Not that long ago, I heard that a former priest who had been posted in my hometown when I was a child had pleaded guilty to molesting young boys. I was one of those lucky ones who only knew him from afar and thereby avoided becoming a victim. But those circumstances grabbed my attention more than the assaults themselves.
Sexual assault in general may still be underreported, but it is definitely being reported far more than ever before. The shock value is just no longer there, so it tends to slip from my radar. So, in a way, I’m glad that page at Finally Feminism 101 woke me up a bit. A good kick in one’s complacency is never bad when truly needed.
However, it begs the question: How did I become complacent? How does anyone become complacent about such things?
- - - - - - - -
Since consensual sex is allowed and even encouraged in the right circumstances, the right to say no to sexual activity has a necessary corollary: the right to say yes. Of course, some will do everything they can to deny this right to others, and they will be convinced they have the moral authority to do so.
In 1976, the American Humanist Association (AHA) addressed this problem by publishing A New Bill of Sexual Rights and Responsibilities. In 2003, the magazine Free Inquiry published what it said was a revamped version more in keeping with the times, though it still followed the original quite closely. So closely, in fact, that The Humanist “responded” with an article of its own titled What Do We Do Now that the Sexual Revolution is Over? and called for a full critique of the declaration.
Among the many issues mentioned is that fact that people have been “held in bondage” by rules as to what they can do, with whom, and in what circumstances. But this presents the unintended double entendre since “bondage” is also a sexual fetish. And while it was assumed in the past that all workers in the sex industry were there due to lack of choices in the workplace, we now know this is not always the case, and the part of the Bill concerning prostitution should be rewritten to reflect that. In other cases, there’s the matter of using less outdated language.
The AHA is not the only organisation to have grappled with this issue. The International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) published a declaration of sexual rights which follows closely the style and intent of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Indeed, even the World Health Organisation has ventured into the fray with unofficial statements concerning gender and human rights.
No doubt the various world religions would disagree with a lot of what can be found in these statements and declarations, and so would many who follow those religions. But then, to what degree do many in the West today actually follow those religious rules concerning sex? Over the past decades, marriage had become less frequent and less permanent. Now, it would seem even boyfriends and girlfriends have become a thing of the past. Rather than invest in relationships, many people find "friends with benefits" (fuck buddies) to satisfy their sexual urges with no intention of going any further. At a time where they must invest almost everything into their careers, relationships seem to get in the way.
- - - - - - - -
Of course, there could be more to this. Remember those articles I wrote on how we went from being sperm-competition avoiders to sperm-competitors and how we may be swinging back again? Remember also how I wondered whether we could actually ever swing the pendulum back that far? Well, at least one husband-and-wife team would seem to agree with me.
Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha are the authors of Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality. I haven’t read the book yet, but according to an interview in the press, they make the case that non-promiscuity is nothing more than a social construct, and that our sexual natures simply aren’t compatible with it. They say sexual fidelity likely didn’t appear as a social requirement until the advent of agriculture. Before, men didn’t have any property to pass down to the next generation, so paternity was of no importance to them. And women received food, shelter, help in caring for children, and sex from their community rather than from an individual male. (I would add that women often supplied food to the community. Gathering was often more successful than hunting.)
While the authors don’t criticise monogamy per se, they do think the story we are told about exclusive monogamy being the ideal for our species is a lie. Non-promiscuity can work for a great number of people, but not everyone, and maybe it’s time we faced that fact.
No comments:
Post a Comment