Sex and Sensibility

/

The cartoon above is one of a series drawn by the great American humorist James Thurber called The War Between Men and Women.  The idea of such a War has been around for quite some time, of course, whether in fantasy or as an actuality, but it seemed to take on a more virulent character in the 20th century as women acquired and exercised the right to vote and with the advent of feminism.

More recently, disputes regarding gender and its relation to sex and sexuality have further complicated matters.  Complicated them to such an extent that they may be beyond the understanding of an aged fellow like me, alas.  But, being shameless, I'll expound on them nonetheless.

Our endless fascination with sex has generated what seem to be significant and perhaps disturbing concerns regarding masculinity--what it is to be a man, how men should act, how they should behave, particularly where women are concerned.  In some cases, these concerns have had results I think peculiar.  The so-called "incels" strike me as particularly odd.  As I understand it, they're young men who've made a kind of lifestyle out of resentment against women for not satisfying their emotional expectations and physical needs.  It's a sadly unworthy to blame others for your perceived failures; sadder still to take a kind of perverse pride in doing so.

In addition, it seems that there's a new psychological or social condition called 'bigorexia" which is supposed to be taking over the lives of young men.  It's an obsession regarding muscularity, which apparently compels them to attend gymnasiums and workout constantly in order to develop as many muscles as possible, and so become more "manly."

Perhaps as part of the unfortunate resurgence of the Abrahamic religions, there's an increasing demand that women conform to "traditional" female roles.  One sect in particular champions "family voting."  The wife and mother, it's proposed, shouldn't vote.  Her role is that of homemaker and mother. The father and husband should vote on her behalf, and apparently on behalf of the children.   It seems to resurrect, as it were, the ideal of the pater familias.

As may be expected, those who think their masculinity and the masculinity of others are threatened, or being diminished, find disputes regarding gender roles and the existence of transgenders especially alarming; almost as alarming as the existence of gay people.  As a result, they actually fear that they may be exposed to them.  They especially fear that children will be.  They evidently think that it stands to reason that if they are exposed, they'll 

"turn."

Misogyny thrives in such a climate.  So does outrage.  So does pandering, particularly by politicians and pundits.  

Kipling wrote a curious poem titled If which it seems he meant to express what Victorians thought it was to be a man. If it does, a man was, to them, so extraordinary as not to exist, except perhaps as a Medieval knight and hero in fairy tales.  I wonder if he really thought he was a man as described in the poem. 

In our Great Republic, we have a love/hate relationship with the sexual act--more accurately with sexual conduct of any kind.  We love to have sex (or most of us do, in any case).  But we hate having to acknowledge it, or address it, except in limited circumstances, and most of all seek to judge the sexuality of others.  If we had any sense, though, when it comes to sex we wouldn't care what consenting adults do, or how they look or act, or what others may think about our sexuality and sexual conduct.  

The Tedium of Sexuality and Emoting in Narrative Art

I was watching a series on one of the streaming services which it seemed would be amusing, in an absurd and fantastic way, and which proved to be amusing, when something happened.  Certain of the characters began to display feelings for each other, by which I mean romantic and sexual feelings.  The times being what they are, the characters are gay, or are in the process of "discovering" they're gay, or bisexual, or whatever the appropriate description may be.  As would be the case for me even if the characters and relationships were irretrievably straight instead of gay, my amusement and interest diminished.  Now, alas, what was amusing and fantastic in the show will become secondary, no matter what effort is made to make the romance or sexuality exotic or, I suppose I must say it, inclusive; or, as I suppose I might say it more accurately, didactic in the manner of today's creators of narratives .

There must be something which makes the creators of narrative art, but especially the film and media arts, include at least one sexual relationship in the story being told.  That relation comes to dominate the story if only by virtue of the fact it's displayed in one way or another on many occasions as the story plays out, regardless of context.  No doubt sex is of great importance to us all and very much part of our lives, but it's as a consequence very commonplace.  Now and then a sexual relationship may be uncommon, and even extraordinary, but that's the case only rarely.  It strikes me that sexuality and sexual/romantic relations are therefore not subjects of great art and shouldn't be.

Think of great films.  Which of them centered on a sexual/romantic relationship?  Which of them involved such a relationship or relationships not in passing, noting or referencing them infrequently, but primarily? Casablanca, perhaps.  Dr. Zhivago?    I don't know; there was quite a bit else going on, like the Russian Revolution.  I find it hard to think of anything else.  Gone with the Wind?  I'm not sure it's great, frankly.

Then, consider those that weren't.  2001: A Space Odyssey, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange to give Kubrick his due.  The Godfather and Godfather II; Lawrence of Arabia, Citizen Kane, The Manchurian Candidate, The French Connection, The Bridge on the River Kwai; etc., etc.

