Vice squad stay home - Aspiring impresario has right to stage erotic theatre
The Ottawa Citizen Monday, June 16, 2003

'Most of us have a very narrow erotic repertoire," complains Vancouver sex-shop owner John Ince. It is his life's mission to broaden our repertoire, which in principle may or or may not be a noble pursuit. But how far should he be allowed to go?

Mr. Ince's store, the Art of Loving, sells more varieties of erotic toys than Baskin-Robbins has flavours. Later this month, the retailer hopes to add the title impresario to his résumé, when Art of Loving stages a two-act play featuring live oral sex -- not simulated -- between two amateur actors. The show is believed to be a first in Canadian theatre. While it's unlikely to be the first time people have executed those sorts of manoeuvres in front of an audience, no one can recall such an event advertised openly, with ticket sales.

Mr. Ince hopes the play will become a test case for Canada's so-called sex laws, which prohibit "indecent" acts, obscenity and the like. Mr. Ince, who's also a lawyer, calls these regulations obsolete "mumbo-jumbo." In other words, his motives are more political than artistic. "I'm prepared to litigate this one all the way," he says.

We hope police resist the urge to shut the show down, though not because we want to deny Mr. Ince the publicity of a titillating court case. It's a matter of civil liberties. As long as the actors are consenting adults, it's their right to have sex on stage. And as long as the audience members are consenting adults, it's their right to watch. Those who find this entertainment indecent or obscene should not go.

That does not mean couples ought to be permitted to have sex or be naked in parks and other public places. In those cases, dogwalkers, mothers with strollers and other passers-by haven't given consent to view the impromptu spectacle. A performance in a closed venue is another matter.

Mr. Ince is right to note that sex laws are problematic. The Criminal Code, for example, defines obscene as that in which the "dominant characteristic ... is the undue exploitation of sex," a rather subjective criterion. In an important 1992 judgment, the Supreme Court of Canada said that when deciding whether something is unlawfully obscene, the question to ask is not "Is this offensive?" but rather "Does it cause harm?" A sex performance may be offensive to some sensibilities, but is there a harm committed? A stronger case could be made for the banning of kickboxing.

But won't sex shows have a coarsening effect on society? Perhaps, but by this logic all pornography would have to be banned, and perhaps also violent video games, television shows and movies -- an unreasonable infringement of free expression. Child pornography should be, and is, illegal because real people, children, are harmed in its production. Consensual sex between adults, even on a stage, does not pass the harm test.

Mr. Ince's show is not our cup of tea, but apparently the same can't be said for others. The June 26 première has sold out. The Art of Loving Web site cautions that IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY SCENES OF EXPLICIT LOVE-MAKING, PLEASE DO NOT ATTEND. That seems fair warning. We're all grown-ups here, so the vice squad can stay home.
© Copyright 2003 The Ottawa Citizen