Hi. This is the first time I’ve ever made a Great Debate thread so bear with me…
Okay my topic for debate is about sex. Why does our culture treat it as if its a necessary evil? In movies, you can garner an R rating if you show a lot of graphic sex. People stereotpyically get nervous when they have to tell their children about it. One’s virginity is supposedly a big deal. This brings me to my next question- why is prostitution illegal, in the U.S. at least? It isn’t hurting anyone (as long as it isn’t child prostitution). I can’t think of a single reason why it should be considered wrong. Is it our culture that forbids sexual pleasure? And does it have anything to do with religion?
This is sort of segue into another idea- religion, Christianity at least, seems to be rather close minded about sex. That is, the Virgin Birth is a big deal. Catholicism forbids premarital sex, birth control, et cetera- which would definitely take the pleasure out of it…
Basically, the overall question is: Why does society tend to think of sex as a “bad” thing? I would feel most enlightened if you guys deigned to try and answer this question.
Let’s start simple. The bible says a “man shall cleave unto a woman”. You get the idea that people marry, and have sex.
So whatever happens between them is their business.
All else is 2000+ years of humans arguing about what goes on behind closed doors. We’ve put all the mystery, tragedy, and comedy into the subject ourselves. There is nothing evil about sex.
I think most societies see sex as something to be controlled- for a good reason. It’s incredibly important. It’s one of the most basic human needs (right after food and water). It’s excites emotion of the best and worst kind. It is, I have it on good authority, where babies come from. All things any society has to be concerned about.
It’s also very scary. It makes people feel vunerable. It makes them feel really really good. This may or may not be in the best interest of the society as a whole.
So societies tend to make rules about sex, so that it doesn’t disrupt the rest of society.
In the case of Western Christian society, a lot of them have been pretty negative- which is probably not the best way to deal with it. But there it is.
i don’t really understand this statement. people having sex ata busy interesection might cause a disruption, though i’d hesitate to say it disrupts society. what exactly is it about sex that disrupts society?? i rather think a lack or repression of sex disrupts society.
it seems to me that sex laws are simply about control and power over others. [which to me is evil.]
This one’s pretty easy. Untill very recently, there was no even moderately successful form of birth control. It is clearly in society’s best intrest to ensure that unwanted children or children with no means of support are not created. It is easy to debate the value of such rules today (I hold they are still valuable) but in societies in which women werre unable to support themselves and inheritance was the primary means of transfering wealth, they were absolutely necessary.
There was also no way of preventing or treating STDs untill recently.
And if anyone doubts that sex today can disrupt society, find any newspaper from about two years ago! Even when sex is consentual, it still raises passionate emotions that should be considered seriously.
Between the dangers of pregnancy and disease (which are still not completely eliminated) and the emotional risks, I have a hard time comprehending anyone who thinks sex is (or should be) just meaningless fun.
That is true. That is, that it is a dangerous, though significant, act, that can have many serious consequences. But isn’t it possible for us to accept both the good and the bad? Like, why do people find it offensive to have nude magazines, or to dress revealingly? Is that at all related to sex…?
While Alan Smithee makes some excellent observations, I must add a few things here. The weird place that sex occupies in American society is somewhat unique. Please remember that America was originally colonized by some of the most extreme religious cults of their time. The Puritans, Shakers and Calvins all had fairly restrictive veiws about sexual conduct. These views were deemed unacceptable by contemporary European society and these groups were effectively exiled to America. This repressive sexual atmosphere has been inherited even in today’s modern times.
Go to Denmark and you will see a very different societal viewpoint about sex. It is talked about openly and nudity is no big issue. The salacious and prurient approach that so many Americans have to sex mires it in perjorative and highly dysfunctional contexts that continue to warp our society to this day.