There is Psycho, however.  Perhaps it's possible for great film art to be based on the depiction of a sexual obsession or sickness.  

Sexual relationships and romance being exceedingly mundane for the most part, however, there's not much interesting which can be done with them.  They take away from the story.  How is it, then, that they're omnipresent in film and series, TV and otherwise?  Is there an expectation on the part of creators and consumers that one will intrude necessarily?  There shouldn't be, and I claim that good and memorable works of art don't involve them to any significant extent.  

I think it takes a real effort to insert sexuality in any interesting narrative, but we see those efforts being made and their results all the time.  Even when sex isn't involved the characters are given opportunities to display emotions and weaknesses.  When watching an absorbing mystery or fantasy or drama, it's difficult to care whether the characters have feelings for one another which they must express together with various insecurities and attributes which it appears the writers, directors and producers think should be pointed out for reasons unrelated to what's taking place.  What's taking place must, in fact, be interrupted while the characters emote.  Past failures and traumas are revealed and discussed while war and murder and social conflicts rage.  

Perhaps it's hoped the viewer will come to sympathize with the characters, or see themselves in them.  But the self-pity and conceit indulged in on screen is just as mundane as the sex and romance.  People don't watch to see and hear what they may see and hear everyday, everywhere.  They wish to escape from it.  I think they wish most of all not to be lectured about it.

The Vatican Just Says No

There once was a species called human,

Who thought God cared what they were doin',

But the truth is He said that "For me, they've been dead,

Since the Garden of Eden stopped bloomin'."

That's just a limerick of my creation which I thought up not long ago in a different context, but it seems appropriate in light of the Vatican's announcement that it can't "bless" homosexual unions.  I was going to write that it seems appropriate so near to St. Patrick's day, but a gnawing sense of doubt combined with a quick search of the Internet reveals that the limerick didn't necessarily have its origins in Ireland, though there is an Irish city which bears the name. 

I've noted before that our religions are not unnaturally, but still unreasonably, based on the assumption that if there is a God, that God is fascinated, perhaps even obsessed, with humanity.  Given the vastness of the universe, this seems unlikely.  To maintain that we're God's sole or greatest concern is preposterous, as we're mere specks on a speck among an unimaginably large host of specks which make up what God is said to have created.

Even more unreasonable (I think) is the belief that God is particularly concerned with our sexual conduct.  Any God which lays down rules governing who we have sex with and how we have sex is a very small, petty, and peculiar God indeed.  It follows that those of us who believe there are such rules and seek to enforce them are even smaller, more petty and peculiar.

And so we come to this latest declaration by the Vatican, endorsed, we're told, by the Pontifex Maximus himself.  The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church welcomes those who are gay ("homosexually inclined" is the wording used, I think) in a kind of grudging fashion, according to the declaration, but no union of gays may be blessed because only the sacramental may be blessed.  The most relevant sacrament is marriage and marriage, as we know, may only be between a male and a female.  Thus, no blessed gay unions and as sex is inappropriate outside of marriage, all gay sex is inappropriate as well, and may never be appropriate.  

This comes from having a Busybody God, a name I've used in the past in this blog.  But as you may guess from the limerick at the top of this post, I find myself curious regarding why such a God--the kind that is worshipped by the Abrahamic religions--would care what we do, if we accept the doctrine of Original Sin.

Under that doctrine, we're at the least tainted by the sin committed by eating of the Tree of Knowledge by our ancestors, the first humans, which caused them to be expelled from the Garden of Eden.  There are several versions of the doctrine of Original Sin.  The most draconian of them has us damned from birth.  We may nonetheless be saved if God chooses through the medium of Grace, but that's in God's sole discretion.  Then there is the version that proposes that we're cleansed of the sin by baptism.  Another version is that Jesus saved us from Original Sin through his sacrifice.  There may be more versions, I just don't know.  But even the kinder, gentler versions I know of provide that all of us are born with the proclivity to sin as a result of the first (notably heterosexual) humans.

So, we're either damned or damnable from the moment we are born.  If that's the case, though, why does God even bother to peer at us suspiciously, and why did he bother to dream up and impose the many regulations it's claimed he imposed on us after the Garden of Eden was shut down?  He would have written us off after the Original Sin was committed, I would think, as we all would be sinners of necessity thereafter.  Can it be the case that he decided in the first century C.E. that we may in one manner or another avoid the curse of Original Sin, and so appeared among us and induced us to create the sacrament of baptism sometime later?  What changed his mind?  Why are those who lived before then damned without recourse?  Why would he be so interested in what we do given that it's more likely than not that were going to sin anyway, being inherently inclined to sin?

