[LMB] Levels of Sexuality - (was) Dono
paal at gis.net
Wed Jan 5 17:39:54 GMT 2011
----- Original Message -----
From: "William A Wenrich" <wawenri at msn.com>
To: "lois-bujold " <lois-bujold at lists.herald.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [LMB] Levels of Sexuality - (was) Dono
> Gwynne Powell wrote:
> And in our society, these days, I don't see that as the norm at all.
> massive pressure in the media to sexualize children from a very young age,
> and the common assumption is usually that most of the population, whether
> a relationship or not, are actively seeking or engaged in some form of
> sexual or erotic activity on a regular and fairly frequent basis.
US commercial pop culture is schizophrenic--pushing sexualization in women's
clothing and body language, and on romance covers (I got kicked out of a
Yahoo group for giving my honest opinion of a head-cut-off male shaved torso
cover....), but then demanding compliance to an also-schizophrenic morality
code--a splintered one, with a bunch of people yelling "Abstinence unless
between a hetesexual married couple in the bedroom with the shades down at
night!", another large group with "everyrone who looks interesting to me
must be receptive to me and have sex with me at my convenience,," others
believing "two people in love are acceptable for having non-marital
sex" --with stipulations for those who are e.g. homophobic restricting tthe
to heterosexual couples; some have the view "I don't care what you're doing
as long as it's among consenting adults and it leaves me out of it," then
there is the issue of adolescents and sex....
> It can be really irritating when you're in a dry spell. There are times
> people don't spend every waking moment thinking about sex, participating
> sex, planning for more participation in same, etc. And I think it's
> perfectly normal to be whatever level you are, and if you want to have an
> active sex life and can find a partner who's at your level or close to it,
> you're fortunate indeed. And if you don't want a partner, that's fine too
> (and more restful).
> One of the (many) things that bug me about modern (possibly just American,
> but I have no proof) culture is the ongoing assumption that all
> relationships are sexual. History, literature, and personal experience
That is -some- segments of US commercial pop culture... it's not universal.
It's -worse- in countries where so-called Islamic Law rules, in them the
very concept of the not uncommon situation at SF/F conventions where there
are people of mixed gender sharing a hotel room completely without sexual
activity, is unthinkable. In such cultures, the bottom line assumption and
belief is that any male and female left unchaperoned together who are not
close relatives by blood or close relatives by marriage, will have sex....
> indicate (to me at least) that there are many very close relationships
> are not at all sexual.
> That is probably what disturbs me so much about slash, the assumption that
> everything is sex.
Slash comes out of a very different set of axes, though--slash is ACTUALLY
about relationship, with the sex the expression of intimacy in
relationship... it's writing a physical manifestion of emotional
intimacy--as opposed to the Non-existence of women in authority back in the
1960s.... it was/is a coding. It's not about the sexualized pop culture
More information about the Lois-Bujold