cliterature

In my experience sex pundits are a fairly mixed lot, but you can normally depend on them being pretty progressive–except where it comes to asexuality.   Take for exampe the “FOXSexpert” (pictured) in the article posted two days ago, ”Asexuality - Is It Even Real?” (I was feeling the support and acceptance for asexuals right from there).

 Her points being, paragraph by paragraph:

“It’s a hard concept to fathom”
“it’s the exception to the rule”
“only 1 percent of adults have never felt sexual attraction”
“a person doesn’t decide to be asexual”
“these individuals claim to never experience sexual attraction “
“asexuals reported significantly lower sexual arousability than non-asexuals”
“some asexuals do want to be in a loving relationship”
“Asexuals date and have romantic relationships with people “
“There is debate within the scientific community as to if “asexuality” can be considered another type of sexual orientation”
“Some regard asexuality as more of a condition known as hypoactive sexual desire disorder …
“these times are often temporary and due to a specific cause “
“So don’t be so quick to chalk yourself up as asexual”
“If your lack of interest in sex or (potential) partners is causing you distress or interpersonal difficulties, then you may want to seek out medical and/or psychological assistance.”
“If you’re perfectly fine with your condition, but feel like you need support in our sex-crazed society, you may want to turn to The Asexual Visibility and Education Network”
“Those involved with asexuals may want to explore support groups as well.”

As an expert opinion this strikes me as not radically off-base, but rather naive, unhelpful and very negatively slanted for an expert opinion with a wide audience. Try imagining the same being said of someone who is homosexual.  It shouldn’t be hard because pretty much the same things were once acceptably said of homosexuality. Try it on for size:

Does Homosexuality Exist? 
How could someone fancy their own sex, my mind boggles?
It’s not what most (normal) people want.
It is statistically rare.
–Okay, a positive point, the state is probably innate. Yay.
These people claim to only be attracted to their own sex
Gay people report they are more attracted to same sex partners (duh)
Gay people want to be in loving relationships
Gay people sometimes date and marry
There is debate in the scientific community about whether this is a legitimate orientation
Some consider homosexuality a disorder
It may just be a phase
So don’t be too quick to think you might be gay
If being gay upsets you, seek professional help
If it doesn’t, go and hang out with your own kind and get support there (not here)
Your loved ones may need professional help because you are homosexual

Cheerful and accepting isn’t it? I mean, come on. What is the real message of an article that opens with astonishment that a sexual demographic could possibly exist, and focuses most of its attention on it being rare, possibly non-existent, possibly a physical or mental disorder and source of misery for the afflicted and those around them.  The final line, drawing a parallel between asexual and sexual relationships and suggesting they need basically the same things, rings rather false after an essay that reads like the veiled homophobia of twenty years ago.

It is a bit like making a documentary about sharks that is 90% screaming and blood in the water, and expecting the audience to take away the 10% that is blather about the rarity of shark attacks and the need for species conservation.  (IMHO, naive at best and possibly disingenuous.)  If the audience isn’t going to accept asexuality perhaps the pundit isn’t willing (so to speak) to rock the boat.

Pat Boone wrote a book for teenagers in 1958 called (with an excess of ‘Aw, Shucks’ styling) ‘Twixt Twelve and Twenty.  It is predictable that I would have quite a lot to say about such a book, not least the idea that a man who eloped and married at 19 might be the best choice for advice.  Nevertheless the idea of making a more general statement was eclipsed by my reaction to one small section.  Beneath the title “Sweet Sixteen” the following is said of (and to) girls of the ages 15 and 16:

“…there are even more rules of conduct for girls at this stage. One of them is that, even if a fellow runs like a three-legged hippopotamus, he must be the pursuer. In this game of hide-and-seek the male is always’”it.” The girl who makes the advance tips her hand immediately. That throws the game, for if she’s “it” then the fellow has to run hide, and usually does. This I know, from experience. Of course girls do have subtle ways of reversing the game. For example:

There once was a maiden of Siam
Who said to her lover, young Kiam,
“If you kiss me, of course
You will have to use force–
But you’re certainly stronger than I am.”

Undoubtedly, she got kissed.  But down Nashville way, we would have seen right through her.  We didn’t cotton to “bold” girls in Tennesse.  The fact is that one of the best ways for a galt o catch a guy is to let him chase her!”

It is hard to even remember a time when it was respectable to believe, and to advise children, that no means yes.  And this without even considering for a second that this might lead to a situation where a boy, or indeed a man, fails to accurately distinguish between a no that means yes and a no that actually means no–let alone how to deal with the consequences of the error.

Sometimes is can be tricky to explain to a guy why gender myths(a.k.a. gender stereotypes or false beliefs) are/can be a big deal.  Partly this is because most of the gender myths we are taught as children continue to just seem plausible to us throughout life.  The other is that myths about males are a bit more insidious than those about women.  Women are characterised as weak, emotional, hysterical and erratic.  Being characterised as strong, logical, laconic and herois doesn’t seem like such as bad deal (until you try to live up to it all the time without ever showing a hint of weakness).

It can be helpful to illustrate how gender myths can be unnecessarily limiting by reach for example from the past, and examples relating to the male gender.  In fact there is one particular example that I have found to very effectively in getting the point across.  I will illustrate it with some quotes from what was considered a rather progressive book about sexuality, circa 1912.

 ”…the growing man [up to the age of 25] needs the semen secreted to develop his own body.  It is now recognised as a fact that the semen, if not dissipated, will be reabsorbed by the system and aid materially in the development of the body.  Boys who waste this “elixir of life” during their youth do not develop as they should.  The youth who practices masturbation …  during this period of development is wasting energy he never can regain.”

