Originally posted by: return_to_hades
@cineraria
Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective on culture and India's aversion to certain aspects of sexuality.
My questions were not merely an inquiry on cultural morality, but also into the rational basis of morality as well. Not merely adhering to a value because society/culture/religion says it is so; but trying to see if it makes sense to do so.
The irony of touting "Indian Culture" of one that is modest, sexually reticent and conservative is that all these cultural norms are "colonial imports". Considering some of the recent posts hostile towards colonialists (rightly so), it is further more ironic to see people clinging to sexual mores an attitudes that the colonial rulers forced upon us. That we reject cultural and historical legacy because the conquerers and missionaries told us that our history and legacy was sinful, shameful and wrong. If one looks closely at the history of India the attachment of sin to sexual desire and expression, the shaming of nudity comes with the Muslim conquerers and Colonizers. Pre-conquest India was a lot more sexually and socially liberal compared to modern India. I'll delve into the cultural history of India and the place of sexuality, if people have doubts or concerns.
For now I want to focus on the rational approach to morals surrounding nudity and sex.
The nude human body is not sexual or immodest. It is just the natural state of being. Sexualization is in the eyes of the beholder. Our society has made the nude human body perverse and sexual. It is society that has stripped it of the innocence of the natural state applying arbitrary rules of morality and modesty.
Context matters. Until and unless the body is an act or state of sex, it is not sexual.
- There are several tribes still in existence that live nude, semi-nude or in clothing that may seem skimpy for civilized society. They are not in a constant state of turn on because of nudity. The body just is.
- Jain monks often live in the nude to be in natural state. Images and idols of Mahavira and Bahubali are often nude. This nudity is on public display. In addition several sadhu sects also live in the nude. The nudity is natural and spiritual, not sexual.
- Across the globe, across time and across cultures nude art has always existed. Not all nude art is perceived as erotica. Nudes are often just an artistic expression of the natural human body.
- ESPN publishes a body issue that features several nude athletes. Unlike Sports Illustrated covers which are often titillation the body issue is revered because it celebrates the body of the athlete - the effort they have put into sculpting their body, building the muscle, creating the shape and form to achieve success in a physical endeavor. That is why Greek Olympics were played in the nude.
There are several other situations that involve nudity. Turkish bathhouses and saunas have historically had nude patrons. Many locker rooms have open showers. Medical exams require nudity. In many settings such as immigration, military etc there is en masse nudity as the physical examiner goes around the room checking people. Most European film boards even the more conservative Turkish and Israeli boards allow full frontal nudity in PG-13 cinema.
That is why nudity in itself is not inherently immoral or wrong. Of course since our social perceptions are so ingrained in us, it is always jarring and difficult to accept nudity. It will take decades, if not centuries to revert our sensibilities and not sexualize the human body. At the same time there is absolutely no reason to look down upon someone who is willing to engage in some form of nudity. There logically is nothing wrong or harmful in nudity.
Interestingly enough even in the biblical narrative Adam and Eve were nude in innocence. It is when Eve bites the apple and loses innocence that they learn to feel body shame and cover themselves.
Coming to the issue of sex.
One of the biggest misconception about sex is that conservative societies that have strict sexual codes preventing pre-marital sex, view sex as taboo have the least issues like teenage pregnancy and STDs.
Teenage pregnancy rate (birth and abortion per 1000) in USA is 85.8 ; in India it is 116.1. I don't consider USA as sexually progressive or modern. Sexually progressive nations have much lower rates Netherlands is 11.6, Belgium is 15.1, Sweden is 25.4, France is 22.6. These nations are doing much better than India or USA. In conservative Catholic societies of South America the rate can be as high as 180.0. In Sub Saharan Africa some parts are as high as 500. [WHO DATA] 50% of the world's teenage moms come from 7 countries Bangladesh, Brazil, DR Congo, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria and United States. Zooming in on the statistics in United States, progressive and liberal states in New England have teenage pregnancy rate of 20. But when you go to the Bible belt states that number is 90+. [CDC]
When it comes to STD a similar pattern emerges in USA. New England averages at 200 per 1000 adults. Bible Belt can hit almost 700 per 1000 adults. [CDC All STI]. When it comes to AIDS African countries have the highest rates (% of adult population inflicted with AIDS) with South Africa at 19.05%. India at 0.3% is better than USA 0.6%. But when we go to the sexually progressive European nations the statistics are less than 0.2% or insignificant. [CIA]
According to WHO and most sexual health experts what is needed to prevent STDs and teenage pregnancy is
- comprehensive sexual education that educates people on all the risks and precautions. One that provides information on condoms, birth control, STD screening etc along with abstinence
- social openness to sex that allows curious teenagers and youth to seek out responsible knowledgeable adults to have frank open discussions on their sexual questions
Shielding youth from all matters of sex and sexuality will not raise healthy safe adults unless they have the knowledge and resources to protect themselves and others. Similarly exposing youth to all matters of sex and sexuality will not raise healthy safe adults unless they have the knowledge and resources to protect themselves and others. It is not conservative or liberal values that lets youth wait till the right time, use discretion and precaution it is knowledge and resources to do so.
Coming to sex itself. Sex is a natural act that serves multiple purposes. Other than procreation it serves both as a physically enjoyable experience as well as an emotionally bonding experience. There is absolutely nothing wrong in having sex for procreation, recreation or emotion as long as it is between consenting adults of sound mind. Of course safety and discretion is important too. Unprotected sex is immoral as it puts yourself and others at risk of STDs. Indiscretion is immoral as well as it causes emotional and psychological harm. You shouldn't make false promises of commitment to have sex. You shouldn't break the promises of commitment to have sex.
That is why there is no logical reason to look down upon someone who has sex unless they engage in sex with a minor, without protection, or by cheating. There is no logical reason to look down upon any expression of sexuality be it a tastefully done lovemaking scene in a movie or graphic hard core po*n as long as it has been appropriately rated. There is nothing logically wrong in talking about one's nipple or c***oris or penis - it is just a part of the body like the eyes, hair, nose, toes.
Tying it to the topic. It doesn't matter if Kalki was assaulted by an adult or had consensual sex as a curious child. A child is not emotionally, intellectually or morally mature to make sound decisions. Childhood sex acts cannot be logically held against the morality of a person. As I mentioned earlier willingness to do nudity is not immoral or wrong, even if done in a sexual context - the movie is appropriately rated. There is nothing wrong in speaking about a nipple and saying it was the wrong color, it is akin to saying I wore the wrong shade of foundation and it horribly clashed with my make up. It is our minds that makes the nipple a big deal in comparison to the face.
To me morality is not about culture, it is about logic. I believe in a great deal of sexual liberty not because I am American, because it is logical. I significantly clash with American culture on sex as well as a plethora of cultural aspects - such as gun culture, appropriation, accent privilege, work ethic and a lot more. Whether parents let their kids loose and lay no restrictions, or whether they raise their kids on a tight leash, whether they think a PG-13 movie with sex is OK or whether they think a PG-13 with slight sexual innuendo is a big no no - is a personal parenting choice - there is really no right or wrong. My concern is whether they equip their children with information and resources to make the right sexual decisions. Similarly, personal and cultural morals shouldn't be universal. Whether to be a virgin until marriage or have a sexually active non committal lifestyle is a personal choice, there is no right and wrong, to each their own. No one should judge the other as wrong. Sex within marriage can be immoral too if it is unsafe, non consensual or underage. Sex outside of marriage (pre-marital and unmarried, NOT extra-marital) is also immoral if it is unsafe, non consensual or underage. Culture is relative. Logic is universal.
1