Sex
(This post will contain straightforward descriptions of sexual stuff. If you think that's obscene, now is the time for you to stop reading... and reconsider your sense of morality.)
In this post, I'm going to talk about what sex is, as in “to have sex” or “to be sexually active”. Like a lot of other things I've talked about, our society thinks this is really important, but can't agree on what it means!
Society is full of myths and lies about sex – about what it means to have sex, about when you should have sex, about who should be having sex, about how many people you should have sex with, and so forth. In fact, there are so many myths and lies that I can't possibly address them all in one post. There are the traditional, Puritanical lies, like “You should never do anything sexual except with your spouse in a heterosexual marriage”. Lots of people disagree with that now, you say? Well, yes. But plenty of them have their own myths and lies, like “You should always have sex by your third date”1. No matter who you ask, someone is going to tell you how they think you should live your life.
All these myths cause a lot of problems. But there are too many problems for me to discuss one at a time. If I pointed out any three of them individually, I'd feel guilty for not pointing out all the rest.2 So I'm going to throw that all out and start over from the beginning.
What the fuck is sex, anyway?
Humans are strange creatures with strange feelings. I could mention a bunch of terms like “sexual attraction”, “sexual arousal”, “sexual release”, “lust”, “orgasm”... But if I tried to describe sex in terms of those things, I'd be writing a circular definition. Suppose you don't know what any of those terms mean, but still have sexual feelings yourself: How would you know which word matches which feeling? After all, a person can enjoy looking at someone else in a non-sexual way; ze can be physically excited in a non-sexual way, satisfied in a non-sexual way...
We could say it has something to do with your genitals, but would that really work? There are plenty of ways to be sexual that don't involve genitals, and plenty of things to do with your genitals that aren't sexual, like peeing. And there are people who don't even have genitals who still have sexual feelings. We can get a vague idea of what it is by talking about genitals and touching and arousal and stuff, but how do we define it?
I propose a novel solution:
Don't.
I'm going to take a step sideways here.
Some people say that consent is an important concept when talking about sex and sexuality. The first rule is “No means no”: If a person says “no” to a sexual activity, then it's bad to push them into doing that activity. The stronger rule is “Yes means yes”: Unless a person actively agrees to do a sexual thing, then they have not consented, so it's not okay to do it.
Look at the above paragraph. There is no reason for the word “sexual” to appear in it.
Suppose you and a friend are hanging out and you want to play a board game. You suggest playing the game. Your friend shrugs. You go and get the board game and set it up, then hand your friend the dice so that ze can take zir first turn. Ze hesitates. “Come on,” you say, “I already set it up and everything.” Then ze rolls the dice and makes a move.
You've just pushed your friend into doing something ze did not want. Compliance is not consent, so you're now nonconensually playing a board game. That's a bad thing that you shouldn't have done.
Certainly, this is less bad than pushing someone into sex. People usually have much stronger feelings about sexual stuff, and many sexual things have some risk of physical harm. But the principle is the same. One of them is worse than the other, but they're both bad for the same reason. Humans are supposed to cooperate with each other to do things that help everyone. And because humans are often very different from each other, it's impossible to cooperate without clear communication. In the example with the board game, instead of deciding what you wanted and then trying to get your friend to want it too, you should have asked zem what ze was interested in and tried to find something you'd both like.
A personal story
I enjoy tying myself up for sexual pleasure. I can (when I want to) get very sexually aroused by the idea of being helpless, of being immobile, of having other people beat me at games or contests, of being held or touched or hurt against my will. I'm also extremely hostile to anyone who tries to do any of these things to me, or even play at doing them to me, without my consent.3
Most of that has been true since I was in elementary school (ages 5-9, for non-US people). I didn't have a “sexually aroused” feeling until after puberty, but I enjoyed tying myself up, with as little clothes on as my family would allow. I also associated my thoughts about that with a feeling in my genitals (which, in my case, are a penis and testicles). I liked reading books that talked about medieval torture methods, because I was fascinated with that feeling. I didn't talk about it much, because other people, both at school and at home, had discouraged me from touching my genitals, talking about my genitals, or, basically, doing anything that acknowledged the existence of my genitals. In this way, adults prevented my child self from enjoying zir sexuality. Adults should not do this; it's a bad, harmful thing to do, although it's hardly the worst thing that anyone did to me in my childhood.
