Sex-Positives: The New Puritans


It struck me the second time I was called a conservative in a matter of a few months. Well, after I stopped hysterically laughing, that is. There was something familiar, well trodden about the accusations. Yet, me, a conservative? About anything? Twice? Seriously?

Before I identified that nebulous familiarity, memories of my late father-in-law Wally Laird, came to mind. Yes, he was the person with whom I would most enjoy discussing this, were he still alive to do so. In the nearly 25 years since Wally has been gone, I have never been compelled to actually speak aloud to him. Being called a conservative was impossible enough to attempt to speak to Wally, why not after all? Things had suddenly become surreal enough to have a conversation with dead people.

“Wally, I was called a conservative!” I laughed aloud, hoping to invoke my first contact with a spirit world if there is indeed such a thing. “Hey, Wally, you there?”

No spirit came, but long-ago memories of ongoing verbal jousting with Wally came back with fondness. Wally, a lifelong Republican, called me “a pinko, commie, heart-on my-sleeve bohemian. There might have been more descriptors in the string that he used for me, but that was the essence of his nickname for me. We adored each other although we were as politically different as any two people could have been.

Me, a conservative? Barry Goldwater, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh would be horrified at the thought of incorporating any my political ideas into their ideologies. Maybe worse than horrified. Likewise, no religious conservative would welcome one iota of my theology. Wally, were he alive, would rail at anyone calling me a conservative of any stripe and then we would laugh over such a preposterous event over an after-dinner scotch. Damn, I miss him.

The memories of Wally faded into the current circumstances that brought me to be called a conservative, although I was still chuckling about these peculiar accusations. That I had been called conservative twice in such a short time gave me pause, what on earth was going one, what was that unidentified, and distantly familiar sense about this?

For failing to embrace the exact sexual mores of the two accusers, I was practically spat upon as an anachronistic conservative. Yep, that was it. For failing to embrace free love and porn-saturated imagery for myself, I was dismissed as a conservative, by two persons who claimed to be sex-positives.

Sex-positives? So if I somewhat disagree, I am, by inference, a sex-not-so-positive? And if I really disagree, I am a what? A sex-negative? Tricky devils. That was it—the familiarity—just like the danged Puritans. The sex-positives were behaving just as the Puritans did. Right down to accusing me of being conservative.

The Puritans—Radical Reformers

First a brief history refresher: Who were the Puritans? What were the characteristics of Puritanism? Let us look at the Puritans within the historical context from which they emerged as Protestant reformers. After failing to bring England to their way of practicing Christianity, this group later largely emigrated en masse to the English colonies, now the United States.

Continental Europe experienced a wrenching political, social and religious separation from Roman Catholic power upon the advent of Martin Luther’s defection from the Vatican. From 1560 to 1715, a period of 145 years, there only thirty years of peace. During the remainder of that time, there was a minimum of one and up to five religious wars occurring concurrently all over the continent. 1500 years of Roman Catholic religious and political domination required 150 years of religious strife and open warfare to release its grip upon the Western world.

France, for instance, was ravaged by 35 years of religious war bracketed by fifty years of strife both before and after the actual war itself. The region currently known as Germany fared worse, being pretty much in open warfare from 1562 to 1700. Known then as the Holy Roman Empire, the area lost 25 percent of its inhabitants to repeated generations of religious wars. Ultimately, the Holy Roman Empire (which was neither Roman nor an empire) fractured into hundreds of petty fiefdoms, primarily because of nearly 150 years of religious warfare.

Brutal religious wars occurred in every other country in Europe as well, not one country was spared violent reform. Wars, burnings, sieges, beheadings, executions, murder, theft, famine, forced emigrations, forced conversions, decrees of banishment and kidnapping are a mere fraction of the legacy of Europe’s attempted religious reform and the resisting of such reforms.

