'. . . the first guide to secular sexual ethics. It celebrates human sexuality in all its forms as
a positive force for good . . . Bennion aims to change society with his sex code. He has written
the book he would like to have been able to read when young.'
-Victoria Mather, Evening Standard
'Francis Bennion, as many of us know, has harnessed his
high intelligence and his robust courage to an array of causes on whose behalf he tilts
with Quixotic vigour. It is
his nature to challenge and provoke what he deems to be foolishness. So one approaches
Bennion on Sex with anticipatory relish, and is not disappointed . . . With a training
in law and philosophy, Bennion feels the need for a clear
framework, so that his Code is, for him, the backbone of the book. But, like all Codes, it bears the
stamp, in places, of a finger-wagging didactic moralist (whom I dubbed "Moses Bennion") who emphasises
our "duties" - whereas the stimulating and provocative commentary which surrounds it emanates from
a more genial "St Francis Bennion" whose benign motto is "to understand all is to forgive all". When
he gets into his stride lambasting the evil fruits of so much Christian-inspired sex hate, he is splendid.'
- Antony Grey, New Humanist September
1991
'This most readable book . . . is written clearly, with an incisive wit that explores historical misapprehensions
about sex . . . I think Mr Bennion's book should be read by all who have care of developing children
. . . I hope this book will be acquired by all medical, college and public libraries.'
- Kathleen Frith, Humanist News July
1991
'The whole exercise bears the mark of the academically trained philosopher and systematic
lawyer. The result is superb - a lucid exposition of a complete sexual ethic. It is "donnish" in
the best sense of the word, being shot through with a very dry, engaging wit, especially
at the expense of traditional
Christianity . . . On prostitution he is magnificent, cutting through the thicket of prejudices which
survive even amongst those who consider themselves enlightened. He is also excellent on childhood and
adolescent sexuality . . . I find myself reviewing a book which I very much wish had been available
to me when I was fifteen or sixteen. What nonsenses it would have cleared out of my head . . . if you
know any kids who are still having the old crap dinned into them by their parents, and who are capable
of responding to intelligent argument, slip them a copy of this book . . .'
- Graeme Woolaston, Gay Times July
1991
'. . . he is like a man busily and angrily planting explosive charges deep into the fabric of our cruel,
stupid and joyless system of sex taboos. In his final chapter, as you withdraw with him to watch the
almighty crash of its destruction, it is impossible not to cheer with a sort of mad, happy and half-frightened
incredulity. Then, cheered hoarse, you join him to examine his ingeniously drafted sex code, the 60
moral precepts which could guide and govern our liberated love life and emancipated happiness . . .
It is, of course, an angry book, a polemic. But so was Tom Paine's Age
of Reason, and so was Darwin's Origin
of Species . . . Mr Bennion's could be a book as seminal
as they. I wish I could communicate to you the plea for new thinking, for a concept of human happiness
desperately awaiting such a spokesman. If they don't take Mr Bennion to their hearts, they will wait
a long time.'
- C H Rolph, New Law Journal 12.7.91
'. . . irritating but fascinating . . . Bennion is most moving of all on sex for the old and for the
disabled . . . he makes a passionate plea for truthfulness and free trade in prostitution and other
sexual services . . . a brave beginning, with an honest touch.'
- Rabbi Julia Neuburger, Sunday Times 19.5.91
'The Sex Code is
a standing refutation of the Conservative caricature of libertarian views on sex. A practising Barrister
and Parliamentary draftsman, Bennion is also a noted rationalist and humanist active within the British
Conservative Party. Amongst his eight previous books is a study of Professional
Ethics, and he is currently a research associate at
the Oxford University Centre for Socio-Legal Studies. He has also of late been instrumental in the
campaign to get the Conservative Party to organise properly and field candidates in Northern Ireland.
