Prudishness, or Victorianism specifically, I realized this morning, is a social construct. This is not much in terms of a revelation-quality, but at 9:30AM Saturday morning, this is what came to me.
Women's sexuality always makes men in power anxious, so they legislate ways to control female bodies. At the Chocolate Show a few weeks ago, Shakera told me that people in history have always had sex. I responded with: No they probably did it within legal and social norms and customs. She said I was an idiot, and the discussion went back to issues of chocolate.
So why are we so opposed to following the rules? What is the big deal with constructing rules, if you accept them as preconditions to the good life? So what if you deny yourself a good lay because you believe fornication is inherently wrong? So what if your Paradise is a construct? (Though I pray that belief supplanted with knowledge and reason leads to something real) If you believe constructs to be real, if you regard these constructs as truth, what is the harm? Your happiness, as a temporal quantity, may diminish. SO WHAT? You feel angst, and grossly inadequate to experience reality, but all this is just temporary.
Women's sexuality always makes men in power anxious, so they legislate ways to control female bodies. At the Chocolate Show a few weeks ago, Shakera told me that people in history have always had sex. I responded with: No they probably did it within legal and social norms and customs. She said I was an idiot, and the discussion went back to issues of chocolate.
So why are we so opposed to following the rules? What is the big deal with constructing rules, if you accept them as preconditions to the good life? So what if you deny yourself a good lay because you believe fornication is inherently wrong? So what if your Paradise is a construct? (Though I pray that belief supplanted with knowledge and reason leads to something real) If you believe constructs to be real, if you regard these constructs as truth, what is the harm? Your happiness, as a temporal quantity, may diminish. SO WHAT? You feel angst, and grossly inadequate to experience reality, but all this is just temporary.
if all you're interested in is finding yourself in paradise when you die, then it really doesn't matter. a little extra angst in this world will probably prove well worth it. (if you are indeed required to sacrifice things like sexuality to be let through the pearly gates, of which i am not entirely convinced.)
ReplyDeleteif, however, you do take paradise to be nothing more than a mental construct, or at least uncertain enough to not make it worth giving up on this life for, then its a different question. then perhaps your happiness in this world, if ethically attained, is of slightly higher import.
well said. "happiness in this world [when] ethically attained"--this is the key and the locus of my argument.
ReplyDeleteits not that sexuality is taboo; only sexuality outside of marriage. I spent maybe 60% of today talking about marital relations, which greatly screwed up my productivity. but sex, when ethically attained, is far better than just sex for the sake of sex. i don't know how many hours i've spent explaining my position. uf
i agree that sex is probably far better when ethically attained, i.e. when it involves love. this, i think, almost everyone will agree on.
ReplyDeletebut the harder question you have to ask yourself is what is ethically wrong with sex before marriage, with sex that does not involve love? why should sexuality outside marriage be taboo? i know it is forbidden in shariah, but aside from this, is there a rational explanation?
on why sex within marriage is better than sex without marriage:
ReplyDeleteprelimary definitions:
1. marriage is a civil contract between two parties that agree to share property rights, and responsibilities.
2. marriage is a socially constructed institution that furthers the functioning of society.
3. marriage as it is understood today is a culmination of love between two compatible persons
now what is sex outside of marriage? i will call it fornication (because of the added moral dimension to the word):
given our understanding of marriage, marriage is something more than sex with the same person for a long period of time. it confers responsibility and integrity to both parties. marriage endows something more than the physical act of sex.
when you have sex without love, then you are merely fulfilling your instinctual need to experience pleasure. you miss out on the greater dimension of love, affection, human integrity.. etc.
in more material terms, sex outside marriage necessarily means sex with multiple persons before marriage. this increases chances of stds, and sexual diseases that can impair your ability to procreate. then all you have is fornication, and no babies.
a rational explanation for why not to have sex outside of marriage is human psychology. women are programmed to want one man who will commit to, and support her offspring. it makes no sense evolutionary wise why she should go around having mutiple orgasms with different men, contracting and spreading veneral diseases that harm her ability to reproduce.
sex is a special bond between two people. if you have it indiscriminately, then it looses its significance. don't you want your wife to just know you and not compare you to all the other guys she's been with? multiple sex partners leads to greater anxiety to both parties: was i her best? etc.. instead, there should be nothing to compare to.
and another harm: if you start having sex indiscriminately, and enjoy it thoroughly, why would you keep yourself from sexing infinite bodies? there would be no limit to sexual partners, according to the male mind i think