A couple of posts by GayPatriotWest (hereinafter known as "GPW") at GayPatriot on sexual morality. The first is here. Of course I have some objections, stemming mostly, I think, from the fact that I'm not sure he and I are speaking the same language. On most social issues I can only call myself a left-libertarian (I'm not going to call myself a "libertarian" overall because I think libertarianism is a spiritually impoverished philosophy -- my approach is basically "butt out," but I do think government has to provide a safety net), and I am coming from the religious philosophy of a Pagan, which is markedly different from most of what you're going to find in America.
Sexual restraint lies at the heart of any notion of sexual morality. And even while acknowledging — and one day hoping to act upon — their own longings for same-sex physical intimacy, gay people are capable of restraining themselves sexually. It’s just that our culture, alas, does not seem to promote such restraint, indeed, encouraging us to “let go” sexually just so long as we “play safe.”
Why should it? Why exactly should sexual restraint lie at the heart of any notion of sexual morality? This falls too neatly into the kind of morality espoused by the Big Three Monotheisms, and I don't see any real validity to it as a thing in itself. So I have to ask Why? It once again reduces the idea of morality to a list of dos and don'ts without any foundation.
A real understanding of morality would help us place our sexuality in a larger context. We would see that by the very physical closeness that sex allows, we are drawn together with another human being. If we can appreciate that that closeness transcends the physical, we can allow the physical intimacy to become something more than mere pleasure.
But, alas, men being men, too many of us are too eager to turn away from our partners once we have completed the “act.” A true moral understanding of sexuality would mean looking at these encounters not from the point of view of whether they are right or wrong, but whether or not they are good for our soul. Just as Matt Sanchez learned that porn “flattens the soul,” so do many of those of us who have hooked up learn that such encounters also numb us and prevent us from realizing sexuality’s full power.
I see a couple of intertwined threads here. I can certainly agree with GPW's first sentence, and the second. (John Cameron Mitchell said that sex is a means of connecting, and I certainly can't disagree after he gave that idea such a delightful expression.) Where we start to separate, I think, is in the conclusion. I think we have to re-examine the idea of "pleasure" in this context. Let's put that aside for a moment and get back to the main issue, which seems to me to be about the "contract" rather than getting into questions of our souls right off the bat. I think that the sexual contract, like any relationship, should be based on honesty, respect, and generosity. To me, that means your soul already has to be at a particular place in its journey before we can get into the idea of sex being "good for our souls." I think approaching sex from that basis also takes care of the pleasure part -- sex as "just" pleasure (a statement I find pretty judgmental in itself) is fine. But both parties (or maybe I should say "all parties," for those encounters that involve more than two people) need to agree that's what's going on here.GPW
(A sidebar: I seem to detect in GPW's comments a distrust of sensuality and pleasure for their own sakes, as though they are not sufficient experiences. Depends on what you're looking for, I guess, but I think we have to take into consideration the idea of "expectations." Just what is it you're after? Which leads back to. . .)
"Sexuality's full power." Which, as far as I can see, is no more and no less than what you invest in it. Back to the contract. If it's an honest understanding, then sex as pleasure takes on no small measure of power itself. Sex as sharing, sex as connection, sex as an expression of love, all have their own degrees of power, and I think those are all dependent on the contract. Sexuality is not something that exists all by itself, and it has only the power we give it.
In order to realize that power, we need to develop a moral vision of sexuality, to realize its potential to be more than a mere grinding of loins. We need to become capable of sexual restraint — and to tie our sexual expression to forging a real and lasting connection with our partner. To see him, as we see ourselves, not just as an individual with a body, but also as a human being with a soul.
Here's where I may be parting ways from GPW. I'm not sure exactly what he means by "restraint." I don't think that sex has to be only reserved for forging connections with one partner, although it can be a valuable and powerful tool for doing that. If he's talking about the partner of the moment, then I think we're pretty much in agreement, but from the tone of his post, I'm not at all sure that's what he means.
Sexual morality thus would not mean labeling gay sex as per se immoral, but instead recognizing that, in the carnal act, there is a potential for spiritual intimacy. And to understand that sexual restraint does not necessarily mean denying our urges, but holding them back so that one day we might express them in a manner which both provides physical pleasure and promotes real relationship.
Here we most definitely do part company. GPW seems to be coming from some sort of moral absolutist position, which is one that I've never been able to credit. Witness William F. Buckley, Jr.'s statement that "morality is an absolute," which I still find good for a laugh. GPW obviously is not going that far, otherwise he wouldn't have written this post. "Holding back" I can understand -- sometimes sex is just not what's appropriate -- but the idea that sex has to be limited to promoting "real relationship" is, again, not clear to me. Is it the relationship of the moment, a "casual" affair (I've never been able to have one of those -- I'm not real casual about stuff like that), or the love of our life? I think sex is appropriate in all three cases, as long as everyone's coming from the same place.
