Productive and Acceptable Sexuality

My two little boys, both under the age of 3 love to hug and kiss me, is this sexual attraction? Are my sons and I just exchanging “normal” affection and love for one another, or am I being used to fulfill some perverse act of evolving sexuality. Freud says infants have sexuality. Thumb sucking gives infants this gratification and pleasure from their own bodily connection. From then on, a constant evolution of sexuality takes place, until my sons will soon think its gross to kiss mommy. Or at least in front of their friends right?

I had my own theory of evolving child sexuality, I figured it was just the time they walked in on mommy and daddy during that afternoon quickie when the boys should have been napping. Kids minds are like a sponge, so they absorbed a few visuals and now we catch them butt-naked humping the carpet and rubbing their penis’ on almost anything they see fit. Mommy’s boobs seem to be fair game in this Evolving. Squeeze, squeeze, squeeze, smile and squeeze. I don’t recollect ever having that happen in front of them so I assume they saw it on the television. One day they felt what it was like to touch their own penis and now that’s an everyday norm. They go about shamelessly and with no remorse pleasuring themselves with smiles and toddler innocence on their faces. All of these instances weren’t planted from the start, it was more of a trial an error: discovered a part of their bodies (and two of mommies) and tested out what to do with it.

This behavior will more than likely be frowned upon within the next year, maybe two. “They’re too old to be doing that” should be the prompt. Or is it okay as long as nobody sees them? I mean, what is considered an exceptional, social way of sexuality? Additionally is there one for each age group? Right now my kids get naked and touch themselves, a few months ago it was reported on the radio that a 16-year-old masturbated somewhere close to over 60 times in a row and died. Is society sad that a young man lost his life or are they frowning upon him because they are not sexually comfortable with masturbation. I think the people who get most bothered by certain sexual expression like masturbation or flashbacks of infant sexual desire, or anything out of the “societal norm” is because they are experiencing it themselves or in some way can relate. Either way, any thoughts of masturbation being a form of healthy and constructive sexuality may have to be reevaluated.

Healthy and constructive sexuality can have an abundance of definitions, based on culture, gender, sexual preference, laws, a number of things. This article on sexual fetishes and obsessions on lovepanky.com reads that over a century ago Chinese men would get sexually aroused by disfigured feet. Would society see that as acceptable or healthy? I do, it’s not my style but assuming that we all agree on “healthy’ being for pleasure purposes without violating laws, then who are we to judge? Now the visual of how this sexual experience would take place is far more disturbing to me than a naked 5-year-old. My boys have a little more time to sexually evolve as freely as they please before I need to more actively assist in their social normalization. Hopefully nobody will have to stab their eyes out as some form of drastic repression for steps taken along the way. Really Oedipus? So dramatic.

Healthy Sexuality by Leah Manacop

Rule #34 of the Internet: if you can conceive it, there is porn for it.

We like to think of the Internet as the universal archive of information, the paragon of human intellectual hunger when in  reality some of our other voracities have crept and thrived in this public domain. In a society where leather, she-males, phallic-phillias, and fanged vulvas float omnipresent about our collective psyches, we still believe that there is such a thing as healthy sexuality- a straight and narrow path that transcends the appeal of voyeuristic videos and ousts all deviant acts that stretch a rogue limb out of Missionary Position.

As a member jilted and unsatisfied by pop/lock copulation, I’ve come upon my own definition of healthy sexuality- it’s that which is completely devoid of the acquisition, reclamation, or retribution of power; pleasure for pleasure’s sake alone.

But from a patriarchal perspective where sex and power are conjoined at the hip like some disfigured set of identical twins, does this even exist? Sex is used to fill an emotional void, as revenge, as a sublimation for violent hatred, as an exertion of dominance and conquest; in short, an act that doesn’t satisfy our carnal urges but validates the self by silencing the whimper as human as genital desire itself that tells us we are not enough.

When sex is linked with power, any disruption in the norm leads to distorted skews into destructive behavior– Norman Bates saw his mother as his only sexual outlet and when she chose to redirect her affections toward another individual, he felt as if he were losing personal power and prompted to murder his rival and said outlet. The broader interpretation of Oedipus taps into every boy’s desire to overthrow his father, claiming his right to power by repossessing the patriarch’s chosen mate.

When sex and power are linked, it becomes parasitism whereas sex for pleasure’s sake promotes emotional connection and self awareness. When a person is finally able to separate their self-image from sex, they can begin to flourish and develop their own conductive healthy sense of sexuality.

Psycho

After watching the film Psycho and having class discussions I felt very bothered by the film. It made me feel uncomfortable just because I have never heard of such thing. A man living a double life; his own life being Norman and then being his mother as well. However it is understandable since Norman did go through some dramatic events as a child and didn’t fully go through the development phases that being at an early age and continues all the way up to the teenage stage which helps them to eventually let go of their parents. We can clearly see that Norman did not go through the different phases since he did not let go of his mom but rather became her to a certain extent.

Another thing that really bothered me was that he was sexually attracted to Marion but he does not hit on her but instead he peek at her through his peek hole. Because he was attracted I think he felt that the attraction would take his mother’s place thus his mother side of her took over him and killed her. It was very odd of her to kill her in a very vulnorable state butt naked in the shower. I feel that since Norman was attracted to her sexually killing her butt naked would kill her outer beauty away given her cuts all over her body. However thinking of Norman I feel that he a sense he knew that he was killing her because he and his mother side of him decided to kill her in the shower butt naked thus making me believe that he wanted to see her naked since he only got to see her without a shirt on through the peek hole.

Over all the film was great and I actually thought that the main character was going to be Marion and not Norman. It had a very weird twist to it in the end however, I would have liked to see a little bit more about Norman’s life and what events made him be the way he turned out.

Jeannette Cazares