Originally published April 11, 2001, in the Chicago Free Press.
BACK IN SEPTEMBER 1999, in Bentonville, Ark., two gay men apparently caused the death of a 13-year-old youth named Jesse Dirkhising in what appears to have been an abusive bondage scene.
There is no evidence that the two men intended to kill the youth: They called an ambulance when they found he had stopped breathing.
But their heedlessness, their own use of drugs and their indifference to Dirkhising's safety and well-being suggest a degree of culpability for which "involuntary manslaughter" scarcely seems adequate.
Reflecting on Dirkhising's death, Southern Voice editor Chris Crain recently wondered editorially if there might be some merit to the conservative argument that "the sex-drenched gay culture and the valueless homosexual lifestyle" are bound to victimize young people.
He noted the conservative concern that even though most such young people do not wind up dead, they may become "sexually confused, robbed of their innocence, and torn from the values their parents worked hard to instill in them."
And he concluded, "If the gruesome killing of a gay youth won't at least make us look harder at where our culture might bear some responsibility, what will?"
These are strong, obviously heartfelt words, not lightly written, and they deserve serious consideration.
But I think Crain in large measure not only misplaces blame but fails to give our community credit for the kinds of moral guidelines it provides.
For one thing, there is little evidence that the two men had significant contact with any gay community or gay culture.
As the police affidavit at their bond hearing made clear, the men seem to have been drifters, moving frequently from town to town. So they would have had little occasion to come into much contact with a gay community or discover whether our community had any values to impart.
But to the extent that there might be a value deficit among gays-especially among young gays, people just coming out, and people living in isolation-it is not necessarily the fault of the gay community.
Mainstream culture promotes a sexual morality that focuses on sexual relationships between men and women. Specifically, it focuses on regulating penis-vagina sex to preserve virginity or prevent pregnancy virtually to the exclusion of any other considerations.
But this single-minded focus provides no guidance to people involved in same-sex relationships, for whom penis-vagina sex and pregnancy are not issues. It can even give the impression that there are no "moral" guidelines for same-sex relationships.
Even more, by condemning same-sex activities as immoral in themselves, mainstream culture implies that there cannot be any sexual morality to guide gays in their activities. All homosexual activity is immoral and that is all there is to say.
This can have at least two further implications.
It may lead some gays to think that if they flout the condemnation of homosexuality, they thereby become "immoralists" who have necessarily cast off society's whole structure of morality and have no obligation to pay attention to any other moral concerns either.
And it may suggest that since their sexual partners are also behaving immorally, the partners' well-being need not be an important concern for them. Since the partners are immoral people they probably deserve anything that happens to them.
This is wildly false, but it is understandable how some people, particularly in religiously conservative regions, might think so.
The more a culture insists on the immorality of homosexuality, the more it encourages heedless, irresponsible behavior by homosexuals.
But contrary to what Crain suggests, it is surely not true that the gay community lacks guidelines for sexual activity. In fact, it is probably only by being part of an ongoing gay community that anyone can learn about and internalize regulative principles for gay sexual interaction.
The sexual morality we have is not act-specific but offers guidelines on how to conduct ourselves, how we should treat other people and conditions under which we should engage in sexual activities.
Most of us realize in the first place that this requires a degree of self-reliance, personal responsibility and continuous alertness. People should not put themselves in situations they cannot get out of. People should not drink or drug themselves into a state where they cannot make rational assessments. Prudence is a cardinal virtue.
Second, it involves a clear sense that force or coercion are wrong and that vulnerable people-too young, too drunk, too drugged, too naive-should not be taken advantage of.
Third, perhaps the most highly developed explicit guidelines-sexual ethics if you like-have been evolved by the leather-S/M community. Explicit guidelines are particularly important there because in the intensity of some S/M activities people can be hurt if someone is careless or something goes wrong.
The three preconditions for S/M activity, repeated almost as a mantra, are "safe, sane, and consensual."
A great deal of wisdom resides in those three words. Both parties have to agree voluntarily and unreservedly. They have to be clear-headed, alert and attentive to the other's responses. And there must be no lingering physical or emotional damage.
That may not be all there is to sexual morality, but it is an excellent start for everyone.