Sunday, February 23, 2014

The Role of Permission in Sexual Arousal

Something I've noticed- in order for someone's sexual arousal to be considered an acceptable physiological state, the other person involved has to be okay with it.  Which is strange, if you think about it.  One person being physically aroused by another without their consent is largely a victimless crime, yet the perpetrator is considered a deviant, a pervert, or just plain creepy (unless the person acts on their impulses without consent, of course).  

From a female perspective, an attractive male making sexual advances could be interpreted  positively as confidence, while the exact same advances made by an unattractive male could be interpreted as creepiness.  Why? Because in one situation the woman is okay with it, in the other she's not.  And of course, I think the same would be true if you switched the genders in this scenario.  Yes, it is possible for straight males to be made uncomfortable by female sexual advances, believe it or not.

I think this phenomena can account for a large portion of the homophobia that exists in our current public discourse.  Some heterosexuals dislike the idea of a homosexual being aroused by them, a situation in which the homosexual does not have their permission.  Many opponents of allowing homosexuals in the military, for example, talk openly about how mixing homosexuals and heterosexuals in intimate settings like communal living quarters/bathrooms worries them that the homosexual will be inherently aroused by the heterosexual, without their permission.  No physical acts may even take place (or enter into the discourse of the debate), but simply the possibility of arousal is discomforting enough that people fought to keep don't ask don't tell in place.

I think this also accounts for why things like flashing (especially by males) is an actual criminal offense.  While the victim may not actually physically touched or actually hurt in any capacity, the flasher has committed a transgression by not first obtaining the victim's consent (implicit or explicit). One presumes that there might exist some attractiveness threshold, above which the victim (audience?) would be okay with the flashing and thus not offended (NOTE TO READERS: DO NOT ATTEMPT).  I suppose this would be why strippers are okay while flashers are not- their actual activities are pretty darn similar, the main difference being the consent of their audience, which is enough for one to be legal and the other illegal.

I'm not sure why this exists.  It might have to do with the idea of objectification- it is both demeaning and deeply unsettling to be viewed purely as an object of sexual gratification rather than as a person.  Imagine the mindset of a rabbit walking into a room of hungry foxes trying to restrain themselves- its along those lines.  I usually try to end these with some sort of advice or opinion on the subject, but I don't really have any.  Just remember: CONSENT IS REALLY IMPORTANT.