(There's also a complicating factor: Throughout my life, my non-sexual daydreams and fantasies have also often been about traumatic experiences that I haven't personally had. I remember, around age 9, reading a book about some real-life heroes who suffered severe injuries, not because I liked heroism, but because I liked injury. I don't know why I'm so fascinated with pain and suffering, but it's something that is pretty much innate and constant for me.)
I remember that I was always unwilling to play a lot of physical games, like Tag and Capture the Flag, with other children. When people did force me to play the games, I cheated at them. I'm beginning to suspect that that's because I associated losing at games with sexuality, especially when the games involved physical touch. I am not okay with anyone doing anything sexual with me unless I have complete trust in them as a friend, and there are less than a dozen people in the world whom I trust that much (although it's been going up now that I've been at college). Of course, it was extremely not okay for anyone to be forcing me into playing those games in the first place. I think some adults did it because they falsely believed that it would help me socialize with other children. Or maybe they just did it because that was how they normally do things. If they had paid attention, or asked me, they would have realized it wasn't helping anything. I didn't want to socialize with groups of other children, anyway.
While I'm talking about myself, I might as well mention that I'm not sexually attracted to humans, regardless of their sex or gender, and I don't particularly like orgasms. I masturbate to orgasm sometimes, but that's really only in order to stop feeling aroused. There's a stereotype about men as being only interested in sticking their penises in things until they orgasm; although I am not male, I arguably still count as a counterexample, because that whole system of stereotypes would assume that I am male, too. But anyway, I much prefer slow and deliberate touch, over all my body, rather than excessively genitals-focused, goal-focused stuff (and I think that stereotype connects to a lot of other male stereotypes. Ugh.).
All of those attributes of me are perfectly normal, and not unhealthy in any way. (Adults mistreating me was unhealthy for me, but my preferences weren't unhealthy by themselves.) And if, on the other hand, you don't have any of the attributes that I've just described, that's also perfectly normal, and not unhealthy in any way.
Back to the big picture
By now, you probably get the main point I'm trying to make: Different people like different things, and that's exactly how it should be. Some of those things are sexual, but it doesn't really matter too much to figure out which ones are sexual and which aren't. Since people aren't all the same, they don't instantly know how other people feel. However, it's possible to deal with that by communicating in a clear, honest, cooperative way. And you shouldn't listen to other people telling you what you should like – you should figure out what you like for yourself.
All of that should be obvious.
(Oh right, there's a cultural norm that says it's bad to just enjoy yourself for the sake of enjoying yourself – especially in a sexual way, but also in general, becuase it's more important to do what's culturally acceptable than to do what you like! And there's this whole notion that what two (or more, or just one) consenting people4 do in private is anybody else's business. And there's the belief that— ...but all those beliefs are stupid and ridiculous and I have no idea why anyone believes them5 and I should have stuck to my plan to not try to talk about them in this post! Clearly I should stop now before I accidentally dignify those notions with a response.)
If you liked this post, join me again in a few days weeks when I rant about pornography.
– Eli
- Which assumes that relationships only happen by dating, which I could write an entire rant about separately. back
- Actually, I wouldn't feel guilty; I'm not sure “guilt” is a feeling I ever experience. But I would feel like my essay wasn't doing a good enough job. back
- I'd be somewhat interested in doing it consensually with other people I trust, but coordinating with other people is too much of an inconvenience for me to try very hard at that. If you're reading this and you know me... you interested? :-) back
- Yes, PEOPLE. I only just noticed that people usually say “consenting adults” when they say this. Now that I thought about it, I'll have to be a little skeptical whenever I see someone write it in that way. back
- Actually, I do have a lot of ideas about why people believe those things. It's just that they don't make any sense. back
Comments
To answer your points out of order:
2. I don't even know how to conceive of a society that arranged itself to give children such freedom that their ability to consent to sex with adults would no longer be impaired. I don't even know if it's a meaningful concept or a possible thing at all. I am pretty sure there is no state of the world in which adults wouldn't have a responsibility to not fuck kids (phrase referencing the title of this blog: http://reasonsyoushouldntfuckkids.wordpress.com/).
