Can We Be Both Sex and Body-Positive and Also Anti-Pornography?

Can We Be Both Sex and Body-Positive and Also Anti-Pornography?

Recently, I heard Gayle Ruzicka, the outspoken leader of the Utah chapter of The Eagle Forum, complain on KUER-FM's RadioWest program about some of the sex education curricula used in local public schools. She suggested that if children in a classroom asked about matters pertaining to sexual technique or contraception, they should be referred to school counselors or nurses. Or, they should be talked to privately, undoubtedly in concert with a teacher and parents present. She was concerned about teachers going beyond the legal guidelines, which prohibit anything smacking of advocacy for sexual experimentation or contraception. She didn't want kids exposed to ideas their parents might disapprove of in a group setting. She, like many parents, would prefer that children abstained from sexuality activity until they are mature enough and married enough to handle it. Teen pregnancy, abortion, sexually transmitted illnesses, of course, are serious matters in every society. Promiscuity, it can be safe to say, does not promote enduring, loving relationships. Getting involved with sex too early can lead to lasting trauma and tragedy. Human experience teaches us that people are liable to fornicate or commit adultery at any stage beyond puberty. However, if children are singled out for asking uncomfortable questions, we still stigmatize them. Sending a child to a counselor or nurse is associated with either punishment or illness, not healthy curiosity. Waiting to address something "after class" is still associated with punishment. We are still telling kids they are better off going to their peers or the wild and woolly world-wide web for taboo inquiries.

However, I question whether we are helping children develop any normal, clinical understanding of matters like reproduction and healthy sexual satisfaction by shutting down the conversation, or exiling them to a school resource person. Could there be such a thing as having a licensed sex therapist handy, too? After all, children may bring up all sorts of topics these days, like divorce, infidelity, blended families, masturbation, gender dysmorphia, intersexuality, asexuality, same-sex attraction, statutory rape, incest, bestiality, transvestism, sado-masochism, and various fetishes and perversions. At the very least, boys will get erections and girls periods. Wet dreams are not unheard of, either, even among the very chaste. I would agree that schools should be respectful of children's own feelings of self-worth and not instil a hostile environment of shame or embarrassment. If kids are taught differently at home about matters of chastity or celibacy, these should be respected. Parents can choose whether or not they want their children taught in schools about reproduction. It is a shame, however, that neither teachers nor parents are required to deal with such matters in an informed, candid, non-judgmental fashion.

I would like to address another matter as well, which one might call the mystery of corporeal representation. I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. For many years, representatives of my faith have addressed matters of sexual morality, modest attire, marital fidelity, contraception, gender equality, and, to a lesser extent, gender identity. It is a faith which, while centered in salvation through the teachings and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, also places great weight upon the survival of the family unit in the eternities, forging links between progenitors and posterity over countless generations. For people to be truly happy, they need happy homes, which include parents which love each other and their children. Pornography intrudes upon domestic bliss and disrupts healthy relationships. June D. Jones, who presides over the Primary Organization in my church, responsible for the religious training of children ages 3-12, quotes the organization Fight the New Drug in enumerating pornography's common ill effects in her article "Addressing Pornography: Protect, Respond, and Heal" (Ensign, October 2019, 22):

• Porn can change and rewire your brain, and studies show , that it can even make your brain smaller and less active.
• Porn can be addictive.
• Porn will destroy your self-confidence.
• Porn can leave you lonely.
• Porn can hurt those you love.
• Porn can ruin healthy sexuality.
• Porn is connected to violence.
• Porn causes people to eventually become dishonest.
• Porn will rob you of your time and energy.
• Porn causes depression, anxiety, and shame.

While some might provide counter-arguments, no one will dispute that pornography has this effect on many, if not most, people. Not all people die of liver disease and brain damage from alcohol consumption, or of the many fatal diseases associated with tobacco, but this should not discourage public health officials from warning about these risk. So, we should be concerned about the pervasiveness of pornography, including the do-it-yourself aspects associated with phone cameras, web browsers, and instant messaging platforms. What caught my attention was a later article in the same Ensign issue, "Four Ways to Protect Your Family Against Pornography" (p. 60), in which is stated:

Our bodies are a sacred gift from God, and our sexual feelings are normal and good when used in harmony with their divine purpose. Pornography is designed to arouse and exploit sexual feelings. It portrays people not as children of God but as objects to use for selfish desires. Even young children can learn to recognize it in a simple way: “You might accidentally see a picture or video of someone with their clothes off. That’s called pornography. When you see it, you might feel an ‘uh-oh’ feeling inside. That’s the Holy Ghost telling you, ‘That’s pornography. Stay away.’” [Italics mine].