Which is all very nice for theory.
In real life, sex is too often a demand, a duty, a requirement, and does as much to kill a relationship as to build it. This is where I think GPW misses the boat: morality is not about using sex to establish or maintain a relationship, but using the honesty, respect and generosity that must be the foundation of a good relationship (or for that matter, the foundation of good character) to enable sex to make that spiritual connection. I find it astonishly difficult to put my point into any sort of didactic prose. Maybe this will make it clear:
Drowsing intertwined:
afternoon slides to the horizon.
You were a tiger, stripes painted
by light through slatted blinds,
lean and hard above me as you entered,
cat-eyed with desire, lust softened
in your gentle, gentle hands.
We are still sharing our souls.
I feel your lips against my throat,
sated and thirsty for more.
There is a universe under my hand
that smells like sweat, like summer after rain.
Fit reward for our honest labor.
But hard as we try,
I remain me,
you, you:
in spite of ourselves, two people.
We will get rowdy soon,
when we rouse and play
tickling games,
release
from too much tenderness.
Update:
GPW's second post expands his ideas, but not by much.
The first part of the post is about Matt Sanchez, and I think GPW was, indeed, mistaken to use him as a starting point. Sanchez' comment that working in the porn industry "flattens the soul" is not necessarily a given, at least in theory. The reality is that it probably does, but I think that has a lot more to do with the fact that it's an industry than that it's about sex. (Brad Patton is on record as saying that he does porn because he likes it.) I found working in a corporate environment flattened my soul. It took about five years to get my head back on straight. Does that mean that corporations are intrinsically bad? Nope.
Where GPW gets interesting is here:
I proposed instead putting forward a vision of morality which is not judgmental, but instead transformational — where we see that our sexuality can transcend the physical. Instead of berating, I wanted to inspire, to draw from the lessons I learned in my various experiences and begin a conversation about the potential of our sexuality to foster spiritual intimacy.
And if I fault gay men at all, it’s for not being willing to engage in this important conversation.
I believe sexuality is a very individual thing — and each person should be free to decide how to act on his desires. But, I also believe that our sexuality can nourish us spiritually (as well as satisfy us physically) if we see it as more than a means of physical pleasure, but also as a means of human connection.
I still have the same questions, revolving mostly around some tight, explicit definitions of things like "restraint." I find myself coming down on the side of promiscuity, although I also tend to look at promiscuity with a jaundiced eye ("Been there, done that") and think that maybe it's for the young. Maybe. It may also be wasted on the young.
I think GPW is also mistaken in saying that gay men are not willing to engage in this conversation. There is a wealth of writings dealing with just this, many of which are excerpted or referenced in Mark Thompson's Gay Spirit: Myth and Meaning. For that matter, the overwhelming body of gay literature, art and film (aside from the output of the porn studios) deals with just these questions (hence my references above to John Cameron Mitchell and (ahem) myself.) Another approach is exemplified by Graham Jackson's The Secret Lore of Gardening: Patterns of Male Intimacy, which deals with these questions from the standpoint of Jungian psychology but goes far beyond the basics. I'd be very interested to hear GPW's reaction to either of these books.
A note on the value of our fiction: It is, and has been, thoroughly engaged with a lot of the issues that Blatt raises in his post, and has the power, potentially at least, to alter viewpoints. Think about the ramifications of a film like Brokeback Mountain, whether you want to call it a "gay" movie or not: when have we seen such a clear-eyed examination of love between men, in all its pain and beauty? Maybe it took a straight writer and a straight director to do it, but the message was very clear: the love itself is as valid as any other and necessarily involves our groping toward some new definitions of self, morality, spirit, and all those other imponderables that go into our attitudes toward our lives. The point for this discussion is that it doesn't separate sex and love, but recognizes that they are an inseparable whole and we only damage ourselves by trying to keep them apart. That must become part of our own discourse, else we're not talking to any purpose.
That's what art does -- it sneaks past your defenses and makes you confront ideas and points of view you might otherwise dismiss. It also demonstrates that you do not have to accept the mainstream's premises. I think any commentary on gays and morality that ignores those contributions really does miss the point.
Update II:
There is a third post that seems to address some of my concerns, but I haven't quite got my head around it yet. More later, maybe.
No comments:
Post a Comment