Darcy's Response to "My take: searching for God, settling for sex"
It took me a while to gain
perspective on how I feel about this piece. It’s hard for me to know how to
respond because my own personal views have now strayed so far from not only the
mainstream religious perspective but also from the mainstream secular
perspective. For example, at this point in my development I do not believe that
monogamy is the only valid lifestyle/lovestyle choice and as a result I could
theoretically argue almost every sentence in this article (in fact when I was
writing my initial notes I probably did) but I think focusing on the minute
that in this case would be my personal views on the validity of different
relationship choices would be counter productive and detract from the true
message within the article.
Believe it or not, my response
isn’t all negative. When Shannon says, “that our society is clamoring for
closeness” I agree, wholeheartedly in fact. However I also think claiming that
this is the real force behind the fifty shades phenomenon is a gross
oversimplification of many cultural, technological and societal forces that
have resulted in the series’ success and that her argument would have been made
stronger had she left this aspect of the article out. Let us not forget that in
spite of its popularity, 50 shades is without a doubt erotica. Its purpose is
to titillate the reader not to be an expression of any sort of stable, healthy,
functional or even sustainable relationship. Still, 50 shades is a hot topic at
the moment and in the land of the Internet it’s all about getting those hits so
I can see why she did it. But for the purpose of my response and believe it or
not for the sake of brevity I am going to ignore the 50 shades aspect. If you
want to know my thoughts on “Fifty shades of grey,” ask me later, for now, back
to our society clamoring for closeness….
What it comes down to is this,
the author of this article comes from a very different place and holds vastly
different values to myself, and as a result, the arguments we would use to make
the same or similar points vary almost to the extent that we might spend an
infinite amount of time arguing the details with each other only to realise
belatedly that what we are saying might in fact be more similar than it is
different. I believe Shannon is trying to highlight the expectation gap that
can exist between the needs we seek to fulfill and the actions we take to
fulfil them
If deep and spiritual intimacy is what humans
seek, then relational or sexual intensity can never satisfy our deepest
longings or heal our oldest wounds. Christian and Anastasia won’t discover the
heart-deep intimacy in whips, chains, pain and sexual intensity
I can agree that there are times
when many people mistakenly go so far as to not only settle for but actively
seek what the article terms as ‘sexual intensity’ as a substitute for or in the
belief that it will inevitably lead to ‘sexual intimacy’ aka ‘closeness’. In
spite of the widespread acknowledgement of the fallacy embedded in this logic
(show me almost any TV series aimed at teens and I’ll show you at least one
character who learns this lesson the hard way) this is a myth that still
persists in the minds of many of my peers one that is also relied upon heavily
in erotic fiction (such as 50 shades of grey) where the sexual attraction is
irresistible and yet inevitably after a few unnecessary relationship
hiccups (which could have easily been avoided had the protagonists taken any
time to know each other or possibly, I don’t know, communicated with each
other), the protagonists who have barely spent any time together or had any
meaningful conversations, profess their undying love and commitment to one another
and walk off into the sunset a picture of emotional and sexually sated bliss.
I too acknowledge this as a
problem.
This is however where our
arguments branch away from one another…
You may have noticed that when I
mentioned the expectation gap above I specifically acknowleged that it “can exist” and that “there are times when many people…” no
these were not typos nor were they haphazard word choices. I specifically
wanted to acknowledge the existence of these scenarios whilst also
acknowledging the possibility for alternate situations/interpretations to exist
simultaneously. Doing so is not sexy, no one likes ambiguity it creates
complications and leaves room for error however absolutes have a tendency to
over simplify matters, especially matters of sexuality, sexual expression,
emotions and emotional connection. Shannon’s use of absolutes is what troubles
me most about this piece.
It’s subtle and perhaps I am
oversensitive to the issue because I’ve always had a problem with people
telling me what I should and shouldn’t do in the privacy of my own mind and
bedroom. I feel that the implication of this article is that there is only one
acceptable expression of sexuality, only one that has any worth or advantage to
the people involved, that being the loving physical expression of sexual
intimacy between a heterosexual couple sanctified by marriage. That all other
forms are somehow debilitating or devalue the individual’s essential worth as a
respectable human being. But then I am reminded that this is a Christian belief
blog and so it is reasonable to assume that the majority of readers subscribe
to this faith, therefore the purpose of the article is not to convert or
assuage the feelings and beliefs of non believers such as myself but to talk to
an audience who theoretically subscribes to what I would consider limited
scriptural views on sexuality. An audience for whom the concept of sexuality
and spirituality as two sides of the same coin may in fact be sufficiently
radical.
It’s hard to argue against what
someone believes. This is after all essentially an opinion piece based on the
beliefs of the author without reference to any factual studies, and my response
is equally void of supporting data. Shannon says, “And behind every sexual
longing, I believe there is an even
deeper spiritual longing.” Really? Behind every
one of those longings there is a deeper spiritual longing? Every single one?
