So9
As long as they do their research, but the tempatation to enter the fray of public policy is too great.
"...There are many aspects of today's sexual world that cause me concern. Yet, unlike some people, I have absolutely no wish to return to how things were, say 50 years ago, even if it was remotely possible..."
"...I'll move on to describe how I would like these sexualities to be - "If I could choose", and explain how by changing the societal structure of male-female roles, my choice of a sexual world would become more likely..."
"...Christianity, without doubt, has been a powerful vehicle for maintaining both patriarchal and sex-negative systems, and remains so to this day..."
"...How the phallus or penis, that extraordinary anatomic appendage with its built in specialized hydraulic system, has been dealt with through history, has recently been documented in an interesting way by David Friedman in his book, "A Mind of Its Own; The History of the Penis". In two weeks, I will be giving another talk, linked to our Sex and Humor exhibit in the Fine Arts Gallery, entitled "What's so funny about sex?", and I will be focusing on the essential absurdity of this aspect of the male. No wonder early Christian men were threatened by sex, they hadn't developed a sense of humor about this idiosyncratic aspect of their anatomy- and that's not a joke; I will be developing that theme in my other talk..."
"...OK! Enough complaining about the status quo. How would I choose it to be different? First, and foremost: a radically different society in terms of the relationship between men and women. Away with patriarchy, and although it could be argued that it would be preferable, do not substitute with matriarchy. How to address the inequalities between men and women has been debated by feminists for a long time. One approach, which has been well captured by Sandra Bem, is to reconstruct society so that the inevitable biological differences between men and women are really restricted to reproduction and little else. Otherwise, it is a matter of stressing the similarities rather than the differences: "…we would…view our sex as so completely given by nature, so capable of exerting its influence automatically, and so limited in its sphere of influence to those domains where it really does matter biologically, that it would be safely tucked away in the backs of our minds and left to its own devices. In other words, biological sex would no longer be at the core of individual identity and sexuality"..."
"...The built in institutionalized repression of women by men is the template for the dominance or repression of any group by another. And the male-centered society has particular problems dealing with men who have sex with men; homophobia prevails. In my diversity-based world, homophobia would be minimal..."
"...I have not attempted to consider how such radical changes could be implemented, but I would make the point that we live in a world, which is changing in many ways at a remarkable rate. We should therefore not assume that because a pattern has a very long history, it could not be changed for a better one. My most basic point is that to bring such changes about we will first need to correct the gender imbalance. Is this all just a pipe dream, an idyllic fantasy of an aging sexologist losing his marbles? Maybe; but I see no harm in putting it forward, if only to see how people shoot it down. Thank you for allowing me to indulge myself..."