You have to accept the fact that part of the sizzle of sex comes from the danger of sex. – Camille Paglia
As Paglia pointed out, second-wave feminists were fighting a losing battle in trying to paint sex as a wholly good, positive, non-scary, sunshine-and-rainbows thing in order to make it palatable to the naïve young coeds and sheltered housewives they hoped to liberate from the rigid traditional roles of Madonna and whore. Though their motives were commendable, no good can come from hiding the truth and infantilizing those one hopes to help; the dark, chthonian power of sex is so important to its function and appeal that the only way to disguise it was to indulge in an ever-escalating (and ultimately futile) series of myths and denials which paved the way for the anti-sexual, anti-humanistic tyrannies of neofeminism. Rape had to be absurdly presented as an asexual power exercise, which of course meant that BDSM had to be rejected because its very nature refuted the claim that power could be cleanly divorced from sex; the second-wavers also didn’t want women thinking too hard about how much of a turn-on being overpowered or restrained (by the right man under the right conditions) can be. Similarly, porn had to be demonized by creating arbitrary and fanciful distinctions between it and erotica, and because scary situations can arise in sex work it also had to be amputated from the mutilated, sanitized body of “good” sex. At first this was a tough sell to women who had enjoyed the taste of sexual freedom in the ‘60s and ‘70s, but once the feminist establishment succeeded in stoking the fires of rape paranoia, all that had to be done was to define all “unacceptable” sex as rape, and AIDS hysteria drove the last nails into the coffin.
If sex were that easily buried, however, the human race would have died off long ago. The efforts of the neofeminists and crypto-moralists to enforce a rigid sexual orthodoxy were as doomed to failure as those of Christianity (even when allied with the State since the late 19th century) had been. As the “light side” of sex was locked into ever-tighter bondage by the forces of law and middle-class mores, the “dark side” grew correspondingly stronger. The more sexless marriage became, the more popular whores grew; the more chaste the popular media, the more explicit the pornography. Beneath the orderly facade of Victorian Europe and America the buried majority of sexuality grew in the darkness, erupting forth in fusions of lust and horror ranging from the literary (Bram Stoker’s wildly-popular Dracula and its many imitators) to the grotesque (the lurid spectacles of Paris’ Grand Guignol theater) to the terrifyingly real (the sex-driven crimes of Jack the Ripper). It is no accident that erotic horror waned in popularity as sexual mores loosened in the 1920s, and vanished almost entirely by the end of the 1930s; contrast the tame sexuality of The Wolf Man (1941) with that of Dracula (1931) and other pre-code horror movies and you’ll see what I mean.
As the mass media grew in the 1960s and 1970s, they became harder to censor; the internet has made it nearly impossible. Because of this, the character of horror fiction has become less reliable as a means of examining the relationship between sex and fear; though a great deal of horror literature and art is still highly erotic, most 21st-century horror is now comparatively asexual and most erotica lacks any element of fright or violence (despite the claims of neofeminists). But at the same time, the deep relationship between fear and sex is still clearly visible if one only cares to look: the trappings of BDSM would be equally at home in a gothic horror setting, the rape fantasy is as popular as ever and the lurid fantasies of “sex trafficking” fetishists can be found in mainstream news outlets every day, forced up from the collective unconscious by the pressure of the return to Victorian levels of prudery. Nor does one always have to look outward to find the connection; I’m sure many of my readers have realized that the things that sexually excite them most are often related to things that frighten them. For example, some of you may recall my mentioning that I have a phobia of being trapped (including in traffic jams), and I think even the veriest psychological amateur could recognize that I have a tremendous aversion to authority. Yet at the same time, I’m turned on by bondage and themes of dominance and submission.
