|
|
 
|
I have long been disconcerted by the myriad ways in which contemporary Western society (and American society, in particular) condemn sex and depictions of sex as vile, repulsive, immoral and detrimental to our overall well-being. The fact that this condemnation goes hand-in-hand with constant exploitation of sex-as-a-sales-gimmick just makes it that much more distasteful to me. I'll start off this little rant by saying that I personally consider mutually consensual sex to be an act of affirmation and joy, in the best of situations bordering on an almost religious ecstasy. And yet, so much of our public policy is shaped by beliefs which are completely antithetical to this, even when a great majority of people (not the least being the people who routinely dictate this policy) regularly indulge in the very behavior they claim to abhor. Sex, love and intimacy are certainly distinct modes of relationship and any one or two of those can perfectly well be present in a relationship without the other(s). We often do, however, engage in these modes simultaneously...hopefully we are emotionally intimate with those we love and, in most cases, love (at least of the romantic sort) is enhanced by sex. In fact, in Robert Heinlein's novels about futuristic societies, he often has his characters speak of sex as an act of "growing closer." Certainly, one needs to guard against disease, against unwanted pregnancy and, if we are indulging in acts of sex without a corresponding bond of love, we owe it to each other to be honest about this. This sort of responsible approach to sex can only make us better, more fulfilled people. Sex certainly can certainly be used as a form of domination. Some forms of this domination are so institutionalized that we rarely view it as such. The notion that a man goes out and makes money to support a wife who stays home and ministers to his needs both in the kitchen and in the bedroom is, in my view, a kind of glorified indentured servitude. When it is done by a genuine mutual agreement, so be it...I take no issue with any sort of truly consensual relationship, but when it is done simply because "that's the way it should be," we begin to tread a very dangerous path. I'm happy to see that significant strides have been made in this area over the last few decades but I'm equally concerned that we may be moving back towards this 1950's model of women-as-homemakers, especially given the results of our most recent Presidential Debacle (sorry...I can't make myself call it an election). But I digress. Both men and women can use sex as a tool for domination and, in non-consensual form, it can become an act of violence. Yes, it can be used to manipulate, to control, to punish and otherwise be used in unhealthy, un-nurturing ways. But, you know what? You can make the same argument for virtually anything that is a form of giving. Withhold food from someone and you'll damage them more quickly than if you withhold sex and yet we never talk about being the "bread-winner" of a home as a potential source of vile degradation and domination. And certainly we would never suggest that depictions of someone preparing dinner is in any way pornographic (I'm not suggesting we should view it as such...just trying to draw an analogy here). Perhaps the absurdity of this can be more clearly seen in the way in which, although we "officially" condemn both sex and violence in the media, we do, in fact, glorify (or at least condone) the latter while abrogating the former. Scenes of massive destruction, bodily injury and even quite explicit gore are a mainstream from everything from emergency-room and "reality" TV dramas to every single big-screen "action" movie. There are minimal restrictions on when they appear on TV and they virtually never result in anything more than a PG13 restriction in movie (By the way, I think any kind of age-based censorship is even more repulsive than censorship in general but that's a different rant). Put a single full-frontal image of a nude actress or (God forbid!) an actor on screen and you're fully barred from any but the "premium" cable stations and you're pretty much guaranteed an X-rating on the big screen. Why? The French have no problem with this. Consider a bedroom scene in virtually any American vs. any French movie. In the former, every single motion of both body and sheets, every single nuance of light and shadow is carefully calculated. For artistic reasons? Of course not! Show the side of a breast: PG-13. Show a nipple: R. Keep either of those on screen for an aggregate of more than 10 seconds: X. (I don't know that these are the precise standards for rating but I do know that is very much the flavor of this industry-wide censorship). Put the same shot in most any French film and what do you have? Put the actors on the set and roll the film. If a sheet falls and exposes something, so be it. If one of the performers gets out of bed, maybe you'll see their genitals, maybe you won't. There is no unnatural choreography driven by the need to appease a puritanically-derived "ratings" system (and don't get me started on the absurd semantic games involved in branding nationally-sanctioned censorship as a "rating" system). Or let's extend this to even more sacred forms of public entertainment. Boxing is a long-revered and glorified "sport" in which two great athletic specimens attempt to pummel one another into unconsciousness...the goal is literally to inflict a (hopefully) temporary brain injury on your opponent. Public exhibitions of sex, on the other hand are reviled as lewd, vile and repulsive and a sure sign of the moral downfall of any society that permits them. But what is a public display of sex? Two (or more) highly trained, often very athletic specimens, engaged in giving pleasure to one another. Is it because there is no "winner" that this is repulsive (or perhaps because there is no "loser"?). Is it because it's exploitive? How can it be when, in most cases, the actors are there not just of their own choice but of outright desire to earn a living this way? (And, by the way, I'm not so naive as to believe there aren't cases of people being coerced into doing porn movies but that sort of abuse is far from unique to the "adult-entertainment" industry). I suspect that a major reason for the wide-spread taboo on such displays is because it confronts people with their own inhibitions and insecurities in the area of being physically or emotionally intimate with one another. Far better to pummel someone into submission than acknowledge the possibility of bringing joy to them (much less open yourself sufficiently for them to provide joy to you). Over the years, I have done a lot of reading about the history of sex in different cultures. I won't attempt any kind of cultural history lesson here but, suffice it to say that our current notions of sex, especially as it relates to marriage, are relatively recent and, to some extent, geographically-localized developments. Some anthropologists and social historians argue that our "need" to watch public displays of violence dates back to our primitive origins as hunters when the ability to conquer often meant the ability to survive. There is, however, much evidence that, in ancient times, sex was equally prized (as, indeed, it still is in isolated pockets of Eastern and Pacific societies and even religions). Tantric Buddhists actually used sex as an active part of their religious ceremonies and, to this day, many of these temples are heavily decorated with what most Westerners would consider pornographic carving. It's very sad to me that our so-called freedom of religion in the United States, more accurately described as freedom to choose your particular flavor of Judeo-Christian repression, offers no protection to these far more ancient forms of religion. I would like to end this essay on a more upbeat note and yet I find it difficult to do so. I love sex. I love all the freedom of expression that a joyous sex life almost demands we adopt. The world is perhaps, marginally more open to sexual matters today than in the very recent past but only marginally so, and probably for the wrong reasons (it is still largely an almost yin-and-yang mode of behavior in which we set up cultural biases against behavior in which we want to indulge so that we can feel ourselves to be naughty little rebels when we do participate). There's another page on this site in which I discuss, amongst other things, some of my own personal struggles with feeling like a round peg in a square hole when it comes to issues of both sex and relationships. Here I'll just say that I do struggle with it. I do, in many respects have a desire to fit in and yet I can't deny that I have these very strongly held beliefs which seem at odds with much of the world in which I live. I have been fortunate in finding at least a small circle of friends who, to varying degrees, understand, accept or, at least tolerate my "odd-ball" opinions but I wrestle continuously with ways to reconcile these beliefs with those of the world around me. |
|
[Home] [Travels] [About Me] [Guestbook] [Map] [Search]
|
