I was passing through the living room yesterday evening and happened
to overhear a news item that caught my attention.
It was about a priest (yes, another priest) who had admitted to having
sex with a young boy, which is a news item we've heard so much that
it's becoming downright banal. But there were two things about this
story that gave me pause. For starters, it happened 30 years ago. But
what really got me was the charge against him. He confessed to a crime
against nature.
I thought, "Crime against nature? What the hell is that?"
There is an awful lot of legally proscribed sexual activity these days
(as I'm sure you are well aware), but I honestly could not remember
that I had ever heard it spoken of that way, especially in legal circles.
Here was something I had to google, and the following is from
the Wikipedia:
Crime against nature is a legal term used in published cases in the
United States since 1814 and normally defined as a form of sexual behavior
that is not considered natural and is seen as a punishable offense in
dozens of countries and several U.S. states. Sexual practices that have
historically been considered to be crimes against nature include homosexual
acts, anal sex, bestiality, and necrophilia. Other less common examples
include fellatio, and cunnilingus. The term is sometimes also seen as
a synonym for sodomy or buggery.
If you've been keeping up with this site at all I'm sure you know how
I'm going to respond to this. And yes, you're absolutely right. It's
a bunch of bullshit.
Now, if you will indulge me, I'm going to quote myself.
No matter how artificial an object may feel to us, it would have to
be occuring outside the universe to be accounted as unnatural.
The One Thing (2000)
Please do not misunderstand me on this. I agree that there are some
human behaviors that do indeed feel very unnatural, and I am not by
any means suggesting that I approve of them. (One of the first events
I remember that falls into this category involved a young father who
raped and murdered his own two-year-old daughter and threw her body
in a lake. Now that feels unnatural.)
I am merely taking issue with the way that such social aberrations
are talked about. I have a tendency to be very picky with my words.
I certainly do not approve of the priest's behavior (see Fuck
the Priests if you don't believe me), but there is no way I can
call it unnatural.
As far as I am concerned, crimes against nature are activities that
interfere with natural processes, and even then I'm not going to call
them crimes.
Here's a heads-up for you:
Crime is a human invention.
It does not exist in the world of nature, or, to put it somewhat poetically:
Mother Nature knows nothing of crime.
What we are so pleased to brand as a crime is nothing but a form of
social dysfunction.
Crime is a social problem. It has not a fucking thing
to do with nature.
I don't have a problem with society taking a serious interest in such
goings on, and dealing with them legally. At the risk of repeating myself,
I have a problem with the way society talks about it, what we might
call its presentation of its handling of such matters.
Don't tell me that a man is charged with commiting a crime against
nature. Tell me that he did something that basically pisses a lot of
people off. Tell me that. That is the brutal honest truth. As I said
in the essay What You Should
Know,
Laws are made by people who are scared shitless.
It's all that laws are really about anyway. Stuff that the majority
of people just plain don't like (that they're scared shitless of), like
rape and murder and theft and so on.
Yes, it's true. There is nothing inherently wrong with
these behaviors. We just don't like them. We don't want to be murdered
or raped or have our stuff taken from us. We just flat out do not want
it.
Why can't we say this? Why do we have to listen to some
horseshit about someone commiting a crime against nature?
I would like to close with a simple but intriguing musing:
What would the ancient Greeks think of all this hoopla over sodomizing
young boys?