The topic of sex is complex because we view it from so many different perspectives. There is no common or holistic view of sex other than the realization that without it we would not exist, at least up to this time in our history. Any attempt to discuss sex in rational terms is thus subject to individual mental filtering, for our life experiences in that area are very different indeed, and we will process what we read, hear or see in terms of our own beliefs and experiences.

It is fundamental to recognize that we do exist through sex and subsequent conception, gestation and birth. This we share with all forms of life that we know about beyond primitive cellular organisms and viruses. We also recognize that pre-programmed behaviors and biological events like puberty exist without our conscious intent and cause us to participate in sex without conscious planning. This subliminal and biological reality is common to all mammals and it supercedes all other considerations. Sex is a fact of life on behalf of continuing life for all species of mammals. We are programmed to have sex.

Sex programming may include a biological feedback loop that includes orgasm, which is experienced as intense physical pleasure by many, but not all people. Our individual biological makeup varies widely in that regard both in terms of intensity of pleasure and frequency of need. We are simply different from each other in ways that have nothing to do with value judgments. Even our individual physical and hormonal maturation rates vary so widely that some individuals of both genders are highly desirous of sex while in their early teen years, while others do not experience sexual needs until their early twenties, and yet others, never. But our cultural and early family experiences regarding value judgments about sex affect our biologically based behavioral mandate, and especially our individual experience as we proceed from childhood into adolescence and then into adulthood.

Unlike the other basic survival activities of mammals, like pursuit of food and shelter, sex and sexual activities are viewed by some as serious reflections of our moral makeup. We do not experience the type of lifelong, moment to moment choices with sex that we make when choosing a restaurant or a hotel. We understand that the fundamental reason for that limitation is our responsibility to provide security and joint parental interaction for the children that result from our having sexual intercourse. We are aware of the difficulties that result in the lives of children when one or both parents fail to provide physical security and/or social interaction. They "mature" with an agenda for getting even with society as a whole, or with major insecurities, and they tend to repeat the errors of their parents. We are also aware of our adult need for having a reliable partner for sex and for future physical, emotional and/or financial security.

At this point in the discussion, let us draw some early conclusions. Sex is not optional for a species, though it is certainly optional for the individual. Sex is an unavoidable need and a strong pleasure for many people, and there is nothing in the area of morality considerations of any value that addresses that fundamental fact. Sexual need is not simply an event to be "decided." The only valid reasons we confine our sexual activities to one other person, through marriage, are to provide our children and ourselves with the security of family, and ourselves with a reliable partner for our own sexual needs. All other considerations are unique to the individual in terms of religious beliefs or other reasons, like financial security, for limiting the expression of sexual need. They have nothing to do with universal considerations of right or wrong, good or bad.

Sex is a personal choice at any particular point in time, based on our individual perception of need, and it requires either zero or one other person to be accomplished. There is no such thing as too much or too little sex, if the participant(s) agree on the best method and frequency. The only cross-cultural societal limitation that we encounter is that we are not normally permitted to have sex in the presence of other people, i.e. public places. That limitation has a very simple basis or reason to exist. Our interest in having sex can be raised to the level of wanting sex immediately by being exposed to sexual activity. So it is simple to understand why a couple would avoid having sex during a business lunch in a restaurant, for it is inconsiderate to sexually stimulate other people who, at that moment, lack their sexual partners. There are, of course, personal reasons why many people would feel uncomfortable having sex in a public environment, most of which have to do with personal insecurities about the appearance of their nude bodies and risk of assault (rape).

Thus, we tend to make sex a private, so-called intimate event with one or two people present. And our general lack of knowledge about sexual activity and techniques, which is a byproduct of our limited education, determined by cultural mores, causes us to spend an inordinate amount of time wondering what behaviors are both appropriate and most effective for our own and our partner's pleasure. It is this ignorance, combined with folklore, personal insecurity and personal considerations of morality in expression, that causes us to focus far more negative time and insecure thoughts on the subject of sex than is warranted. Our fear of our own lack of desirability and lack of skill impedes our fundamental enjoyment and unfettered participation in what is, in fact, a most simple experience that can be very fulfilling and bring us great peace of mind.

We are thus foolish in our societal approach to sex education, and we create our own problems by maintaining our individual and collective ignorance. The byproducts of those problems are found in how we deal with the other parts of our lives. For example, you would not expect a person who has not eaten in a week, or who ate spoiled food, to be effective at heavy labor. Nor would you expect a person who has not slept for 48 hours to be mentally acute and aware. Yet, we have an irrational expectation that lack of sexual satisfaction should not affect our performance or behaviors in public. That oversight, and our unwillingness to deal with it effectively, are the causes for many unpleasant interactions with our business associates, family members, neighbors and the public at large.

