Charlie Rose: A sadly superficial show on Human Sexuality

Last night, I watched a Charlie Rose program on Human Sexuality. It was, mostly, boring. This was not, in fact, a program on Human Sexuality; it was a program on adult heterosexual intercourse and human male erectile dysfunction.

I'm seldom bored by Charlie Rose, even when I expect to be. This time, I didn't expect to be. But these doctors and researchers sat around the oak table and spoke in abstractions, in generalities.

There was no discussion of sexual orientation; no discussion of how/why it is that some have a high sex drive, and others do not. No doubting of the accepted view that erectile dysfunction and lack of desire is a problem -- an individual problem, now possibly treatable. No awareness, that I could discern, that it's possible that not everyone must be highly sexually active to be whole, to be happy. No suggestion that one might be highly sexually active, and happy, with oneself.

No wondering whether the demand for Viagra and its companions might indicate something other than a collection of individual problems -- except for a mention that male obesity can contribute to this problem. No astonishment expressed that such a large segment of a civilized population can't seem to get it up.

When Charlie asked what problem, what answer, these specialists would most like to discover in the next five years, only one -- and tentatively, a bit defensively -- said she would like to understand sexual violence. Rape, molestation. She -- with many caveats -- quotes the statistic that 25% of college women report experiencing an attempted or completed rape -- and suggests this might be worthy of attention. She says that we have some research and assistance for the victims of these crimes. By implication, she suggests we would do well to look more closely at the perpetrators.

They continue around the table, with no comment -- and apparent discomfort -- at her observation.

They talk about the brain, about the organ, about vascular disease. They all confess that we know almost nothing about human sexuality.

Where was the zoologist, to discuss sexuality in the other animals; to tell us whether rape is common among them; to tell us whether adult males of other species are in the habit of sexually using immature members of their species? They hid from us for decades the prevalence, in other species, of homosexuality and same-sex pair bonding; what else do they know? (I'm not even certain zoology is the right speciality for this -- but Charlie should know.)

Where was the anthropologist, to discuss sexual practices in other cultures; the prevalence, or lack of, prostitution and sex with children? To talk about pair-bonding, and what connections it seems to have, or not have, with sexual behavior? Where was the three-dimensional model, to show us how all this -- desire, behavior, propensity -- intersects with culture and physiology and psychology?

Mostly, they acknowledged how little they know, but brushed past the most provocative questions. Were they trying to be serious? Were they trying to not titillate? One of the very first points made in the program was how rare a serious discussion of sexuality is in our culture.

Well, then. Let's have it.

Comments

[Mage]

So glad to meet your friend Niki. Friends like that are so very special in our lives. I have a few that I cherish. What wonderful stuff, the snow too. Yes, if the converstation around that table was boring, I do hope you turned it off. Sex certainly isn't boring what ever its guise.

[Judith]

So glad I didn't waste my time on Charlie Rose. And thank you for the thoughtful review. I heartily agree with you about the need -- in particular around taking the wraps off rape. Only when we can speak about it openly will we be able to show it as the epidemic it is. Thank you.

Where are your related posts?

[SB]

I put this in the Science category; if you click on the category link at the bottom of my posts, that will take you to more-or-less related posts.

Help is only ever a click away...