There are many who would dismiss sexuality as being of little relevance to the way we generally live our lives. In fact, sexual openness and the expression of our sexuality are closely linked to our ability to be creative and the degree to which we are able to make more of ourselves within the context of living in a physical world. Sex on Demand (September 1997) Education of young people in sexual matters is a touchy subject at the best of times. When the young take control of their own sexual education using the seemingly infinite resource of the Internet, then conflicts are certain to arise... Easy come, Easy go (August 1997) The suppression of one's sexuality seems to be a not too difficult task. In so doing, however, we may lose much more than we could ever imagine. The saying 'throwing out the baby with the bath water' comes to mind. Coming Out, Ready or Not (May 1997) Ellen DeGeneres' announcement on her show Ellen and in real life that both her and her character are gay has created a media frenzy in the USA. Why does this matter so much? Sex on Demand (September 1997) Education of young people in sexual matters is a touchy subject at the best of times. When the young take control of their own sexual education using the seemingly infinite resource of the Internet, then conflicts are certain to arise... At a recent conference in the United States, Dr Al Cooper, Staff Psychologist at Stanford University and the Clinical Director at the San Jose Marital and Sexuality Center predicted the next sexual revolution would be generated by the Internet and that the Net would affect sex in a profound way. According to researchers, sex, the most searched for topic on the World Wide Web, is driving the Internet's technological advancement. At no other time in history has such a volume of specific and detailed information pertaining to every permutation of sex and sexuality been so accessible to so many people at such a minimal cost. Sex education at the click of a button is now a reality and for the first time, this power of information is in the hands of everyone with a computer and an Internet connection. The Internet is probably the only media in existence in the world today to provide total freedom of speech, so far. Anyone from huge educational institutions, producing thousands of pages, to the home-user with one or two, can have a web site and no matter what the subject matter, someone out there is writing about it, publishing photographs of it, relating their personal experiences, providing educational resources and free information to the avid 'surfer'. As one would expect, wherever freedom of information is to be found there are those who wish to restrict access to this information and sex on the Internet has many dissenters. Amongst them are countless worried parents who choose to instigate their own form of censorship by way of security software designed to prevent and restrict access to certain types of information liable to be sought out by the curious cyber-child. This kind of protection has its problems, particularly if the parent wishes to encourage the use of the Internet for legitimate research. But more serious in its effects, the denial of knowledge and information frequently leads to the development of obsessive levels of curiosity and sometimes unnatural interest in something that otherwise could have been merely a passing phase. In the normal processes of growing up everyone experiences a natural curiosity about sex. Some of it arises in the way that any other kind of curiosity develops, from the natural desire to know about the world and about people. Much of it however, is derived by how our curiosity is received by the adults around us and by society. For the young person the usual sense of forbidden associated with sex and the tendency for sex to be hidden only serves to increase its mystique and encourage unnatural interest. Even in today's environment of relative freedom and sexual tolerance, sex is not yet regarded as a natural and normal part of human life. Lip service is paid to this notion, but the manner in which people in general relate to matters sexual indicates otherwise. There are of course some exceptions and some interesting consequences arising from these exceptions. In the Netherlands, the Dutch regard sexuality as a healthy and normal part of life for adults and for adolescents. The inclusion of adolescents in itself is interesting, as this is the group that much of the push for greater restriction centers on. Holland has the lowest rates of teenage pregnancy and abortion in the Western World. The rates of incidence there contrast dramatically with the rates shown in New Zealand statistics. New Zealand has an abortion rate of 17.7 abortions per 1000 women. Contrast this with 6 per 1000 of Dutch women. Even more staggering, only 9.2 Dutch 15-19 year olds in 1000 fall pregnant each year compared to the New Zealanders' 50 per 1000 every year. The Dutch attribute these rates to a general attitude of openness and tolerance toward sexuality, particularly in the young, sexuality education and free contraception and high usage of reliable forms of contraception. Considering the fact that the age of consent is now 12 years, these statistics would seem to contradict the expectation of many advocates who tend to claim that more permissiveness