Commonly in our society, as well as in college life, certain distinct roles are delegated to individuals. We are often forced between conforming or not conforming and becoming a social outcast. When dealing with sex, this is no exception.
Popular culture and rightist puritanical ethics, in their endless tug-of-war, have sought to subtly and patently command opposite choices when dealing with this expression of innate human sexuality. Both sexual extremes, whether it is abstention from sex until marriage or anonymous promiscuity, are surrounded by a whirlwind of outlandish claims.
Both sides strictly advocate their own views, making it hard to distinguish which is a better choice. However, people must understand these are not the only possible selections. Either extreme represents a fundamentally self-destructive view.
Culturally, the United States is male-dominated and promotes only specific displays of sexuality. These aspects combine to have the synergistic effect of having a culture in which people are conditioned to degrade themselves and each other.
The masculine dominance aspect, coupled with predisposed gender roles, serves to demonstrate how both sexes are beguiled into swallowing the notion that vacant exchanges of bodily urges are not only an acceptable standard, but the gold standard.
Men are encouraged to have casual relations with as many women as possible in order to prove their sexual prowess, with the underlying premise being that their value as a man is defined by their ability to seduce women.
Women, on the other hand, are caught in the crossfire between the superimposition of opposing ideals, one being the chaste saint and the other being the vivacious vixen. This diametric opposition produces the double-standard where if women are unabashed philanderers they are categorized as ""sluts,"" yet if they choose to abstain they are ""prudes.""
Any cultural substructure that rests on validation through such superficial means ultimately devalues the individual and seeks to make people mundane carbon copies, completely stripped of the ability to make these important decisions for themselves. Both men and women leaning on this cultural foundation as a means to legitimize themselves are left figuratively and literally screwed.
Nonetheless the parochial alternative known as abstinence is not particularly beneficial either. Evangelical views deem out of wedlock sex to be ""evil"" and these views only heap guilt and repression onto their followers in order to keep them loyal.
Furthermore, repression of any kind only breeds resentment and is not conducive to constructive behavior. In studies conducted to explore the effects of sexual repression, the results have pointed to increased levels of aggression. Psychologist J.M. Prescott concluded that societies that prohibit premarital sex have higher rates of belligerent criminal behavior.
Additionally, a dogma entrenched in shame-ridden denial in dealing with sexuality is intrinsically damaging because it seeks to make people feel guilt over something they do not have control over. It solicits them to renounce their instinctual desires in order to follow some unrealistic principle.
There are other options besides these two stratified models that only end up subjugating their followers. There is no need to blindly chase what some institution tells us to. Essentially both importune the negation of freedom of genuine expression in an attempt to enslave us in their inherently destructive ideologies.
Ultimately, sex is a personal decision that ideally is made independently of other social and cultural underpinnings in order to have the best possible experience. Anyone who tells you otherwise is sadly a product of this oppressive system.
