Let's talk about sex
I know we've discussed the 'culture wars' on this blog, but in each thread it seems more and more that we're really discussing the 'sex wars:' abortion, homosexuality, polygamous marriage... you name it.
So let's cut out the middleman. I want to talk about sex today.
One premise of socially conservative thought is that relaxing attitudes toward sex has led to more of "the bad kind" of sex, the kind that leads to illegitimacy, abortions, divorces, and the like (for an interesting example of "mixed orientation" marriage, click here [hat tip: Boudicca]).
I want to know if people think this has any truth to it. Do we think that socially modest behavior is related to sexual morality?
Let me use an easier example. Dress 'codes' for both genders are no longer as stringent as they used to be. As a result, it has become much more commonplace to see revealing clothing than, say, 50 years ago.
At the same time, pornography has gone from an obscure cult scene to a multi-billion dollar industry.
So has the scale on which modesty is measured simply shifted? Are we now so used to porn actors and actresses as mainstream icons, and revealing clothing in our every day experience, to boot, that we don't even consider it strange, and our personal mores have remained unaffected?
Or has the slow shift away from modesty led to totally different attitudes about sex, too?
Let's stay with the pornography example. Are these actors and actresses liberated from an imposed modesty, free to explore their sexuality - and get paid! - or are they just as much prisoners of a new code that only prizes physical perfection? What does either answer say about society?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions (and the 50,000 related ones that I'm sure will come up in the comments), but I thought I would throw them out there and get a discussion started. I have to give most of the credit for raising this topic to Boudicca; in fact, the majority of what I've posted here is from listening to her talk about these and other issues!
I'm throwing it open to comments now, and I trust everyone will exercise high levels of maturity when commenting on such a sensitive and (perhaps) highly personal subject. Thank you.
So let's cut out the middleman. I want to talk about sex today.
One premise of socially conservative thought is that relaxing attitudes toward sex has led to more of "the bad kind" of sex, the kind that leads to illegitimacy, abortions, divorces, and the like (for an interesting example of "mixed orientation" marriage, click here [hat tip: Boudicca]).
I want to know if people think this has any truth to it. Do we think that socially modest behavior is related to sexual morality?
Let me use an easier example. Dress 'codes' for both genders are no longer as stringent as they used to be. As a result, it has become much more commonplace to see revealing clothing than, say, 50 years ago.
At the same time, pornography has gone from an obscure cult scene to a multi-billion dollar industry.
So has the scale on which modesty is measured simply shifted? Are we now so used to porn actors and actresses as mainstream icons, and revealing clothing in our every day experience, to boot, that we don't even consider it strange, and our personal mores have remained unaffected?
Or has the slow shift away from modesty led to totally different attitudes about sex, too?
Let's stay with the pornography example. Are these actors and actresses liberated from an imposed modesty, free to explore their sexuality - and get paid! - or are they just as much prisoners of a new code that only prizes physical perfection? What does either answer say about society?
I don't know the answer to any of these questions (and the 50,000 related ones that I'm sure will come up in the comments), but I thought I would throw them out there and get a discussion started. I have to give most of the credit for raising this topic to Boudicca; in fact, the majority of what I've posted here is from listening to her talk about these and other issues!
I'm throwing it open to comments now, and I trust everyone will exercise high levels of maturity when commenting on such a sensitive and (perhaps) highly personal subject. Thank you.
posted by Joshua @ 10:00 PM
7 Comments:
As with any "moral" question, the first thing I strive to do is to find a common sense, almost 'a prori' foundation for the mores stripped of all religious grounds that might not have actual relevence. Im not trying to debase religion here, but to give an example, coffeeshops and bars might be frowned upon in Salt Lake City, but that doesn't make such disapproval part of a common sense morality.
Common sense morality for sex, for instance, would say that it needs to be consensual, and that there is a point of life before which one cannot reasonably understand what they are consenting to (and sense that will be different for everybody, we'll make it something arbritrary and know that the kids are gonna do what the kids are gonna do anyway.)