The inability of parents to openly discuss sex in a constructive manner with their own children has led to some of the highest teenage pregnancy rates in the civilized world. It is pathetic that a nation so advanced as ours still clings to such outdated and poisonous notions. Religious organizations continue to misinterpret Biblical passages to represent sexual knowledge as the reason for expulsion from paradise when self knowledge and the excersizing of free will are more appropriate interpretations.
The amount of neurosis and unhealthy sexual expression that arises from all of these outdated and warped notions continues to do unimagineable harm to our collective social soul. While I in no way advocate the trivialization of sex as a meaningful expression of love between two individuals, I wholehearted support casting off so many outdated notions that continue to cloud such an important issue.
Zenster- Thanks…thought this was a good response. It probably does all go back to the way the country was founded. And the things that we take for granted were all probably established back in the day…
BlackKnight- Well, perhaps more of an overall human need. That is, it wouldn’t really make a difference if some human being didn’t reproduce, as long as we had enough to procreate the species and all.
Besides, I’m sure there are some that think that not only is sex a basic human need, it is THE need. Uh, no, didn’t say I was one…
And there are plenty of rules society has repressing sexuality that I think we could agree are good things- like repressing the desire to fondle the stranger standing next to you on the subway. That’s sex law of t society that prevents an individual from taking power over another individual.
That said, I also agree with Zenster. America has a particularly neurotic way of dealing with sex. I think part of the problem is the schizophrenia of the Christian* anti-sex tradition on the one hand and the sex-as-consumer-product on the other. Neither is very healthy.
*No, I’m not saying all Christians are ant-sex. But…well, Eunuchs For the Kingdom on God is pretty good survey of the anti-sex thread in the Christian tradition.
I also have never agreed with prostitution being illegal. People own their bodies and if strangers want to have sex why is it only wrong if money is exchanged? I can go sleep with anyone I meet at a bar but if I get 10 bucks I’ve broken the law???
Remember a couple years ago, everyong had a fit because Dennis Franz’s naked ass was on TV? The same week I saw a show where someone was shot and we could all see his head explode and splash on the wall behind him. No one said one word about that. We all know what a butt looks like, I would much rather my kids saw nudity than violence. Americans treat violence as an everyday normal occurance and sex as some big obscene secret. It should be the other way around. When we start treating sex as a natural part of ADULT life maybe the youngsters will not be in such a rush to find out what the big secret is about.
I am not sure where you learned your American history from, but I was never taught that sexual mores were a major issue separating the early colonists from their European counterparts, nor was I aware that they were “effectively exiled to America.” My understanding was that the Puritans, Separatists, Quakers, and other groups set out voluntarily to the New World as, well, pilgrims in order to create their own societies in which they would not be persecuted and ridiculed by the Anglicans and could worship and live according to their beliefs, which differed from the mainstream primarily in terms of the style of worship, the relationship between the Church and society, and the things necessary for salvation.
Other than that, however, I agree completely with what he and other posters have said. Sex should be talked about openly, especially with children. Prostitution should be legal, even though it is immoral, because legal remidies against it don’t work and do more harm than good. Nudity is fine as long as it doesn’t trivialize sex (which most pop culture depictions of sexuality do), treat people as objects (which most pornography does), or involve Dennis Franz’s butt.
In addition to reasons listed by others in this thread, there seems at times to be the urge within our culture to deny our more primal tendencies if said tendencies include the lessening of control over a situation or over one’s appearance, manner, and actions. Often in sex, we are closer to our uncivilized animal self then at any other time in our waking lives. And it often seems that personal struggles an individual may have with their own developed set of morals or ethics centers around and manifests in a sexually related way. Examples include cheating on an SO, being dishonest about what you want in order to get sex, etc.
Violence and sex are often linked together as major downfalls of our society, or at least our popular media. But the treatment of the two within the media, and in the acceptance of that media, are often quite different. Vicarious violence on television and in movies is more palatable to the majority then is gratuituous sex. I think that’s because violence is most often portrayed as a method for restoring order and control to whatever situational context it’s being placed within, even while violence is usually the catylyst for that context becoming chaotic in the first place.
