Finding the origin of our
modern fear of sex seems simple enough when looking through medieval texts.
Medieval Christianity thought sex was inherently immoral (though acceptable in
marriage) because it was of the flesh, whereas God, who is any Christian’s true
purpose to appease, was of the spirit. Our country was founded by puritans and
these views were brought over and inlaid in the very foundation, only recently
are these views on sex slightly (and in some places) beginning to ebb. However other than the distinction between of
the body and of the spirit there seems little in terms of explanation as to why
sex was immoral. I can’t help but wonder where this stigma around sex
originated, because it seems early human must have had no reservations
whatsoever about it. And a more tangible example of human’s less strict view is
God’s word in the Old Testament, commanding humankind to procreate. Though
intercourse was for a purpose it was nonetheless commanded by God.
Many point to the bible, using
it as a source to pronounce sex, homosexuality, abortion and other topics as
abominations. It seems the closer we look at the texts being pointed to they’re
either sparsely mentioned, taken out of context or (seemingly) misinterpreted.
Many modern scholars of the bible find little justification for some age old
hatreds iconically associated with Christianity. In an interview with Jennifer
Knust in 2011 about her book “Unprotected Texts: The Bible’s Surprising
Contradictions About Sex and Desire” she describes the story of Ruth. Ruth is a
poor, widowed woman who is fancied by the owner of the field she works in. She
seduces the field owner, who then chooses to marry her, and they become the
great grandparents of King David.
The formation of this view of
sex is most likely inextricably combined with the formation (and increasing
strictness) of marriage. It also seems the answer is so far and distant we will
never know where the idea of sex as immoral originated. Perhaps there was a
compelling individual that began the movement. Perhaps is developed slowly over
generations. Maybe someone genuinely viewed it as immoral, maybe someone loved
someone else and didn’t want them sleeping with other people, maybe they were
trying to prevent STD’s in their kingdom. As outlandish as some of these
examples seem there is, to my knowledge, nothing to proclaim them as untrue
either. As I said before it appears there will never be a true answer, but I
believe Knust makes compelling speculations when responding to the a question
almost identical to the one I’m posing:
Why
in your view are Americans so obsessed about sex? Why does religion collapse so
readily into morality and morality into bedroom issues?
I wish I knew! Perhaps focusing on morality, especially morality in the bedroom, makes it possible for us to avoid facing other, more intractable problems. Perhaps speaking incessantly about sexual morals allows some to assert a position of moral superiority, thereby promoting their own brand of righteousness at the expense of someone else’s. Or perhaps people are simply longing for certainty about a topic that impacts everyone, since every human person desires to be touched and loved. Every human body is vulnerable and sexual difference is one of the fundamental ways in which we experience being human. Absolute certainty about these matters would therefore be nice, if it were available. As even the Bible can teach us, it isn’t.
I wish I knew! Perhaps focusing on morality, especially morality in the bedroom, makes it possible for us to avoid facing other, more intractable problems. Perhaps speaking incessantly about sexual morals allows some to assert a position of moral superiority, thereby promoting their own brand of righteousness at the expense of someone else’s. Or perhaps people are simply longing for certainty about a topic that impacts everyone, since every human person desires to be touched and loved. Every human body is vulnerable and sexual difference is one of the fundamental ways in which we experience being human. Absolute certainty about these matters would therefore be nice, if it were available. As even the Bible can teach us, it isn’t.
The idea of longing for
certainty, in all aspects of life, true strikes a chord with me. I’ll try to
end this post with some certainty: at this point it doesn’t matter where such
hatred of sexuality originated. However one feels about sexuality is their own
truth. When someone can truly justify why sex is immoral, in a way that
convinces you, sex will be immoral. When someone can truly justify why sex is
irrelevant to morality, it will be irrelevant.
I think you ask some excellent questions in your post! The theme of sexual morality seems to be as present in our modern public debates as it has ever been in the past. What strikes me as a difficulty in discussing sex is that it cannot ever be a private matter: there is always another person or other persons involved, which by necessity requires us to frame sex as an interpersonal experience. At the same time, we feel strongly, I think, as modern Americans, that there are levels of privacy that should not be violated. We refer to "the bedroom" as this part of our lives that should not be discussed (at least not the particulars of it), but increasingly we've become aware that this lack of discussion about how we conduct our sex lives leads directly to miscommunication, error, and in many cases abuse. Perhaps the public conversation which focuses on sexual morals is a device to avoid the awkwardness of particular discussions about sexual etiquette - morality allows for a certain amount of generalization, and an avoidance of some of the more ambiguous interactions that may occur in the bedroom.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the discussion of sex in Rome, the discussion was largely a moral one. However, while Augustus' sexual reforms in the Lex Julia were framed in a moral sense, it is difficult not to read in his intent at creating social reform: the Lex Julia, or a part of it, was aimed at punishing adultery, and under the law the terminology for the variety of forms adultery could take was laid out clearly; however, the worst offenses of adultery were not defined by acts of sex, but by with whom those acts were committed. Scholarship has noted that Augustus was concerned with the diminishing population of the upper class - could a purpose for the Lex Julia have been to promote the continuation of "noble" bloodlines, unmixed by the common blood of the plebian citizens?
In the case of the Lex Julia (actually a series of laws passed over a decade), the fear wasn't about sex itself, but its effect on the population. By necessity, that would make deviance from the proscription of the law an issue of morality, a negligence of duty to one's own family, or the people of Rome as a whole.
When we say "fear of sex" in this context, it's not the act itself. Instead, the fear is that something bad will come of this act: there will be social strife if the couple wasn't meant to be together; any child produced of the union will cause catastrophe; the material property of the families will be put in jeopardy; if you're thinking about sex, you can't think about other things; for some reason, God cares deeply that you don't do it, and He's willing to drown the world because of it; etc. People have come up with many reasons - some of which you talked about in your post - to fear sex, but isn't it the result, or perceived result of sex that gets people really tied up in knots?