Why should this be? Is there some evolutionary reason that the emotions of fear and arousal should be so closely related that they’re often intermingled? Evolutionary psychologist Satoshi Kanazawa suggested that fear of death might stimulate a male to want to mate in order to pass on his genetic material one last time, but obviously that wouldn’t apply to females; yet the sex-fear link is at least as strong in us as in men (as evidenced by the enduring fascination of sexualized monsters such as vampires). My personal theory is that in women it’s a defense mechanism evolved to prevent trauma in forced-mating situations where a woman might very well be terrified, but needs to relax and go with the flow so as to minimize injury and maximize the possibility of conception; this idea is supported by the fact that when a woman has sex, the area of the brain stem which controls “fight or flight” response is activated, and activity in the amygdala and hippocampus (which regulate fear and anxiety) is suppressed. This is, of course, exactly the opposite of Todd Akin’s astonishingly ignorant “theory” that biological mechanisms evolved for the convenience and peace of mind of individuals rather than for the continuation of the species.
There’s one final possibility, either an alternate explanation or another, additional factor. Human beings evolved to be risk-takers and novelty seekers; it is the driving force behind our curiosity, the exploratory urge which caused us to spread over the entire globe and our tendency to become bored and dissatisfied with unchanging routines. Most humans are always in search of new experiences, and many seek adventures and thrills even when those thrills are frightening. Horror movies, thrill rides and mind-altering substances give a controlled thrill, the exhilaration of an adrenaline rush without the danger of a real life-or-death situation. And since sex is another “safe” thrill, another stimulus which produces feelings of excitement without the need for “fight or flight”, it may be that the feelings are easily confused by the brain’s limbic system in much the same way as pain and pleasure are in some people. In other words, the intermixture of fear and sexual arousal, like that of pain and pleasure, may simply be an accident of our neurological wiring rather than something which had a specific survival function. But whichever explanation is correct, there is no denying that sex and fear are deeply intertwined, and that attempting to separate them by shame, social engineering or government edict will be just as spectacularly ineffectual as attempting to suppress other human drives, urges and behaviors by those same means.
Hi Maggie,
Have you seen this?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/dozens-of-indonesian-girls-friended-on-facebook-by-men-who-kidnap-use-them-as-sex-slaves/2012/10/29/2468e706-218f-11e2-92f8-7f9c4daf276a_story.html
Anything to this or is this “Backpage Part Deux” starring Charlie Sheen?
There’s a “story” that I’ve heard second hand that was told to my friend by a sex worker in Europe that “trafficked” girls are often abducted, tied up, and raped and beaten repeatedly for 24 hours – being forced to “smile” during every assault or the punishment is worsened.
I don’t know if it’s true – but it does kind of jibe with what this article describes this little girl went through.
Here’s the thing – I don’t think anyone on our side is saying that NO girls (women) are forced into sexual bondage. Speaking for myself – I’d like to rip the esophagus out of these men who are doing it. However, the traffickers have blown the issue out of proportion for political reasons – and it’s these little girls who are sufferning for it because their legitimate problem is completely LOST in a sea of trafficking propaganda, agenda, and obfuscation.
What’s the number of sex slaves the U.S. claims are out there? Something in the tens of millions? There aren’t tens of millions of these little girls.
I think we need to do something about these girls and help them – not just talk about it but bust some heads up. We don’t need a lot of tax dollars to do this – just some big guys, a few helos and some firepower.
Having said all that – FACEBOOK. My 12 year old daughter has an account (which she uses to post fanatical shit about “One Direction” – which is her love of her life at the moment – she even knows the blood types of all the guys in that band) … but I’m “friended” by her and I see everything she does – and anything else that people do. I know who she becomes friends with and, more importantly – she knows that I see all this shit.
Part of the “trafficking” mythology. Take a look at Saturday’s item “Schadenfreude” for an example of how these stories are created by the “rescue industry” in order to justify its existence and promoted by governments as yet another excuse for controlling everyone.
Soooo … safe to say you aren’t buying this sex slave story either? 😛
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraphtv/9637693/Family-of-woman-who-was-raised-by-monkeys-speak-out.html
Did you miss it on Saturday? I even had a monkey picture!
I think you’ve written a very good column here on the basics of human sexuality, Maggie.
I think a lot of people are confused about what exactly is “BDSM” and so the term has a negative meaning to them. Had you asked me, five years or so ago if I had any “BDSM” in me I’d have said “Hell No!” because I don’t enjoy women in latex girdles, hogtied and with clothspins on their nipples.
