Sex - and death - the elephants in the human race room.

Violence is alright, we can deal with that, all we have to do is tell our kids it's wrong.   But Gods forbid we should have to explain sex and death to them before 'til later'.. let's put that business off as long as we possibly can.

"You'll feel differently when you have kids of your own."   

As a childless woman I've heard this one time too many.

And I want to ask "Really?"   I mean seriously, honest question, why?   One doesn't have to have kids to understand what kids are about - if one does, then 'one' is living in an alternate universe where kids don't exist.   Feeling differently is a simple matter of body chemistry and instinct, not intellect.   Suggesting that one must experience kids - as a parent - to understand them is rather strange actually - it suggests that adoption does not and will not work, which is patently false.   It doesn't take adoption or birthing them to assume responsibility for their well being either, or we wouldn't have non-parent teachers in the classroom, in day care centers or numerous other venues where adults are responsible for the well being of children.   The only way an adult does not understand - or take responsibility for - children in this world is because they've chosen not to, not because they 'don't have them'.   Show me the adult that won't try to save a child from recognizable physical danger and I'll show you a rarity - most won't stop to think "I do/don't have kids, why am I doing this?" they just do it.   An instinctive act, not an intellectual one.

Tell the aunt that just lost her nephew that she didn't understand the pain his mother felt simply because she wasn't his mother.   Tell the man who lost a close friend to suicide that he can't feel the pain of it because he wasn't a father, brother, son.   Tell all of those here at Open Salon who responded to one of 'our own' in their time of emotional need that we're all just going through the motions, not really feeling, because we aren't them.   It's called empathy, it helps us understand the other person, their position, walk a bit in their shoes.   We all have this trait.   Even if we don't all use it.  And it lets the childless understand the child.

Sasha Gray (the woman referenced in TFC's post) is a volunteer with an organization that promotes reading among children, yet her participation has caused a bit of a kerfluffle among the parents of some of these children.   It seems that due to her prior involvment in the so-called porn industry she has been deemed an inappropriate choice for reading to these children - perhaps even as a representative of the organization itself.   I find myself wondering if her detractors would also find it the morally responsible thing to do, to turn away any monetary donations she might provide them with because of her prior associations?   If she agreed to refrain from in-person involvement would that make it 'alright'?.   If Larry Flynt (founder and owner of the porn publication Hustler) had founded and was supporting The Children's Miracle Network would that mean it's services are rendered innappropriate as well - if he made a practice of making personal appearances at fund raisers for instance?   Somehow I suspect the money would change hands easily enough given enough of a low profile at it's genesis, if that genesis were deemed socially inappropriate.   So can we say 'double standard'?   Just one double standard among many in our contrived society.   

Because, in my opinion, our socially accepted methods of handling sex and death aren't really about morality.

No, what I think it's really about is being a species that is afraid of facing - and living - life.   Period.

We're born because of sex (even with IVF that sperm and egg didn't come from the cabbage patch).   We are naturally fascinated with sex, it's in our genes, hard-wired, a fact of life, whether we're 'getting any' or not.   Nor is this fascination confined to those of the opposite sex for each other, this fascination applies to all sexes of all species - and ages - whether opposite or not (possibly excepting single celled organisms and those reproducing asexually).   In humans sexuality is no longer for reproduction alone, it's recreational as well.   My reading tells me that researchers have found that in some few other species it serves the same function - dolphins for instance - do we suppose that dolphin parents keep this activity behind closed doors?   Oh, no, sorry, I forgot, they're lower animals (although some of those same researchers would argue that particular point).   I suppose that our pioneering ancestors who found themselves living in one and two room cabins, sleeping quarters often separated by no more than a blanket draped across a rope (if that), were lower animals as well.   Children have both ears and eyes, constantly feeding information to their brains for processing as they mature ; no doubt that those pioneer children were curious about those sounds coming from the other side of the room, in the darkness or beyond that blanket.   Seeing what was going on wasn't necessary.   And yet our pioneer ancestors managed to produce families - large ones - without all of this angst over the sex that produced those childrens' next sibling.   Most of those children already had an understanding of sex well before the appropriate 'til later'.   They lived on farms with livestock that reproduced and died routinely.   In spite of that here we are, going strong as a species, indeed supposedly having advanced as a whole.

With the exception of this business of sex and death.   Not only have we not advanced, we've backslid.

Sex is no longer natural, it's secretive, forbidden, sometimes illegal.

And death - real life death - is to be avoided or at least staved off 'til later'.   For children - many excused from human funerals, their first brush with death is often that of a beloved pet, supposedly that is 'easier' on the child than seeing Grandma Hetty in her casket lowered into the ground.   By whose judgement is that pet's death 'easier'?   Oh yes, that's right, the pet is just an animal, the child can't possibly love it as much as it does Grandma Hetty.   Or so we like to tell our adult selves.   Death, the unnavoidable conclusion of life, is relegated to some 'other place', not spoken of around the children for fear of damaging their tender little psyches - we can put it off 'til later'.   Better for them.   They wouldn't understand.   Better for us.

Definitely.   Because we can put off having to explain something we don't like to acknowledge as adults.   We die.   All religions aside we don't really know what happens after.   It's scary and beyond our control.   Death is something we don't even speak to other adults about unless it's unnavoidable.   Like sex.   Unless we can make a joke of it, locker room and hen party talk.   Any other venue makes us uncomfortable.   I don't see this as species advancement of any kind.   We're actually attempting to postpone recognition and understanding of two of life's most major components.   Waiting for some mythical 'til later' to arrive.   Hopefully before the children discover sex for themselves, or Death comes knocking at our collective door.   Newsflash ; children are adept at discovering self-pleasure - quite early - and Death abides by no one's time table save his own.

I was struck by one thought as I read about the parental reactions (as well as comments that followed)  to Sasha Gray's reading for the children.   Her prior profession has made her an innappropriate choice to read to children, which infers (yes it does) that she really shouldn't have children of her own.   This moral judgement is close to another that agrees that anyone other than a heterosexual should not be teaching in the classroom.

Perilously close in fact.   And far from anything resembling advancement of any kind or measure.

We still have some growing up to do as a species before we can lay claim to being any kind of 'advanced'.