Belated mourning for NOSE

Back in the 1990s, an American expert in sex and relationship counselling, Dr. Roger Libby, started an organisation called NOSE, or National Organization of Sexual Enthusiasts. The goal was to try to give sex a more positive image than what was being pushed at the height of the Reagan-Bush Sr. era.

Libby saw NOSE as both a political and educational group which supported the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution, notably the separation of church and state, and the right to sexual privacy. NOSE believed in the greatest sexual freedom possible, and accepted all types, including monogamy and non-monogamy, married and single, straight, gay and bi people. It also insisted on the importance of honesty, caring, responsibility and safety. Exploitation and game-playing were denounced as strongly as was aggressive behaviour. While NOSE had no objection to pornography and erotica, and always stressed the FUN aspects of sex, the newsletters I was able to receive also presented serious issues for discussion rather than just titillating articles.

NOSE always sought to have a balance between the sexes as far as numbers go, but always had more male members than female. (Hmmm... not unlike certain nudist social networking sites.) Furthermore, while the organisation was promoted on Dr. Libby’s website, it never became web based. While I could find no independent information as to why NOSE eventually became defunct, it’s a fact that by 2001, Dr. Libby was no longer promoting it on his website. If anything came about to replace it, I haven’t discovered it yet. The adult/sex dating sites certainly haven’t offered anything that comes close to what NOSE published in its newsletters, nor should we expect them to. NOSE hoped to have local chapters to work on local issues and lobby where needed. Whether this ever happened anywhere is unknown to me at this point.

Most social networking sites don’t – knowingly – allow sexual content, even when it’s to discuss serious issues seriously. In some countries, there are political parties devoted to the issue. In Canada and Australia, there is a Sex Party. In the U.S., there are Democrats and Republicans, and both tend to follow a more conservative line when it comes to sexual rights. Only strict libertarians and organisations concerned with government censorship and the stacking of courts with people of a less broadminded bent are expressing their concern in these matters, and they don’t necessarily get the ear of mainstream media.

All sorts of publications like to write about sex, from Playboy and Penthouse to Cosmo and even Good Housekeeping. But these are usually the “Find-his/her-special-erogenous-spot-tonight” kind of articles. One notable exception in 2004 was Free Inquiry, which published what was supposed to be a new and revamped Declaration of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities. Later that same year, The Humanist critiqued the new Declaration and also explored issues such as adult reactions to underage sex, attempts by politicians to stifle discussion of sex in teen magazines, criminal laws against adultery in North America, and polyamory. Similar topics can be found separately on the Internet, but rarely all in one place, and not necessarily treated with the respect and seriousness they deserve.

While most people would not be anything other than strictly and exclusively monogamous and “vanilla,” a great many are broadminded enough to allow for a full exploration of all human sexual possibilities. Indeed, if such things are only explored and discussed in whispers, with embarrassment and under a cloak of near secrecy, those who actively oppose sexual freedom will continue to have the upper hand. I believe the purpose behind NOSE was to bring these issues into the open and, perhaps just as importantly, bring together likeminded people in this endeavour. It’s unfortunate that it never quite caught on enough to continue.