The constitutions of most countries are terribly outdated. They often contain paragraphs that guarantee the people's right to follow a religion of choice. As if we still lived in the Middle Ages, when the data available to everyone suggested that there was truth in religion.
But now we know that there is no scientific data that suggests truth in any religion.
On the other hand, no constitution anywhere in the world that would mention that people have a right to sexual satisfaction, even though we have plenty of scientific support for the assumption that the pursuit and achievement of sexual satisfaction is the most important sense-providing aspect in a human life that is free of illusions about an afterlife (or a judgment day, or the karma-determined rebirth as a lower form of life).
As a biological necessity of humans, sexual satisfaction is not just on par with nutrition. In a world in which religions have been proven to be philosophical nonsense, there is simply nothing that matches the way, sexual desires and sexual satisfaction confer meaning to a person's existence.
A country's parliament and government can pass building codes and traffic laws. They can pass a labor code, trade regulations, and ethic guidelines for scientific research. They can take decisive measures to enact and guarantee peace, law, and order. All fine with me.
But when a country's parliament and government pass and implement legislation that obstructs people's right or access to sexual satisfaction, such legislation should land on the desks of constitutional courts.
For the lack of access to sexual satisfaction is not just a tragedy for an individual’s life but also a danger to society. A lack of sexual satisfaction, mostly on the part of men, not only converts into unfriendliness and aggression towards others in a person’s immediate surrounding. It also can extend into social trends, ranging from amok-running youths in schools to the adherence to extremist ideologies, such as militant Islam.
The German author Hans Magnus Enzensberger has provided insight into the underlying mechanisms in the following essay:
Feminazis consider any curtailing of male sexual expression a victory for women’s rights (their agenda is sexual deprivation for men, and the anti-sexual brainwashing of young females). But the society they envision (a society in which men are more and more desexualized) will likely not work, even not when 5 percent of all men a locked up in prisons as sexual offenders.Hans Magnus Enzensberger started his essay with the statement “It is difficult to talk about the loser, and it is stupid not to.”
A loser is not a man who is just poor. A loser is a man who cannot achieve self-esteem through sexual satisfaction. Poorer societies actually produce fewer “radical losers” because men who temporarily cannot achieve sexual satisfaction are convinced that by emphasizing character traits such as industry and interest in education, they will get out of their current non-satisfactory situations.
If we agree that it is the responsibility of governments to reduce aggression and violence in societies, then it is stupid, albeit difficult, not to address the topic of optimal sexual satisfaction for an optimal number of people in a country’s most fundamental document, the constitution.