England’s Reformation occurred at the level of the monarchy long before there was a sizable Protestant populace. Henry VIII defected from the Vatican in 1534 in order to divorce his aging Catholic wife, Katherine of Aragon, and to marry Anne Boleyn in the hopes of having a male heir. This set England apart from continental Europe that primarily had Catholic rulers and a burgeoning Protestant populace. England had a suddenly Protestant monarchy and a largely Catholic populace when Henry broke from Rome. The English Reformation was from the top down; the Church of England was created by Henry VIII and became England’s official religion.

Although England did revert to Catholicism briefly under the rule of Henry’s eldest—and Catholic—daughter Mary; her early death brought the Protestant Elizabeth I to the throne. Pragmatic and determined to hold the middle ground in religious matters, Elizabeth reveled in resplendent pomp for both court and religious ceremonies at the same time she reinstated the Church of England as the state religion. Although not as openly violent as the rest of Europe, the change from Catholic England to Protestant England resulted in reformers killing other reformers nearly as often as the Protestant/Catholic violence erupted.

Upon Elizabeth’s accession to the throne, a previously exiled group of English Protestants returned to England. This group was determined to enforce very strictly the Calvinist code they believed to be correct. They also believed that the English Reformation had not gone far enough. Elizabeth’s retention of lavish trappings for herself and her court were considered “popish” by these extremist reformers. In reaction, this particular group of reformers dictated black and white only garb for their members, because ornamentation was conservative, a remnant of the Roman Church that they strove diligently to eliminate from all of England.

For their efforts to purify English doctrine along Calvinism dogmatic lines, they were named Puritans by their detractors. They never gained political power in England and became increasing shrill and separatist. By the mid-1700s, the Puritans were no longer a political consideration in English politics at all—doctrinal infighting and several generations of emigration reduced their effectiveness, their numbers and their ardor.

In the New World, however, they had quite an influence. In the colonies, they practiced their doctrines that were considered radically extreme in England, and as a result, the Puritans’ beliefs shaped the emerging United States’ culture.

Remember, if you will, that the Puritans believed that the English Protestant Reformation had not gone far enough. They were fighting against the established doctrines of the Roman Church, convinced that their interpretation of Christian scripture the only possible correct one. All others were in error from their viewpoint. An interesting aside: the Puritan declaration of doctrinal infallibility foreshadows the Vatican’s 1870 papal infallibility declaration.

So, in the Puritans we see a group of reformers who insisted that their doctrines must become the social norm with no latitude or questioning/discussion from either practitioners or others.

The Sex-Positive Movement

Fast-forward to 1999 and the founding of the Seattle Sex Positive Community Center, frequented by a group of reformers who believed that the sexual reformations of the 20th century had not gone far enough. Is this starting to sound familiar? By calling themselves sex-positives, the implication is that if one does not agree 100% with their every doctrine, one is sex-negative.

Conversely, the Puritans referred to themselves as “the godly.” Adopting this moniker certainly was a sly means of condemning those who disagree with their reformations as the presumably ungodly.

Now turning the same techniques (rigid fundamentalism, all-or-nothing insistence upon doctrinal agreement and judgments delivered to dissenters with rabid contempt), onto Protestant sexual mores, the sex-positive movement is taking a Puritan-like tack in its approach to sexual matters. Could anything be more ironic, really?

If one chooses monogamy and no porn in one’s relationship, the new “godly” call this conservative with great vehemence. Again, judgment delivered with a Puritanical intolerance with the intention to to dismiss them entirely or to shame the recipient into agreement/acceptance of their doctrines.

Shame? From a movement that calls itself sex-positive? How perfectly Puritanical!

Ah, it is still possible to be unbearably self-righteous and quite sly all in the same breath. The sex-positives invite no discussion with the likes of people like me and have no interest in exploring why someone would chose anything but a sexual free-for-all for himself or herself. The message is clear from this camp: “Agree to everything we endorse or we will attack and dismiss you as a sex-negative conservative.”

