So here's kind of an interesting one. Thinking about this Chatroulette deal, with their much-bruited bewildering penis array, set me off on a tangent. Now I myself, raised Catholic, never had a problem with sex. But I'm certainly acquainted with the very restrictive view of sex and sexual matters that's pretty deeply-ingrained in our society - and not limited to the devout, either! It's just some kind of thing with us. Whereas in Europe for instance, those filthy libertines let their freak flag fly from the beaches of Normandy to the Urals without repression or exception! The whole "Continent" is practically a clothing-optional zone, except for the weather. It's as if they believe the human form is beautiful and natural, and nothing to be ashamed of. Now that's an attitude that some of our artsier types here in the States might hail, except hold on a second people! Their non-prude attitude to nude isn't some ode-to-human-perfection situation, such as even we here might all be on board with. Nope! This is a real down-to-earth deal (in some cases, literally). They include fat people, ugly people, and the old as well in their public display of nude affection. So, not such a clear-cut issue!
With us here in the U. S. of States, I've always suspected that a lot of the inhibitions and prohibitions and puritanicals are perhaps - ultimately - more harmful to us than whatever it is they're protecting us from. Yet at the same time, you don't really want to have your whole society just steeped in filth! With dirty, lewd, disgusting displays of naked people, performing all sorts of natural acts upon each other! Someone once said, "Won't someone please think of the children?" - and that person wasn't far from wrong. Someone else once said "I don't want to live in a childproofed world." Hm, good point as well.
So I'm just going to throw out a lot of "provocative" questions, thus making it seem like I'm the thoughtful one, whilst absolving myself of actually having to step up and stake out an actual stance:
1. To what extent does religion-based sexual repression hearken back to attempts on the part of the dominant patriachy to cripple the ability of women to embrace the native power of their sexuality, by forcing women to either deny their drives and desires, or else subjugate them entirely to the purpose of serving men: gratifying the sexual desires of men, and performing sexually only to the extent that is sanctioned and approved by men?
1.a. To what extent are men also victimized by this?
2. To what extent does secular sexual prudery derive from the inertia and legacy of religion-based sexual prudery, and to what extent may it be derived from other factors? Is it possible that some degree of sexual prudery may stem from instincts and inhibitions that are evolutionary/natural, rather than societal/conditioned? Is it possible that religious prohibitions are themselves ultimately outgrowths of deeper needs or instincts that tend to exert inhibitory or repressive influences against extravagant outward displays of sexuality, within a given breeding population?
3. The classical philosophical stance of the Cynic would state: "That which is natural is not shameful." How can this be reconciled with the apparent wish of a majority within our society to hold and keep a generally accepted and respected comfort level that limits displays of sexuality and nudity? Are social norms in and of themselves onerous? What about just being polite? Can't we all agree that me walking blithely into a room with my dick and balls out is just on some level WRONG? Or if not "wrong," then rude?
4. On the other hand, if it is all a matter of taboos and etiquettes, where do we get off slathering judgment and condemnation upon those who only wish to frisk and prance uninhibitedly? Can concerns of mere etiquette justify persecution? Prosecution?
5. On the other other hand, if we take the stance that sex is all the way yay, and that those who decry it are just a bunch of prudes - what is the final effect of that view, on how sex is valued between two vulnerable partners? Or what if only one of them is vulnerable? Is a man or a woman free to treat their carnal interactions with another human being as nothing more than grist to grind in their insatiable mill of sexual gratification? Is it acceptable for a person who views sex this way to transact sex with others, without making it plain what value they put upon it (or more to the point, do not?)? Would their partners be right to feel deceived, abused or aggrieved by such one-dimensional treatment, depersonalized to a bodily function? Can this be a fair or a healthy way to view a current or potential sex partner? Supposing they don't share that kind of valuation (or more to the point: that lack thereof)?
5. Anal sex, come on. I don't know. Is it okay if I'm just not interested?
6. Suppose I'm seeing this girl, right. Suppose we're having sex. High five.
7. Is it acceptable to joke about sexuality?
8. Is sex ultimately only about control?
8a. Whose control?
No comments:
Post a Comment