Reading through many of the submissions, as well as the general structure of this Sex Talk section, it struck me that it takes a rather serious and dim view of sex. Well, I want to correct that.
First, I do not think sex is bad. Sex, in my opinion, is one of the most wonderful experiences two individuals can share--but listen to what I'm saying: "share," that "two individuals can share." What does sharing mean? It means giving equally, and receiving equally. It means not taking advantage of your partner. It means not forcing yourself on them. It means respecting them enough to listen to them and conform yourself to their wishes because you care about them
|Blindness is, I believe, the very wrongest path to take, especially in matters of sexuality. We have a brain, it's a powerful instrument that allows us to control our urges and desires. It allows us to control them through one simple technique: understanding. I suggest we use it.|
Does any of that make sense? Because I have a bit more I'd like to add.
First, I've had alot of people come down heavy on the idea that minors should or should not have sex, or that sex is strictly for waiting until you're married. My answer to either is: yes and no. For some minors, it's best not to have sex, mostly because they're a little on the immature side, are goofy or silly about it, or are generally unprepared. For other minors, this is not true and they can obviously have sex if they like, and can deal with it like young, responsible adults. The point here is that not everyone matures at the same rate, and not everyone has the same outlook on sex, or, for that matter, the same kind of relationship with their partner. Now, as for waiting until you're married, again, that depends on the individual and on the couple. Some will wait, some will experiment with their partner beforehand, and some will do it with a variety of partners over time. So what? Like the saying says: "different strokes for different folks."
Second, I've also had alot of people come down heavy on the idea of sex as sharing, because they think that it's enough if it gives pleasure and no more, that the love and caring thing is secondary or not necessary. These people believe that if you have two consenting individuals who just want to "get off," then that's enough for sex to happen. What do I say to this? The only thing possible: hey, whatever floats your boat, whatever turns your little crank, whatever waves your hair and shines your teeth. In other words, it's not my business and I'm no one to get all moral and self-righteous about it. Of course, it's not my personal preference when it comes to sex because I believe sex should have an emotional and spiritual dimension which is always absent in brute love (and I mean the word "brute" deliberately, in the sense of "animals"). But, if the two of you want to have it for the sake of having it, then that's your particular flavor, and all I can say is, be smart and use protection--you know the routine.
Last of all, I just want to say, to parents as well as teens, that there's no use pretending there's no such thing as sex, or that it should be hidden away. There's also no use blindly fighting the urge or desire. We're not living in the middle ages here, with one eye trained on heaven and one foot in hell. This is the 21st century, and most of us are trying hard to be reasonable, rational individuals, who understand something about biology, about ourselves, and about the world we live in. Blindness is, I believe, the very wrongest path to take, especially in matters of sexuality. We have a brain, it's a powerful instrument that allows us to control our urges and desires. It allows us to control them through one simple technique: understanding. I suggest we use it.
There's this thing about hypnotism--I heard it somewhere, and I think it's true, but I haven't verified it so I can't say it's "absolutely true." The thing about hypnotism is, that when you're under the influence, you still won't do anything that goes against your nature, or that is contrary to your real desires or beliefs or whatever (in other words, that offends your moral sense). For example, if you're hypnotized and the hypnotist tells you to strip and you feel that's morally repugnant, or you're really shy about it, then you won't strip. Or, if the hypnotist tells you to kill someone, and you're against murder (and yes, some people actually are, despite all those crazy video games out there), then you will not kill someone, and you won't
|There's one hell of a thick line between inhibitions, and things you find morally wrong. Alcohol, like hypnotism, never makes you cross that line. Ever. And this means that you're always responsible for your actions. Always.|
Ok, so what's my point?
What's true of hypnotism, is true of alcohol. Too many people have said to me over the years that they got drunk, and that they couldn't help themselves on account of the booze, that they lost control, whether it was that they had wild sex, or got into fights, or did some other stupid thing.
What did I reply? Balony! Ham! Cappicola! Pastrami! Yeah, pastrami on rye and hold the mayo!
The only type of control that alcohol ever makes you lose, is motor control. In other words, if you drink, you get physically impaired and fall all over the place, and maybe toss your cookies. Your thinking also gets sluggish (even though you think you're making perfect sense), and you tend to slur and dribble as you speak.
But you never, ever lose control of the moral sense, the sense that tells you, personally, what's right or wrong.
What this means is: drinking is no excuse, no let-off-the-hook means for your actions. No matter how drunk you get, you're always responsible for what you do (unless it's an accident of the sort that can happen to anybody under normal circumstances).
Now, I'm not saying that booze doesn't lower your inhibitions. Of course it does this. But then, so does hypnotism. What happens is that with booze, like with hypnotism, you believe that the hypnotism or the booze is responsible, and then you let yourself do the things you're otherwise inhibited about--but that's as far as it goes. There's one hell of a thick line between inhibitions, and things you find morally wrong.
Let me repeat that: There's one hell of a thick line between inhibitions, and things you find morally wrong. Alcohol, like hypnotism, never makes you cross that line. Ever. And this means that you're always responsible for your actions. Always.
So the next time you want to blame your loss of control on drinking, don't. You might as well be blaming the hypnotist for hypnotizing you into doing things you would never do--like killing someone, or stripping at the mall. The only thing you have to blame, is you, and that means you have to live with the consequences of your actions, too.
One other thing: The hypnotist cannot hypnotize you against your will. You also cannot get drunk against your will.