The advent of the prohibition laws (against the brewing, sale and transport of alcoholic beverages) in the US and other countries had a long and complicated history, going back to the 19th century, and culminating in the general Prohibition law, or amendment to the US Constitution, of January 1920.
For almost 14 years, until its repeal in the 1930s, the law proclaiming the illegality of selling and consuming alcohol created the illicit but flourishing space for what became known as “bootlegging” (the illegal sale of alcohol), the “speakeasy” (an illegal saloon), and a culture of gangsterism (where gangsters made huge profits from the illegal sale of alcohol).
This era sparked a spate of writings on the phenomenon, where most writers appeared to agree that legislating against drinking alcoholic beverages proved to be counter-productive — instead of drinking less, people seemed to drink more, albeit illegally. Although statistics from the Prohibition era show a decrease in the consumption of alcohol, per person, in the US, these statistics bear on what was available for recording, which is unreliable for obvious reasons.
What experience teaches one, therefore, is that it is unwise to legislate against something to which human beings appear to be irresistibly drawn, in this case the use of intoxicating drink, or — to put it in a somewhat different perspective — a kind of beverage that is conducive to relaxed socialising when not taken in excess. Who would deny that a beer with one’s opponent after a vigorous squash game is satisfying, or that a good wine during dinner enhances the meal?
To be sure, it is not as if alcoholic drink is indispensable to the survival of the human species; it can either enhance one’s life or ruin it, depending on the way one uses it. But when it comes to the libidinal endowment of human beings — one’s sex drive or sexual energy — it is something without which human life would be extinguished. For lawmakers to legislate against one of its early manifestations, in the form of young people (teenagers) kissing each other, therefore seems to me to be misguided, to put it mildly, or downright stupid, to put it bluntly.
I don’t think anyone in South Africa is unaware of the context within which this was done, namely the HIV/Aids pandemic, and the best complexion one could put on this legislation — which outlaws teenagers or other children under the age of 16 kissing each other in public (but by implication also in private) — is therefore that it is an attempt to address this pandemic forcefully and effectively. Perhaps, therefore, desperation impelled the legislators to go to these lengths. But make no mistake; there is no way on earth that this kind of law will extinguish an inclination that is part and parcel of being a living human being, namely to express affection or desire in the form of kissing. One cannot legislate libidinal “nature” into non-existence.
Some may say that the law is here used as a tool for enforcing a certain kind of morality. My response to this would be to remind such people of the example of Prohibition, which is admittedly not exactly the same thing, but is still instructive as something that parallels this attempt to enforce a certain kind of “moral” behaviour by means of a law.
In fact, as mentioned above, kissing, which is inseparable from human beings’ sexual behaviour, simply cannot be eradicated by means of a law. Besides, I would also argue that kissing on the part of young teenagers does not necessarily lead to sexual intercourse. In certain cultures kissing and petting are encouraged as practices that prepare teenagers for later, adolescent or adult sexual behaviour. Which adult does not recall his or her first, perhaps hesitant, perhaps shy, but certainly “experimental” kiss? Or the excitement that it generated?
To be sure, there are also those unfortunate enough to have unpleasant memories about their first, or early, exchange of kisses. But to legislate against it will not eradicate the inclination to do it and, if anything, will make it appear more attractive. Forbidden fruit always appears irresistible, after all.
If the behaviour of young children and teenagers is legitimately regarded — and I agree that it should be — as an area on which responsible South Africans (including legislators) should focus in their concern about the continuing spread of HIV/Aids, a law against pre-16 kissing is the inappropriate instrument for addressing it. The obvious means for addressing it is education — by parents (or caregivers), as well as school authorities (in practice teachers).
And in the sphere of education the opportunities for educators to put kissing (and sex) in a civilised perspective abound. Think of literature — novels, plays and poetry are wonderful means of placing these things in an affirmative perspective that foregrounds romance and mutual personal fulfilment rather than irresponsible indulgence in group orgies or violent imposition of power through sex in the form of rape.
Add to this the fact that recent research in evolutionary psychology and biology has shown that kissing, in all probability, serves a very important function in ascertaining — through taste — which person is biologically or genetically compatible with oneself, and it seems to me that there is every reason to encourage teens to kiss, rather than to outlaw it. But encourage them, via educational means, to do so responsibly. To deny this is to make the same mistake — in a different, more fundamental human domain — that the US and other countries made in the early 20th century regarding alcoholic beverages. The sooner lawmakers here admit their mistake, as the US did, the better.
Author
A prince with dignity and determination
Prince Ngarambe’s goals are to become Rwanda’s first transgender model and to uplift the country’s youth
The EFF’s principles are unshakeable
Unlike the ANC, the core values of the freedom fighters do not change with each leader it elects
