cultures are completely intolerant of extreme violence against the members of that culture, and the punishments for murder, for example, are generally much more severe than any sanctions put on (especially legal) sex acts. So I do not think I accept the assumption behind the question.

Question Why is sex (a legal act) censored to a much higher degree than extreme violence (an illegal act)? Accepted:December 7, 2005

Question Why is sex (a legal act) censored to a much higher degree than extreme violence (an illegal act)?

Accepted:
December 7, 2005