3. “Tasty apples” is a subset of that longer category, and when your domain of discourse is “groupings of fruit involving at least one that is wholly non-citrus”, it's the only subset that absolutely applies. Now that you're widening the domain of discourse—which I agree with in principle but don't know how to do in practice—"tasty apples" has become insufficient, and I need to recourse to the longer phrase or find a shorter way to express the principle.
1. But how do you build a strong idea of consent that doesn't need extra qualifiers when there are so many situations constantly throwing qualifiers at it from every direction? I mean, the adult/child power imbalance happens to be the one that comes most readily to mind for me, but there are lots more things like that in the world, where until you knew that one fact about the situation you might think consent had been achieved, and then it turns out that no. I don't have any kind of an answer here, but I think until somebody finds one, I'm going to be getting all long-winded about the acceptable and unacceptable interactions of various fruits. Because I just feel like it's too important to leave unsaid.
1. If a child cannot consent to sex with an adult, then the phrase “consenting people” rules out sex between a child an adult, period. What I mean by a “strong idea of consent” is that if you say there's consent, then you're already saying that it's unqualified.
2. I do know how to conceive of such a society. Which ages of “adults” and “children” are you thinking of? Because I'm challenging the premise based on the extreme cases (considering that I'm willing to call someone a “child” up to about 13 years old and an “adult” starting around 15 years old). I'm totally okay with having fundamentally different moral considerations for humans who are young enough that their sentience is ambiguous, but... I'm really uncomfortable with the idea of telling a sentient being that ze can't make decisions for zemself.
If you're only talking about cases with huge age gaps, like 6-10 vs. 18-30, then I'd hazard a guess that almost none of those cases involve enthusiastic participation by the kid.
...maybe the option just isn't explicitly present because I haven't added an email address. Well, if that was on the list of things I could do if I added an email address, I would've done it a lot sooner. Whoops.
2a. I had crushes on adults when I was nine (mainly fictional ones). Some of them were pretty explicitly sexual (I was a well-read nine-year-old). If the object of one of those had found out and acted on it, I as I am now would not call the result consensual even if my more naive nine-year-old self might have. The difference in knowledge, experience, and... well, maturity is way too large.
Say a hypothetical nine-year-old desires to engage in an activity with a thirty-two-year-old. This is, very possibly, a bad decision. Why, though, is that a decision the nine-year-old shouldn't be allowed to make, as opposed to a nine-year-old's decision to engage in the same activity with another nine-year-old or an eighteen-year-old's decision to engage in that activity with a sixty-year-old? These peoples' future selves may well all dislike their respective past selves' having made that decision - why in one (or, arguably, two) of those situations does that dislike mean they didn't have the right to make the decision?
I'm not sure how I feel about this, so please understand that I'm not taking a specific side. I do, think, though, that these are valid questions.
It is not, is in my opinion never, about the right of children to make decisions. It is about the responsibility of adults not to cooperate with decisions that will damage the child. When I was a wee hexagon I also at one point thought it was a great idea to climb onto the back of the living room couch and jump off using a plastic grocery bag as a parachute, and I'm damn glad my parents dissuaded me from that one before I broke something. And psychological trauma lasts a lot longer than a bonk on the head.
Hm.
Okay, there, you brought up drinking. Let me see if I can get my thoughts into some semblance of order...
Why don't we let the twenty-two-year-old drive drunk? Because eir decision-making abilities (and a number of other less relevant faculties) are impaired by the alcohol and ey is likely to cause an accident. Similarly, obtaining apparent consent from a drunk person is not always sufficient, because the drunk person may not be fully understanding and reacting to the circumstances in the way they would without that impairment. This is why getting someone drunk in order to seduce them is bad.
Well, the state of being a child impairs ability to consent rather more, in my opinion, than the state of being drunk. Children are less able to understand things. So obtaining apparent consent from a child is not sufficient, because there's no way to be sure they really know what they're doing, and the balance of probability is that they don't.
