"Every society regulates sex," Dr. R. Albert Mohler Jr. has noted -- it's just a question of how, and to what end?

Not in the streets where it scares the horses. And not in your college dorm room's bottom bunk if the roommate on the top objects. Congratulations, Tufts University: We now know there is at least one sexual rule short of rape that Tufts Unviersity is prepared to openly stand behind.

Actually, technically speaking, the new policy forbids public sex displays even if your roommate does not object. "You may not engage in sexual activity while your roommate is present in the room," commands Tufts' newly revised 2009-2010 guest policy.

Well, it's nice to know the modern American university has some absolutes. According to the Boston Herald, some students are miffed.

"If you are uncomfortable with your roommate's activity, you should talk to them," sophomore Christina Simonetti sniffed.

What if you are uncomfortable talking to your roommate about the fact he or she is having sex in front you, Christina? Well, what then?

Another sophomore objected to the rule as "obvious." She's right. It's insulting to the entire Tufts student body to assume authorities must inform them they have no right to expose their roommates to public sexual displays. I mean, "get a room" means "without a roommate in it."

But apparently we live in a culture where sexually expresssing ourselves takes precedence over a lot of other things that ought to be obvious.

One of the few remaining sexual rules on which we thought we had a consensus among civilized people was that grown men cannot have sex with 13-year-old girls.

What was Roman Polanski thinking when he pleaded guilty to having sex with a young girl and then fled justice instead of serving his short sentence? What were the French thinking when they took the fugitive in, protected him, and patted themselves on the back for doing so for decades?

What was going on in the mind of Oscar-winning screenwriter Ronald Harwood when he called Roman Polanski's arrest this week "disgraceful." And what are we to think of the 100 entertainment stars who signed a letter that states: "Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision"?

Dismayed? Oui, oui. Polanski was flying to Switzerland to accept an award. How can he not be allowed to travel unmolested simply because, oh, ever so long ago, he molested a 13-year-old girl who (as even The New York Times notes) is now long-grown and has forgiven the man?

Jack Lang, a former French culture minister, said the incident proved once again that the American justice system was running wild. "Sometimes, the American justice system shows an excess of formalism, like an infernal machine that advances inexorably and blindly," he said, also according to The New York Times.

Monsieur Lang, thank you. Justice in the United States is imperfect, like human justice everywhere. But justice is supposed to be blind and supposed to be inexorable and supposed to be based on the kind of "excess of formalism" that holds every man, no matter how gifted or talented, to the same standard: It's wrong to rape young girls. It's wrong to flee justice to a luxurious life of privilege. And it is most certainly wrong for him or anyone on his behalf to complain that getting arrested intolerably interrupts one's ability to travel and pick up prestigious arts awards.

Justice is imperfect in this country, yes. Men who have sex with young girls are punished, for the most part, extraordinarily lightly. But say what you will about America. We are not so blind yet as to see that arresting a fugitive from justice like Roman Polanski is an "excess" of anything at all.