This is all well and good, except that it fails to address consequences: unwanted pregnancies and communicable diseases. While these are still an issue, obviously, the sexual revolution came as a direct result of the widespread availability of the pill. Between that and condoms, assuming one has at least an iota of personal responsibilty, the two clear and present negative consequences are dealt with, to moralist chagrin. So when , for exaple, a medicine is created to prevent HPV from leading to cervical cancer, it is blocked on ethical grounds. Well, we can't alleviate one of the negative consequences, because then people will be more likely to have sex - as I'm sure we all know people who remain abstinent for fear of HPV - and thus more at risk for the negative consequences. It's like banning airbags to discourage driving.
Actually, driving isn't such a bad metaphor. Cars allowed for a revolution in travel that is centrtal to our daily life an economy, turning oil from a sub-coal feul to a multi-trillion dollar industry. But still, we have to contend with the 'bad" kind of driving, which leads to death, injury, loss of property, public disturbance and polution, not to mention the bootleg stickers of Calvin pissing on the Chevy logo. Taken out of a religious context, the negative consequences of sex are primarily unwanted pregnancies and VD, both of which we have the technology to prevent, if only we would make sure that people were using it. That, of course, only leaves...
Emotional Consequences! Yes, yes. Well, truth be told, despite what anyone else may say, the emotion consequences are good. Beyond that, they're the very stuff of life, and they're the reason why we seek encounters, sexual or otherwise, instead of just staying home and masturbating. Sometimes, maybe even most of the time, these will end up hurting, but that's just part of it, and part of life. It hurts sometimes, but you put the hurt in perspective.
Finally, one more thing. Take a look at your life, and picture how it would have gone down in 19th century mores. For me, I'd probably be married to someone I now know to be horrible, either having more sex than I am currently or being constantly cheated on, and having to deal with it because that's the price you pay, versus being single now, but with enough expirience to know better what I'm looking for, a better understanding of women, and with a lot more of life under my belt. I prefer my way.
What a great topic Tacitean! I will quash all my urges to put 6th-grade humor into this post, but that’s going to be hard.
First of, I’d like to address Last of the Writ’s assertion that the concept of a ‘sex life’ is a new thing. While it hasn’t always, at least in Western or especially Christian society, been commonplace to discuss one’s sex life in mixed company, it’s always existed. The Kama Sutra was written thousands of years ago for a reason. People trying to get regular and enjoyable sex has been a goal since humans first realized that sex could actually be enjoyable. And I think the male race, at least, has taken sex lightly for almost as long. I’d say it was only in the last couple centuries that the problem of illegitimate pregnancy would rest on the shoulders of both partners, not just the female.
Actually, come to think of it, sex has always been fairly fucked up in our society; it just was never really talked about. Think about it: The idea of Courtly Love in the Middle Ages was about a knight romancing and seducing ladies, ladies who were usually already married for political reasons. To them, marriage was about politics, love could and usually did exist far outside of marriage. Also, most STDs that we contend with today, and spread to each other, are courtesy of our ancestors being involved in such practices as having sex with sheep. I for one think that having sex discussed more openly today is generally a good thing. For one, people realize now that it’s not ok to have sex with sheep.
And yes, I’m being a little scattered here, but this really is a fascinating topic. I think sex, and sex lives, definitely changed a lot with the introduction of more reliable contraception. It made sex less dangerous, and better for women overall. This is because, as I mentioned earlier, the shame in an illegitimate pregnancy tended to affect the woman a lot more than the man, who often would get off scot-free. A relaxing of attitudes means a woman who makes a mistake, and accidentally gets pregnant, will not be looked down upon by her family and neighbors for the rest of her life. Of course, the lack of consequence has some detrimental effects – As Dawson mentioned, there are those who are not mature enough to handle sex, or are unaware of how to properly protect yourself from disease and unwanted pregnancy. I think people talking more frankly about sex could actually solve a lot of these problems. A lot of those misunderstandings about what sex means and what the consequences are could be resolved, and possibly end the schizophrenic attitude we have towards it now, where society tries to sell sex and hint about sex and talk around the issue, without addressing head-on what sex is all about. That actually is, I think, the biggest problem with sex in our society today. We've accepted that people can be sexual and we want to see them sexualized, but we are still incredibly prudish about discussing the sexual act and what it means. Any thoughts on that?