The Conservative misrepresentation of the libertarian approach to sex stems primarily, I suppose, from
the libertarian rejection of the Christian/Conservative view that sex is primarily evil. And certainly
Mr. Bennion does not shrink from a vigorous rejection of what he terms 'sex-negativism', a negativism
'instilled by centuries of Judaeo-Christian teaching that sex is sinful'. Such sex negation, he correctly
points out, poisons our lives, and is manifest in 'secrecy, prudery, guilt, shame and hypocrisy'. We
have a 'duty' (in an Aristotelian sense) to ourselves, Bennion argues, 'to overcome this negative conditioning,
and train ourselves and our children to accept and welcome to the full the wholesome sexual nature
of humanity'.
'The acceptance of sex as a natural, and indeed good, human activity and value, does not imply some
form of 1960s style total 'permissiveness', or an amoral view of sex. Unlike other secular writers
on sex Bennion does not base his approach upon a relativistic, altruist, 'social' or deontological
ethics. He adopts the teleological Aristotelian approach founded upon human individual flourishing,
an ethical egoism based upon a rational understanding of ourselves as a particular sort of entity.
As he states: 'Morality is objective, not subjective, and . . . its essence is true to the absolutes
of human nature'. We thus, he argues, have the same obligation to act morally in our sexual lives that
we do in all other areas of our lives. Bennion's book is thus, as its title indicates, an attempt to
outline explicitly a rational 'sex code', an application of his ethics to such manifold issues as nudity,
prostitution, sexual 'perversio contraception,
homosexuality, masturbation, pornography and so on.
'Does Bennion succeed in his task? My answer is a qualified
'yes'. His ethical basis and his code seem to me basically sound. A more detailed exposition
of the basis, and
some drawing upon, and reference
to, contemporary Aristotelians like Ayn Rand and the Objectivist School, Henry Veatch and David Norton
would have improved and strengthened his case, in my view . . . I would also have quibbles with some
of the specific applications of his code. Thus, while accepting that there are such things as 'perversions',
i.e. dysfunctional sexual activities that can be classified as unhealthy, I am not sure that, for
example, S & M activity between consenting adults should be so classified . . .
'By far the best section of Bennion's work is that on children and sexuality. Any
attempt to broach this issue of late has increasingly been met with accusations or
implications
of pædophilia and child
molesting. However, the attempt to deny the existence of childhood sexuality is a central part of
sex-negativism, and one of the major weapons utilised by reactionaries to stifle
adult sexual freedoms and expression.
Bennion courageously affirms that 'children are sexual creatures and that in the process of having
that sexuality denied them by adults the foundations are firmly laid for them becoming in due course
themselves neurotic, perverted or malfunctioning adults'. His discussion of how that sexuality can
be recognised without opening the way to the abuse of power by adults is sensitive and perceptive.
'Bennion's discussion of pornography is also incisive, containing a clear refutation
of the "pornography
causes crime" argument and a refreshing understanding of the anti-capitalist nature of those who object
to the "exploitation of sex for commercial purposes". Why is such exploitation any different from the "exploitation
of hunger for commercial purposes", Bennion asks. Moreover, Bennion also formulates the lesson long
taught by libertarians: "Prohibition of a strongly demanded service merely ensures its provision at
a debased level and high social cost". However, I would dispute another of Bennion's assertions. He
argues that while there is nothing wrong with pornography per
se "If love is perfect, the lovers and their present
love-making fill each other's minds to the exclusion of all else". This seems to me to be open to argument.
Why shouldn't "perfect lovers" want to explore all the dimensions of their sexuality by utilising pornography,
either together or singly? There does seem to be an undercurrent of feeling in Bennion's work (as there
is in Ayn Rand's) that somehow "recreational sex" at a physical level is morally inferior to sex imbued
with romantic love. But one does not have to accept a merely physicalist interpretation of sex to hold
sexual physical pleasure as a value in itself in the absence of romantic love - as an appropriate and
worthy end in itself.
'But, whatever disagreements and suggestions for improvement I have, I heartily welcome The
Sex Code. It is a readable, frequently incisive, well-argued
and fundamentally correct attempt to delineate a rational and libertarian approach to matters of
sex. It is a valuable addition to the armoury of all those who oppose what Bennion himself accurately
terms "sexual
fascism".'