That’s right, it was commonly believed that a male up to the age of 25 should (could) abstain from any emission.  And what would happen if he did not?  Well according to this author:

“…self-abuse has a weakening effect on the body … capable of producing the most serious of results, such as insanity, idiocy, impotency and sterility … Children who have developed the habit of self abuse usually sleep badly, become thin and haggard looking, peevish, nervous and excitable.  Some even have convulsions.  Older boys who are masturbators usually get  a sallow look and hang-dog expression.  They become  absent-minded and lose their frank expression.  The young man with this habit becomes overshy as he is conscious of doing something that should be condemned. Adult masturbators may show no signs otherwise than that they are cowardly and mean-spirited … He lacks the willpower necessary to succeed in any undertaking and drags through life as a failure.”

These days we joke about going blind or getting hairy palms.  But this was a real basis for shame and confusion for boys who did what came naturally.  They must genuinely have feared becoming a coward, pervert or weakling.  In fact this belief lingers in certain subcultures to the present day.  Young boys were watched closely, sleep on hard beds with light blankets on the understanding that being warm ’stimulates’ erotic desires–in fact if possible they were mean to sleep outside or at least with a window wide open.  Using condiments on food was also considered dangerous and cold baths both a preventative and curative treatment.  Children born to men under 25 are described as likely to be deficit and under-developed.

It may seem funny now, but I doubt it was at the time when many boys would have been ashamed of something they were told was, on a moral and scientific basis, abnormal.  How would we know which of the beliefs we hold today might eventually be shown to be just as fallacious?  It may seem easy to dispute the opinions in an old book (one that goes on to discuss ‘race suicide’ and the advisability of sterilising imperfect humans). 

But irrational shame still lurks in the form of gender myths in our own day to day lives.  We obsess about our sexual attributes, orientations, the strength or absence of libido, our appearances, our fantasies, what we view and read–and equally we are judgemental of others based on the very same things.  It should be simple, really.  There should be no shame where no-one is harmed.  But false science and moralising convinces many people that what comes naturally to them harms themselves or others.  And it is hard to sort truth from myth when another camp, especially on the online Wild West, will suggest any kind of abuse is actually normal and loving.

It may take a funny example to make the point.  But gender myths limit how people behave and who they are, not just sexually but in every way.  Some of these limits are beneficial and prevent selfish abuse or others, and some are arbitrary and perverse with a needless legacy of shame and self-loathing.  The trick, as ever, is telling the differemce between the two.  Or at least trying to.

 * Quotes from Himself: Talks with Men Concerning Themselvesby EB Lowry and RJ Lambert (Forbes & Company, Chicago, 1912)

Flying, Sex-Free

 Sex pundit Violet Blue has an interest post objecting to airlines blocking pornography from in-flight WiFi.  Whilst I understand her point I am not sure it is correct to say the move is based on the idea that “online porn consumption makes us into drooling lunatics who no longer know right from wrong”.  I certainly concede the point that airport shops are happy to sell not only erotic novels but also pictorial skin mags, but I think the corporate cave-in probably has more to do with the idea that plane seats are about the size of a battery chicken cages, and most of us are larger than the average chicken. 

It is impossible to eat, without a game of dueling elbows, or to get out to go to the toilet without getting one’s groinal area within an inch or two of various people’s noses.  On the whole I am happy to discreetly read an erotic story, but pictorial and sound elements are innately shared with those nearby–especially of you are in the centre of a row.  And at this point in time pornography is not something to be shared with random members of the public.  So,  as long as the filters were sensible (relating to explicit pictorial elements) I wouldn’t really have a problem with them, and the more gynecologically-inclined skin mags could go too.  Just because the people pushing for the filters are prudes doesn’t necessarily make something a bad idea.

 Sharing Fantasies

“FOXSexpert” Yvonne K. Fulbright has a guide to help people think thought whether they should share their sexual fantasieswith their partner, and if so, how.  I find it interesting that she jumps in with some pretty hard core examples like breaking the law, abuse of power and, um, nuns.  But I support part of the point is to think really hard about whether you should share your sexual foibles at all.  I have to say the advise is substantial but the coy title (FOXSexpert), the cheesy picture (hellooo cleavage+bad lighting) and in-text advertising really detract from this article.

Sex is Good For You

While I understand sex pundits to some extent, I am surprised that the Times of India makes an article out of re-reporting Dr. Fulbright’s idea of sex as a form of exercise or diet.  What seems to be the original article is in fact here, and given that it seems to be the sole source for the Times article, I think the Times could at least have provided a direct link rather than just scarping the idea and throwing in a name check. In a more general sense the idea that sex is good for your overall health and well-being seems to be doing the rounds again.  For example this piece name-checking Dr Debra Herbenick of the Kinsey Institute.

And the sex is good for you message also seems to ge getting a religious spin.  For example this article quoting Patricia Weerakoon (”Why would God have created a clitoris if he didn’t want us to have orgasms?”) and this one quoting moral theologian Lisa Fullam (”We are incarnate beings, and that feel for incarnation calls us to be the best bodies we can be . . . sex brings us more than any other experience into our bodily nature”).

As a final thought: interesting isn’t it that the sexuality experts and pundits of the current era are almost universally female?  Is this because female sexuality is in the need of greatest help?  Or the female perspective is more complex and interesting?  Or female experts have greater traction because they are seem as less threatening?  Or the readership of these things is largely female and prefers same-sex advice?  In any case the message out there in the online media is that sex is here, sex is good, and women are the experts.