Excellent comments so far! I only hope that mine can live up to the high standards.
I agree that birth control has made all the difference in the world, and, following L-o-Writ, this has created the possibility of a "sex life," where uninhibited behavior has a far lesser chance of negative consequences, and can be something for its own sake. Fair enough.
But I'd like to address head-on the implicit assumption that 'sexualizing' people is a good thing. Or maybe I'd just like to flesh out the definition of 'sexualize.'
Kelly, you mentioned that right now our societal attitude toward sex is very schizophrenic. I agree. But is making sexuality a fully public subject the correct way to go?
Let me be more precise. I am fully in favor of comprehensive sex education. I think accurate knowledge about sexual practice and risk factors is vital. I actually like the Bookie's metaphor about cars and airbags. Knowledge is always preferable to ignorance.
But I don't like 'sex' being thrown at me all the time on TV and being told by Hollywood/Madison Ave. that only prudes object. I think that's the end result of fully 'public' sexuality. It becomes just another commodity to be bought and sold.
I mean, look at "Girls Gone Wild" (I would prefer not to, but it's a handy example). I can't see how it's a good thing. It's not a mature celebration of sexuality, at the very best, and at the worst, it's cruelly exploitative (I say this having only seen the ads, so if any brave soul who's seen the videos is willing to set me straight about the nuanced picture of sexuality on display, I'll listen).
I realize this opens me up to the charge of hypocrisy. "Great, Tacitean, you're saying we should be comfortable with our sexuality, but you don't want to see any real examples of this. You really ARE a prude!!!"
Let me answer that (hypothetical) charge by bringing the idea of modesty back into the discussion. I think one can be fully sexual without being immodest. After all, isn't the whole point here that we should be respecting sexual privacy? I fail to see how society bombarding me with lewd images is respecting my sexual privacy. I think it's a flawed assumption that the only people with a healthy sexuality are the ones willing to pose suggestively in front of a camera.
This is why in my post I brought up the example of pornography and the 'pornographization' of the culture. I have to believe that adult film stars are very, very comfortable with themselves. And good for them, I should add. I can barely stand to see a fully clothed picture of myself (it's my upper lip - I just don't like it), so more power to anyone who is so relaxed with themselves that they can be fully sexual on film.
But I don't think that's the standard to hold everyone to! We are more than just our bodies and various functions, aren't we? More than the sum of our parts? I think that over-glorifying one aspect of ourselves can only lead to the belittling of other aspects.
The problem with popular culture today is that, in opposition, what I've just said sounds really 'anti-sex.' So let me vary the metaphor somewhat.
I like food. Some food more than others. I think it's a matter between me and my taste buds; I don't think anyone else shares my exact food preferences. I don't think anyone else should. I think most people can agree this is a sensible view to have.
So how would I like to live in a world where the TV is filled with ads of people gorging themselves on cheeseburgers, and society tells you only prudes don't eat five per day at multiple restaurants? Well, I wouldn't. That doesn't mean, however, that I like food any less.
Wow, Prometheus. If your metaphorical girl is killing herself over a break-up I can only assume that her problems run deeper than any sex act can account for. I'm not going to get deeply into the psychology of suicide, but it isn't cause-and-effect like Shakespeare and others would classically use it. It's a state of mental illness, and as such I won't use it to define my issue here. I honestly do believe that anything which doesn't kill you can make you stronger - and eventually happier - but only if you let it. If the girl in your example, minus her suicidal nature, takes a step back, she'll probably realize that she'd be better off tying her self esteem to something a little more rewarding and less co-dependent. We don't get to be happy all of the time; we don't get to be happy most of the time, but the times we get are our dessert after the brussels sprouts. The rest of the time you take the bad (or more often the mundane) and you figure out what went wrong and get back on the horse as fast as possible.
I advise everybody to think back to the first time you got your heart broken, and the hours, days and weeks that followed, and tell if you wouldn't like to feel something that deeply again.
