« Advanced notice | Main | Reading at MoSex, December 1 »
Sex, politics, religion
November 14, 2005
These are things you’re not supposed to talk about in polite company, and of course the things that I use to jump start any lack luster conversation, because I’m no good in polite company. Although in many ways my life is firmly located in the province of radical politics (this would be a philosophical space, not a geographical one, but tell that to Vermont), working in sex has exposed me to a wide variety of political and religious perspectives, both on the combat level and on the personal level.
When you get away from sex as a war zone for politics and religion, nudge away from topics like abortion, gay marriage, condom distribution in schools and delve into the personal side of sexuality, you realize that there are a lot of similarities and concerns across the board. Sexuality in the personal and individual sense is closer to the heart than either politics or religion, but of course when you mix the three together you’ve got a whole other mess on your hands.
One of my earliest and most treasured pieces of fan email came from a man who self-identified himself as Republican (voted for Bush) and Catholic, and went on to talk about the ways that my words had struck him, the ways that he had been surprised in understanding where I was coming from. At first I was vaguely amused by this - but then it started happening more and more and I was regularly corresponding with people whose political viewpoints were hugely different than my own, yet there was somehow a common ground. More than that, their perspectives didn’t feel hypocritical - truly, life and sex are a million times more complex than political views.
In that first email from an avowed Republican, the writer tip-toed around the subject and asked me not to leap to conclusions - it was a warning I needed. Today, however, I smile when writers ask me not to judge their politics and religious perspectives, leap to conclusions, or deliver a lecture about their failings - there’s no value in what I do unless I can listen openly to what’s underneath that level of identity. Unless attacked first, I’m really not prone to lectures, I’m more excited by that gray area where everything breaks down and people are just people. Maybe its something I’ve become hyper-aware of because of the choices I’ve made and the knowledge I have of the ways people make snap judgments on who I am or must be.
Posted by Dacia at November 14, 2005 04:02 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.wakingvixen.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/418
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sex, politics, religion:
» see sexy secretary have sex from Jane
see sexy secretary have sex Pantyhose Sex drunk sluts [Read More]
Tracked on April 17, 2006 06:25 AM
» nose piercing from Jane
anal strapon Milf Hunter Movies reality tv nude rape st... [Read More]
Tracked on April 19, 2006 07:54 AM
Comments
u shouldn’t mix sex writing/blog with brains; stay on course, not philosophy. fyi, read this wk’s ny mag
Posted by: jg at November 15, 2005 09:58 AM
“These are things you’re not supposed to talk about in polite company, and of course the things that I use to jump start any lack luster conversation, because I’m no good in polite company.” I can relate to that so much.
jg- Most people have sex as much with their brains as with their genitals. The philosophy of sex and what surrounds it is just as interesting to a lot of us as the actual sex- and necessary to the actual sex. ;) Dacia- interesting thoughts. I’m finding that true as well lately.
Posted by: Katie at November 15, 2005 09:58 PM
merci katie for your wonderful insight(??) ;-) basically reminding me of the duality of the sexual act; too bad that is such simplistic crap & so typical of a female point of view, or better yet, a liberated, punk-rock(?) girly point of view. it not only makes me want to puke, but also, it is the crap audacia would like everyone to buy into & pay her for reporting, as per her comments above & her most recent gobblygook. but, it is her blog, so RIP.
those “generally” interested in the “philosophy” surrounding sex either are sexually ambivalent or sexless & “orgasm” over the lack of orgasm - i know, it gets complicated.
& now everyone is trying for recognition - see this wk’s ny mag cover story. sadly, the sex columnists should not have allowed their photos to have been taken - generally all ugly, 0-sex appeal; & THEY are writing about SEX!!?? give me a fucking break. quite frankly, if ever see anyone of these “broads” in a bar, would be cause for quick exit, not approach. sorry katie, u & dacia should either grow-up, or practice what u preach, but that isn’t the point, n’est-ce pas?
Posted by: jg at November 17, 2005 02:41 PM