Somehow, I find this as quaint as the very Puritans against whom the sex-positives claim that they are rebelling. Will the sex-positives soon become marginalized by internal disagreements after they discover that the “yes” to everything sexual is just as ridiculous as the “just say no” approach is to drug use—oversimplified non-discernment? Surely, someday they will recognize that discernment is necessary, both personally and socially? That both individuals and the culture at large have to make ongoing determinations for sexual behavior? That to naively insist that any and all sexual behavior is good for everyone is as fundamentally puritanical as to insist that only highly proscribed sexuality is utterly necessary?

I would like to hear members of this movement explain their personal and collective discernment process in dealing with sexual matters. At this venture, I cannot see discernment of any sort from the sex-positive movement other than the extollation of safe-sex practices.

My call for monogamy and no porn is met with scorn and labels that really do not fit. If I want to have a life free of porn and mutually exclusive relationship, how is this threatening to sex-positives? Surely, the sex positives are not in favor of sex slavery that is the result of the flourishing porn industry? Surely, the sex-positives do not want children sexualized and women objectified and dehumanized? Surely there are some grounds for agreement and many more for discussion? Maybe my assumptions are incorrect. At present, I cannot know, as the only contacts I have with sex-positives are the times they call me conservative for my choices. I would really like a discussion with members of the sex-positive movement about a number of issues and hope that one day that is possible.

Are we doomed to 150 years of strife over this essential refusal to discuss our differences without absolutes being thrust upon us all one way or the other? To understand that choices are not always free and simple? My sense of history and the familiar gives me a sobering shudder.

In the meantime, two sex-positives have labeled me a conservative, which provided me hours of entertainment and brought back fond memories of Wally. My only regret is that Wally is no longer alive to guffaw about all this. We would have had a great discussion, probably never agreeing on much of anything other than that the sex-positive movement is as narrowly pinched as the Puritans were. After a belly laugh, we would have moved onto politics and other social issues, disagreeing and questioning each other, and then finally joining the rest of the family in great spirits afterwards.

Wally, did you get that? I’ve been called a conservative! Wally, I miss you way too much to enjoy this last laugh alone. In addition, I am not going to let these rigid fundamentalists, these new Puritans, shut down the questioning discussions that we so enjoyed. Nope, I am pointing out the narrowness and self-righteous inferences of any (no matter how attractively they might name themselves) who refuse to engage in discussions. Because when discussions are halted, a horrid extremism sets in. Wally, what I want is what we had. Affectionate, mostly respectful disagreement. Yes, we volleyed names back and forth and at the same time, the mutual admiration we held for each other was clear to all.

Is Civil Discussion About Sexual Mores Possible?

Although I am not seeing any indications that there is even a hint of an invitation to have sane public discussions with either the religious right and/or the sex-positives about sexual mores, I still hope against all reason that culturally and individually we can craft a mostly respectful means to have this conversation because so much depends upon us being able to do so.

Call me conservative; call me a pinko, although neither is accurate. So although I prefer to call myself discerning rather than conservative (or liberal, for that matter), I am not going to be deterred by labels lobbed at me from any camp, nor will I surreptitiously eradicate their use of porn. Conversely, others assume that I share their religious injunctions against porn. Neither is correct. Ditto with monogamy, which is neither a moral nor a political statement for me. It is what works for my psyche.

I have worked out what works for me, I am looking at human behavior and the humans behind the behavior. That is the place from which I would like to have the discussions. Is that at all possible?

Change Your Metaphor—

How tragic that so many men treat their own precious sexuality like it were a sports statistic, something to be documented on the front page of the Sports section of their favorite newspaper. To wit: keeping score, always wanting something better, keeping mental, and sometimes actual, statistics, turbo-charging it with porn, taking Viagra as if it were a chemical cast for a sprained member (or perhaps, a fix for a flat tire), etc., all competitive, linear, sports metaphors for one of the greatest mysteries of life.

Therein lies the problem. Such men are applying a one-dimensional metaphor (sports statistics) to their sexuality. Genuine sexuality cannot be flattened, captured, bought, sold, possessed, understood, measured, quantified, dominated, enhanced or diminished—none of those things, not at all. Poetry alludes to sexuality, great music dances with it, literature and art express our yearnings, our joys and frustrations, but such things are the closest we humans are allowed to “document” sexuality. The metaphor for sexuality is Mystery itself.