Even if I did believe this there is stillroom for error of the sort where the
spiritual longing discussed is not the very specific one supported by Shannon –
that of genuine sexual intimacy – however this thought doesn’t seem to be
acknowledged within the article.
The article assumes that “deep and
spiritual intimacy is what humans seek (and so) relational or sexual intensity
can never satisfy our deepest longings or heal our oldest wounds.” Well yes that might be one aspect of what many
humans seek but what of our other longings, wants and needs? Surely we are not
all so one dimensional as to be driven by a singular purpose. It would make
life easier if it were though wouldn’t it? We are complicated creatures, our
lives are not simple, there are times when there is no right answer, times when
no matter what course of action is taken someone will get hurt, and then there
are other times when there are many answers to a single question and all are
equally valid.
The article also takes for
granted that monogamous, heterosexual, loving committed sanctified by marriage
sort of sex is the only true acceptable and valuable form of sexual expression,
but once again this is a matter of belief systems so I don’t think it would be
productive to argue against this crucial assumption of the article.
I also take issue with the
assumption that just because sexual intensity and intimacy can occasionally be
mistaken for one another that this always occurs and therefore that it is
necessary to ‘suggest’ that sexual intensity and intimacy are not the same. Of
course they are not! But that doesn’t mean they can’t co-exist or that they
don’t each have value independent one another.
What is intimacy? Can it be found
in non-sexual relationships? What about close friendships, of the kind that
last decades if not lifetimes worth of highs and lows and in-betweens; the girl
you went through high school with who still teases you about the first crush
you had in year 7, or the time you got locked in the men’s bathroom in
Amsterdam and she drank all of your lemonade; the ones you call and who sit on
the couch in a group hug watching a shitty movie with you until you manage to
stop crying and start talking about how your parents just told you they are
separating and as a result your sister stormed out of the house in a fit of
rage and had already planned to move to Perth in a matter of days and your
afraid she might never speak to any of you again? Is this not also intimacy of
the deep spiritual meaningful kind? Of the kind than Shannon believes can never
be found by Christian and Anastasia through whips, chains and sexual intensity?
Is this intimacy somehow less valuable because it isn’t sexual, exclusive and
will never lead to matrimony or procreation? If soul-deep intimacy is what we
humans seek and instead of finding it within a heterosexual partnership it has
already been fulfilled by the many bonds of friendship, what happens to
Shannon’s argument then?
Is it not possible that the same
might be said for sexual intensity? That while not always necessary for sexual
intimacy, sexual intensity may never the less harbor its own inherent purpose and value separate to that of sexual intimacy?
For arguments sake I ask that you
permit me to use a different analogy here but one I have a little more
practical experience with. Pole dancing. Historically (at least in recent
history and to the extent of my knowledge which is admittedly lacking in the
history department) pole dancing has been seen as a sexual act. Performances
took/take place in pubs and strip joints, dancers wore high heels and minimal
clothing and performances were intended for the titillation of paying audience
members. However remove the act from this environment, if it makes you more comfortable
you can also remove the high heels and clothe the dancer in a leotard
reminiscent of a more modest ballet dancer; what you are left with is an
athlete performing amazing acrobatic feats on an apparatus in the form of a
vertically suspended tube of metal with anchor points in the ceiling and floor,
much the same as those used by gymnasts, pole vaulters and aerial circus
performers. Different environment, different intentions but essentially the
same thing. Both performance types have entertainment value of their own independent
of the art form as a whole and it is up to the audience whether or not they
choose to participate.
Remove the pole dancer from the
sexually charged environment, change her attire, make the intention of the
performance something other than the titillation of paying audience members and
allow yourself to appreciate her performance for its display of grace, strength
and athleticism and yet still some individuals will still choose to interpret it
in in a sexual context. Now assuming for a minute that this is an undesirable
or even unacceptable result (a large cognitive leap for me I tell you), is it
really the performers fault that she was being sexually objectified? Would it
not be a more accurate interpretation that it is the individual audience member
rather than the performance and the performer herself that is to blame for this
indiscretion? Is it fair or even logical that the performer be blamed and
punished - made to refrain from dancing - for the perceptions of an individual
audience member? Should everyone else enjoying the performance for its intended
purpose be denied this pleasure because one or even a few people interpreted
the act in a manner that some consider contemptible?
Do you see what I am getting at
with this? That maybe the sexual act itself isn’t at fault for the way in which
we choose to use or interpret it? Maybe there is more than one way. It’s the intention
of the participants that counts. If people are using sexual intensity to achieve
or as a substitute for sexual intimacy that may be indicative of an individuals
problem, but that’s not sexual intensities fault. If both participants desire
sexual intensity of itself there is no problem. It is our choice each time as
individuals whether we partake in sexual intimacy or sexual intensity. All I
argue is that all options in their various combinations can be valid and have
their own intrinsic merit.