As for Tac, I hear what you're saying, and I don't think you're prude. Obviously half the problem is just being in an advertising-saturated culture. Sex will continue to sell, and we will continue to be innundated. What a lot of people seem to have forgotten, though, is how much discretion adds to the fun of the whole thing. Sex is, I think, intrinsically selfish, and not just becasue of the physical gratification aspect, but also because of it's inherent glamor. When it is at it's best, you and your partner share an unspoken belief that everyone in the world wishes they could be in your shoes at that moment. ANd a little outward modesty only adds to that.
As a final thought, though, I feel like maybe the biggest of all sexually-related problems is jealousy, which natural as it may be, is still given way more ligitimacy than it deserves, to the point where the sex itself - meaningless without the meaning that we ourselves attatch to it - is demonized. Why should the envious be granted moral high ground over the envied in this case?
In the words of Kitty Sanchez, "Spring Break! Whoo!" (flashing boobs)
Anyway... Tacitean, I actually agree with you on many things. I find there to be nothing more dull and cliched than oversexed ads, television shows, etc. As someone who spends a lot of time in the television/media world, I think purely using sex to get people's attention is boring and unimaginative. When I say that people should talk more openly about sex, I don't mean I want it to be thrown at me by the media all the time. Right now we've become comfortable with the images about sex, but still giggle whenever we talk about sex. I think part of the reason that porn has become so popular, and that drunk 18-year-olds are stripping on camera, is that sex and nudity is still a somewhat taboo topic. After all, nothing will piss off mom and dad more than exposing yourself to drunken frat boys on spring break.
Take for example the ridiculousness that was the Janet Jackson incident a few years ago. Thousands of Midde Americans getting upset because they believe their children will be scarred for life because they saw a quick flash of a woman's breast. This of course led to the incident being talked about for months, or it might have been decades, I'm not sure, it seemed like an eternity. I think if sex were something that we were more comfortable with overall, things like quick, accidental nudity wouldn't be replayed to death in the media. We wouldn't make celebrities out of porn stars if we were more comfortable with our own sexuality, and didn't feel the rush of rebelliousness or naughtiness by watching porn. I myself am more for the HBO shows' view of presenting sex, in that they include it in their storylines because it's part of life, but they don't make a big deal out of it because, hey, it's HBO, we've shown the boobs and now we're moving on.
Of course, I may be overestimating the maturity level of the average American....
Okay, you're right. I was coming from an idealized stance where the hypothetical sex was occurring with the best intentions, hence the consequences were about self-interest.
American culture is still pretty early on in accepting sexuality as even something appropriate for discussion. Of course part of the society's going to go overboard with newfound liberation, while part of it is going to be terrified of what happens next. Essentially, our culture is in puberty. The annoying thing about this is that, for the time being, the nation will remain painfully preoccupied with sex, from both opinions on it, and it will remain in your face, Tac, probably for most of our lives. That's just how culture progresses. Once the culture matures to the point where the NYSE doesn't shut down over Janet Jackson's nipple, maybe the advertisers can calm down on the deluge. But it is a little much, and most of it's far from sexy - on the other hand, by the very nature of the bbeast the advertising tends to target the lowest common denominator, which then cheapens sex and, at our current point, has almost irrevocably branded sex as base, and cheap, only feuling the sense of its "wrongness." That's problem number one, and that, I feel, is truly stunting the maturity of a lot of horny teens out there.
Problem number two is that, with the liberation, culture has come to view sex as I was doing initially in these comments: from a standpoint of self-interest while assuming that our own intentions are good. Above I spoke of a certain type of selfishness inherent in sex, but that included the partner, and would have been better described as myopia. Real selfishness is the bane of sex, and the cause of all problems that arise from it - from grand melodramitic emotional consequences to mediocrity in the act itself. Thus I offer my (hopefully complete) theory: In any sexually free society, once the foundations of consent and responsibility are set, every other aspect of sexual morality should arise from responsibility for your partner's well-being.
In other words. Look out for yourself, look out for your lover. And hopefully pick up a few tricks along the way.
It seems this very issue will soon be a flashpoint in Indonesia.
Post a Comment
<< Home