We see undeniable examples of that truth. Prostitution could not exist if we were doing the job right at home or in singles dating. Marital affairs, which are usually assumed to occur from other relationship problem areas, are definitely a result of lack of satisfaction in the marital bed, regardless of how that occurred originally. We need to be well connected in our sexual relationships or we show the signs of stress in our other activities. We become mean or petty when we lack any fundamental life need. We do that to each other regarding sexual need, and cold showers are a foolish and naïve answer. Wrongly promoted gender differences, which are categorically false, confuse the overall subject even further. The simple and accurate truth is that both genders consist of individuals with very high or very low sexual needs and every variation in between. There is no gender standard or age standard.

Is there a good answer to our confused and disjointed approaches to the subject of sex? I plead ignorance, for I do not presently see any driving force that will change our behaviors for the better. Mostly, I see punitive programs for individuals who cannot contain their frustrations, and in so doing make others uncomfortable or engage in sexual assault. Poor behaviors are not respectable or responsible, and I do not condone them. Conversely, our failure to find a useful sexual outlet for those individuals is analogous to failing to feed the hungry or provide medical service to the sick. No, we are not individually responsible to provide sex for the sexually needy. Yes, we are collectively responsible to provide sexual outlets for those people, on behalf of our own enlightened self-interest. Sexual need is so compelling for some people who are unlikely to "get lucky," that we are fools to relegate that problem to the area of self-responsibility if we can identify humane means to accommodate it.

One possible approach, which demands changes in our societal mores, is to require significant sexual education for our high school students, complete with practice for those who choose to participate. Another approach is to promote affordable and safe prostitution for both genders as a valuable public service that is morally acceptable in or out of marriage, if needed, to accommodate individual needs and differences. Can you actually believe that holding a spouse hostage, sexually, will strengthen a marriage if there is a large difference in sexual need? In general, we cannot and will not willingly sacrifice our security of our children and ourselves. However, we do risk that security, and our comfort at work and other social situations, because we continue to look at sexual activity as a dark area of bad human behavior. It is no worse than the need to eat. Ideally, our marital relationships do have the attribute of sexual fidelity, and that is desirable for many reasons, though not likely for many marriages.

Other civilized countries are more intelligent in their acceptance and accommodation to the reality of sexual need. Australia and Sweden are not uncivilized nations of savages, yet they both look upon teenage sex as wholesome, if it is accompanied by responsible birth control. France is not uncivilized either, and extramarital affairs are a commonly accepted practice in that country, with no particularly high incidence of divorce. Prostitution, yes, as safe sex, is legally available in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands (also in the state of Nevada in the USA). Those folks do not appear to be perishing from moral decay, Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) or high divorce statistics. They are among the most advanced nations.

Our failures to be rational about sexual need have many horrible consequences. Consider date rape, child molestation, non-sexual physical assaults between men, nasty behaviors between women, and chronic relationship problems within marriages. Some of the divorces we experience are a byproduct of having no effective and acceptable means to relieve our frustrations or fulfill our needs. But we continue in our ignorant assumption that freedom to engage in sex outside the marital bed will destroy the relationship. We let it do that because we are insecure and irrational about the reality of our differences. Moreover, we pay the price at work in having to conduct business with frustrated and angry people. Yes, it is true that sexual frustration is a driving force in creating non-sexual problems in the work environment.

We will now deal with the issues of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancy. Both subjects are powerful deterrents to open enjoyment of sex and they support our inclination to continue our historical mores regarding sexual fidelity and prostitution, not to mention sex for teenagers. Yet, we know that teenagers who want sex will engage in it regardless of what we attempt to teach them, or whatever fears we try to instill. The sexual urge is simply too compelling for sexually matured individuals in that group to ignore. And intense sexual need can be experienced by both genders at any time after puberty, though there are wide differences across the teenage population, just as there are for adults.

The simplest and most relevant fact is that all individuals will try to fulfill their sexual needs in one way or another. Our choice is to allow that to happen safely or to continue to deny it as a reasonable behavior. STDs are manageable via birth control devices and education. So are unwanted pregnancies, whether the age of the individual is 14 or 41. Most of the examples of unwanted pregnancies are the result of poor approaches to accommodating the reality of sexual need, while many pregnancies in lower socioeconomic groups are sought, rather than avoided, in pursuit of unconditional "love" from a child. STDs are also controllable in their effects if we will learn to treat them in our attitudes in the same way we look at other infections. It is ignorance, shame and hiding the existence of an STD that result in our spreading those diseases, not the variety of partners or the amount of sex we have.

The reality of AIDS and death is so overwhelming that we are repulsed at the thought of having sex with an AIDS victim. Even if our medical advances have progressed to the point that carriers need not die. Yet we know that syphilis was in virtually the same category earlier in the 20th century before the advent of effective antibiotics. AIDS is simply one more medical problem that needs to be conquered in the research laboratory. You can expect a situation in the near future where a person will confide that they did have AIDS but were treated and cured, much like we understand the treatment of syphilis today. No, do not waste my time with the "arrested" but not cured argument. A disease is either communicable and/or doing damage or it is not. Like the malaria your uncle contracted in the Far East during World War II, that was cured but that periodically would produce temporary and harmless symptoms years later.