That’s kind of one of the more extreme areas of “BDSM” though and there’s a lot of shades of grey between that and the sexuality of “pure intent” myth that a lot of people, especially religious types, push.
I think if most people searched inside themselves – they’d find a little “BDSM” living within them. It may not be much – and it may be harmless because most BDSM is harmless. I think a lot of people spend their time running away from it though, or trying to supress it. I know I did for a long time until I started dating a sex worker in the early 80’s. Now, she wanted me to fulfill a rape fantasy – which I just flat out told her I couldn’t do. She backed off the bid though and gave me this … “If I were a slave, would you buy me?” … which – that began a role play that lit a fire in me hotter than the sun.
Afterwards, I was worried and thought I was weird and, one of the “deviants” of society. But my girl, and the fact that it was so much fun … convinced me to say “Fuck It”.
Nice column. Evolutionary psychology is always fun. It consistently throws up plausible (and often totally contradictory) ideas that give us new perspectives on why we do what we do. But the more I read evolutionary biology, the less I find the simple models of evolutionary psychology to be persuasive. The best work on evolution always emphasizes things like: neural plasticity (how the brain wires and rewires in conjunction with the environment); the contingency and complexity of any evolutionary path; the incredible complexity of genes and brains and how they express themselves; epigenetic rules that may lay down principles of development but can be expressed in multitudes of diverse ways. All of this suggests that any evolutionary explanation is, at best, sort of and only sometimes true.
But the evolutionary explanations are still fun because the help us to think in more imaginative ways (such as suggesting and helping us to dig deeper into the link between fear an sex). For example, I am one of many people who very much like Ryan and Jetha’s argument in Sex at Dawn that humans evolved to be promiscuous and that sex is about social bonding as well as reproduction—despite the fact that I find much of their evidence to be weak. I’m much more persuaded by the evidence in Lynn Saxon’s Sex at Dusk that humans evolved with a tendency towards pair-bonding, and that sexual relations were just as likely to have evolved through conflict as through the development of harmony (she also argues for male risk-taking vs. female security-seeking). But Saxon’s book is framed by a weird reluctance to admit that women might enjoy sex, and angry attacks on the morals of Sex at Dawn, which she claims to promote a middle class, male-fantasy world in which men have free access to all women for whom the right to say ‘no’ has been taken away. This is buttressed by severe misreadings of certain passages in Sex at Dawn. She clearly also has a selective bias in her own choice of evidence. (Neither book discusses BDSM, masturbation or homosexuality in any detail.)
So, I’ll stick with Sex at Dawn for now. Their relentless attack on the ‘standard narrative’ of evolutionary psychology reminds us that we always have to take our preconceptions into account. Saxon, on the other hand, seems to exemplify how evolutionary psychology can be used to support a particular status quo (although she claims that Sex at Dawn does exactly the same). My preconception is that the truth surely lies in the direction of much more complex, diverse and flexible possibilities, and Sex at Dawn opens it up a bit more for humans (although Saxon’s descriptions of diverse animal sexualities are very provocative as well).
It consistently throws up plausible (and often totally contradictory) ideas that give us new perspectives on why we do what we do.
Contradictory is not necessarily wrong. If someone says females are attracted to physical power, others may contend that social power is decisive, or financial power, or political power. All of these positions can be right, even simultaneously.
It is beneficial to have more than one survival strategy.
Personally I think it’s all “imaginary science”. I didn’t have a lot of faith in psychology proper – and now that they’re tagging a version of it as “evolutionary psychology” I’m not any more impressed precisely because of the contradictions Unhistoricist brings up.
I believe in evolution because there’s a fossil record of it – it’s hard science. Evolutionary science, though a nice mental exercise – I would never want to use it to make a point because, in the end – most of it is hypothesis. It’s like the torque wrench in the tool box that isn’t calibrated – sure it looks clean and snappy – but do you really want to use it to torque the engine cover on your motorcycle? Use a verified tool.
I skip over the parts where Maggie uses evolutionary psyche to justify something. I like to know how certain things came about – but unless it’s provable I don’t want to engage in the mind exercise of “hypothesis” in order to justify my opinions. In those cases, I just want to KNOW if something exists, or does not exist. I think she established very well the connection between sex and fear using simply the facts.
