Our American Obsession(s), part 2

"Sex. In America an obsession. In other parts of the world a fact."

-- Marlene Dietrich

1. The sex we want, but can't have. (Part 1 yesterday)
   
2. The sex we don't want others to have. (Part 2, )

In my last post I wrote a lot of stuff (more of a ramble than cohesive thoughts) on the American obsession for sex and particularly, the sex we want, but can't have. Today I want to focus on our obsession with the sex we don't want others to have.

When we are obsessed with sex we want but can't have. We may have shades of what is right and wrong, but we are masters at rationalizing anything to get what we want. We can ignore the dangers of them if it helps us to get it. I am sure many sex offenders were able to justify their actions. I know I have "justified" some things that I should be ashamed of. There are so many subtle shades of gray between black and white.

Our obsession with controlling other citizens sex lives has just as many shades of acceptability. As I thought about this subject last night, I wondered what is the dividing line. Some subjects are beyond the pale as unacceptable (rape, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and a few others that I have forgotten.) There is no doubt these are hurtful and harmful, yet there are groups that argue for these types of "love" should be acceptable.

Overall, our culture has "acceptable sex" that is accepted almost universally as "ok." These may include, consensual sex between a married couple that is kept private. It is funny that it is easier to list "unacceptable sex" than "acceptable" for the current American culture. Personally, my list is the opposite, but I am either a pervert or free sexual spirit.

Here are some tough ones. What about fetishes that involve cutting, torture, humiliation, and other "rough" subjects that are performed between consenting adults? How about the new push in teen culture that oral sex is very common and practiced? How about certain parts of gay culture that push aside the risk of HIV, and other STDs, and practice and promote rough bare-back (sans condoms or any other safer-sex protection) sex?

In general, I am very open to how others enjoy their sexuality. I am not a submissive guy and am not really into submissive women. If being submissive is part of your core being and you get enjoyment from serving and submitting, good for you. Here is the hard part of it though. What if someone has a certain kink because of past abuse as a child? Is it wrong then? When can one fetish/obsession be acceptable for some and not for others?

Another question, you may be very open to certain sexual twists, but would you feel the same way if you found out your parents, siblings, or adult children had the similar or even more extreme sexual tastes? Personally, I hope my family members (no kids for me) have a happy healthy sex life. If one decides to come out of the closet and is gay/lesbian good for him/her. It would be hard though to think rationally if a family member did things I found extreme.

Controlling others' sex lives is a (sorry for the cliche) slippery slope. We need to protect children. We need to protect people from rape. At what point do we make the cut off though? If you listed out all the sexual twists that people can choose from, I could check off what I think is right and wrong. What makes my decision right for others?

This is where we have other issues of imposing our rules on others' bodies. With the new 2257 regulations, many artists feel inhibited. I was talking with a friend (former stripper/union shop steward at a unionized strip club, and former escort, now law student) about 2257. She is working on first amendment issues concerning sex workers. Her first word was that 2257 was a "chiller." It was made not only to restrict and regulate things, it was also designed to "chill" out the enthusiasm of those working on the fringes, even if it is legitimate work. I know I feel the chill. What I define as compliant with 2257, others may find obscene. I am a little concerned about it and need to learn more about it.

So, I have written ad-nauseum about the shades of grey of acceptable sexual proclivities. Let us look at the people on the extremes of the arguments. They are truly the people obsessed with sex.

The religious fundamentalist fanatics (any religion) who have a very narrow definition of "acceptable sex" are scary. Many of them find a rare incident and blow it out of proportion to promote their position. The more outlandish, outrageous, and sensationalized the incident, the more fuel they can get from it to limit others' freedoms. At one point they can no longer accept the person who chose a different sexual lifestyle. It becomes an "us" (the righteous) vs. them. There is no middle ground. You both may agree on 98% of all other topics, but because of the one difference in opinions, you will be thrown aside as the enemy.

I sometimes think the other side of the argument has the same problems. Living in the SF bay area, I have many gay and lesbian friends. Some of them got married last year. We all were upset when Prop 8 (illegalizing gay marriage) passed. What worried me was a few of them became so myopic about the issue. It became the only issue that mattered. They adopted the same us vs. them feelings their opponents held. It made me sad.

I guess all this comes down to two questions. Why are we so divisively obsessed on these issues? What is the right mixture of sexual freedom/ protection? I wonder how progressive cultures, like France, handle these same issues. What do you think?