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.

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.