The answer to god is sex.
Think about it. Think about the moment of orgasm. What is going through your mind at that very moment? Something? Anything? Maybe nothing?
For me, there’s nothing except the spectacular sensations filling my consciousness. My entire world becomes that orgasmic experience. For a split second, all that exists is me and my pleasure. There is no room in that brief instant for god, for morals, for emotion, or for thoughts. God bless that wonderful simplicity. Little wonder this self-empowering activity is such a threat to conservative institutions.
All of that stately “close your eyes and think of England,” or spiritual “becoming one with a greater power” stuff is what seems to me to be the perversions of sex, the unnecessary (and potentially harmful) search for greater meaning in something that is better off kept so incredibly simple. I do understand the desire to be able to transform one thing into another, to turn sex into connection, but there is a huge difference between saying sex is connection and saying that sex can become connection. (See also: your fantasy is not reality.)
Inherently, sex should be easy, and it should be simple, and it should be fun. Yet so many people are so uncomfortable with it, and popular culture dictates this unease as “proper” and correct in so belligerent a way, that so much of how we view sex—and consequently ourselves as well—is just as uncomfortable. This is a shame, because sex more than any other force that I can think of in the entire world is the single most universally shared experience, despite (or perhaps because of) its variations. What has the capability to bring people together is perverted into ammunition that keeps us apart.
Evidence of this belligerence is everywhere. It’s endlessly embroiled in politics, where the cultural blind spot about sex is so dangerous that even libertarians who challenge so called “pro-life” campaigns (as if being in favor of the right to choose an abortion makes you somehow anti-life?) are unaccustomed to directly tackling the subject of sex. Republicans and Democrats alike only ever talk about marriage, the presumably pre-sex part of life, and then babies, the presumably post-sex part of life. You would have to pull teeth to talk about sex itself!
From a recent Yahoo! News opinion piece called The One Question the “Pro-life” Presidential Candidates Don’t Want You to Ask:
98 percent of American women have done it.
37 million Americans are currently doing it.
Most of the GOP candidates oppose it.
What is it?
If you said “sex,” you were close. The answer is “use contraception.” In recent weeks, the GOP candidates have been asked a lot about their views on abortion but not one has been asked his position on contraception (or even prevention in general). Really big oversight. Maybe its because everyone just assumes they all support contraception. After all, who doesn’t?
Really big oversight indeed! And it’s typical of people’s understanding of what the “proper” way to communicate about sex is: to not to.
One of my favorite (comedic) examples of this in action is the following quote from the show House MD, which begins as a scene in which (male) Dr. Chase is staring at his attractive (female) colleague Dr. Cameron and spills coffee:
Dr. Cameron: I’m uncomfortable about sex.
Dr. Chase: But we don’t have to talk about this.
Dr. Cameron: Sex could kill you. Do you know what the human body goes through when you have sex? Pupils dilate, arteries constrict, core temperature rises, heart races, blood pressure skyrockets, respiration becomes rapid and shallow, the brain fires bursts of electrical impulse from nowhere to nowhere, and secretions spit out of every gland. And the muscles tense and spasm like you’re lifting three times your body weight. It’s violent, it’s ugly, and it’s messy. And if God hadn’t made it unbelievably fun, the human race would have died out eons ago. (Chase stares) Men are lucky they can only have one orgasm. Did you know women can have an hour-long orgasm?
Foreman enters
Dr. Cameron: (Cheerful) Hey Foreman, what’s up?
To me, this is a reminder that being closeted, uncomfortable, ashamed, or uneasy with something makes that something one of your vulnerabilities. Being closeted about being kinky, for example, makes me vulnerable to anyone willing to use my kinky sexuality to harm me, but being open and proud about it as a part of who I am, makes me (in the personal case) immune to such blackmail or attacks. But this can be generalized.
Most American people are in the closet about sex. Sex is thus easily used as though it were the threat of the executioner’s axe upon the populous. People fear being “outed” for enjoying sex for its own sake, as if pleasure were an intrinsically harmful thing in some way.
In most cases, religion is this axe. Have sex in one of any “uncontrolled” ways, and you have sinned, as the flowchart at the top of this post makes hilariously clear. That flowchart is taken from a page in the book Wages of Sin, whose description actually highlights this connection between religion and sex very nicely:
Throughout history, Western society has often viewed sickness as a punishment for sin. It has failed to prevent and cure diseases—especially diseases tied to sex—that were seen as the retribution of a wrathful God. The Wages of Sin, the remarkable history of these diseases, shows how society’s views of particular afflictions often heightened the suffering of the sick and substituted condemnation for care. […] More recently, medical and social responses to masturbation in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and AIDS in the twentieth round out Allen’s timely and erudite study of the intersection of private morality and public health. The Wages of Sin tells the fascinating story of how ancient views on sex and sin have shaped, and continue to shape, religious life, medical practice, and private habits.
I am taking wholly and without alteration from Kate Bornstein when I say the following:
There are more people on Earth who love sex than those who fear god.
And that’s why the answer to god is sex. If it’s a war the Religious Right wants, then the Left should be using sex as their ammunition to fight back.
As usual, some delightful citations via the incredible Gloria Brame.
by Rona
12 Dec 2007 at 21:59
You are awesome.
by Maja
12 Dec 2007 at 23:07
Some caveats:
– Not all religions are anti-sex!