The problems which arise from belief in such a personal God so fascinated with us aren't merely limited to those that result from the fact such a view is incredible, therefore.  They include those that arise when the doctrine which is inferred from that view is made and applied.

 

Of Cupidity and Stupidity

The quote above is from one of Shakespeare's lesser-known (to me, at least) plays, Troilus and Cressida, and is brought to mind by...what should it be called?  A tsunami, an avalanche?  In any case, the continuous claims of sexual harassment being made on what seems a daily basis here in our Great Republic against quite a few people, that is to say, against various men, by both men and women.

It seems rather remarkable even to me; a lawyer and therefore someone accustomed to and perhaps even dependent on wrongdoing of one kind or another (by others, of course).  But even those of us who thrive on the misdeeds of humanity must admit to surprise at what seems to be a unique moment in tawdry history.

The law of sexual harassment has been around for quite some time, in the U.S. at least.  It's something I've known of professionally and have had cause in my practice to become to be acquainted with, now and then, over the past several decades.  One would think that employers and employees, in particular, would be aware of it and fear its application given the litigation and claims through state and federal administrative agencies which have taken place and the stern warnings lawyers and human resources types have issued for many years now.

So in one sense I find it puzzling that sexual misconduct of this kind is so apparently widespread.  How can anyone be so blithely unconcerned by it?  How can so many men indulge in it, that is to say, without fear of the consequences?

I also find it puzzling that there are those who feel that sexual harassment is, at least in some cases, something which shouldn't be of great concern, or can be excused as "boys being boys" or harmless play.  The law is the law.  It doesn't matter whether one agrees or disagrees with it, or whether it's thought of as too much or too little.  It's foolish to be anything but prudent and so to respect it even if one doesn't respect those it's intended to protect.

But fools we tend to be, particularly where sex is concerned.  I think that any more than casual observer of human conduct must acknowledge that lust, lechery, sexual desire--whatever it should be called--can render us extremely stupid.  I think that particularly in the case of men it makes great, gaping idiots of us all unless we take steps to control our own desire.  And, it's such a completely selfish, narrow and powerful desire or impulse that the consequences to ourselves and others are disregarded.

This isn't to justify sexual harassment let alone explain it, but to recognize that the urge behind it is there almost always and must be restrained.  If it isn't, we do stupid, harmful, cruel, immoral things and should pay for it in one way or another.

Add to this the understandable concern victims have that making claims of sexual harassment will subject them to shame and ridicule and even have financial consequences if the perpetrator is powerful and influential, and it isn't so surprising that it goes unchecked in too many cases.  It seems that could be changing, though.

Unfortunately, as Shakespeare or his character noted, lechery like war is always in fashion among us, and tolerated by us.  It must remain to be seen whether sexual harassment will diminish as a result of the rising intolerance towards it or whether our remarkable lack of sense and control in this area will continue.  I think it's a good sign that even those who have previously been given a pass, most ignominiously, in this area (yes, that former president for example) are being recognized and condemned as predators.

Given those accused, though, I wonder if older men are particularly prone to this behavior.  Do older men act in this fashion because they know their failing looks and powers make it less and less likely anyone will want to have sex with them?  It's been well said that there's no fool like an old fool.

Unfree Women, Unfree Men

The cartoon above is one of a series drawn by James Thurber, entitled The War Between Men and Women.  The title of this post is a modification of the title of a collection of the works of Camille Paglia, Free Women, Free Men, which I'm now listening to her read to me in the relative comfort of my car as I go about my travels.  Yes, there's almost certain to be a subtitle to the book of some kind, as seems to be the fashion, but if there is I can't remember it as I type.

I have a fondness for the incendiary Professor Paglia.  She's libertarian, which I still think of as my own position when it comes to the imposition of government power regarding what people think, say and do (within reason--I'm an aspiring Stoic, after all).  She seems to have a comforting respect for science, which is remarkable in an academic, as well as freedom of speech, and is opposed to what appears to be the attack being made on it in the hallowed halls of the Academy, and the oddly repressive and totalitarian views which are being thundered by its denizens at society in general and at the young in particular whom we hope to educate.  And she's of Italian descent, as am I, being a direct descendant of the great Marcus Tullius Cicero.  Well, not really, but I am clearly a Ciceronian and am of Italian descent.

I tend to agree with her as well that sex isn't entirely a social construction, and that there are certain biological differences between the sexes that cannot simply be disregarded, and may be disregarded only at our peril.  I tend also to agree with her that there are feminists whose hatred of men has overwhelmed their ability to reason, and who see male and female in perpetual conflict until the male disappears.  Where I disagree with her is in the emphasis to be given sex as a cause of or motivation for everything, or anything.  It strikes me that she feels it to be the basis for all we do or have done.