Our legalistic society tends to make matters of simple ethical and moral concern extremely difficult to sort out for adults, let alone explain to children. Still, it bothers me when a child is told that "a picture or video of someone with their clothes off" is tantamount to pornography. It reinforces the notions of shame which I believe well-intended people like Gayle Ruzicka wish to maintain in our classrooms. Without Internet or unlocked cable TV access, unclad people can still show up in many places. Images of naked, or partially naked, people can be found in anatomy and health textbooks, medical journals, health, fashion, and fitness magazines, art galleries and museums, public sculptures, and old National Geographic magazines, to name very few. People are often immodest in public in the summer, in sunny climates, and at the beach. Children may see a children's picture book or video which explains reproduction and puberty. Learning how to draw and paint requires the study of the human form, in most courses. Children may happen upon a nature documentary which portrays animals copulating, or see something mystifying going on between household pets or zoo animals. They are bound to see more of these sorts of things if raised on a farm, certainly. Somewhere along the line, they may see their parents, siblings, or other relations naked, accidentally. One would hope they catch no one copulating, as that would surely inspire a nuclear response. Some countries do not prohibit public nudity, while some others would see acceptably modest attire in the United States as not covering up enough. Some faiths have tried to get around the problem by proscribing representational art altogether.

So, another unenumerated, deleterious effect of pornography might be to render all representation of the human form suspect. While shame and disgust with the body and its functions remain intrinsic to many cultures, and has persisted in Christian culture since its emergence during the Roman Empire, I would argue that a key to addressing the many negative influences of pornography is to emphasize the positive aspects of sexuality and having a body to children, as soon as they can be taught about them. Sexual intimacy, within proper boundaries of marriage, with consideration shown to the personal needs of both spouses, is one of the great joys in life. Respect for our own bodies, and those of others, as well as understanding how they work, can be very liberating. When someone's body and/or personality is attractive to a child, it should be recognized as normal. Shame, disgust, or lust are some of the other possible responses. These should be recognized as well. Since I believe people are born into this world to learn how to function with a body, it is heresy to try to associate bodies with only negative or pejorative connotations. How dare we denigrate God's creations? At the same time, we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that any seemingly benign portrayal of human anatomy, sexuality, or even excretory functions can be devoid of erotic associations for someone, somewhere.

Many people today, from a wide spectrum of cultures, ages, and social classes, feel alienated, confused and frustrated about their gender identity, familial bonds, social interaction, marital status, corporeal image, and erotic urges. How can religion address these? All faiths have something to say positive to say about charity, neighborliness, compassion towards strangers, peaceable dealings, toleration, honesty, and the need to one's ego and pride in check. Not all address the need for domestic bliss. Nor do all profess the same squeamishness about the human body that the faiths which have originated in the Near East do. Members of my faith and others of the Judeo-Christian and Muslim traditions can learn from these. This is why interfaith dialogue is so important, simply because all belief systems are prone to inherit fanciful, obsolete or even pernicious notions due to human imperfection. There is plenty of wisdom to go around, and no credo has a monopoly upon it.

I also think scientific knowledge is called for, too, as some taboos have, frankly, worn out their usefulness, particularly those which are proving injurious to personal hygiene and health. Nevertheless, science is not in a position to dictate moral conduct or address spiritual matters. It can, however, inspire greater appreciation for the works of the divine, even if not directly ascribing aspects of the natural world to a higher power or presence. Children need sex education. Adults need sex education. Human relationships are complicated. Schools and science cannot provide all the answers, but can provide guidance about what pairings work out, and which ones don't. They can also explain some of the role of hormones and the reproductive system in influencing our actions and thoughts, how pregnancy is achieved, and how genital contact allows certain diseases to be transmitted. Kids should know what is both healthy and unhealthy about sex, and why each body is so different. Instead of shame and secrecy, kids and adults need to know where they can get authoritative information, and what scientifically verifiable facts exist about human physiology. Religion can give guidance about how one should live with this knowledge. Otherwise, children and adults will continue to turn to "adult entertainment" and snake oil peddlers for their troubling, embarrassing and taboo questions. If religious and scientific leaders are to make any headway against the Age of DIM (Disinformation, Ignorance and Misinformation), we need to quit shying away from The Talk.