The fact that some diseases are spread via sexual contact shames us in ways that would be considered irrational if we were talking about airborne diseases like flu, or water borne diseases like cholera, or insect borne diseases like Lyme disease. Our shame is irrational. One disease is the same as another if human life or the quality of human life is threatened. The point is to use reasonable protection before the fact and sensible medical treatment after the fact and continue to live normally. We do not hide in our caves from flu, cholera or Lyme disease. Nor should we hide from sex because of STDs, though extreme prudence is warranted in sexual activities with AIDS victims at this time. New strains of gonorrhea are said to be resistant to conventional antibiotics. This is no surprise. We also experience new strains of flu that are not stopped by current vaccines. More important, the advent of new and effective antibiotics and anti-virus drugs is a continuing reality. We must use them, expect new and better ones, and stop creating irrational fear.

Sex laws have varied all over the map in past centuries, based primarily on community mores at the time. For example, it was less than 80 years ago in some states that a girl of age 8 was considered to be at the age of consent for marriage. That fact was the byproduct of farmers having too many children and needing to find secure homes for the ones who would not be useful or needed to operate the farm. Today, our laws frequently define statutory rape as any person age 18 or older who has sexual intercourse or any other orgasm producing activity with anyone younger than 18. The punishments are severe, with lifetime consequences. This means that a young man of 17, who happens to have sex with his 14 year old girlfriend, has committed only a misdemeanor and is not normally subject to a prison sentence if he is discovered and prosecuted. However, let that same young man be one day older and turn 18 and he is obligated to spend up to his next 15 years in prison for statutory rape. He will be officially designated as a felon and sex offender for his entire life, complete with the entire negative social, educational and employment consequences of that identification.

The absurdity of our sex laws is seen in their utter ignorance and disdain for normal human sexual activity. On the one hand, we do want our young children protected. On the other, our definition of the age at which the younger partner should be legally approachable for sex is at puberty or some time later, and determined by the individual. Thus, a simple coded ring or brooch could identify the situations in which the individual would allow approach by another person. And our laws regarding consent in sexual activity should determine whether or not a rape or lesser assault has occurred at any time after puberty. Lie detectors will tell everything of consequence in that regard. No means no and yes means yes, regardless of age after puberty and in conjunction with the coded ring or brooch. Let us remember, though it may not seem in good taste to do so, that pre-puberty children are frequently sexually curious and they will engage in sexual activities singly and with each other. They will derive pleasure. Do we beat them for satisfying that curiosity? No. Nor should we. However, we should not allow them to be subject to abusive approaches from post puberty adolescents or adults.

What do we do, however, when a minor of 15 becomes sexually involved with a child of 8? Clearly, we do not want the 8-year-old to be sexually abused. But the 15-year-old is not yet an adult and is thus not normally subject to adult punishment. We set the stage for further abuse by simply reprimanding the 15-year-old. Our most recent changes to our criminal laws favor treating the 15-year-old as an adult, complete with the long prison sentence. This is cruelty beyond belief. The 15-year-old needs a sexual outlet with other teenagers or adults, and a humane way of dealing with the aberration is to get the 15-year-old connected with an adult prostitute. Yes, there are circumstances where the adjustment disorder(s) of an individual of any age will not be successfully addressed by access to a prostitute. Those individuals need mental institutions, counseling and sometimes medications, not prison.

A last important consideration is that we follow Murphy's Law in continuing to look at symptoms of sexual problems as root problems. For example, creation and use of pornography is a symptom of a much deeper problem that remains unsolved in most places. Pornography is not, in and of itself, a root problem. Individuals who do not have a normal and rewarding sex life use pornography. It is perfectly understandable that a well-adjusted and well-connected person would look at pornography as a form of perversion, for those people have no need for pornography. The users, however, do not have a reasonable outlet for their sexual needs and thus revert to pornography to provide a sense of enhanced sexual stimulation and participation. This does not mean that pornography is good. It simply means we have had to endure pornography because we are so unenlightened in our unwillingness to allow less fortunate people to have a normal sexual outlet, like affordable and safe prostitution.

In summary, the USA is a mass confusion of extremely poor sexual mores and absurd sex laws. We are our own worst enemies in making life unreasonably difficult for all the population for our failure to be adult and mature about the reality of our individual variations and life circumstances in sexual need. You both accept our individual differences, and move forward with them in mind, or you fight a permanent and unrewarding war against nature, which cannot be won except through destruction of our individual rights and pursuit of happiness. Destiny mandates major improvements in our mores and our laws.