It’s Always the Woman’s Fault, Right?

Rather recently I got a Twitter account. My main reason for signing up was to follow some of my favorite bloggers who update via Twitter. After a while, I really began to love Twitter for it’s unique way of connecting people with each other and with different social and political causes. Twitter has the potential for being wonderful or terrible depending on how it’s used.

Since I don’t have many “meatspace” friends on Twitter, I’m always looking for interesting accounts to follow. One that I came across was Straight Up Love, which promotes itself as a website about taking control of your sexuality. I love that idea. And most of the stuff that has been posted on their account I quite like. However, one article that they linked today just isn’t going to fly with me.

The article is called “Hung Up on Hookups” by Chris James. It isn’t a really long article, so you should read it yourself. But here is my summary: basically, it’s the same sexist crap about how girls are responsible to not present themselves as sluts, sleep with men too soon, if they want a “real” relationship.

What really infuriates me about this piece is that he makes it sound like he is trying to “help” women out but never really gives any guidelines (not that it would be less sexist if he did, it would probably be more so). The only thing close to a “guideline” is in his opening:

Sorry to the guys — but if this dude is a potential boyfriend for you, wait at least past the first date before hooking up with him. I know, you love sex too, but hold off for just a tiny, little bit before you go all the way. 

Okay, nothing new about that. This has been a culture norm for awhile. Women are told from their teens (if not sometimes sooner) on that if they want to keep a guy they have to keep from sleeping with him too soon. And, just like in this article, that time frame is never firmly set, unless you are religious and then it’s not until you’re married. Women are suppose to live in this shifting universe where the questions of “When do I sleep with him” and “How should I dress to be treated the way I want” don’t have concrete answers, but if you get them wrong, you’re the one to blame for the consequences. This isn’t even really a hypothetical; women do live in this universe now. I’ve listened to several of my female friends talk about trying to figure out how to “keep” a man they like. This mind game is confusing and frustrating. I’m a philosophy major, and I hate it!

From there, the article goes into warning women about waiting too long to have sex. James describes a girl (he uses the term girl so I will as well, no matter how much it annoys me) he was trying to get to know (from what he writes I’m guessing that was his way of say “trying to get in her pants”). He says that he goes by “the four downs rule of football.” Basically, if he can’t get her to sleep with him in four dates, he’s done. Never does he suggest that people actually…you know, talk to each other about it. I get it, conversations about where a relationship is going aren’t “sexy” or “romantic.” However, couples who talk about this stuff have stronger relationships over time. If you are wanting a long term relationship…wait, no for any type of relationship, communication is extremely important. Can we stop treating people as though all we want is something from them right now and if they don’t give it to us they aren’t worth our time?

But the biggest issue with this article is that, of course, James lets men off the hook. Through his whole piece he seems to have this “it’s so sad that you get treated this way” attitude towards the women he is writing to. However, not once does he direct any comments to men. And if you want to make the argument that it is because the article is aimed at women then why does he not even suggest that maybe there is some part of it that men should take responsibility for. Maybe just that we all should question why we think these ideas are true. I’d let you off the hook on the “men’s responsibility” part if you at least suggested that because I feel that it is important for women to question these social rules about sex just as much as men.

I wish that a website that claims to be about challenging societies views about sex would actually live up to that claim. Reinforcing most of the status quo is not true social change. It’s just making things fit your needs while ignore someone else’s. Shame on you, Straight Up Love.

Religion’s Obsession With Sex

http://skitguys.com/videos/embed/1377/

After watching videos like this one, I understand even more why so many Christians are screwed up when it comes to sex. I remember hearing things like this (and taking encouragement from them) when I was in church. I also remember how screwed up I was about sex at the time, too. I knew that every single sexual thought I had was evil and came from my sinful nature. It was a temptation, and I had to resist. The problem: the thoughts NEVER went away! The more I prayed and read my bible the more intense they got. What I didn’t realize at the time was that this was because I was denying a part of my biology (or human nature¹), a natural desire.

Bertrand Russell in “Has Religion Made Useful Contributions to Civilization?” illustrates the harm of the Christian treating of sex to denying a child their interest in trains by making trains evil, making sure that they never see a train or utter the word “train”. He points out that this will not stop the child’s desire for trains; it will only increase it. He continues, “This is precisely what is done in the matter of sex; but, as sex is more interesting than trains, the results are worse.” (I love Russell for awesome lines like this one!)

