2003.001 Sexual Ethics and Criminal Law, Lester ... - Francis Bennion

far the best section of Bennion's work is that on children and sexuality.
By
attempt to broach this issue of late has increasingly been met with
Any
or implications of pñdophilia and child molesting. However,
accusations
attempt to deny the existence of childhood sexuality is a central part of
the
and one of the major weapons utilised by reactionaries to
sex-negativism,
adult sexual freedoms and expression. Bennion courageously a rms
sti¯e
``children are sexual creatures and that in the process of having that
that
denied them by adults the foundations are ®rmly laid for them
sexuality
in due course themselves neurotic, perverted or malfunctioning
becoming
His discussion of how that sexuality can be recognised without
adults''.
the way to the abuse of power by adults is sensitive and perceptive.
opening
discussion of pornography is also incisive, containing a clear
Bennion's
of the ``pornography causes crime'' argument and a refreshing
refutation
of the anti-capitalist nature of those who object to the
understanding
of sex for commercial purposes''. Why is such exploitation
``exploitation
di€erent from the ``exploitation of hunger for commercial purposes'',
any
asks. Moreover, Bennion also formulates the lesson long taught
Bennion
libertarians: ``Prohibition of a strongly demanded service merely
by
its provision at a debased level and high social cost''.
ensures
I would dispute another of Bennion's assertions. He argues
However,
while there is nothing wrong with pornography per se ``If love is
that
the lovers and their present love-making ®ll each other's minds to
perfect,
exclusion of all else''. This seems to me to be open to argument. Why
the
``perfect lovers'' want to explore all the dimensions of their
shouldn't
by utilising pornography, either together or singly? There does
sexuality
to be an undercurrent of feeling in Bennion's work (as there is in Ayn
seem
that somehow ``recreational sex'' at a physical level is morally
Rand's)
to sex imbued with romantic love. But one does not have to accept
inferior
merely physicalist interpretation of sex to hold sexual physical pleasure
a
a value in itself in the absence of romantic love ± as an appropriate and
as
end in itself.
worthy
whatever disagreements and suggestions for improvement I have, I
But,
welcome The Sex Code. It is a readable, frequently incisive, wellargued
heartily
and fundamentally correct attempt to delineate a rational and
approach to matters of sex. It is a valuable addition to the
libertarian
of all those who oppose what Bennion himself accurately terms
armoury
``sexual fascism''.'
± Chris R. Tame, Director, The Libertarian Alliance
40