Grant me Wings that I Might Fly, my Restless Soul is Longing

Sorry to have been quiet for a bit. I'm on a six day a week show for the next few weeks and I recently had emergency oral surgery. To fill the gap, here's a piece from my old blog that I penned a few years back.



How is it that the bulk of unenlightened America has such an anemic and myopic concept of morality?

I've been having an ongoing discussion with half a dozen people about the nature of sexuality as a moral entity. In each case the discourse was prompted by a different set of circumstances: the recent Supreme Court ruling on sodomy, the Jakko trial, a lengthy and heated argument about how people of my religious leanings are going to burn eternal in a lake of sulphur and several goings on regarding who is and is not willing to have sex with me and my reciprocal feelings. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of the feeble, puritan, anti-human and polarized view of sexuality.

Most importantly, I am infuriated by the false dilemma of meaningless sex foisted upon the more progressive among us. The misconception seems to be that sex is the sole purview of monogamous, heterosexual marriage, and in the more liberal view, the domain of 'true love.' Anything outside of these situations is, by oppositional necessity, meaningless sex.

I don't buy it, not for a moment. To reduce the gauntlet of sexual possibilities to this false polarity is to casually disregard the depth and breadth of both human sentimentality and sexual variety. I will agree with the base assertion by saying that sex is a powerful and important thing. It is an act of bonding, of intimacy that is potent in its effects, immense in its scope and potentially dangerous in its consequences. Also, the best, meaning the most engaging and emotionally significant sex, is usually done in the context of an emotionally connected and monogamous relationship.

However, to infer that two people, the ‘consenting adults’ of sound byte fame, cannot come together physically for other reasons or in other contexts is emotionally sophomoric and, as per my religious disposition, potentially offensive. Two people (for that matter any number of people) can come together for the purposes of recreation or concentration, to create a bond, to understand one another, to share joy or to explore themselves with the help of another, and do so honestly and healthily without the specter of true love casting a shadow on what is an entirely natural way of engaging the world and each other.

It is precisely the range of sexual relationships that makes sex such a powerful thing and that makes it dangerous. It is this risk, the risk of emotional involvement, the risk of opening one’s self and even, yes, the risk of disease, that makes the variety of sexual experiences available to us valuable and so profoundly important.

The point is that any sexual relationship, no matter how transient SHOULD be meaningful even if its meaning is bound up in its very transience. I would go so far as to say that every such encounter has meaning whether the participants choose to acknowledge it or not but, honestly, I’m not prepared to speak on behalf of the rest of the human race.

Long rant short for those that skipped to the end. Get off your morality high horse. Sex isn’t meaningless, ever, even for those who say it is. It is profoundly important and it is he who would seek to impose his sexual standards on others that fails to understand exactly how important it is. Do what you want with who you want and don’t give anyone else any lip about it because it’s not your business or theirs. If you feel the need to indict someone else’s sexuality, then you’re probably too tense and in desperate need of a good long fuck.