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.
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
19 March 2013
25 September 2012
Gay Dating Is a Shit Show
An acquaintance of mine said gay dating is a 'shit show', and I agree. I pondered for a while why the situation has proven to be so dismal, and I have several ideas, but unfortunately no solutions.
First of all, gay dating is a relatively new phenomenon, and everyone is still trying to figure out how to do it. For most of gay history, we didn't date. We hooked up, and that was it. Most went on to marry women, and still hook up on the side from time to time. A few formed stable, life-long partnerships with other gay males, but even those partnerships were initiated by a hook up, not dating. We simply do not have a long history of dating in our community. A mere 10 years ago, there was a program in DC trying to teach gay people how to date, because the concept of dating (as opposed to serial hooking up, which might eventually lead to a relationship) was still so novel among us.
Because of the relative newness of gay dating, we've resorted to trying to import the dating model from straight people. But the world of dating among straight people is in flux, and I don't think they even know how dating should be done. For most of history, straight people didn't date either. The families negotiated a marriage, and it was an economic deal. Then as individuals asserted more independence, courtship came into play (even though the marriage deal was still largely economic). Only in the last century, and only in the "Western World", has heterosexual dating arisen, and as women in our society gain more power, the dynamics of dating remain in flux. Who asks out whom? When and how is sexual activity initiated? Etc. Furthermore, there are new studies suggesting that straight women are adopting more of a hook-up paradigm. As if instead of gays learning from straights, they're learning from us.
Finally, because gay communities tend to be more insular, I think there is a tendency for one to have his reputation destroyed before he even gets a chance to prove himself to other people. Gay men gossip, and viciously so. I've been on the receiving end of the gossip, and to my eternal and deep shame I've done my share of spreading the gossip. I know of people who've left town because they needed to start over. And often, the bit of gossip in no way represents the real character of the person. One bad night of acting out, and suddenly you're known as the world's biggest asshole.
People change, and some people actually mature, learn from their mistakes and grow to become better persons. But with decades old gossip following that person, he often doesn't get the opportunity to show the world he's changed.
The only hope I can offer is simply this: learn what you are in control of, take responsibility for those things, and leave the rest to others. In other words, keep trying, keep putting yourself out there, keep offering to prove yourself, and give others the benefit of a doubt. There are seven billion people on the planet. Chances are at least one of those persons would be worth dating.
First of all, gay dating is a relatively new phenomenon, and everyone is still trying to figure out how to do it. For most of gay history, we didn't date. We hooked up, and that was it. Most went on to marry women, and still hook up on the side from time to time. A few formed stable, life-long partnerships with other gay males, but even those partnerships were initiated by a hook up, not dating. We simply do not have a long history of dating in our community. A mere 10 years ago, there was a program in DC trying to teach gay people how to date, because the concept of dating (as opposed to serial hooking up, which might eventually lead to a relationship) was still so novel among us.
Because of the relative newness of gay dating, we've resorted to trying to import the dating model from straight people. But the world of dating among straight people is in flux, and I don't think they even know how dating should be done. For most of history, straight people didn't date either. The families negotiated a marriage, and it was an economic deal. Then as individuals asserted more independence, courtship came into play (even though the marriage deal was still largely economic). Only in the last century, and only in the "Western World", has heterosexual dating arisen, and as women in our society gain more power, the dynamics of dating remain in flux. Who asks out whom? When and how is sexual activity initiated? Etc. Furthermore, there are new studies suggesting that straight women are adopting more of a hook-up paradigm. As if instead of gays learning from straights, they're learning from us.
Finally, because gay communities tend to be more insular, I think there is a tendency for one to have his reputation destroyed before he even gets a chance to prove himself to other people. Gay men gossip, and viciously so. I've been on the receiving end of the gossip, and to my eternal and deep shame I've done my share of spreading the gossip. I know of people who've left town because they needed to start over. And often, the bit of gossip in no way represents the real character of the person. One bad night of acting out, and suddenly you're known as the world's biggest asshole.
People change, and some people actually mature, learn from their mistakes and grow to become better persons. But with decades old gossip following that person, he often doesn't get the opportunity to show the world he's changed.
The only hope I can offer is simply this: learn what you are in control of, take responsibility for those things, and leave the rest to others. In other words, keep trying, keep putting yourself out there, keep offering to prove yourself, and give others the benefit of a doubt. There are seven billion people on the planet. Chances are at least one of those persons would be worth dating.
10 November 2011
Gay Sex, Barebacking and Condoms
There's no question that bareback sex (anal penetration without a condom) is on the rise among gay men. The act is inherently risky. Even if two people are HIV negative, and in a relationship that is ostensibly monogamous, there is no guarantee one or the other partner will not stray, sero-convert and bring home the infection. Clearly, if anal penetration is part of someone's repertoire, condoms are the best way to go.