Sex, on the other hand, is much more about being naked, both physically and mentally. On the physical front we seem to, as a culture, have an amazingly low esteem in regards to body-image. By disrobing, we remove the cultivated image that we strive to present to the rest of the world at large. Mentally, control is further eroded as we expose desires and predilections usually kept cleanly out of the sight of others. We may banter around the water cooler about Pamela in Marketing with the nice rack, or Brad in accounting with the gorgeous ass, but rarely will we mention it if we also dream of partaking in golden showers with Brad or submissively worshipping Pamela’s feet. Generally, we view these activities as deviant to some degree. This perception of deviance is circular, with society condtioning this response within us, whilst we perpetuate that conditioning by hiding or denying that which arouses us. (And no, I’m not suggesting that we all run right out and start peeing on co-workers or sucking the toes of our fellow carpool riders.)
Plus, we make really funny faces when we have orgasms.
Perhaps the biggest divides in modern feminism is over the issue of sex trade work. Of the two extreme camps one advocates complete decriminalization of prostitution and all sex work while the other would like to see the sex trade disappear altogether. One of the main arguments of the latter camp is that sex trade work is inherently exploitive and is bad for women mentally and emotionally.
I think that society needs to find some sort of “happy medium” between keeping sex competely out of any mainstream attention, and what the situation is now. Our society is entirely too gratuitous about it in general. For example, the entertainment industry capitalizes off of sex appeal, as well as unneeded sexual content in movies and television. I’m not saying I’m completely against sexual content in entertainment; I’m saying that I’m against it when it becomes excessive. I find it especially disturbing that there’s an entire industry out there that makes its entire profit from selling sex on the street to whoever will buy it. The practice is absolutely disgusting by the very nature of it, but outlawing it isn’t the answer. Drugs are outlawed and that doesn’t even hinder it. Those who want it will find some way to get it, plain and simple. In response to the violence vs. sex debate that seems to be forming, I take the side everyone seems to be taking. Violence is much worse than sex as far as who sees what. I don’t think children should be exposed to explicit sex scenes, but nudity is ok as long as it’s in good taste. There is no way that violence can be in any way a positive image, and therefore, it should be kept mild (as should sex) and saved for the “R” movies that are rated so for a reason.
Here’s my WAG. Society and religion developed to control human behavior and maximize survival. Societal and religious rules had to account for sex, as it is a biological imperative - a driving force of human behavior. Also, control of sexuality (particularly of women’s) was important because the whole point of existence, from an evolutionary perspective, is to reproduce. If a man’s mate bore a child that wasn’t his, and he expended resources to raise it, he would be losing the evolutionary game. It’s not too hard to imagine the desire to control sex creating a negative attitude toward sex outside of monogamous marriage. Then, if sex outside these strict perameters is evil, it’s not a big leap to conclude that all sex is evil, and merely a necessary evil allowed within marriage.
Or, God said it’s evil. Ya know, whichever makes more sense to you.
Human culture has sexual taboos because the best interest of an individual, reproductively-speaking, is different from the best interest of his/her parents, and different from the best interest of society at large.
In the Olden Days, when human sexual instincts evolved, your chances of surviving puberty were pretty low – due to disease, famine, and the occasional leopard. It was in an individual’s best interest to get laid early and often, as this maximized the chance for minimal reproductive success. Having babies that you can’t properly support still have a better chance of carrying on your genes than having no babies at all, plus you might be able to convince your parents/tribe to help you take care of them even if you can’t.
It was in the parent’s best interest, however – especially when it came to their daughters – to keep their kids abstinent (and thus NOT having babies) until a wealthy enough mate could be found for them. And it was in the society’s interest to have many loyal adult subjects but few helpless children. It’s likely that the current struggle between the individual urge to boink and the social urge to have you not boink is very very old.
