No, really. I am not crazy, or at least I've not yet gone crazy. It's a legitimate question, based on my reading and research. So, again I ask: what is sex for and why do we have it?
Often, our conversations around sex consist of what we like, the things we are into, and our experiences with it. But rarely is the question asked, "Is our children learning ..." no wait, I mean, rarely do we question the purpose of sex. The first question, many of you will recognize, is a Bush question.
In a culture where sex is framed by mass media and pornography, it's important to ask that question, mainly because popular culture still frames sex as something men earn and women give. In said culture, where the purpose of sex is framed in a sense of pleasure, we see women as the source of pleasure whereas men are the takers of such pleasure. When framed in said mentality, we no longer see women's roles in sex as one of humans, but rather humans who serve a specific purpose.
As such, said mentality takes away the idea of human connections. We simply see sex as mechanical, and not as an expression between two people. To be absolutely sure, there can be sex without love, and we have all experienced it, but when human connections are taken out of sex, it merely becomes a biological act, and has nothing to do with humanity. Further, it makes us see others as mere vehicles to our attainment of pleasure, rather than human beings with whom we can connect.
Whether we like it or not, sex involves emotions. Yet, within the pornography industry, it's treated as a mere act. In the end, it teaches us to detach from our human beings. I am not saying every sex act ought to come with love. I am merely saying we need to see others as human beings. Once we see others as merely sex providers, whether paid or not, any feelings or empathy we have for a person is gone. I say this to merely argue the point that until we can see others as humans, with feelings, needs and emotions, the act of prostitution will still be one that views women as providers of pleasure, and not humans. Sex may be great on its own, but we need to recognize that the person from whom we are getting it has feelings and is a human being. With such acknowledgment, we will be kinder and more in touch of that person. In such cases, date rape can certain be prevented. After all, no does not mean no if we do not respect the other person's feelings as a human being. To be sure, I can be pretty dirty and kinky, but without sounding too cheesy, sex isn't about just getting yourself off. There is a piece of oneself, a human connection, left in the other person. Despite of what pornography tells us, sex isn't just sex. That other person is the body parts we like, is a human.
Again, I ask: why do you have sex? What's it for? Is it merely a way to achieve pleasure, is it a show of mutual adoration, is it to create babies (who am I kidding) is it to show love and reward, or is it a way to attain mutual pleasure with someone you like and respect? By re-defining to purpose for sex, we too re-define how society sees homosexuality. After all, if it's about mutual respect and culture, then why does it matter what is natural?
Sure, he doesn't come out and say it directly, but you and I know that John McCain represents the veterans of America - and that, by default of his service, McCain is hailed as an American hero, and therefore, by some faulty logic, also a foreigncy policy wonk. I am here to tell you that neither does McCain represent veterans, nor is he a foreign policy wonk.
Without endorsing any candidate, I'd like to point out that whoever is pitted against McCain will be painted as one without military service or experience, and that someone, McCain looks like a better choice for America, at a time of war, than the other two. Not true.
While we are thankful for McCain's service, the fact of the matter is that bad foreign policy is bad foreign policy, whether proposed by a hero like McCain, or someone who thought too highly of himself to go to Iraq, like our current president.
This isn't a matter of politics. It's a matter of ideologies, and whether McCain - for all his claims of loving America and the military - is actually going to make a good commander in chief. From his actions and the way he approaches many military issues, McCain most certainly is not.
Think of the veterans benefit package past by Congress this week and ask yourself whether McCain supported it? He did not. The package, much like many other packages aimed at helping veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom, was proposed by a freshman senator from Virginia, not a seasoned military veteran who claimed he is good America. Much like the Bush Administration, McCain's claims of a "thankful nation" and "support the troops" are merely lip service. While he'll readily send young Americans to foreign nations based on failed foreign policy assesments, he is not ready to help those young Americans when they get home and become veterans.
So, on this Memorial Day, if you do see McCain make a speech - just remember that actions speak louder than words. Actions mean learning from our mistakes of past wars, and continiuing to support the military women and men who come home from the war injured and displaced. McCain, much like Bush, is not doing that.
McCain supporters have painted his opponents as inexperienced and fresh and bound to make mistakes. But honestly, after eight years of the Bush Administration, I am ready to make new mistakes. With McCain, it'll be simply making the old mistakes over and over again. Aside from their military service, there isn't a damn thing different between McCain and Bush.
Tomorrow - we talk the college culture of data rape and construction of masculinity as well as feminism. The day after that we talk young voters and the issues they're concerned about in this election.
Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.
Posts
!