– Not all sex is anti-religion, c.f. Barbara Carallas and her “faboo” vibes from the universe. And sacred prostitution, which I learned about at Jewschool and thought it was the coolest thing ever.
I’m not saying you’re wrong -you’re not – but you’re very… binary?
by maymay
13 Dec 2007 at 00:36
The snarky version because I know you’re awesome enough that you can take it:
:) I am just the anti-Christ.
Seriously though, if religion was understood simply as a belief in a supernatural power, i.e., Barbara Carrellas and her “faboo” vibes from the universe, as opposed to an institutionalized system of various kinds of cultural and social power, i.e., the Religious Right in politics, the Church in morality, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
I also might still have my foreskin, but that’s another post entirely.
The less snarky version:
I don’t think there is much wrong with religion in much the same way I don’t think there’s much wrong with sex. Both things are expressions of parts of human nature. Religion is simply an attempt to provide meaning to the unknown, a very necessary part of dealing with life, and I have no grudge against that. Likewise, sex is simply an expression of dealing with physical desires, typically very well-known ones. What’s interesting is that some people think they can tell other people what’s more important, and when they do so under the guise of religion it’s they who have created the binary you’re talking about. Not to mention being hypocritical.
by Tom Allen
13 Dec 2007 at 17:06
If it’s a war the Religious Right wants, then the Left should be using sex as their ammunition to fight back.
You’re confusing “Left” with “people from NYC.” In fact, there is a large, established base of Democrats who are very conservative (socially speaking), just as there are various Republicans who party on every weekend.
Religion is kind of like kittens, puppies, apple pie, and Mom (with a capital M). The perceptions far outweigh the reality, for whatever reason, and you can’t fight against them. You can, however, use philosophical judo of a sort. For example, when non-religious groups organize public or community service programs, the general public then gets a better view about the kinds of people who belong to that group.
Interestingly, I frequently read about sexuality-based groups doing some kind of service, but they are usually raising money for AIDS victims or something that could be perceived as helping only other perverted sex fiends. As a thought experiment, what do you think that the public reaction would be if, say, CV held a yearly fund-raiser for dyslexic children?
by maymay
13 Dec 2007 at 17:30
Tom, I don’t think the fact that the vocal minority in the far Right of the political spectrum is not actually representative of The People as a whole is lost on most people, yet the fact remains that it is that minority which wields an inappropriately large amount of control over the lives of people like me, who are for all intents and purposes practically the furthest I could possibly be from them, living in NYC as I do. My point is more along the lines of fighting this kind of fire with the same kind of fire. Those of us on the extreme Left of the political spectrum, which includes me, are similarly not representative of The People as a whole, but if we don’t become equally vocal then we’ll soon see our freedoms taken away, and frankly so will everyone in the middle of this spectrum, too. It is an invasion.
Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. And on that note I think a fund-raiser for dyslexic children is a good idea regardless of where it came from. However, one reason you’re not going to see that sort of thing come out of places like CV and the LGBT movements yet is because we’re too busy just trying to survive to put significant resources into causes that have indirect benefits to us like that. And why do you think we’re so busy just trying to survive? See above.
That said, I would love to find a way to use CV or any other community resource to help a good cause. It’s my chosen life’s goal.
by Maja
15 Dec 2007 at 14:59
It’s been a while. Let’s see if I can plug back in…
Be a dissenting voice, yes! There’s clearly a need for… several jillion. But please be as careful with your terms as you want the big Religion Baddies to be!
Religion is offten misused. Sex is often misused. Both camps believe that the other one is totally fucking things up. Demonize, rinse, and repeat.
Which doesn’t really allow for any kind of change, no?
by maymay
15 Dec 2007 at 15:13
There’s a big difference between demonizing and imposing. I don’t think there’s much wrong with demonizing because it’s imposing that’s the only thing that is actually limiting other people’s choices. Demonizing is simply an expression of a belief that doesn’t actually harm anyone. Call me a sinner, call me a pervert, and I’ll respect your point of view until do things that cause me not to be able to do the things I want with other consenting adults. It’s when demonizing turns into actions that you start to get oppressive behavior and that’s where I think all the problems are.
So, really, who does it seem needs to be more careful with their terms?
Pingback
by Meitar Moscovitz (maymaym) 's status on Thursday, 03-Sep-09 01:07:14 UTC - Identi.ca
02 Sep 2009 at 21:07
[…] http://maybemaimed.com/2007/12/12/love-sex-or-fear-god-that-is-the-question/ a few seconds ago from web […]
Pingback
by Meanwhile, on the Internet… // VOID-STAR.NET β
06 Sep 2009 at 19:37
[…] Love sex or fear god? That is the question. Lolarious flowchart. Also: Interesting opinion piece on sex and attitudes there to. sexuality religion:christianity:ewchristians […]
Pingback
by It’s not changing the world that’s hard « Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed
13 Oct 2010 at 02:41
[…] powerful forces that exist in human history. Many people say it is the most powerful force, but it is in fact second only, I think, to sex. Not even religious guilt can stop or suppress any kind of human desire. I mean, there’s way […]
Pingback
by On the Danger of the Desire to Constrain « Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed
15 Nov 2010 at 20:28
[…] they gleefully nurture in others their own desire to constrain the wants and needs of others. Their dogmas of restriction, censorship, and criminalization are nothing more complex than elaborate mirages designed to […]