The problem as I see it is that HIV/AIDS prevention educators have not done the best job they could have done in this arena. I do not fault their earnestness, their dedication (usually involving long, unpaid or underpaid hours), nor the intent of their efforts. I came out in the early 90s, and I remember the intensity of the education efforts, and even did some volunteer work with an organization in a major southern city. I believe in the effort to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, and I have tremendous love and respect for the lives and work of prevention educators. But I find two ways I think they should have approached the topic differently.
First, they should have been honest from the beginning and said that condoms really, really suck. They decrease sensitivity dramatically, especially if the wearer is circumcised. If one has experienced bare sex, wearing a condom feels almost as if one's partner in sex might as well be in another room. This especially becomes an issue when the lack of sensation leads to the loss of erection. The bottom line is that a lot of men cannot top with a condom on. It becomes physically impossible for them, unless they choose to take expensive erection-enhancement pills. But even those able to sustain erections won't feel nearly as much with a condom on. Educators should have been honest and up front about this aspect from the very beginning. They should have made a point of saying, "Look it's too bad, but anal penetration sex acts are just going to be a lot more work and a lot less fun so long as AIDS is a possibility. Still it is the mature, responsible and compassionate thing to always wear a condom when penetrating a partner." Had they been honest, instead of all these campaigns which tried to either minimize the difference, or even eroticize condoms, I think their campaigns would've had more traction.
Second, they should have more actively celebrated the other ways of having sex than anal penetration. I think as a legacy of the "gay 70s" anal penetration somehow became the sine qua non of gay sex, and other forms of intimacy/sexual activity were regarded as not being "real sex". This is a shame. Let's face it, hands wrapped around a penis are more nimble and dextrous than an anal sphincter wrapped around a penis. Mutual masturbation is a fantastic, enjoyable and very intimate form of sexual activity. It should have been celebrated, promoted and, hell, even sanctified as the best possible gay sex. Second to the brain itself, one's hands are among one's greatest, most versatile sex organs. Hands and the digits on them, can do many wonderful things. (For that matter, one's digits can be used for prostate stimulation if a "bottom" requires it.) Educators should have taken the opportunity to redirect gay men's attention toward all the wonderful things they could do and the great variety of sexual possibilities available to them, instead of emphasizing only the mechanics of anal sex with a condom.
I think there was a missed opportunity in HIV/AIDS prevention education, and I think that barebacking was an understandable response to this failure to deal honestly with the facts of anal sex and condoms. Unfortunately, young men will die because of this.
The problem as I see it is that HIV/AIDS prevention educators have not done the best job they could have done in this arena. I do not fault their earnestness, their dedication (usually involving long, unpaid or underpaid hours), nor the intent of their efforts. I came out in the early 90s, and I remember the intensity of the education efforts, and even did some volunteer work with an organization in a major southern city. I believe in the effort to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, and I have tremendous love and respect for the lives and work of prevention educators. But I find two ways I think they should have approached the topic differently.
First, they should have been honest from the beginning and said that condoms really, really suck. They decrease sensitivity dramatically, especially if the wearer is circumcised. If one has experienced bare sex, wearing a condom feels almost as if one's partner in sex might as well be in another room. This especially becomes an issue when the lack of sensation leads to the loss of erection. The bottom line is that a lot of men cannot top with a condom on. It becomes physically impossible for them, unless they choose to take expensive erection-enhancement pills. But even those able to sustain erections won't feel nearly as much with a condom on. Educators should have been honest and up front about this aspect from the very beginning. They should have made a point of saying, "Look it's too bad, but anal penetration sex acts are just going to be a lot more work and a lot less fun so long as AIDS is a possibility. Still it is the mature, responsible and compassionate thing to always wear a condom when penetrating a partner." Had they been honest, instead of all these campaigns which tried to either minimize the difference, or even eroticize condoms, I think their campaigns would've had more traction.
Second, they should have more actively celebrated the other ways of having sex than anal penetration. I think as a legacy of the "gay 70s" anal penetration somehow became the sine qua non of gay sex, and other forms of intimacy/sexual activity were regarded as not being "real sex". This is a shame. Let's face it, hands wrapped around a penis are more nimble and dextrous than an anal sphincter wrapped around a penis. Mutual masturbation is a fantastic, enjoyable and very intimate form of sexual activity. It should have been celebrated, promoted and, hell, even sanctified as the best possible gay sex. Second to the brain itself, one's hands are among one's greatest, most versatile sex organs. Hands and the digits on them, can do many wonderful things. (For that matter, one's digits can be used for prostate stimulation if a "bottom" requires it.) Educators should have taken the opportunity to redirect gay men's attention toward all the wonderful things they could do and the great variety of sexual possibilities available to them, instead of emphasizing only the mechanics of anal sex with a condom.
I think there was a missed opportunity in HIV/AIDS prevention education, and I think that barebacking was an understandable response to this failure to deal honestly with the facts of anal sex and condoms. Unfortunately, young men will die because of this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)