Oral sex is a threat to institution of family

source: 'Today' newspaper, 18 March 2004

I was rather concerned that lawmakers are advocating a change in laws (such as that on oral sex) on the basis that social "norms" are changing. I fail to see the logic in such reasoning.

The "rightness" of an act is not determined by whether more people are practising it. For example, it is an established fact that more people are engaging in child pornography now. Should we then abolish laws against child pornography?

Rather, the "rightness" of an act should be based on whether it serves the natural function of the act and, in the process, promotes the good of the individual, group or society as a whole.

It does not take much for us to realise that the male and female sexual organs were designed by nature to be used in a complementary fashion. Sex involves an act capable of generating new life. And while pleasure is a part of the sexual act, it is not an end to be sought in itself. If pleasure is sought as an end, then we shall be saying that sodomy, bestiality and even sado-masochism are all right.

If we permit oral sex on the basis that it gives rise to pleasure and that more people are practising it, then it is likely that more people will practise it. As it becomes more of a "norm", we will, as a nation, pay a heavy price for it. The number of pregnancies will decline and there will probably be a rise in alternative lifestyle practices that will threaten the institution of the family.

Dr Wee Sip Leong

* * * * *

Today
20 March 2004

Oral sex is no threat

Legalisation overdue for act that is harmless to institution of family

In his letter "Oral sex is a threat to institution of family", (Today, March 18), Dr Wee Sip Leong is correct on one point: The "rightness" of an act does not depend on whether more people are practicing it.

That is why the Government's move to legalise oral sex is long overdue because it has always been wrong for it to be deemed a criminal act.

There is nothing unnatural about oral sex and there is no basis for Dr Wee's claim that there is a link between the legalisation of oral sex and a rise in alternative lifestyles or a drop in birth rates.

Homosexuals and couples who do not want children are not going to change their minds if oral sex is banned. Sexual expression within a relationship is a fundamentally intimate and private choice. And there is nothing inherently wrong, or criminal, in seeking pleasure for its own sake.

Dr Wee's suggestion that we will end up legalising sodomy, bestiality and sadomasochism is disingenuous. While sodomy and oral sex are similar (both should, therefore, be legal), bestiality involves violating an animal without its ability to consent and sadomasochism involves causing bodily harm to another.

Finally, Dr Wee's argument is dangerous. If the definition of a family or a relationship has to do with whether it results in children, we would have to impose penalties on those who choose not to have kids. There are many things, such as adultery, that threaten the family but which we do not criminalise.

Paul Tan Beng Hwee

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None