Sexceptionalism

A short time back there were posts here objecting to the idea that men might befriend only boys who put out. Surely a man is entitled, if he can, to befriend boys who share his interests. Nobody would claim that a man who prefers boys who are interested in baseball, or playing piano, or reading novels, or philosophy (the boys Plato seems to have preferred) is exhibiting some kind of unfair bias, and should instead take as his principle first come first served. Of course, sex is different. But baseball, music, literature and philosophy are also all different. Somehow sex is "more different" (perhaps like Orwell's pigs, who are "more equal"). The underlying assumption seems to be that boys putting out are only doing that reluctantly. They don't really want sex. They just put up with it to get whatever else the man is providing -- money, attention, drugs, love, whatever. A boy might also be reluctant about baseball, literature, music or philosophy. He might interest himself in those things in order to please a man who might, as a result, give him something else, something that he "really" wants. Again, there's a clear underlying assumption. Baseball, music, literature and philosophy are healthy things for boys to become interested in, even if they have some ulterior motive for doing so. Sex, for some reason, is not. We call that sexceptionalism. Sex just gets treated differently from anything else. It's very hard to explain that without employing some version of what Guyon called the "Superstition of Carnal Sin." Yes, sex involves emotions. Yes, sex has consequences. But this is true of sport, music, literature and philosophy. There are, perhaps, human activities that can only be evil, but sex cannot be one of those. Are the risks associated with sex greater, or the benefits lesser, than other human activities? That argument can be and has been made. But to assess its validity requires us to compare how sex is viewed and understood generally compared with other interests and activities. Even if sex is more risky, and less beneficial, than other activities, is it as much riskier and less beneficial as it is commonly thought to be? This raises the issue of society's pervasive sex negativity. Have we, as a society, struck the proper balance between the risks and benefits of sex? If we are too sex negative, we should try to become more sex positive. If we are too sex positive, then more emphasis on the negatives would be appropriate. It's true that the negatives associated with sports, music, literature and philosophy are little emphasized. The negatives associated with sex are constantly reinforced. So, however, is the contrary view. Sex is a controversial subject in a way that many other human activities are not. If you honestly feel that our society has become too permissive about sex, that we unduly ignore its risks and extol its benefits, that would justify sexceptionalism. Like Guyon, I think we have gone too far in the opposite direction. Sex is healthier, more beneficial, and less dangerous than our Puritan heritage tells us it is. Sex is not, as many contend, too dangerous for kids to engage in. On the contrary, attempts to suppress and inhibit sexual expressions and behavior by kids are far more prevalent, and far more likely to cause harm. Sex positivity, in my view, is a fundamental stance differentiating both historical pederasty and the gay liberationist movement of the 1960s and 1970s from the sex negative reaction that has characterized the subsequent decades. Neither the pederastic tradition nor the gay liberation movement treated sex as a danger to be carefully guarded against. Both embraced it as a fundamental human value expressing the capacity of our species for choosing cooperation over competition, a capacity that we don't always embody, but one which, when we do, is our greatest achievement. Sex positivity -- sex is good -- is a first principle of our movement as I understand it. I link it with two others: boys decide (meaning respect for the agency of youth) and no sex police (meaning that government restrictions on sexual behavior represent one of the greatest dangers to human freedom today). I share again the matrix I have developed to promote further development of this perspective: Thesis Antithesis Synthesis Norm Adjacency Sex is good Rape culture Feminism Gender Sex workers Boys decide Grooming Youth liberation Age Transboys/Tomboys No sex police The nanny state Anarchism Identity RSOs/SVPs hugzu ;-p (https site) Guyon, Human rights and the denial of sexual freedom (voxclamantis.nl) [@nonymouse] [Guardster] [Proxify] [Anonymisierungsdienst]