Crash Into Me
Posted by feministwriter on 31 May 2009 at 08:46 pm | Tagged as: equality, feminism, sexuality
One aspect of the destruction of civilization that is often overlooked is sexuality. We all know that society necessitates an ownership of our genitals. What we do, how we feel, and how express our desire is dictated by the culture that we live in. But is sexuality designed to be dictated by norms? More specifically, are we supposed to express our sexuality in the same way as our neighbors?
Dismantling civilzation means that we must find a way t0 exist in an equal and beautiful paradigm. We know that the way we live now lends itself to domination, patriarchy, and capitalism. We need to learn how to be explicitly free and unequivocally loving. Everyone has a different method of loving, and the problem is that no one talks about it. The whole concept of a “norm” means that there is a right way, a wrong way, and everything in between.
What would happen if there was no norm? If we decided for ourselves how we would love each other and make love to each other? Of course we do what we want now, regardless of what others think, but it is very secretive and private. Perhaps there is a medium in which we could decide that no matter what someone chooses as sexuality, it is still wonderful and perfect. We are still very far away from that now. Those who support it are labeled “liberals” while those that oppose it are labeled “conservatives.” Why does there have to be a whole theology of thought behind these two views? And more importantly, why does there have to be only two views? Why can’t there be one thousand trickling into a digestible format known as a dichotomy?
“We need to learn how to be explicitly free and unequivocally loving.”
I’ve heard this line before. How it usually plays out in reality, rather than in theory, is something along the lines of, “I, the man, get to boink all the women I want and you, the woman, must suffer in silence.”
I contend the real problem with “civilized” sex isn’t the lack of freedom, it’s the lack of clear boundaries. Indigenous peoples apparently tend to have an elaborate system of body decoration, dress, and behavior to determine who’s married, who’s unmarried but ineligible for marriage, who’s unmarried but eligible for marriage, who’s homosexual, and/or who just wants to screw around, depending of course on the mores of the individual tribe.
We don’t have that. On the one side we have seemingly arbitrary suppression of healthy sexuality by those who want to funnel sexual energy into nefarious purposes. On the other side we have a bunch of antisocial or at least essentially nonsocial lunatics who want everyone to do their own thing even if nobody else knows what the hell that person is doing or why. And neither side seems to favor clear signaling. None of this is a recipe for a healthy culture.
Been there… done the free love thing… that doesn’t work either. It’s been tried for thirty years. Time to try something else.
“Been there… done the free love thing… that doesn’t work either. It’s been tried for thirty years. Time to try something else.”
There are plenty of people trying something else:
polyamory
http://www.polyamory.org.uk/
intentional communities
http://www.diggersanddreamers.org.uk/
If something doesnt work for 1 person, or indeed in one relationship or period in that persons life, it doesnt mean it doesnt work at all. Open relationships and multiple commitments do work for some people, although it can take negotiation and serious self analysis….
The culture of empire has been moulding our consciousnesses, breaking up communities and dividing and ruling us for at least 10,000 years. 30 years is hardly long enough to right something off – especially when quite large numbers of people are happily living in multi-partner scenarios.
and what does ‘work’ really mean? if you try something that isnt the conventional and find that it throws up all kinds of emotional stuff to work through, that could be seen as not working (and run away!) or as working (and work through your fears).
Or if one partner decides they cant live like that anymore, it could also be viewed as not working – but only if ‘working’ is to stay together for life whatever….