Let's talk about...sex! : )
Heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, incest, bestiality, paedosexuality, SM…theses are all outings of sexuality, perhaps one of the most basic instincts of man (and woman). But a lot of taboo surrounds these different forms of sexual expressions, some stemming from centuries of religious indoctrination, others from cultural inhibitions, but all are repressive. And throughout history, extremes of sexual repression have led to persecutions of sexual minority who are deemed as ‘sick’, ‘unnatural’ and ‘deviating from the norm’.
But what is the norm? Titus Rivas, writes in ‘Sexual Intolerance’, that conceptions of what are ‘normal’ and ‘natural’ are merely human/social constructions, based on existing ideas and a system of values that are dominant.
“The religious rejection of deviant sex[ual behaviour] is namely not further reasonably justified, and is based on voluntary subjection to dogmas, in a way that morally no one should force that subjugation.
The apparent “biological” rejection is not sustainable, because with this one in fact very ‘un-biologically’ restricts sexuality to reproduction, and naturalistic arguments above all, always fail.
And the egocentric rejection [based on what I like is good, and what I do not like must be bad] is of course completely objectionable, and in that sense really [the one idea] that [which] is “repulsive”.
These ideas are ever-changing, and which may explain why different cultures, or even eras within one culture, have different attitudes towards sexuality, as an act, its implications, and the need for openness, or abstinence, in this regard. We should have an open mind, like towards all else, and not discriminate or so readily label or stereotype others with ‘different’ sexuality, or expressions of their sexuality:
“The sexual revolution is all but out of date, but actually not even complete yet. Morally, tolerance must be further developed into all forms of voluntary sexuality and abstinence.
The boundary of our sexual tolerance must not lie with what the construction of the sexual organs suggest, or what is written in the Bible or some other sacred book, let alone [be determined] by our personal preference or choice. That boundary must lie with unwanted sex and unwanted abstinence. Rationally, there is no good argument to differentiate between natural and unnatural sexuality, but there is a moral [reason] to differentiate between forced and free sex (and abstinence).”
Sex is a choice, and sexuality is a preference. Freedom of choice also means the freedom from interference. One should be free to choose, and therefore free from interference, and this right is mutual in relation to others with which we live with in society:
“People should have the possibility to choose for themselves things which other find disgusting or decadent, as long as, [and] at the very least, they do not hurt others.”
Sex is an intimate and deep act of expression, and sexuality an intimate and personal form of our identity. It is an experience to be enjoyed, to be indulged in by (both) parties involved, for it is a form of contact between people that invokes mental, physical and spiritual unions, producing affirmations of the very emotions and desires that make us who we really are—very human. When sex is, or becomes, dehumanising, then there is something seriously wrong:
“Sexual toleration comes from the moral principle that one, without good reason, may not interfere in the private life of another, a reason which sexually does not exist, unless it concerns sexual practices that are damaging for [others].
Sexual freedom in practice is really not just limited by intolerance, but also by forms of compulsion, exploitation and violence. Unforunately, such misunderstandings are in practice sometimes abused by intolerant people to stigmatise generally innocent, bona fide cases (for example erotica or paedophilia). But that does not take away the fact that it concerns serious offences cannot be denied or trivialised. Instead, one should see that sexual freedom as well as sexual tolerance implies the fight against sexual compulsion, violence and exploitation. There is not a single conflict here, but they are both expressions of unconditional respect for everyone’s sexual freedom.”
An example of how the need for more sexual tolerance, and the revolution that is taking place in the sexual arena of society is being twisted by same that blame openness about sexuality for ‘increasing’ deviant sexual behaviour like sexual violence and incest:
“Sexual violence is a century-old phenomenon. Nowadays there is more attention for it, but that is not to say that incest is taking place more often. That is because incest occurs in environments where sexual repression is still festively upheld. There is no factual basis to paint rapists and perpetrators of incest as natural children of the sexual revolution.”
Gerry van de List, ‘Lots of sex, little damage’, 27 October 2001, Elsevier
There are lots of countries and cultures in the world where sex is still a taboo, and therefore anything remotely sexual is countered with harsh punishments and frowned upon. Sexual persecution still takes place, in the form of discrimination based on sexual orientation, forced (fe-/male) circumcisions, while many are subjected to forced sexual exploitation and violence against their own free wills. It appears the more open a society is about itself, and attributes of its own identity, the better it is able to vent frustrations and tensions. And sex, and sexuality, form core foundations of how a society sees itself, the relationship between the sexes, and implicitly the power relations, as well as balance, between the sexes. No surprise then, that the UK—a culture and people with a ‘stiff upper lip’ and based on ‘keeping up appearances’— has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy, while the Netherlands—a culture and people where tolerance (not in the ‘zero’ sense) and openness to difference form foundations of civic values— has the lowest.
“Partly because of the emancipation of women, extensive sexual education, and self-regulation, moral decay has significantly remained limited. It is not coincidental that the number of teenage pregnancies in the libertarian Netherlands is relatively small. The sexualisation [of society] has not undermined civlisation. It [sexualisation] has strengthened it [civilisation], through an expansion of freedom of choice and the acceptance of the lives of many. Grosso modo it so applies: the more sex shops a country has, the more pleasant, freer and more civilised it is.”
And believe me when I say there are lots of sex shops in the Netherlands (or so I see…) Thank goodness for the Netherlands, sexual taboos are being broken in all sorts of ways:
“Without exaggerating, you can say that the Netherlands has […] become—in all layers of the population—the most sexualised society in the history of the western civilisation. Never before have there been so many opportunities to talk about sex, to bring sex into the picture, to practice one’s own sexual preference; never before has sexual fantasy been so stimulated.”
What a difference from those prune religious day of the past—not more than half a century ago, I might add:
“The older Netherlander who can still remember how sexual intercourse was associated with sin and disaster in Catholic and Calvinist circles, can only be jealous of the youth of today, the majority of which is liberated from similar oppressive conventions.”
UPDATE 21 July 2006
Something related to sexual tolerance and religion. Generally (north) Asian countries and societies are less dominated by religion, and this may be a reason why Ang Lee--director of gay-themed movies like The Wedding Banquet and Brokeback Mountain-- says Asians are more tolerant of homosexuality.
"Here Merkie, I see you're in need of some loving, baby."
"OH, UM GOTTES WILLEN--?!"