On the Cultural Roots of the Abortion Debate

We have been wrangling with restrictions upon abortion as a contraceptive procedure throughout my life, with many lawmakers now hoping to overturn the landmark Rowe v. Wade decision of 1973, thanks to a conservative majority on the US Supreme Court, and the chance of it becoming a super majority in the next few years. Georgia and Alabama's new draconian measures have been in the news, with Alabama's getting the most attention, because it vows to jail insubordinate abortion providers with up to 99 years in prison. Abortion is currently pretty restricted in most states. Indeed, of the many state legislatures which have agonized about the plight of fetuses, few, it seems, have shown the same solicitude when it comes to the needs of young children, their family life, or even their education. Alabama, for example, hasn't shown much concern for public health for years. Even prenatal and postnatal checkups for young mothers aren't on lawmakers' radar in most states, which might prevent miscarriages, or reduce infant or maternal mortality. Only the first months of viability keeps them up in the night. After that, ladies and gents, you're on your own, unless corporations, churches and charities want to step in.

The conservative ethos is, We won't worry about your family's welfare, because that is a private matter, unless you are receiving public assistance, or violating our laws. If you receive assistance, you are a parasite, unless you are a big corporation promising jobs. If you violate laws, we will lock you up and throw your family to the wolves. Unless, of course, you are a big corporation who may have just made a little mistake because of anti-business laws passed by our liberal colleagues, like violating labor, environmental or campaign finance laws. No big deal. 

Well, let's take a broader view of our culture. What messages are given to females from girlhood? Don't have sex until marriage, but don't be too prissy, or guys will think you're gay or frigid. If you do have extramarital sex, just don't get pregnant. Perhaps you got pregnant because you got intoxicated, forgot pills, and he didn't want to use a condom. After all, how else will a male get sexual satisfaction, unless a potential partner has clouded judgment? How else will one's shyness be overcome, except with drugs and booze at bars and parties? Billions of dollars are spent on reinforcing this unsubtle meme, rightly or wrongly. It keeps the legal drug and alcohol interests in the black, after all, and employs people, after all.

If you get pregnant, don't expect the father (if known) to stick around. It's cool to have a baby, since celebrity role models celebrate it. You can do it all by yourself, like other wealthy woman have. On the other hand, poor single moms are blamed for society's ills, because they either are on public assistance, or their kids are neglected, according to persistent memes. Single motherhood will also adversely affect your sex life, especially if you can't get your girlish figure back. And what if you can't get reliable babysitters (like your parents or grandparents) to watch your progeny while you get some much needed me-time? How many workplaces are openly hostile to the needs of working mothers, like having a breastfeeding break, or staying home with sick kids? We haven't even gotten to kids with medical or special needs. 

Oh, and let's back up. You, the mother-to-be, are told your child may be born with birth defects. You may be told that there are physical risks to being pregnant or giving birth, very much a reality in the past, still something of an issue today, especially in developing countries. You may have health issues yourself. And we aren't talking about women who already have families, maybe even spouses, who may have issues with unplanned pregnancies. In spite of all these potential challenges, most women give birth. Some use contraception. Some get abortions. Society stigmatizes this last group. It's always the woman's responsibility to maintain the social order. If not, mostly male lawmakers will see to it that abortion providers are barred from the practice, morning after pills are unavailable, and offenders are punished with jail or everlasting contempt.

My solution? One option is to pay women to have babies and give them up for adoption, if they aren't up to assuming this superhuman task, because of some of the reasons I have mentioned. Pay them, even if the guy decides to actually take responsibility as their father, and the mother wants to retain custody. At least give them some inducement not to create another dysfunctional, single parent family. Offer free life skills counseling for all prospective parents. We should also make it cheaper, and less burdensome to adopt, and address issues when the biological parents choose to be part of their kids' lives. With all of the divorce going on, it can't be that much different at whose house the children split their time. Are kids any more likely to be kidnapped by biological, or non-custodial, parents? It seems like its becoming a moot point, with so many spouses not staying together anymore.

It would be far cheaper to do these than to continue to waste public funds fighting heavy-handed legislative measures in court, even if they make legislators look good to their conservative, church-going constituents, and allow them to parade around like cocksure roosters. Again, as I have said, this steadfast defense of alleged principle flies in the face of routine cuts, or freezing of increases, to funds to other government programs which would benefit the young. 