Also, I think your driving analogy would work better if cars were self-aware. There is a much greater degree of involvement in having sex with someone than there is in letting them drive without a seatbelt. I am trying to stay away from talking about the child's decision, because I am much less clear on how I feel about that, and focus on the adult's decision, because I know what I believe the adult should decide in this case.
The analogy with seat belts wasn't so much about sex as it was about letting people make their own decisions about their own lives. I would personally argue that people can choose whether they wear their own seat belt or what they eat or any other choice that is about themselves.
I guess my question is this: are children people? Are they able to make their own decisions? If so: why is it that that only applies in some situations? If not: when do they become people?
And I don't know when children stop being children and become adults. I don't think it's quite a meaningful question. I think it's a long process and the best we can do at present is set the bar with a wide margin of error to minimize trauma.
When I was young (six to eight, I think) I had a sleepover at a friend's house. During the course of the night, ze persuaded me that it would be fun were we to put our penises in each other's butts, so we did. I didn't actually find it enjoyable, but I did agree to try it. In the aftermath I felt horrid. Had I known how it would make me feel, I definitely wouldn't have done it that way.
Relatively recently I had intercourse for the (basically) first time. In the aftermath I felt horrid. Had I known how it would make me feel and how other people would react and so on, I definitely wouldn't have done it that way.
In the first situation, I was younger than 13, so an adult should have saved me from my own bad decision. In the second, I was older than 18, so that wasn't the other person's problem. Right?
My issue with that is that the deciding factor in right or wrong seems to be number of earth orbits that have occurred since my birth and I can't honestly understand how that's related. In both cases it was a lack of understanding and experience. In both cases I fully consented (to whatever extent possible given my states). In both cases I regretted it. Why does the consensus seem to be that in the first case I should have been saved by An Adult but in the second that's just how life works and I should learn from my mistakes? I tend to agree with that judgement, but I don't like agreeing with something when I can't logically support it, as it makes me think I'm just retaining social conditioning.
On a separate note, opening a series of comments seems to have an increasing chance of timing out and replying to a deeply nested comment (like this one) causes the reply box to hang out over the right edge of the right frame. I don't know if there's a better alternative, but perhaps at least automatically move the focus over? Just pointing it out.
Though I've got to admit, I haven't really designed my moral system to handle situations involving permanently-ambiguously-sentient beings like certain non-human animals and humans with sufficient brain damage.
Where I part company a bit with some of the advocates is their insistence of verbalizing consent for everything. Non-verbal communication can be confusing, but sometimes it is also eloquent and unambiguous. The difference between someone who is acquiescing to a sexual act (or a non-sexual activity for that matter) and someone who is enthusiastically participating in it is usually obvious; it's the ambiguous cases where verbalizing the consent is important. Consider these two scenarios. First, you touch someone's crotch for the first time and ze passively lets it happen. Second, you touch someone's crotch for the first time and ze covers your hand with hirs and caresses it as you stroke. The first case is ambiguous. The second is not; the non-verbal encouragement of the activity makes the message clear.
It's true that it is possible to give unambiguous consent nonverbally. But I still want to promote a standard of having verbal consent be the baseline. There isn't a concise reason for that, so I'll try a few different perspectives:
People almost always use verbal consent when they're proposing a board game. Why should sex, the context in which consent is most important, have more-lenient standards of communication?
I think the answer to why it does (not why it should) is that most people haven't developed their skills at using language to be able to talk about sex, and hence have more difficulty proposing things verbally. An analogy comes to mind: If you find yourself in a country where you don't know any of the dominant languages, then at first, you'll have to communicate using hand-signs (or an interpreter if you can find one). You can also try learning a local language; at first, that will be a lot more awkward, but the awkwardness is necessary in order to learn, and (if you're going to be there for a while) developing skill with the language is the most important thing. And with sex, you have the option of waiting until you're good enough at language before you try anything that could hurt someone.
I'm also totally into pre-arranged consent things – in your example, if you and your partner both think that nonverbal consent is hot, then it's valid to verbally agree that you're both okay with it. If you do that, then when one partner does something that ends up getting an “ack no!” reaction from the other, you can step back and say “okay, renegotation time” rather than having it be super yucky. (And it's always possible to push someone's “ack no!” buttons, even when you try to lay out boundaries clearly in advance. So it's even more likely if you don't.)