Essay: Sex is control says talk Radio

The title is to get your attention, but I have put much thought into this, so I hope to make its read well worth your time.

I will explain how the host of a talk show has suggested sex is to be used for trade and barter. By making this analogy that sex is a commodity, I will demonstrate how, to her, (the talk show host), that sex IS control. They are equal in her model. I will explain how it can therefore be interpreted that both homosexual and pedoseuxal activity is a threat to this social construct of control, and domination over men. I will continue to explain how even in the absence of sexual activity, that there remains paranoia surrounding adult/child friendships merely on the fear of losing control. Because control is the thing to be had by parents or adults, child/adult friendship demonstrate a threat mealy on the basis of potential loss of control. Based on this theory I will elucidate in this post, (that sex and control are the same thing to adults with these values), so to believe adult/child relations are about control is merely a transference of how they practice their sexual business in their lives. I will finish by showing how this is connected to disapproval of child/adult relations, why we are a threat to them, and therefore subjected to their intolerance.

It was this week, that I was listening to Dr Laura, if you are not familiar she is a radio personality who identifies as a socially conservative, and now also orthodox Jew. Christian, Jew, it isn't relevant. She is now 63, and has written several New York Times best sellers on relationships. Some things she said on her broadcast I found quite disturbing, but they got me thinking...

The situation: She had a woman call in who said she was dating someone for a couple of months, and they had already been sexually active. Dr Laura made it clear she was against this for several reasons including, but not limited to:
1. It was not much time from meeting him
2. She (the caller) would be unable to tell if the man just wanted sex if she was already having it with him
3. It was hedonistic

An impressive list considering she usually has one word answers for people's life-problems.

It is clear from these 3 points that she views sex is certainly not something to be done casually, or 'just for fun'. What motivation is behind her holding these beliefs?

Of key importance, she elaborated by saying:

a) That she was putting prostitutes out of business (Yes, Dr Laura said this.)
b) she was not acting in a honorable manner to other woman, "sisterhood", by 'giving it away'.

In a) and b) she was actually saying that men used to have to pay for sex, and by just giving it away, she was weakening the collective power all women could have over men by not having sex with them. This is where the concept in popular culture of being a whore, or a slut, comes from. That just having sex with whom you desire makes you lesser in the eyes of other woman because you have given away some of the gold for free. A dishonorable, shameful act.

I could continue with this to suggest that it is a primary social/cultural reason why girls experience sex more negatively than men. For when a man has sex he has won the game, while likely to a woman, it may mean she has lost the game. The game being of control. If she had sex outside of the religious ideal of marriage, or at least if she doesn't get something of value for "giving up herself", then she indeed has lost the game in the eyes of her female peers. And when children who may have had sexual experiences with adults learn of this, it is another opportunity for them to feel shameful. They can add it to the "sex is wrong" shame, but I propose that part of the reason there is a message that is sex is wrong in the first place is because of this notion that it is to be used as a tool for personal gain, not pleasure.

When they learn that what they have done, the practice of having sex because they want to, instead of using it as a control mechanism, their shame from other woman makes them feel bad about their identity. They are taught it is not something that they are suppose to desire. So Dr Laura thinks sex is supposed to be used to control men, to get them to do what women want, and if a woman does not first manipulate and use "her man" to get what she wants, using sex only as a reward for a job done to the master's liking, then she is being dishonorable to other woman, and should be seen shamefully in their eyes. For giving up the self in bed would mean loss of the value, you can't just flood the market and expect to get the same out of men! In order to have control over them, it must be in short supply. By having casual sex she is lessening the control that not 'putting out' gives women over men, collectively.

This logic lead me to conclude that the intolerance of adult/child relations stems from the religious views of sexual expression only acceptable exclusively within marriage between a grown man and woman who are committed to each other, and any other form not valid because it doesn't conform to the ability to be controlled, used as a commodity. For the sake of my argument, committed to each other can be substantiated by, using one another for personal gain. The man gets sex, and the woman gets whatever she needs otherwise. Religious devout may see or categorize any sexual expression outside of this as sin, or an abomination. This notion is certainly no stranger to any homosexual in modern society, whom are called an abomination by anti-gay activists with great frequency. For if a gay man can get sex from any man with little commitment, then no longer can a woman hold it above his nose, making him droll, and forcing him to do tricks like a dog before getting his treat. We shame children if they act sexual or masturbate as well, and with what fear in mind? That they are learning sex is pleasure, and if they learn this, then how can an adult control them any longer?

While a homosexual couple does not confirm to their standard, likewise neither does an intergenerational relationship, between child and adult. Even when sex is obviously not present in the child/adult friendship, it does not seem to matter. The paranoia about adult/child relations exists because sex is equated to control. So even if there is no sex, far of losing control over the child leads to fear of the relationship. And of course, any expression of sex in that relationship would be seen as controlling and abusive by an outside adult because their value and reference is that sex is a control tool. We only need to take a simple leap from sex to control and power, to see why it is that love, romance, or just good friends, between children and adults is threatening to the parents of the child. If a child is to have admiration for an older adult other than the parent, then the monopoly of the parents has just been lost, and no longer can total domination be made unto the child by the parents. This is why minor attracted people are a threat, essentially because we are perceived as undermining the control that parents and other adults have over children.

Dr Laura's firm shameful distaste for this lady's decision open sexual relations outside of marriage showed me that in her mindset sex was about control and domination. So it should seem no surprise that is how socially conservative (and more) classify adult/child relations. They villainize it as about control, perhaps for no other reason than because that is what it means to them in their adult world. Whoever is 'getting some' must be doing something right to have that control.

So, as I have proposed, the controversy to them exists even when sex is not involved, perhaps because of the perceived dangers remaining by losing control over the child. (Remember, sex=control to them.) If a minor is to find another adult that sees value in them, advocates for their best interest, and finds them special in many more ways, this can be seen a major threat to the parent, because losing control over the child can equates to losing power over them, and lack of authority. For other parents, it may threaten glory and greatness that parent wants to live through their child's excellence. (Example, the "Look how well my child did at this that and the other thing.") Lastly, if they do not accept any adult-child friendship as good, it may be because they themselves do not view substantial value in the child, so do not see what there is to appreciated, and therefore conclude it must be inappropriate; about control personal gain for the adult in the relationship. Again, they are projecting their views onto us.

Essay: Sex is control says talk Radio - explained