Another option is to fund voluntary sterilization of both sexes. No eggs and sperm? No problem. Involuntary sterilization we associate, of course, with the bad old eugenics era and fascism. It didn't work out so well in India in the 1970s, when Indira Gandhi tried to impose it, either. This runs afoul of some religious sensibilities, certainly. Yet, since so many rankle at exploding populations, especially among ethnic minorities, it may offer a solution to a society always allergic to criminal activities of the bored youth it refuses, or cannot, care for. It would be far easier, however, to make birth control options more widely available, such as self-administered abortifacients. After all, we use pills, shots and elixirs for everything else, don't we.

Option 3? Buy, or subsidize the purchase of, sexbots for the kind of irresponsible and predatory males prone to impregnate females. Develop sexbots which are sophisticated enough to give such people a challenge, so they won't get kicks from stalking and assaulting real women. It might at least take some sex offenders out of circulation. Less public intoxication and abandonment issues, too. 

What is more, we shouldn't stigmatize women who simply prefer the company of other women, or want to raise children on their own. Make sperm donations available, and cheap. The ideal is for both parents to be there, in the home, co-parenting. One would want the couple to at least be of two genders, according to cultural history. That this hasn't been the case, especially with both parents staying married and healthy enough to raise their biological children to adulthood, is well-known. Deviation from the ideal may be greater today, perhaps, with marriage being less fashionable, same-sex, transgender and infertility issues being more prominent.

Anyway, I'm sure the paternal state will continue to police women's wombs, hound men away from households getting assistance, lock up fathers for non-violent offenses, and do all the meddlesome things which libertarians find absurd, just to make sure no one looks soft on crime. Sometime, though, sane people will have to decide that our sexual culture is so severely messed-up, that encouraging unsafe, back alley, abortions, poor reporting of such procedures, and unwanted children--in other words, a return to the good old days of, say, Dickensian England--is hardly a panacea. Giving people freedom, and then taking it away, is hardly conducive to the legitimation of governance. Carrots like bribing unwed parents to marry and/or stay together, encouraging adoption, providing free counseling, care throughout the natal cycle, less-restricted access to other forms of birth control, will help. 

More appreciation of the matronly figure, and motherhood, in public and at work, will work some wonders. Anything promoting fatherly attachment, male duty to support spouses/partners and families, shared visitation, should be a bipartisan issue. Parenthood, in general, should be pervasive in public discourse; not how great it is to be unattached, and orgasmic. Sex-positivity, partner bonding, and better education about family structure and reproduction, I think, are all crucial to a healthy society. Hooking up and stoner sex are not part of a healthy society; anymore than pornography, prostitution and glory holes are. Sexbots and sex toys are necessary evils because, frankly, some people need something extra that is non-violent, and non-reproductive. Otherwise, they will continue to perpetrate their deviant fantasies with the innocent. We don't need to hopelessly wring our hands about sexual harassment, battery and STDs. Science can come to the rescue, if we let it. Family values, though in a broader and more enlightened sense, may yet prevail if the subject is reclaimed from the dark confines of our creaky culture wars and championed again by social progressives. Otherwise, the fundamentalists will triumph. Then, heaven help us all.

Where People Get Donald Trump, and Contrarians, Wrong

I am not a fan of Donald John Trump. I would never vote for him. The other day, however, I had to question my own prejudices when dealing with the effusive praise for him by a coworker. Why do I feel such a visceral reaction towards him, and other leaders whom I deem antithetical to my own values? I believe, in the case of POTUS, that one should start with recognizing some of what attracts others to him.

• He strives to keep his campaign promises, unlike other presidents.
• He is a consummate master of modern media, understanding implicitly how to deliver his message to the masses, especially in ways that make for good television entertainment.
• He is very good at out-maneuvering his opponents.
• He is probably enjoying his presidency more than his predecessors, since he doesn't feel responsible for how the world works, and doesn't lose sleep over what fires need to be put out.
• He has addressed some legitimate issues, such as ailing infrastructure, trade imbalances, and the high costs of garrisoning the world.
• He is adept at keeping his name in the news every day, and showcasing the defensiveness and passive aggression of his enemies.