Genuine sexuality requires full-on masculinity. That means a fully-developed man—including his heart. A man’s penis is invited to participate by his own heart and his partners’ heart. Taking Viagra is a complete misunderstanding of where and what the dysfunction really is. Given that many men do not bring their hearts to their sexual experiences, it is especially poignant that Viagra is dangerous to the heart. These men continue having “experiences” and try to make quantity the cover for the vague emptiness they feel somewhere in the vicinity of their chests.

Change the metaphor for sexuality, guys. Forgo the Viagra and read Robert A. Johnson’s We, (and everything else that man ever wrote). Read Robert A. Masters’ work. Allow Mystery to be your sexual metaphor and the Viagra will be exposed as the marketing ploy to flatten your sexuality that it really is.

Another Huckster Movie—I Am

Oh, yawn. Another movie pitching “positive thinking.” Will anyone actually watch this thing? Yes, sadly. 

I like PsychCentral’s Marla Estes’ review: http://blogs.psychcentral.com/movies/2011/05/i-am/ Her penetrating assessment will not be read by a tenth as many people as those who will watch the movie and swallow its message. Ms. Estes’ core message is:

The director emphasizes being good and having positive feelings, the implication being that “negative” feelings are the cause of our social problems. On the contrary: in and of themselves, emotions aren’t a problem. It’s what we do (or don’t do) with them that causes trouble. If we decide that we must get rid of or overcome  “negative” emotions, they then go into our Shadow, which contains anything repressed, hidden, or unconscious in our psyches. This reflects the operation of splitting, a psychological defense mechanism.

Sadly the “just change your beliefs/thoughts and you change your feelings and your life is bright and shiny and positive” canard is still with us. This falsehood is with us even though brain science proved it dead wrong more than twelve years ago. What really happens is that we experience feelings in the limbic portion of the brain and and later wrap explanatory thoughts around the feelings in the neo-cortex. The process does not work in reverse. Thoughts do not change feelings. Thoughts are the result of feelings.

Since real change, that is, getting in and becoming familiar with ALL of our feelings is a long, long process that takes an enormous amount of courage—no huckster can make money selling it. So they make up the “quick-and-easy-positivity” for those who faintly aspire to transformation vis-a-vis forcing a few thoughts out of their mind and the denial of “negative” feelings. Ascribing to these hucksters’ simplistic nonsense is like dining at McDonalds exclusively and expecting to be well-nourished and healthy as a result. You might leave full, but not sustained or well-fed. The place for positive thinking and thought-control is very similar to eating at McDonald’s—to be used as a stop-gap measure until real sustenance can be obtained. It is not nourishing although it might prevent you from crashing in an emergency. 

Spiritualizing one’s genuine feelings is called spiritual bypassing. No one writes better on the topic than Robert A. Masters: http://www.robertmasters.com/newsletter/February2010.pdf   (see page 9 of the newsletter). Robert  A. Johnson, that beloved Jungian psychologist, calls this “addressing the problem on the wrong level.” Feelings need to be handled on the human feeling level, not bludgeoned with thoughts or wishful spirituality.

Most tragically, these aspirers never get what they paid for (yet, they are blamed by the hucksters for not being positive enough/not doing enough affirmations or whatever) and as a result, they aspirants do a lot of damage with their disowned/denied/dissociated “negative” feelings leaking out covertly all over their lives.

So here is a movie that plays right into the hucksters’ hands. This is more fundamentalist New-Agism which is as full of shame and “shoulds’ as any traditional fundamentalist system.

A creed’s conspicuous shadow absence usually indicates fundamentalism, as surely as does an identified bogey-man. So if you are being promised all shiny and new if you just (fill in the blank), run! Run far, far, away. You have ben offered “drive-through transformation” and you are being gypped. And it is critically important that you actually feel how cheated you really have been. Start there. If you get lost or mired, there are guides along the way, seek out a therapist, read Jungian psychology books, enter into group therapy,  journal, do body work, but let the truth about how you feel be the starting point.

