Rape, Sexual Assault, and Human Dignity

What's it going to take to prevent more rapes and sexual assaults? Why are men doing this?

Men in the US have been socialized incorrectly when it comes to thinking about sex. They are raised to believe the world owes them a warm, wet hole to stick their dicks into. Subsequently, when such a hole isn't offered to them, they may feel free to take one by force. Because they don't see women as human beings. They just see them as bodies housing that warm wet hole.

When I was younger I used to hear that rape was not an act of sex, but an act of violence. I understand what activists were trying to say, but I think they were mistaken in their terminology. Rape is an act of sexual violence, and it stems from a great misunderstanding about sex that our society teaches its young. What should we teach our young about sex?

1. You do not need sex. It is commonly thought that sex is a need that must be fulfilled. This is not true. A human being needs air, water, food, and adequate protection from the elements (i.e., clothing and/or shelter) in order to survive. Sex feels like a need because it manifests as such a strong urge. But a person can go his whole life without ever having had sex with another human being, and will still be okay.

2. The world does not owe you sex. I have often heard that people feel they deserve to have sex (or, in a related phraseology, "deserve to be loved", which implies a sexual component). This is false. No one "deserves" to have sex (or to be loved). To say I deserve sex means that someone out there in the universe is obligated to give it to me. This obligation means moral coercion. No one can be morally coerced into having sex with another human being. To believe so is repugnant. I may be worthy of sex and/or love, and I have a right to seek it, but that does not make me deserving of it.

3. Life is gruesomely unfair. Life is a messy business, and people are born with and acquire different qualities. Some people are exceptionally attractive, and some people are exceptionally unattractive. Some people have engaging personalities, and some people are offputting. Most people fall within the vast middle, i.e., they're okay in personality and appearance, but not extraordinary. However, even being okay doesn't guarantee they'll be able to have sex with another person. Usually, the person I'm attracted to is not attracted to me, and the person who wants to have sex with me doesn't interest me at all. That is the nature of life.

4. You must learn how to deal with both the titanic urges of sex, and the brutal unfairness of life. Sexual urges are strong, but opportunities to express them with other people in a dignified and respectful way are very rare. For some, they never occur. Only a few can have these opportunities frequently. It is wrong to force someone else to have sex with you, just because you want to have it with them. No one is under any obligation to have sex with you, no matter how badly you want to have it with them. Desiring strongly to have sex with another person does not confer the right to have sex with that person. In fact, one never has a 'right' to sex, only the right to seek it. Since this is the case, it is ethically incumbent on each individual to learn how to deal with his or her own sexual urges without violating the rights of other individuals. It is also ethically incumbent on each individual to learn to accept the unfairness of life, and to learn how to negotiate his or her own niche in this vastly unfair existence, and to do so with dignity and equanimity. (There are ways to do this, which I hope to address later.)

5. These lessons are not about sexual 'purity' or religious morality - they are about maintaining your human dignity. For centuries, religion has been the check on unbridled sexual pursuit. But religion frequently failed, because simply telling people "No!" is often not good enough a disincentive. Furthermore, religion based it's sexual strictures on the needs of an agricultural society, in which families need to ensure all children within a family were of the same parentage, and that the family had sufficient children to carry on the work of the farm. These values are no longer incumbent upon an overpopulated planet, and sex can be about pleasure foremost, and reproduction secondarily. Instead of purity or religious morality, sexual behavior and attitudes should be about ethics: about caring for others and about maintaining one's own dignity. Not to pursue sex with another person once that person has refused one's attentions is dignified. Accepting a "no" is dignified. Respecting another person's sexual integrity is dignified. Dignity and integrity trump sexual fulfillment, because dignity and integrity last far longer than the "afterglow" of sex.

These lessons are difficult and complex, and must be ingrained early and often. They go against the grain of US culture, and its emphasis on optimism and "winning". But these lessons are necessary to prevent people from committing rape and sexual assault. For those who didn't learn them in childhood, it is ethically incumbent upon them to learn them now.

Love, Frankl and Midlife

I continue reading through Viktor Frankl’s fascinating The Doctor and the Soul, and I find it both enlightening and frustrating. Enlightening because I can see things from a different angle, frustrating because just when I think I’m going to get to a real insight about myself, he moves on the next point. I find I wish I could talk to him face-to-face.

Last night I finished the chapter on love, and while most of it was on point, I have a few quibbles.

Frankl distinguishes between sexual desire (i.e., lust), erotic desire (i.e., infatuation) and love. Lust is purely physical, of course. Erotic desire involves the psychological as well as the physical. In other words, erotic desire is the desire to have/be with a person for their personality as well as their looks. Love, on the other hand, is the full, non-possessive appreciation of a whole person. Love can be experienced in a monogamous relationship, or it can be for a relative, etc. Up to this point I agree fully.

What I think Frankl didn’t spell out and should have is that for monogamous, coupling relationships, lust and infatuation are stages one must go through to reach love. I don’t think many, if any, leap ahead directly to love, bypassing lust and erotic desire, to establish monogamous relationships. Love minus sexual and erotic attraction is simply a deep friendship (which is a wonderful thing, by the way), but not the basis for a monogamous coupling.

To be sure, I agree with Frankl that if a relationship gets stuck at the possessive, erotic desire stage, it isn’t love. Furthermore, a relationship stuck at that stage is fragile. If the partners cannot move it to real love, it may not be able to hold up over time and the vicissitudes of life.

Frankl also reiterates that one does not have to experience love to make life meaningful. One can also make life meaningful through action and through one’s attitude toward unavoidable suffering. In fact there comes a point in some people’s lives when love is admittedly no longer possible, and they must make meaning otherwise. He maintains however that if one does not experience love and feels resentment toward life over this, he will hamper the meaning-making in his life. To be able to live without love and yet not be resentful about that is a path toward meaning-making.

And this is what I must learn to do. I freely admit I harbor resentment for not having been able to find/have/create love in my life. All my past relationships never got beyond the infatuation stage. I may have thought I was in love, but I wasn’t. Between coming out late and having warped ideals of love modeled for me while growing up, I was hampered in the pursuit of love. If I could undo my past I would certainly change how I did things.

But now I’m at a stage of life in which I believe opportunities for love are vanishingly scarce at best. Because (IMHO) sexual and erotic desire must precede love, I no longer can fall in love with someone. I do not desire men my age. They are not sexually attractive to me.  If, when I was much younger, I had truly loved someone, and had aged alongside him, that wouldn’t be an issue. We’d have our whole history together to draw upon. But without the initial stages of sexual desire and erotic desire to start off with, love of a monogamous, coupling nature is not going to happen for me. In my life, I’ve moved well beyond the time when this could have happened.

So my current task is to deal with the resentment. I must learn to live with my life (the unavoidable factors I was born into, such as a fundamentalist family, a small town milieu, etc., and the poor choices I made along the way, such as sticking with infatuation relationships when they should’ve been dropped) and move beyond the resentment. I must admit that the resentment runs deep, and is tangled up with my religious upbringing, my regressive childhood social milieu and a host of other factors. It may very well be that letting go of the resentment is a major component of my meaning-making tasks in life. To show to myself that having been born in the time and place I was does not need to make my life hopelessly angered and emotionally crippled.

Favorite Quote, IV

That’s what everybody wants, Nicky. They don’t want a twenty-four-hour hump sesh, they don’t want to be married to you for a hundred years. They just want to hold your hand.

—Thom [Aaron Yoo] to Nick [Michael Cera], Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist (Lorene Scafaria, writer; Peter Sollett, director; 2008)