I would argue that sex is “screwed up” because of religion’s assault on it. It’s the reason that videos like this one are made. They make it seem like they are trying to give us a cure while ignoring the fact that they are the ones who gave us this disease. Religion is responsible for the majority of shame associated with sex, even the shame of those who are not religious. It is, of course, worse for the religious; at least, the non-religious have a better chance at shedding this shame. As Russell writes:

Almost every adult in a Christian community is more or less diseased nervously as a result of the taboo on sex knowledge when he or she was young. And the sense of sin which is thus artificially implanted is one of the causes of cruelty, timidity, and stupidity in later life.

I really wish Christians would stop making harmful videos like this one under the guise of helping. To point out its problems, I’m going to deconstruct this video claim by claim.

They start out early by claiming that sex is proclaimed throughout the bible as a good thing. Wait, what?! Citations needed! I’m not sure how many Christians have actually read their bible, but obviously not very many if they believe this. Sex is mentioned throughout the bible but not usually in a good light. When it is said to be good, it’s barely mentioned! We get phrases like “and he lay with her.” That’s the bible saying that sex is a good thing? It’s a neutral statement. It simply tells us that something occurred; there is no approval of or objection to the action contained in it.

The next point they make actually makes me laugh because they negate what they JUST said. If things went wrong when sin entered the picture (for those of you not having read the bible, it’s right at the beginning), how can what is said throughout the bible serve as proof that God intended sex to be good? We’ve got a problem with the order of events. “Sex was really great and pure until that stupid Eve ate the apple. What’s my proof? While the Bible talks about how good it was. Just ignore the fact that the whole Eve thing happened BEFORE the rest of the stuff.” Sorry, I’m not buying your shitty answer. If you want make the argument that Eve screwed things up, then your proof of how good it was has to come from before the screwing up happened. This becomes a problem because there isn’t much that goes on before Eve ate the apple, so Christians have to take liberties to paint a picture of how wonderful life was in the time before sin.

The next main point they make is that sex went from being about two people becoming one (which is physically impossible…and, now that I think about it, doesn’t really make sense in anyway other than it sounds nice) to being a transaction. Hate to burst your bubble (that’s a lie, I love it when you are wrong!!!), but sex has always been a “transaction” of sorts. Sex existed before religion. It is a part of our biology; we need it for our species to exist. You don’t get to take control of it because your invisible friend says it should only happen the way they say it should (which always seems to go along with how you think it should be…funny, huh?). Getting married before you have sex doesn’t make it any less of a transaction (what do you think a marriage is?).

Now we get their idea that sex is everywhere today, which I would agree with them on. It is everywhere, but our obsession with when it is moral isn’t a result of sin but is mostly a result of religion’s attempt to remove it from our lives.³ As I have already said, sex is important and it is natural to desire it. This “obsession” is only exacerbated by Christianity’s treatment of sex. Along with this they make the statement that, “Sex which was a good thing became an ultimate thing…and with it’s new and elevated status came many promises, promises it couldn’t deliver.”

First, the idea that sex has become an ultimate thing is a bit of an exaggeration (probably made by their focus on everyone’s “obsession” with sex). While I’ll admit sex is awesome, it is not the most important thing in life. I don’t think that most people would claim it is. Sex doesn’t validate me as a person; the relationships I have do, and some of them may include sex as an expression of the intimacy of those relationships. Second, how can you make such a sweeping statement of sex not delivering on the promises it makes? While this statement may be true in certain situations, it is not true all the time…or even most of the time. Some of these “unfulfilled” promises they list are fulfillment, passion, romance and connection. Umm…I’m pretty sure this can be accomplished with sex in the right relationships. Why do Christians get to say how these should be achieved?

Stop trying to control my sex life because of your hangups. Stop trying to make sex what you think it should be. Stop trying to make distinctions between “right” sex and “wrong” sex based on your personal beliefs. You’re welcome to abstain from whatever you like. I leave your sex life alone; please, give everyone else the same respect.

