Morbid fascination vs. sexual enlightenment

Not long ago I saw a bioflic covering the life of Alfred Kinsey. It’s a well-done, if perhaps romanticized treatment of the life and work of this amazing biologist from the last century. Amazing because he so clearly transcended the dictates of fear and superstition, ignorance and social pathology in attempting to place human sexuality under scientific scrutiny. The film covered the inevitable reactions to Kinsey’s work, his difficulty in obtaining funding, the mad-dog criticisms, the mass-denial. But in the end we are left with hope that objectivity and science can triumph over unquestioned taboo and ignorance.

Hell no. Half a century later, a Google-search of Kinsey turns up a host of sites dedicated to criticizing and disproving his research and conclusions…frenzied, foaming-at-the-mouth denunciations of this supposed “pervert” (that’s always a great word – pervert…one immediately imagines drooling old men lewdly contemplating innocent children). In short, nothing has changed. Human sexuality continues to elude the application of common sense and practicality. The great majority continue to squirm at the mere mention of something sexual. Mass spasms of social unrest are set off because a woman’s breast is mistakenly uncovered during a televised football game. Homophobia wins another election for what is clearly the worst administration in U.S. history. The clearly demented Catholic church hierarchy perform witch-hunts for homosexuals. That same institution continues to demand of its misguided flock that it avoid the use of birth-control (thus directly contributing to the deaths of millions by AIDS). One of the most (supposedly) advanced countries on earth defines sex-education as abstinence-education. Abstinence. HA!

What did Kinsey do to stir up such nervousness? He simply found a way to get hundreds of thousands of people to talk frankly about their actual sexual practices, and compiled the results. You see, what they are ridiculously calling “moral values” strictly prohibits such a thing. It is much more “moral” to simply ignore what is most likely the strongest natural influence on our behavior. This way, reality can have no effect on the notion that all “normal” people are heterosexual individuals who never masturbate and have sex (which is strictly limited to coitus, of course) only for procreative purposes. All of this in line with what the Christionists believe is their god’s stern rejection of sexuality.

Of course, keeping such a liberating force as sexuality under wraps is quite useful for social control (see Foucault). Yet we cannot blame the long-lasting mass hysteria about sexuality on some explicit conspiracy of the elite (an elite, mind you, which throughout the ages has never, in any place followed the horrendous dictates of sexual repression). No, there is something about sex-phobia that sells – the great, quite heavily-tapped market that appeals to morbid fascination. Fact – people like sex, in all its many creative forms. And I would venture to say that this applies to the overwhelming majority. Yet complete sexual freedom tends to remove the morbid fascination from it…leaving only the healthy experience.

I believe that reality-based sexual freedom (meaning an open acknowledgement of what people actually do, along with the acceptance of any non-damaging, consensual sexual practice that is non-manipulative) would in time lead to the disappearance of pornography, prostitution and other such manifestations of the “morbid fascination” market, along with a tremendous reduction in rape and sexual violence in general. It would also greatly reduce the terrible suffering inflicted on so many hundreds of millions today and throughout history, people who have been made to hate themselves because of their natural desires.

BUT OH NO! We can’t have that. Nope. Not with the “moral values” set continuing to impose their pathological squirmishness on the rest of the world. ¡Hay que joderse!