As a species, Homo Sapiens is not strictly monogamous (see scientific literature for proof). Our society, well, at least the “western culture” society, is strongly based on a “family” construct that implies monogamy – a committed relationship between a man and a woman. Any relationship that contradicts this structure is aggressively attacked, denigrated and declared immoral. And there may be plenty of reasons for it, like the one to ensure a prosperous, organized and peaceful society for us to live in and progress as a country.
But, reasons apart, we are still not monogamous as a species. Lawmakers recognize that and that is why adultery, for example, is not a crime. Yes, it may serve as a basis for divorce, but it is not a legal crime. It’s the “moral codex” that is used to suppress this kind of behaviors, to keep a constant pressure to force people behave along the monogamy lines.
The question is – can it keep us under control?
We may look into medieval Europe at the alternating periods of sexual liberties and complete sexual repressions. Or even in US – the 60’s sexual revolution that followed the extremely strict period before it. Even without going deeper into numbers, dates and cultures, an easily recognizable pattern is visible – there is a cycle of sexual repressions followed by a sexual revolution, or rather an explosion letting the accumulated pressure out.
One may argue that if the “strict sexual morale” is not our nature, does it mean that we should dwell in some sort of sexual orgies without any moral limits? Of course not! The sexual revolutions are just the opposite extreme of the sexual repressions. Our normal “natural” behavior style would probably fit somewhere in-between strict monogamy and frivolous sexual orgies. Is it the “socially accepted mistress” relations, or maybe a little more relaxed sexual conduct rules? May be something else that is not that extreme in either direction?
If you look at what’s happening around us, you’ll see that the strict “puritan” US society is probably headed to another sexual revolution. For example, do you recall that army sexual harassment incident on the news about a year ago? You can find plenty of that kind of news, se at least http://www.feminist.org/911/sexharnews_military.html or http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec97/harassment_9-11.html or any other thousands links.
Do you see a trend as well, or is it just me? In all these cases the reaction is to tighten the rules, make harsher punishments and enforce even stricter the already strict environment. It’s like if a pan on the stove starts to surge steam we’d tighten the lid and increase the heat. It’s only a matter of time before it blows up.
Now, don’t get me wrong, sexual harassment and abuse is not what I’m advocating for. Any relationship, including sexual, has to be mutually acceptable. Any form of aggression should be punished. But when there are signs that the pressure is too high, instead of tightening the system we should be thinking of restructuring it in a way that would relieve the pressure. And it is not about the army only, this is true about the whole society in general. I mean, come on! Many of those “sexual harassment” lawsuits are just as bogus as that case of a woman that sued McDonnald’s for hot coffee in her cup. We’ve gone into an extreme “puritan” nonsense, in my opinion. In this context Janet’s breast exposure is not only a personal “cheap advertising” move, it’s a rebellion against tight rules. It’s the streaks of steam that’s escaping the tightly closed pot, that otherwise would be just some inoffensive mild vapor. Why would Janet have to expose her breast during prime time if topless beaches would be an accepted norm like in Europe, for example?
As of the myth that seeing topless women will make males go crazier and more aggressive – it’s just a total misunderstanding of the human nature. We get used to bare breasts as we are to bare faces. And that doesn’t lead to more aggressive male behavior. It does only in those cases when males where deprived of this sexual freedom for a long time and then are instantly exposed to it. It’s like unscrewing a tightly closed lid keeping high pressure in. Otherwise, it’s just as normal as usual.
And the same is true about other unjustifiably restricted freedoms. If you keep it unreasonably tight – it blows up and creates lots of problems for a long period of time.
I’d support a movement towards gradual increasing of sexual liberties, for society to accept and be more open to the human nature. It just doesn’t make much sense to wait for a revolution. I don’t like revolutions. I don’t like destroying everything and going to an opposite extreme. It’s just plain stupid, in my opinion.
Are you open to some natural sexual liberties? Or would you prefer an unmanageable and destructive revolution skidding into extremes? There is no third choice here.
No comments:
Post a Comment