Sperm, Shit, and the Limits of Liberty

A young woman sleeps with 100 men in a day and films her encounters. Soon after, copycats emerge and try to outdo her. One woman aspires to be sodomized by 100 men in a day. Other women walk around the streets with sperm on their faces—all recorded, of course.

Lily Phillips (Image: Instagram/lilyphillip_s)

Realizing a trend is emerging, panic ensues. Conservative governments, like Turkey's, arrest the female performers. The American Right views this hyper-conspicuous promiscuity as evidence of civilization's collapse. The American Left, while mostly silent, expresses concerns about the racial balance of the sodomizers. But is there a moral right or wrong to these sexual escapades? Should society “allow” women to sleep with as many men as they want? Or to walk around the streets covered in sperm? These are not particularly complicated issues, and we already have well-established moral frameworks to navigate them. Still, that does not stop people from complicating what is otherwise straightforward.

A few months ago, I tweeted in defense of a Spanish politician who filmed himself eating his own excrement. Many on the Right failed to differentiate between defending someone's choice to engage in a victimless activity and condemning actions with actual victims, such as coercing others into sex. Consequently, they lost their shit (pun intended) and accused me of being a "shit eater." (It’s worth noting that many of the same people who decry the harm done by Drag Queen Story Hour were also upset by acts in which no harm occurred.) Meanwhile, many on the Left have so irreparably damaged their ability to make discerning moral judgments that they are perpetually lost in moral and epistemological disarray, with their compass stuck on "oppression.”

Religion further complicates what should otherwise be straightforward matters. Various sects of Islam mandate women cover their faces, impose different penalties for adultery depending on the sex of those involved, and even assign rights based on gender (e.g., inheritance, court testimony). Even edicts in the strictest sects of Christianity are more liberal than Sharia dictates. Today we see a kind of convergence, with Christians and moderate Muslims both arguing for bans on such sexual activities.

In a world lacking nuance, it becomes impossible to differentiate between sleeping with whomever you choose (an obvious consequence of incessant moralizing about “body counts”) and walking down the street with sperm on one’s face. There is, however, an obvious difference: one is private (having sex with others) but accessible to those who seek it out, while the other is public (walking on public streets with sperm on one’s face).

Ultimately, adjudicating these moral issues boils down to first principles. If one believes, as I do, that adults have sovereignty over their own bodies and are free to sleep with as many consenting adults as they wish, then the government should have no dominion over their behavior. The long arm of the law ends at the bedroom door. The “sperm walking” case is more nuanced because a private act’s "vestige" is being publicly displayed. Such cases do not violate basic liberal tenets, such as bodily sovereignty, avoiding harm to others, or individual freedom. You do not have the right to avoid seeing something offensive, even if it involves something traditionally relegated to the private sphere, like semen on someone’s face.

To illustrate further, the same principle would apply if someone held a large sign reading, “100 men have cum on my face. Check it out!” While such a spectacle might be hard to ignore, it is unclear what harm it causes to onlookers. Proponents of banning this behavior might decry “It’s morally decadent!”, but moral decadence alone is not reason for governmental interference. Over time, society would likely become desensitized to such occurrences.

Still, in the public square, there should be a line between permissible and impermissible. Seeing consenting adults having sex in a park does not violate the harm principle, yet this does not seem to be the direction in which a healthy society should be moving. That is likely because it is a sexual act and not because it evokes disgust or disturbs the public. What public acts are performed are a barometer of a healthy society but the direction of the causation should not be confused: Banning them will not make society healthier. Eating a plate of live maggots in public would be disturbing to nearly every passerby, yet nobody would call for the practice to be banned no matter how widespread it became.

The question remains: “Are the first principles I hold the principles I ought to hold?” Is there a way to determine whether your moral beliefs are justified? Here’s a quick way to approach the problem: When presented with identical evidence, would independent individuals arrive at the same conclusion? For instance, if a group of thoughtful, intelligent, educated people (perhaps this begs the question re who is considered thoughtful, intelligent, and educated as it may itself be determine by first principles) examined the best available evidence for the Urantia Book, would they reach a consensus that the Urantia Book is true? What about gravity or electricity? Does morality fall into the same domain in that there’s something to be known about right and wrong? How you claim to know the answer to this question will, of course, largely determine your response.

At the heart of these issues lies an uncomfortable truth: humans have a long-standing tendency to blur the line between personal discomfort and legitimate harm. We mistake offense for injury and view deviations from our moral norms as existential threats. But the law—and by extension, society—should be concerned with protecting people from harm, not shielding them from the affront of witnessing behaviors that disturb their sensibilities.

In the end, moral panic often reveals more about the panickers than the provocateurs. Societies that pride themselves on liberty and tolerance cannot afford to shy away from uncomfortable conversations about personal autonomy. Whether the issue is public displays of sexuality or the limits of decency, the principles of liberty must prevail—even when they force us to confront the things we’d rather ignore.