Two weeks ago, I started a series based on Ross Douthat’s
May 2nd New York Times
“Redistribution of Sex.” It considered whether
the peak romantic activity should be more universally available, and how, and
whether, the right for people to have it might be achieved. I, as Douthat, considered it both a real
problem, unsolved by any sexual revolution so far, and worthy of assessment.
Accordingly, how does it fit in?
First, while sex may be immensely valuable and a major part
of life, it is not truly a need, and cannot be equated with the likes of food,
water, or air. Therefore, it does not
need to be government-assured.
Second, this issue is not political – if you disagree, would
you consider it conservative or liberal, and why? Some opinions are bipartisan, and this is one
of them.
Third, the world would be a better place if there were more truly
consensual sex.
Fourth, we have no chance of returning to the pre-1965 sexual
atmosphere. It has added too much to
life quality, for those having it, to be rolled back. And, for example, we can no longer give, as
Douthat put it, “special respect” to those choosing not to have it, especially
when the best-known group of them, Catholic priests, are now known to make that
choice from being gay (and, sadly, from being attracted to boys) instead of from
being noble.
Fifth, there has been in recent years great hostility from
many toward the male sex drive. That is not
an appropriate feminist attitude, let alone a worthwhile mainstream one, and is
not only sexist but destructive.
Sixth, there are several reasons for what Douthat called the
“social and political chasms opening between” males and females. We are at a historical juncture between women
and girls being specially protected (the past), having full equal rights (the
present in the law), and drawing expectations consistent with those of boys and
men (the future), with different people advocating only one, one and parts of
the others, and, even, all three.
Automation has hit men’s jobs, long necessary for sexual success as well
as financial survival and prosperity, far harder than women’s. We steadily get reports on how, over all
careers and personal choices, women’s averaging lower pay is indication of
discrimination. There is, overall, a
mixture of the past, the present, and the future, causing problems with what males
and females expect from each other and, ultimately, with everything else
between them.
Seventh, largely because of electronics and overattentive
parents, sex between people under 18 is indeed falling.
Eighth, adding up the above, contrary to Douthat, we are
hardly consistently “Hefnerian.” Though
guilt is only a tiny fraction of what it was over 50 years ago, too many
people’s lives are way out of synch with what was once called “free love.”
Ninth, pornography, sex robots, and other erotic machines
have thus far caused no fundamental change.
Could developing technologies help here?
And what should we do about this overall situation? See Part III next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment