View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 1:11 am Post subject: Sex is full of darkness too: something to be feared |
|
|
We need a new sexual revolution
Quote: |
There is a myth that openness about sex is intrinsically good. In reality, the vast majority of 'openness about sex' is harmful.
Fifty years after the Wolfenden report we need another sexual revolution, one that brings some honesty.
Honesty about sex is difficult. It is more difficult than the evangelists of sexual frankness suppose. At present, discussion of sex resembles a swimming pool: all the noise comes from the shallow end. It is dominated by giggling shrieking shouting bores. Those who have a public platform are likely to be "new feminists".
The problem with sex is that honesty about it is never neutral. There is a stupid myth that openness about sex is intrinsically good, and reticence is suspect, repressed, unhealthy. In reality, the vast majority of "openness about sex" is harmful. You can't get more open about sex than a porn mag.
Discussion of sex that thinks itself serious and responsible tends to be complicit in the basic myth of liberation: we just need to get over our hang-ups and relax into the innocent fun of sex. It is wrong to present sex as harmless, healthy fun. In truth sex is no more harmless, healthy or fun than human life itself. It's as serious as life, and as morally mixed.
Sex-discourse is dominated by bubbly fools, or edgy ironic ladettes, who lack understanding of its moral complexity. They speak as if sex is a playground, or a means to self-expression. They speak of sex in the mode of celebration. This applies to daring television programmes such as Sex and the City.
What's wrong with celebrating the pleasure of sex, the excitement of it? Such celebration shares in the dishonesty of pornography. It lacks proper context. It forgets to say that this activity is as serious as life itself. By isolating it from the rest of life, it fetishises it, it falsifies it. And it forgets to say that sex is full of darkness too, that it is tied to selfishness, pride, fear, demonic destructiveness. Sex is not something to celebrate. It is something to be deeply equivocal, and cautious, about. Its power is something to be feared.
There is an idea that we have done well to get rid of the shame in sex. It's a dangerous half-truth. In reality one ought to be ashamed of certain forms of sexual desire. One ought to be wary of one's "natural" impulses. They might be natural, but that doesn't make them good. We ought to be honest about the inevitability of shame in sex. Such realism will help teenagers to feel more at ease with themselves. At present we let them believe a harmful lie: if you are healthy and normal, sex is about fun: enjoy! It messes a lot of them up, this "liberated" lie.
We have a deeply dishonest sexual culture. Sex is a matter of giggly fun, we say, and if it has a dark side that's the fault of a few bad people. In truth the shadow side of sex falls across us all.
|
From experience, I know there are a few posters here who regularly get a raging hard on thinking a poster's views must be synonymous with those expressed in an article proferred up for discussion. It's an interesting topic of conversation. Why not tackle the subject? Don't waste your time talking about me. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
crusher_of_heads
Joined: 23 Feb 2007 Location: kimbop and kimchi for kimberly!!!!
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
let the revolution start here and now |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Masta_Don

Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Location: Hyehwa-dong, Seoul
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 3:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sex shouldn't be fun...why? I don't get it.
For me sex is equivocal to art. It's possible to reach the utmost heights of heaven. And like art, sometimes you'll get along with someone on a sexual level that is independent of everyday communication. You may not even like the person other than the sex but it's in such a twisted language that you two have written together that it's the most amazing discovery. It pushes the bounds of a life lived mundane.
But I do agree that the dialogue surrounding sex is disingenuous. People may talk about it so much and thus it seems like we're liberated, but really it's this dialogue that keeps where we are sexually. By repeating the same memes/mores we stunt sexual growth. For example, the other night I saw a clip of a CSI or one of those shows. They were certain that the boy was the killer becuz he had a website devoted to S&M/rough sex, which they showed pictures of. A TV show with such a topic, let alone semi-graphic (for TV) pictures, never would have aired 30 years ago. So we must be progressing! Except all this did was emphasize that rough sex is deviant and a sign of unhealthy/unclean living. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Masta_Don wrote: |
Sex shouldn't be fun...why? I don't get it. |
I don't think he's saying that sex isn't fun or should never be fun. I think he's saying that we are being dishonest by not acknowledging that sometimes it's not (it has a dark side) or that even when it is fun, it's more than just fun. I think he's saying the media has begun to treat it too frivolously. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with BB, although I think the trend is pretty old now.
I am reminded of Nancy the Nympho.
Once upon a time, a long long time ago, I lived in a house with three floors. Technically, the guys lived in the basement and the women lived on the top floor and the middle floor was communal. Suzy Creamcheese, a recent ex-virgin, moved in to one of the women's bedrooms upstairs with Nancy.
One day soon after moving in, Suzy came downstairs all pale and shaken and told this story. She and her boyfriend were in bed on one side of the room and Nancy was in bed with BF #1 on the other side. Suddenly Suzie heard Nancy say, "#4!", followed by rustling of the sheets. A few minutes later she heard #2!" and so on. She said she asked Nancy about this.
Nancy explained that she had taught ALL her boyfriends her prefered sexual positions by the number.
Suzy was able to confirm this over time. Nancy NEVER went to classes. She had her 'boyfriends' on a strict time schedule and ALL of them knew the sexual positions by the number.
The point is, sex is and can be a lot of fun. But there is a point where it becomes...decadent. Too much of a good thing, if you will. To make this clear, when I said Nancy never went to class, I really mean that. She just banged 4 or 5 guys in rotation all day/night. Everyday.
For horny guys, there is a certain attraction to this. But would you be interested in Nancy in ANY other way? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 5:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Interesting post, Big Bird....
Sex has been downgraded a lot I think in the frivolous TV portrayal.. probably an over-reaction to the 60's somehow. They have still not reached the correct equilibrium. It all seems too cheap in the western media circus I think. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Adventurer

