What would happen if our right to abortion hinged on the right to sexual pleasure rather than on a penumbra? Ecuador might just find out.

Maria Soledad Vela, a member of Ecuador’s Constituent Assembly, a

committee tasked with the job of rewriting the nation’s constitution, made international news

recently by proposing that a woman’s right to sexual happiness be written into

the constitution. To the surprise of

exactly no one, this suggestion caused some humorous overreactions from fellow

Ecuadorian politicians, mostly

male. One suggested the law was a

mandate that women have orgasms, supposedly a physical impossibility,

though I’m sure Betty Dodson would

disagree. Another, according

to Salon, likened the law to life in prison. Protests like these caused folks the world

over to speculate about the psychology of a straight man who would advertise

his indifference, even hostility, to women’s opinions of what happens in the

conjugal chambers.

Vela denied that she intended to trap unwilling men into a

hellish land of mandatory

pleasure provision. Her

explanation–that this was about redefining women as sexual agents instead of

just sex objects and baby-makers–fit neatly into a long-standing feminist

paradigm, and really shouldn’t have caused the alarm that it did. Lindsay

Beyerstein, in the comments at my place, likened it to the "pursuit of

happiness" clause in the Declaration of Independence. One would assume that the right to sexual

autonomy simply went understood as a component of the right to pursue happiness,

but in the atmosphere of sexual repression caused by the anti-choice rightwing in

this country, one can’t assume too much.

What would life be like if sexual autonomy were written into our

Constitution, a right much like the freedom of speech or freedom of religion?

A lot of contentious issues would become a lot less

controversial right away. The right to

birth control and abortion–critical to almost all heterosexual women’s sexual

agency–could hardly be debated.

Right now, anti-choicers can exploit people’s ignorance of legal matters

and hint that the right to privacy found in the Constitution by the Supreme

Court in the decision Griswold v.

Connecticut, which legalized contraception and led to Roe v. Wade, was somehow illegitimate

because the Constitution doesn’t explicitly use the word "privacy" and because

the word "penumbra"

is multi-syllabic and confusing.

Penumbras are the cause of many rights that go unchallenged, but

anti-choicers won’t tell you this, pretending that sexual rights are unique in

this respect. But if sexual autonomy were spelled out

as a right, then they couldn’t really argue against it. Most people aren’t going to buy the idea that contraception is

irrelevant to a woman’s sexual autonomy, unless of course she’s a lesbian, and

I don’t see the fundies pushing widespread lesbianism as an alternative any

time soon.

It would be much easier to make the argument for

government-subsidized contraception, as well.

Right now, we can argue for it as a public health measure, but with a

right to pursue sexual happiness, we could also argue that those who can’t

afford their own contraception should have their rights subsidized by the

government. For those who wish to clutch

their pearls in shock, realize that the only downside to such a program

would be reduced public health expenditures for treating people after they

catch STDs or become pregnant unintentionally. The Hyde Amendment, of course, wouldn’t stand

a chance against the right to sexual pleasure.

Sex. Abortion. Parenthood. Power. The latest news, delivered straight to your inbox. SUBSCRIBE

Abstinence-only "education" would be a non-starter of an

issue, as well. The idea that the

government should dictate to you a moralized agenda contrary to your own

autonomous desires–and to withhold crucial information you need to enact your

rights in the healthiest manner–would make as much sense as giving the

government the right to pick your religion for you. The idea that there’s a virtue in depriving

yourself of the pursuit of sexual happiness would start to look like

arguing that not voting or speaking up is somehow virtuous. Trying to secularize for the classroom what

is patriarchal

religious dogma would be a much harder task, nearly impossible.

Why rape is wrong would become much clearer. Right now, the law has to function

(for good reason) by distinguishing between consensual and non-consensual sex. So

far too many people think there’s no moral difference between getting consent

that sounds like, "Oh god, do it now!" and "Fine, if it’s the only way I can

get you to leave me alone." But if we

had the right to sexual autonomy enshrined in the Constitution, then perhaps

people would see more value in women’s sexual pleasure, just as we value free speech, freedom of

religion, and privacy. And a lot fewer

men would push their luck by pretending that "no" was really "yes" by

exploiting the gray areas.

Same-sex marriage rights would be an easier sell, as well,

if everyone had a right to sexual autonomy and the pursuit of happiness. After all, isn’t the debate over marriage

basically about whether or not the institution exists to make people happy

(same-sex marriage advocates’ argument) or for people to submit to in order to

uphold the hegemony of heterosexism (an argument made by right wingers, though of

course without the big words that come from the "elitism" of literacy)? Such an amendment would wrap that debate up

altogether, making it clear that in America, institutions–even ones

with a sexual component like marriage–exist for the people, not the other way

around. And if the people are better

served by same sex marriage — as they are — then there are no good arguments

against it.

Needless to say, there’s no court in the land that could

justify a ban on selling

sex toys or even a need for the euphemism "marital aids". Saving the country the expense of prosecuting

dildo dealers alone would justify such an amendment.