Todd Akin …
Why is he still getting a bad rap? His crimes are (1) Not being very articulate. (2) Attempting to elaborate on science in an area he’s not really an expert in. (3) Not having the common sense to NOT bring up a useless subject that never has a political upside.
There is no such thing as a “Todd Akin” theory. He doesn’t have one. What he was TRYING to articulate was that, if the rape is violent enough – SOMETIMES the body will miscarriage. It’s well established that miscarriage does occur in dire enough situations involving maternal health, infections, or maternal trauma – and that is the “science” that Akin was attempting to employ in his off the cuff answer to a question he was asked.
My advice to Akin would be to get a teleprompter like a certain other well-known politician who has the brains of a crash test dummy. It worked for him – even during White House Press briefings.
In re: Akin
There’s a vast difference between saying “SOMETIMES the body will miscarriage” and “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”. So much so that Todd Akin later recanted: http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/08/20/todd_akin_walks_away_from_the_female_body_has_ways_of_stopping_rape_related_pregancy_theory.html
In addition, the other thing that people took issue with was the expression “legitimate rape”. What exactly does that mean? What is illegitimate? I want to be snarky and say something about needing empirical research on what the mind & body regard as criteria for legitimacy, but I’ll be content with pointing out that few words pair as poorly as “legitimate” and “rape”. Especially considering “rape and consensual sex have the same pregnancy rate” (http://www.midwesttechnologynews.com/8583/science/here-is-some-legitimate-science-on-pregnancy-and-rape/).
Evolutionary psychology, at least in the popular form, is exactly the same sort of nonsense as social construction psychology–both are
variations of psychological determinism, and both are nonsense.
There are no behavioral genes.This is not to say that genetics doesn’t have an effect on behavior. An example I ran into has to do with alcoholism. It is well known that certain populations have much higher and much lower rates of alcoholism than others. This is genetic but it is not the result of an alcoholism gene. Instead, it turns out that there are genes that determine, among other things, the degree to which alcohol is physically addictive. If you get the good genes, it’s hard to drink enough alcohol to get addicted; if you get the bad ones, it’s all too easy to drink enough alcohol to get addicted. These explain the population statistics, without having to resort to explanations that rely on genes that cause a person to become an alcoholic.
Similarly, there are no genes that say, “if you are afraid, you have to get laid”. Mother Nature might have arranged that fear can cause arousal. But it remains up to the individual whether to translate being horny into wanting, much less having, sex.
The simplest explanation for a evolved trait in males that also affects females without giving them an evolutionary advantage is simply that most genes aren’t sexually distinguished. If that evolved trait didn’t disadvantage females, it could simply be present in females for no better reason than that it is present in males. Sort of like why men have nipples….
Thanks for the article. I occasionally look to play a submissive role, being bound and then played with with a mixture of pain and pleasure. Last week I had a really pleasurable experience with a good American instructor from the West Coast.
I most definitely am looking forward to exploring sex and pain in new encounters.
I encountered the idea that fear of death causes arousal by a desire to make that one last effort to keep the ol’ genetic line going in A Feast Unknown, by Philip Jose Farmer. So there’s nothing new about that.
I think that part of “the dark side of sex” has to do with our culture’s tendency to portray sex as a dark thing. This doesn’t make sex unsexy, or less fun, or less appealing. Instead, it makes the very darkness sexy.
You see the same sort of thing with the way so many people seem to only be able to get truly excited when sex is made especially vulgar and crude. We are so conditioned that “sex is dirty” that dirtiness becomes sexy, and all the words Mommy would’ve slapped you for when you were ten become a turn-on. That’s why Hustler magazine has all the shit jokes.
Certainly there’s more to it than that (some people are turned on by dominance, restraint, pain, and not by crudity), and your “roller coaster” explanation makes as much sense as anything else I’ve read on the subject. But I think the connection is fortified by religiously-motivated (Christian, neofeminist, whatever) attempts to scare our pants off. After all, lack of pants can be pretty sexy. 😉
OK, I screwed up the italicizing there, somehow. Sorry ’bout that, Chief.
No problem. 😉