Joined: 28 Jan 2006
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose when talking about openness about sex, we are talking about tons of positions modeled after pornography. However, about tantric ideas where you are working on the energy of the two bodies rather than just the adrenaline rush associated with pornography. I do believe, though, in sexual opennes with your mate in terms of talking about what each person enjoys and how they're feeling.... |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Sex has been downgraded a lot I think in the frivolous TV portrayal.. probably an over-reaction to the 60's somehow. They have still not reached the correct equilibrium. |
I agree it is an over-reaction to the 60's, which was a reaction to the repressive 50's which was a reaction to the open 20's (at least in the US).
Reading social history, I haven't come across any time in Western History where a balance was achieved. The ancients may have had a better attitude, but the records before Christianity came in and messed up everything are not sufficient to know. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
Nancy explained that she had taught ALL her boyfriends her prefered sexual positions by the number.
Suzy was able to confirm this over time. Nancy NEVER went to classes. She had her 'boyfriends' on a strict time schedule and ALL of them knew the sexual positions by the number. |
Cor dear! Poor little Miss Creamcheese!! Haha. Nancy and her choreography, eh? I hate housesharing with noisy shaggers who can't be discrete. <Shudders> I've jumped out of my bed and scolded one or two in my time.
Quote: |
The point is, sex is and can be a lot of fun. But there is a point where it becomes...decadent. Too much f a good thing, if you will. To make this clear, when I said Nancy never went to class, I really mean that. She just banged 4 or 5 guys in rotation all day/night. Everyday.
For horny guys, there is a certain attraction to this. But would you be interested in Nancy in ANY other way? |
And that's what some of these young ladettes emerging from their teens discover to their cost. The media give them the impression that it's all fun and normal. BUT 'decadence' and promiscuity (for women) still come at a price. And that's why many of my female friends 'let loose' in holiday resorts on far away continents - where hopefully the word will never travel back home.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
where hopefully the word will never travel back home. |
But in the end, THEY know.
You used the word 'promiscuous'. It is only ever used in relation to females, never males. Unfair as that is, there is something to it.
There is another thread somewhere about monogamy and genetics, which I haven't read. My gut tells me there is a qualitative difference between males and females in this area. (Maybe I should have chosen the word 'quantitative' in relation to s*ut and stud.) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 6:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, one thing they also discuss in that thread, and which I've come across in readings rather often lately, is that females also tend toward a certain amount of promiscuity, which may have evolutionary benefits. I still think that ideas about 'slags' and 'studs' come at least partly from social conditioning. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
females also tend toward a certain amount of promiscuity |
Judging from some of the females I've known, I don't doubt this for a minute. My question: Is there any language on earth that doesn't make a moral distinction between the promiscuity between the genders?
I didn't mean to hijack your thread into a discussion of the trite. Sorry.
Back closer to the spirit of thread, there is simply a biological reality in the difference between the consequences of random free sex between the sexes. Women are stuck raising the kid. A few minutes (in MY case, MANY minutes ) of intense pleasure vs twenty YEARS of financial responsibility. That has to be one of the darker sides of sex.
When I was in high school, the pill became commonly available, although not commonly used. 10% of my classmates were pregnant on graduation day. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 7:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
I didn't mean to hijack your thread into a discussion of the trite. Sorry. |
Threads have a way of going off on tangents. No need for sorry.
Quote: |
Back closer to the spirit of thread, there is simply a biological reality in the difference between the consequences of random free sex between the sexes. Women are stuck raising the kid. A few minutes (in MY case, MANY minutes ) of intense pleasure vs twenty YEARS of financial responsibility. That has to be one of the darker sides of sex. |
Yes, unwanted pregnancy can be a 'dark' side-effect of sex, even in this day and age. Though that can also be an uncomfortable consequence for the man too. My dear dad, bless his soul, found himself wedded to my mother in a hurry with me swimming around blissfully in amniotic fluid at the time! I'm sure that's a story quite a few posters here can tell, it's as old as the hills.  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Julius

Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
10% of my classmates were pregnant on graduation day. |
Well thats the downside for you. Responsibility..I mean those young people were basically trapped into responsibility at a young age.
Its actually quite ridiculous too.10%.. Probably every society apart from the west would find that shocking. Sometimes it seems like its just gone too far.
I mean walking round a poor council estate and seeing numerous young unmarried mothers with several kids each.. its a kind of denial of life and its potential, for these people. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
Posted: Fri Sep 21, 2007 8:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Makes me think of the French word for death.
le petit mort ( the little death)
afraid yet? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|