The last point that I’ll address is their idea that sex is broken. In a way, I can agree with this statement. However, sin isn’t the problem, religion is. Religion just can’t help itself. It needs to be in control. And what better way to get control than attack something so fundamental to humans? We can save sex by dumping religion. Those of us that have escaped the hold of religion need to make people aware that religion caused the disease that it claims to “cure”. This is how we save sex.

—————————————————————-

¹ I use this phrase to mean something to which all humans are inclined by biology. Christians tend to use the phrases “sinful nature” and “human nature” interchangeably. I believe this to be misleading because sin, as religions define it, means something that is unnatural. Human nature is always meant to be something that is natural to us as a species. Equating the two basically says that natural = unnatural. I’m sure that you don’t need to be a philosopher to realize that this is a problem. 


² I’m emphasizing that Eve was responsible for the problems that came from sin because Christians dance around the misogyny that their religion, as well as most other religions, is based on. It’s a common theme in mythology for women to be the cause of evil. There is a reason for this; it didn’t happen by “chance” as Christians want us to believe.


³ I do realize that most Christians just want restrictions on types of sex and when it is appropriate…now. Do some research into where today’s religions started. Catholicism puts a heavy emphasis on celibacy and how it is more holy. This belief was the norm before the Protestant Reformation. 

The Right to Choose

      I’m having an off day. Usually, I can sort through what I’m feeling with greatest ease. I can find the root of the problem, sometimes with help from a friends counsel. However, today I’m not going to get that counsel, so I’m going to have to find another way to sort out my thoughts. Therefore, I’ve decided to write here, which will break my principle about not making this blog a personal diary. Sorry, I need the therapy. For those of you who might read this, I will try to make it about the general questions I have and not just personal bitching.
      There are two things that are frustrating me right now, although, I will choose just one to write about: sex. There are so many things to say about this topic (too many to cover in several posts, let alone one), so I’m going to stick to the one question that weighs heavy on my mind right now: is there no room left for monogamy?

      First off, I need to address the fact that I find nothing wrong with casual sex. I believe in sex positivism; I think everyone should be able to choose to have sex how they see fit. I’ve known people who have partners that they can call up just for sex, and I think that is great. Also, I don’t see why someone can’t have multiple partners in a committed relationship (i.e. polygamy). I like seeing people who are so free about sex. It is important to challenge social norms about sex and relationships.
       Which brings me to my issue: is my choice to not have these types of relationships just a result of social conditioning? If I see the value of casual sex relationships for some people, does that mean that I should abandon myself to the same view? If I can see that this is something lots of people enjoy, am I being close-minded by not wanting to adopt this principle for my life? Is there something wrong with the way I view sex?
      It is probably true that the way I was raised has some bearing on my views on sex. My upbringing influences a lot of things in my life; we are all products of our past. This isn’t bad as long as I make an effort to think critically about the views I have and examine if they are logical. But just because there are influences that lead to my opinions, does that mean I should get rid of them and do the opposite? Isn’t this pressure from others just another influence that is acting on me?
      I have found that a lot more people are coming out and challenging the old-fashion idea that monogamy is the only good form of sexual relationships. I love this!!! I think me need to challenge propriety for the same reason we need to challenge any ideas: we learn which are based on reason and which are just based on faulty logic. However, when it comes to the topic of sexual relationships, I think that it is a personal right to choose which is best for yourself. I’m tired of hearing people try to convince me that if I just tried it and got past my “uneasiness” I would find that having multiple partners is the best thing.
      I’m not buying! I know that casual sex in the form of open relationships isn’t for me because I KNOW myself. In a committed relationship, I would expect the other person to want to make me happy just as I would strive to make them happy. I could try to force myself to be okay with them sleeping with other people, but it wouldn’t make me really okay with it. If I am in a relationship, I expect my partner to honor that relationship. For me, that means sexual fidelity because I see sex as form of intimacy. My definition of intimacy: allowing someone to see the things that make up my “self” that I don’t let the rest of the world see. This is why I can’t be okay with multiple partners at the same time: the intimacy would be broken.
      Just to make this clear: I find nothing wrong with others choosing sexual relationships other than what is right for me. We are all different; how could one option be expected to be right for everyone? I just want the respect of others in my right to choose monogamous relationships.