Epimetheus Speaks: Sex, Sex, Sex! (originally published 10/01/93)

One could easily be of the opinion that all of history has been the reflection of the pursuit of sex. An extreme view, to be sure, but maybe not as much off the mark as we'd like to think - look at the Trojan Wars, where an entire war was fought over one woman; or Shakespeare's MacBeth, where the promise of sex motivates a man to kill (something that has surely happened at some time in recorded history). The animal within us cannot be denied, try as we might. But denial is exactly what we engage in, daily, unconciously. Clothes help provide the illusion that people aren't inherently sexual - hiding the "forbidden" areas is a must. Sex is also relegated to being a private act, one that is not inherently public, suited only for certain rooms of the house - yet that is also a more induced by society.

You shouldn't necessarily think that I'm against these measures, in fact, I'm all in favor of at least a few of them. They're quite necessary in more than one way. I for one, would not dare to give up the feeling I get when I see a beautiful woman in scanty lingerie - if everyone were naked all the time, I'd hardly have a reason to get excited over the possibility of seeing a person naked again. In fact, in such a society, dressing would be the sexual innuendo, as opposed to undressing. But there's more to it than even just that.

Robert Pirsig is a fabulous author, and I recommend you read any one of his works. His most recent success is the novel Lila, subtitled An Inquiry into Morals. In it, he describes a philosophical system of his own devising, known to most as the Metaphysics of Quality. He goes into greater depth with this system in his earlier works; it is basically his own method for dealing with what he considers reality, and it works really well. At any rate, he manages to make an interesting classification - he establishes a hierarchy, if you will, to demonstrate the descending priorities of what he loosely terms "morality". His idea of what is moral is according to this classification - something is more morally important if it is higher on the ladder.

Phew. That was a mouthful - if you can understand that on the first read, you're a better person than me. Pirsig's hierarchy of moral patterns is as follows: inorganic patterns, biological patterns, social patterns, and intellectual patterns. Without going into any more depth, let's just say that biological imperatives must be superseded by social imperatives. As Pirsig says, it is more moral to be follow social patterns than purely biological ones. It's a pretty obvious thing, once you think about it. Society is much more important than immediate biological need, for the majority of us, anyway. Therefore, it is necessary to supress some of the sexual nature so as not to express all of it - at least to preserve society.

So we've established some necessity for "hiding" humanity's innate sexual nature, though some would still disagree, even with the cost of society in the balance. But to go to the opposite extreme, we can scrutinize total repression of sexual nature. I hardly see how this can be possible, just as I can't readily see how we can totally comfortably embrace our sexual selves at this time in history. I recall a religious group (The Shakers?) from early American history that believed in total repression of human sexuality; fortunately or unfortunately, they all died off, not being able to reproduce and thus pass on their non-sexual tendencies. You tell me what's wrong with this picture.

If you try to hold back the innate tendencies of human nature, you not only end up fighting a losing battle, you also end up creating worse problems for yourself later on. It's just not possible to hold back the floodwaters for very long; if you dam up the river long enough, it's going to overflow. If you expose someone to sex for sixteen hours a day, constantly stimulating and arousing them, and then prevent them from channeling their sexual energies into a constructive outlet... well, you tell me what you think is going to happen. Obviously, they're going to explode - one way or another, they'll find an outlet, whether it's through violence, or anger, or just passion, they'll find a way to get rid of it.

There are ways to avoid the negative outlets - some people adopt strict exercise regimens, some are properly trained to keep it inside (causing worse internal damage through stress). But there are others who use a less accepted form of release - pornography. Some are willing to argue that pornography causes more stress than it releases, which is true in a lot of ways. Porn is indeed another method of stimulation that we don't necessarily need, considering the massive amount we already recieve. And yet, there is a way to reconcile these feelings. If we made a concious effort to further embrace our sexuality, say as in making pornography less of a business and more of an art; like showing our children what the sexual experience is like when it is heightened with loving emotion, instead of the industrial pumping spectacle we show in the video stores. Sex is not something we should avoid; it is something we should control, but not something we should hide. One of the teachings of the Buddhist Zen master Suzuki is that to "retain control over an animal is to give it a large open pasture to graze in."

In the throes of the human experience we call everyday life, it's not entirely uncommon for two people to end up clinging to each other for warmth against the cold indifference of the universe. Note that I said two people; all people are the same underneath, regardless of gender, regardless of race/ethnicity, regardless of social influence. People all have the same feelings, the same problems, the same fears and hopes. People are, and people love.

In the end, we're all alone. In the end, we only have each other.

Back To Top

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.