Sexual Health – a Misleading Term

According to the definition of the World Health Organization (WHO), sexual health, implies a positive and respectful attitude towards sexuality and sexual relationships. „To achieve and maintain sexual health, the sexual rights of all persons must be respected, protected and fulfilled“. WHO defines sexual health as: „the state of physical, emotional, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality!”

This WHO definition is misleading and irresponsible. First, a person’s sexual rights have little to do with sexual health. On the contrary, it implies that every person may live out his or her sexual inclinations, preferences, and predilections unhindered, and regardless of whether his or her sexual behaviours are responsible or perverted. In the book „Love and Sexuality as Social Construction“ this is clearly expressed. There, one reads about the sociology of sexuality: „The scientific power of sexologists rests on the fact that they have agreed on a relatively precise definition of „sexual health“. According to this definition, a person is considered sexually „healthy“ if he or she is able to reach at will […] that climax of sexual pleasure which today is generally called „orgasm“. More precisely, a person’s sexual health is measured by how close he or she comes in sexual satisfaction to the „ideal orgasm,“ i.e., the normative model of the climax of sexual pleasure, each of which is considered the „most competent.““    For sex researchers, sexual health is measured by the experience of satisfaction and the intensity of sexual pleasure. This has nothing to do with the emotional well-being and health of a person and a society!

Second, the WHO does not differentiate between individual physical and mental well-being and the sexual relationship. The physical, emotional, and mental well-being each refers to the person, the social well-being to the relationship with the fellow human being. Social well-being in relation to sexuality is therefore impossible to separate from the relational level and interpersonal relationships! Social well-being is only fulfilled if the interpersonal relationships also work. If a sexual relationship serves mainly the own satisfaction and pleasure, this is always at the expense of the other. The partner then serves only to satisfy one’s own drive. It is not enough that only the desires, needs and rights of the individual are fulfilled, but also the welfare, needs and desires of the other. The inner harmony and balance of mind and body is not only an essential basis for personal well-being, but also the basis for interpersonal relationships and social well-being.

Third, the WHO is rightly concerned about quality standards of nutrient-rich food, pure water, and clean air, in relation to the basic human need for food, air and water. Adherence to quality criteria in terms of purity, cleanliness, and nutrient richness are an essential foundation for physical health. For the central area of human sexuality, however, the WHO standards for sexuality education, lack any moral norms and standards.

For physical existence and our bodies, food, air, and water are vital. Water is the main component of our cells and is used to build and renew cells and tissues. Air is an indispensable elixir of life for humans and nature. Clean air stands for quality of life and is therefore one of the most valuable resources. A healthy diet is the basis for meeting daily energy and nutrient needs. Polluted air, impure water and spoiled food have a direct negative impact on our physical well-being.

For their sexual life it is up to each person what they consume, which inclinations and feelings they live out and what is good and right for them. But if a person’s feelings are hurt, disturbed, full of fear, anger, and hatred, this can lead to disturbed and very constricted behaviour patterns. Then not only is the emotional world severely damaged but also the resulting moral judgment is mutilated. In short, a perverted emotional base enforces perverted moral judgments. Sexuality education seeks to provide children and adolescents with information, skills, and „positive“ values, and to empower them to understand, enjoy, and enter safe and fulfilling sexual relationships, as well as to responsibly manage their own and their partner’s sexual health. At first sight, it sounds plausible that children and adolescents need information about sexuality. However, the real source of moral judgment is emotionality, not our rationale.

By refusing to define moral standards, WHO experts open the door to perverted feelings, corrupted thoughts, crazy ideas and fantasies, and dubious motives. Every kind of dirty and perverted sexuality is allowed, as long as it serves the satisfaction of personal pleasure. The only thing that matters is whether it feels good and I have reached a consensus with the object of my desire. In the educational materials „Quite Intimate“ there is an example where a 12-year-old girl at a party, totally drunk, is approached by a „cute“ boy to „make out“ with him and have sex. Many educators find nothing objectionable about this! For sex experts, it is okay for a woman living in a committed relationship to date another man or woman, as long as, there is a consensus among the parties involved. To justify such a date, he or she has of course „good“ reasons and he or she will competently present the „right“ arguments, better said justifications. And for possible health consequences of their risky sexual behaviour, the public and the state are then held responsible.

Social and sexual scientists are currently arguing for the establishment of a morality of negotiation as the valid sexual morality of the present. The core of this morality entails that the content is negotiated by mutual consent of mature, equal participants with equal rights and equal power. An important prerequisite is that the participants develop a common understanding of the term „consensuality“ and become aware of the consequences of their actions – especially in their partnership and sexual behaviour. The core of the morality of negotiation, and thus its ambivalence, is the assumption that the participants are „mature“ and negotiate on an equal footing. However, reaching the age of majority does not mean that the person is also mature, sincere and has integrity! Yes, the morality of negotiation ignores these crucial virtues such as sincerity, honesty and integrity and also does not address the question of HOW the consent comes about. Especially in the area of sexuality, people often lie, deceive and manipulate.

The fatal mistake of the WHO experts is that they have separated sexuality from love and relationship in order to justify, in the name of self-determination, dishonest love relationships and perverted sexual behaviours. 

Schreibe einen Kommentar

Deine E-Mail-Adresse wird nicht veröffentlicht. Erforderliche Felder sind mit * markiert.