It's odd, to me, that although she gives sex, as biology, such emphasis, she also contends that all we do or have done of any significance is the result of our desire to escape nature's hold on us.  This is particularly true with respect to what men have done in creating society, technology, law.  Men, if I understand her correctly, strive constantly to escape the overwhelming, suffocating dominance of their mothers, and their achievements are the result of this striving.  Art, in particular, is humanity's effort to detach itself from nature, according to Paglia.

No doubt I'm putting her position poorly.  Regardless, though, I find it odd that although she refers to our opposition to nature and efforts to conquer or subdue it, and lauds it, she clearly feels we're subject to our natures, specifically our biological natures.  We are therefore, I would say, parts of nature.  We're not in battle with nature or in opposition to it because we're not in opposition to ourselves.  I think she makes the hard distinction between humanity and nature that's plagued Western thought since at least the time of Plato.  In order to make that distinction, I think she must accept the mind-body distinction as well.  Our minds are in conflict with nature, though our bodies are parts of nature, and our minds thus are in conflict with our bodies as well.

If we think of ourselves as part of nature, living creatures existing in an environment and interacting with it and other creatures, this sense of dire opposition disappears.  We do instead what every other creature does, attempt to satisfy our desires and resolve or avoid dangers.  We happen to have an intelligence which permits us to interact with other parts of the environment in a more satisfying and successful way than others (as far as our wants and needs are concerned), but that doesn't mean we're at war with the rest of nature.  It's uncertain whether we can even claim to be unique in our use of language or in the production of art, given discoveries being made in the conduct of other animals.

As for the prevalence of sex, sex as the primary if not the sole cause of all we do or think, there's no question that it fascinates and obsesses us.  But that, and the tendency to ascribe to it such causal significance, may itself be a social construction.  It's importance is obvious.  Not so obvious, to me at least, are the reasons that it is accorded even greater importance, why it is considered, in effect, all-important.  Why does it figure so completely in our art, law and religion?  Can this be said to arise solely due to biology, to our hormones, to our physical nature?  Or, might it be the result of efforts made to glorify what can in fact be considered a "simple" biological need present in all creatures, to make of it by custom or otherwise something much more of a social and cultural feature than it need be for reasons that are not simply the result of our biology?

Also, and obviously, if we are in fact so driven by sex, it's questionable to what extent we can be referred to as "free" and if we can be so described, the question arises:  Just how free are we, if what we do is so influenced by sex?  What I suspect Paglia means to say when she speaks of free women and men, is that we should be free, just as she says we should be equal, under the law. 

I'm suspicious of theories regarding human conduct, society and culture that posit a single cause for all, that envision a kind of First Mover behind what we do, to which all may be traced.  Suspicious, too, of categories, like Apollonian or Dionysian.  They may be useful generalizations, but are clumsy explanatory devices when applied to all we do and are.  Our aims should be more modest.  Totalitarianism begins with the belief that there is a single, simple answer or truth that has been found, and must be accepted by all.  That's a belief system which isn't eradicated when another single, simple answer or truth has been found, which must be accepted.

Speculations on the Cause of Stupidity

The plight of the Great Golfer, Tiger Woods, leads me to wonder whether sexual desire is the primary, if not the only, cause of stupidity--at least among males.  One can't avoid the onslaught of "news" regarding what are apparently his many mistresses and affairs.  In the face of this relentless assault, I've decided not to succumb to mere amusement or boredom (which strive for dominance of my attitude when faced with such circumstances), but to ponder its implications for the study of our idiocy.

One notes that this sort of thing happens fairly often to famous or infamous males, that it is normally found out, and found out in most cases because the man involved has been in some sense spectacularly stupid.  I suspect it happens quite often to less than famous men as well, and that stupidity plays its part in their discomforture.

I'm not going to cite examples (and there are many), but submit for your consideration that this urge has at one time or the other turned all men into gibbering, drooling idiots, and likely will continue to do so.  Further, I submit that all men know this, and many are horrified to find that this knowledge counts for nothing at all.  We must be stupid in this case, and then, having been stupid, and knowing the consequences, we are stupid in our efforts to hide or mitigate our stupidity.  There is something truly pathetic, indeed tragic, about this incapacity.

I wonder if women are subject to the same kind of volunteered imbecility. One hears of women being stupid when it comes to sex, of course, but it doesn't seem one hears of them going to the extemes men are capable of, except, perhaps, in the case of that astronaut who made herself ridiculuous.

Now, because the human capacity to be stupid is immense, it makes no sense to postulate a single cause of stupidy.  We are capable of being profoundly stupid for various reasons, and in circumstances where sex is not involved.  Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that sex causes us to be stupid in particular ways, e.g. clownishly stupid, or too often, cruelly stupid.

Would we be better off without it?  Chemical castration, anyone?