To understand the Trump phenomenon more fully, I would remind us that stories are always more entertaining than fact-checking. We don't go to sports events in order to hear from sideline judges, referees and umpires. Jury trials are decided by persuasiveness, not the mere trundling out of evidence and invoking of legal codes. People buy on the basis of passion; their shopping experience is more important than the attributes of the good or service they are purchasing. Logic is brought in to justify decision-making, but is not necessarily the chief catalyst. In the case of Trump supporters, he is the showman who knows how to deliver what they want to hear and see. His detractors, on the other hand, come across as party poopers, as the coolers who show up at casinos when one is on a hot streak. They are the prissy nitpickers, the sore losers, the ones the schoolyard bullies made fools of when it was time for them to counterattack. Unlike disciplinarian teachers and other superiors, they lack the charisma and legitimacy to make much headway against the star of the show. They are like the censors and watchdogs who seem to have little purpose other than to spoil a good evening. They seem outraged less out of moral affront than out of envy, because he commands so much attention, and won't yield the stage. He serves as a convenient foil for others seeking to promote a conservative agenda, who obtain less scrutiny because of his notoriety. It is not just one person leading the charge. Changing who presides will not greatly upset the agenda of a deeply-entrenched establishment. It will not eliminate racial hatred, xenophobia and bigotry in general. No one should be lulled by such a specious argument. The ills of society will never be cured by mere elections.

Trump may remind us of the class clowns we knew growing up. In the Washington Post book Trump Revealed from 2016, some remember him being just that. Some want the teacher to get on with the lesson and put the miscreant in his or her place. Others like the break in the action, or welcome some levity in the midst of a dreary lesson. Others take the side of their peer against the instructor and his or her perceived tyranny. For a conservative icon, Trump (and the media culture of the Right) come across as bad boys and girls willing to prod and pummel the uptight liberal establishment, at risk of official opprobrium. This card has been played for many years, even when conservatives have dominated the Presidency, Congress and, increasingly, the judiciary. It is not a simple matter of hypocrisy or deception. This is the narrative the Right promotes, because victimizers like to see themselves as victims, and the loyal base likes to see themselves as fellow sufferers. Wealthy people and corporations striving to avoid estate taxes are seen as peers of the middle and lower classes, since the less fortunate would be rich, too, if they just tried harder. That they also promote policies damaging to the well-being of the general public (like weakened labor, environmental and safety regulations) seems beside the point. Liberals are the nagging sourpusses, the holdouts that the rest cannot abide, who stand in the way of economic prosperity. The confidence in him is so strong among his supporters, they might greet imminent annihilation with a smile on their faces, since he could provide a deux ex machina at any moment. Cognitive dissonance is that strong. Facts will not win them over. On the other hand, as the recent altercation involving Covington Catholic High School students in Washington, D.C. shows, first impressions are not necessarily definitive.

When speaking with someone whose politics are on the opposite side of the fence, one should keep the following principles in mind:

1. No one's perception is perfect, and sufficient, in and of itself.
2. If one values friendship with another, one shouldn't insist upon being right, or evangelizing another.
3. The other person has unique gifts, which should be validated and shared, for that person's own well-being and for one's own. Political or other differences are too slight to merit the exclusion of another's other qualities.
4. The degree to which the super rich, and corporations, control our society and buy our political representatives, is a concern for all of us, conservative and liberal. Societal divisions blunt united efforts to address the disparities among us, and the dwindling of governmental services. If we want better schools, roads, public safety, and access to medical care, we need a united voice.
5. What is truth, and reality, as some say, is simply an illusion most of us agree upon.
6. To change society, one has to work with political rivals, since there are not enough progressives out there to sway the public. One needs votes of all sorts of people to get anything done.
7. Many people profit from sowing dissension. Anger stoking is big business these days, as Charles Duhigg pointed out in a recent Atlantic article. We shouldn't let ourselves get played. A good friend, or family member, is too precious to lose over a paltry political, or ideological, argument. People are entitled to their opinions. The key is to not be baited, or be so ironclad about one's Weltanschauung, that one cannot learn from another. Last year, comedienne Sarah Silverman didn't let herself get unhinged over a rude tweet from a troll. Instead, she got to know him better and was actually able to get him some help. Village Square, a national non-profit, is promoting a return to civil discourse and civic engagement.
8. No political party, no leader, is immune to abusing power if there is nothing to check their authority and influence. Compromise is crucial to governance. Human polity is simply too imperfect in its implementation to function correctly without it. Tyranny results without restraints.

It takes a lot of practice to de-escalate. It is not easy to reach out to someone with whom one doesn't normally associate. However, as living, breathing members of communities, we are all in this together. We can't afford to let demagogues of any ilk push our buttons and profit from our disunity. Do not presume you, or I, or anyone else has all the answers. Do assume that you, or I, or someone else, can always learn from another. That includes non-citizens, the elderly, and little children. We can learn a lot from the non-human creatures who share our habitat, too. There is only one planet found to be a suitable home for us, notwithstanding centuries of speculative fiction to the contrary. Let's not destroy ourselves over differences of opinion. Our fate depends upon it.