Sex

Is it just me becoming more conservative with age, or does it seem somewhat absurd to describe a film or play or TV show that probes ever deeper into our sexual lives as ‘courageous’ or ‘groundbreaking’?  Hasn't the ground been pretty much broken, pulverized even?  Is there really any risk in the entertainment industry these days in creating a sexually provocative work?

I am no advocate for censorship or a return to the repressive times of yesteryear.  And I recognize that much good has come from the sexual revolution of the past fifty years.  Open discussion and awareness of sexual issues, techniques and feelings have contributed to a much healthier approach to sexuality.  The pendulum has indeed swung dramatically from the conservative mores of the post-WW2 era and even more from those of the Victorian age.

But perhaps the pendulum swing has now lingered at the extreme of sexual obsession.  From Freud to Madison Avenue, sex has been elevated to a dominant place in our lives. There is almost nothing in our cultural landscape that does not rely heavily on bold references to sex.    What are the implications of that saturation, and how do we regard sex in the 21^st century?

For most cultures through the ages, sex was viewed as closely related to procreation and marriage.  Both religious and cultural mores regarded sexual promiscuity as dangerous and immoral, and strongly prohibited adultery, often applying capital punishment to violations.  Sexual desire was acknowledged, but seen as a weakness of the flesh.  Of course there was always a contradictory and often hypocritical approach to sexuality by religious leaders and other authority figures.  Even today we find that many who strongly lament the degradation of societal morality end up in the news because of a lurid affair.

But then came the sexual revolution, launched in part by the availability of much better birth control methods and the woman’s liberation movement.  It shattered some of the more repressive taboos and allowed a healthier and more open dialogue on sexuality.  With men and women putting off marriage until their twenties or later, the notion of pre-marital celibacy seems antiquated and a recipe for mass frustration.  It also makes sense for a couple to test their sexual compatibility before committing to a long term relationship.

Recent polls have indicated that abstinence before marriage is a rare thing, with most men and women averaging 8 or more sexual partners before settling on a single partner. 

But like many things, once an absolute is abandoned, the question of where to draw the line is a tricky one.  If one believes that some sort of a relationship is a pre-requisite for physical intimacy, then what criteria make sense?  Is ten dates a relationship, or will one really good date suffice!  There is no easy formula, and it seems that for most people the level of relationship required diminishes rapidly as they notch more conquests on their belts!

After all, sex is pleasurable, even when there is no love or commitment or trust or slow buildup of a relationship. And it is an amazingly strong impulse. So in the last 50 years since the sexual revolution started one might claim that it has become acceptable to view sex as a recreational activity, like any other pleasurable activity.

It is an interesting question to ask oneself: Can sex be viewed as a purely physical activity and enjoyed without worrying about feelings or relationships or commitment?  Is the association of sex and love a relic of the repressive past?  Or can sex be both things – an amusing act of whimsy for purely physical stimulation in one instance, and a passionate, deeply felt act of intimacy in another?

If we accept the idea that sex can be purely a recreational activity, then is it not a logical next step to continue to have sexual encounters with other people even when one is in a relationship?  It is interesting that despite what appears to be a relentless move toward more indiscriminate pre-marital intimacies, there is still a prevailing rejection of the open relationship or marriage. Couples seem to be willing to ignore the past peccadilloes of their partners, even while often having to socialize with some of their mate’s prior bedfellows, but they draw the line at new improprieties once they are married or in a serious relationship.

Is this last restriction a legacy of the repressive sexual mores of the past, likely to be swept aside by a final wave of erotic emancipation?  Or is there some deeply embedded awareness in us that our sexual freedom has limitations, and that sex is not quite the same as playing a spirited game of tennis?  I have done no research, but I have seen anecdotal reports on communes and other attempts at open marriage, and they seem to have generally self-destructed.

Thus, like so many of the issues that we wrestle with in our human condition, sex is probably best handled (so to speak) with a fine degree of balance.  The Apollonian and Dionysian impulses are antithetical, but a certain harmony or synthesis can be constructed.

A number of years ago there was a pop song ‘Kiss Me’ with the chorus:

Oh, kiss me beneath the milky twilight
Lead me out on the moonlit floor, lift your open hand
Strike up the band and make the fireflies dance
Silver moon's sparkling
So kiss me

At a time when lyrics are portraying love in increasingly raw sexual terms and images, I find the romance and simplicity of this song about a kiss enchanting.  I guess I have become a bit sentimental!