Can’t figure out what your feelings are or how to work with them? Try Karla McLarens’ The Language of Emotions:http://tiny.cc/ztmah the best singular volume on feelings/emotions and how to approach them.

If you fail to sit with your real feelings you will spend an enormous amount of energy trying to work from a place that you do not really reside in. A super-sized self-fraud if you will.

Social Media and Feelings

A couple of weeks ago, I stuck my toe in the social media water.

One toe only. Into several pools: Facebook, Twitter and here, WordPress. For now, this is quite enough. I am still making beginner’s mistakes in my responses. Just figuring out how to post an image was a 45 minute frustration. I do not know how to communicate an awkward digital blush, but that is what fits here.

So far, I’ve learned about The Urban Dictionary, (http://www.urbandictionary.com/), a gaggle of causes, fan aggregations, many stray phrases and bizarre punctuation/character combinations serving as expressions of feelings. Digital confusion and disappointment.

Good thing I learned about Urban Dictionary early in this toe-wetting. Without knowing where to look up phrases like just sayin’, I would have been social media lost without a GPS. And social media discouraged. Yikes!

I have received links to approve or disapprove of things I know precious little about. I cannot Like or Dislike anything until I research exactly what it is that I am voting up or down. How about a Need To Research This First button? A self-righteous “so there!”

Much like email, the feeling component of social media communiques are lacking or left to abstractions of characters meant to portray a facial expression and therefore the approximate feeling state sent along with the post. And that feeling state is not necessarily something that is genuine. Gulp.

I have been guilty of this sort of misrepresentation myself. My job requires that I email information that is not always welcome news to the recipients. I add a smiley face to those emails. As if to say, “I am so danged cute with this smiley face thing-y in my post that you cannot possibly get angry with me, right?” Does it work? Dunno, but putting a smiley face in the post emboldens me enough to send the less-than-welcome information on to the person who less-than-wants that information.

Sometimes I mean, “Go straight to hell,” and I do it with a smiley face. Probably because I do not know a way to place a grimace in the posts.

Sometimes I am just happy to send the post along and the sun is shining and the world is a beautiful place for me at that moment. Those are good-faith smiley faces. But a smiley face to express joie de vivre?

The emails of which I am least proud range from disingenuous to covertly hostile all with un-worded subtleties of feeling texture and dimension usually completely flattened by the delivery medium—not even a wan smile to provide dimension. And the balance of my posts contain shades of feelings lost before the Send button is clicked. And my question is: How can humans be social without conveying feelings? It is feelings that make all connections social after all. How can we keep feelings (and therefore social-ness) in social media? Don’t we have a responsibility to do so?

At this moment I am struggling to hone in on what I am feeling. I feel exposed for admitting that some of my smiley faces are a cover for less-than-smiley feelings I might have. I am concerned—anxious, perhaps—that I can write more words—hundreds of thousands of words—with less feelings. I am concerned that the English language has a dearth of feeling words. And without feelings we have no humanity. It is on the feeling level that we really connect, really socially connect.

My toe is wet and a whole-body trepidation holds me at  the water’s edge. More feeling plus less connections are not the swims I want. to take. Connections—full-on human connections—an emphatic, “Yes!” Feeling-less connections—no-bloody-thanks.

Without feeling states in our social media connections, we are merely being our own Madison Avenues advertising agencies with all the attendant Madison Avenue sincerity. Lack of sincerity is not something I want any more of. Madison Avenue is not something I want more of. I want feeling expressions in all media/mediums. I want words for shades of feelings, words that do not yet exist. Robert A. Johnson spoke of this in his book The Fisher King and The Handless Maiden and I made a page on my website to share it with the world that has not read this rich, slim tome:
http://www.terrespencer.com/Terre_Spencer/Vocabulary_of_Feeling.html

The wish for more words for feelings, for more feelings expressed with existing words will be carried with me as I will ease into these pools. Social. Connected. Human. A sense of purpose, hope and completion.