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.
Woo Hoo! I actually managed to do this. And I can't possibly express how satisfied I feel. 
Good thing, too, since it's time for Holidailies. Last year I forgot about this until it was too late to register, but I was right on it this year. So you can look forward (you do look forward, don't you?) to another month of daily posts.
Some Rights Reserved
Recent Comments