leads to more pregnancy and more abortion. It is clear from the Dutch example that responsibility and acceptance is leading to a more healthful and balanced attitude toward sex and the results are being proven by the statistics. It is easy to see then, why Dr Cooper regards the information available on the Internet as being significant enough to precipitate a sexual revolution. Knowledge is power, a cliché, but an apt one. And knowledge leads to more freedom, something that many societies are trying to discourage. This is strongly reflected in the efforts of countries like East Timor, China, Burma and Singapore having tried and failed to restrict the flow of information now available to ordinary citizens across the phone lines. Attempts to censor news and other information have been thwarted by people calling outside the country to alternative servers in order to receive uncensored material. Governments are beginning to realize that even the most sophisticated kind of telephone monitoring system cannot beat the direct telephone access that low orbit satellites can provide to the home user. In a recent report a British firm projected that 38 million European households will be able to connect their personal computers with modems to the Internet by the year 2001. That's just a few years away. We are on the brink of an information revolution even the most powerful governments in the world cannot control, let alone the average parent or teacher. More sexual knowledge and more sexual freedom has the potential to affect change to the whole structure of society itself, transforming the way in which we all relate to our world. But contrary to what many might imagine will be the effects of greater freedoms, it is unlikely that a more liberal access to sexual information will lead to more depravity and perversion. If the Dutch example is anything to go by, it is likely to encourage more social responsibility, a more confident youth population and consequently introduce more freedom into the lives of individuals living in an ever-changing world. If we ignore the Dutch example and direct our scrutiny in a slightly different direction, statistics concerning Internet addiction might provide some explanation for the growing fears in some circles that sex on the Internet will lead to more sexual inadequacy and the isolation of the individual. A United States study indicated that pathological Internet users are not looking for information but for "social support, sexual fulfillment and the ability to create a persona." Pittsburgh psychologist Kimberly Young found that respondents to her survey of 396 internationally dispersed Internet users saw sex on the net as a way of playing out erotic fantasies and novel sexual acts via the Internet and as a safe sex method of achieving gratification without the risk of disease. Thirty five percent of her subjects used Internet chat rooms and 28% took part in interactive on-line fantasy games. She makes the point that these avenues can be very appealing to "people whose real lives are interpersonally impoverished". The difficulty with research of this nature is that these kinds of statistics tend to be used by vested interest groups to justify the call for greater access restrictions for the young but are not generally representative of a typical example. The important distinction is the fact that this study was carried out with a sample of pathological Internet users, not a typical sample of average citizens. And if an individual is pathological about anything it should not be held up as a reflection of the norm. If a person has an exaggerated interest in sex or anything else, it is likely to indicate some other kind of problem and chances are that the gratification of the urge will be sought not only on the Net, but wherever it is available. The availability of sex on the Internet undoubtedly cannot be held responsible for causing obsessive behaviors. Obsessive behaviors may well be serviced by the Internet but they are indicative of deeper personal issues. Regardless of the fact that there will always be individuals who choose to use any new technology for questionable purposes, there are large numbers of young people with a genuine requirement for reliable and sound sexuality information - a requirement which is not being satisfied via the usual avenues. Perhaps it is the agenda of those who oppose the availability of sex information not to oppose the access to sex per se, but to take exception to the growing freedom granted to the modern youth. It does seem that many objectors are driven by a vested interest not in the preservation of the wellbeing of society, for education will usually always lead to greater responsibility and therefore a healthier and more balanced society, but in the restriction of the young for its own sake. If this is the case, the more forcefully the pendulum is pushed toward restriction and ignorance, more persistent are the forces that pull toward freedom and education. One way or another, society will sort out its own frustrations and it will do so, not in spite of the rise of the information revolution, but because of it. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 1999. All rights reserved. Easy come, Easy go (August 1997) The suppression of one's sexuality seems to be a not too difficult task. In so doing, however, we may lose much more than we could ever imagine. The saying 'throwing out the baby with the bath water' comes to mind. Many psychologists maintain that the expression of human sexuality is fundamental to living a genuinely fulfilling life. Just what is meant by the expression of sexuality is broad ranging and may or may not refer solely to the sexual act itself but indeed might encompass anything from affection to creativity, to a general state of openness. Whatever the interpretation, sexuality is without doubt a significant subject and one that cannot possibly be summarized in the course of one article alone. It is interesting however to explore the links between the healthful expression of sexuality and the indirect benefits it produces in other areas of life. The importance of place assumed by sexuality seems to extend beyond the obvious physical gratification of the individual, which in reality seems to be only a small part of its significance in our lives. The expression of sexuality, or lack of it, impacts upon everything we do. A simple way to prove this would be to imagine the human individual as a sexless being and note the changes in behavior, character, personality etc that would probably result. Even if we cannot say for sure what those changes would be, it seems certain that the absence of sexuality would nevertheless produce change of a very dramatic kind. While most of us probably imagine that our sexuality does not make us who we are, the notion of being without sexuality makes an obvious statement that its absence would indeed significantly alter the nature of our personal identity, our sense of who and what we are. And most people would agree that this change, rather than enriching our lives, would very likely leave us with a sense of having become less. Yet if we cannot really define what makes sexuality so important to our nature as people, how do we know that it is important at all? Many counselors will say that the sexual aspect of a relationship is an indication of the wellbeing of the relationship as a whole. They will point out that, normally, the sexual element is the first to go when the relationship is under stress. It seems that within the context of a relationship, while sex and sexuality may not form the basis of the relationship, without the proper expression of it, the relationship will suffer severely. Many people would argue that relationships without the sexual element can be just as happy and content as those where the sexuality of the individuals is expressed freely. And indeed it is possible to live together with another person without obvious disruption or disharmony, in relative contentment. But the suppression of sexuality is not necessarily something that produces overt disharmony or even argument. What it does do however, is to promote the demise of the sense of spirit within the relationship that is often present in its early stages and rarely existent in later years. One researcher likened this loss to the slow death of the person and eventually the relationship. Relationships that suffer the loss of the sexuality of the individuals do not necessarily end in bitter dispute but become destined to a fate much worse. The descent into comfort and separateness is an inevitable product of this denial of one’s sexual nature. Sexuality seems to be one of those forces that are more conspicuous by their absence. The healthful expression of sexuality might simply manifest as happiness, freedom, fulfillment or love. The absence of it is more obviously noticeable as being what it is – an absence of sexuality, and of course the diminished presence of aspects like happiness, especially in the presence of specific individuals. One could easily make a case for life without the conscious recognition of one’s own sexuality, but it would be a case also for the absence of other related expressions of spiritual wellness. For to deny and shut down on one’s sexual nature is to also shut down on one’s ability to feel in a general sense and therefore leads to a reduced ability to experience joy and happiness, love and openness. Sexuality falls into the category of those things that enrich life but that are not necessarily essential, to survival. Obviously the survival of the race depends on the sex act, but then, two individuals open to their own sexuality are not a prerequisite for the sex act to occur and therefore, the advancement of the world’s population does not depend on the open expression of sexuality. Sexuality and the individual’s openness to it can be likened to the individual’s receptivity to creativity. When it exists, it is an enriching force. When it does not, one can survive, but one becomes less as a result. Perhaps then, sexuality, like creativity, is not a physical force, but a spiritual one. The degree to which it is important in the individual’s life might depend on the individual’s comprehension of meaning in his or her life, their direction, the degree to which life might hold a spiritual aspect. Those who hold to the view, whether it is conscious or not, that life is to be endured and survived might not indeed lend much significance to the important role of human sexuality in its power to positively enhance and enrich living. Those who demonstrate a preference for the living of life as being an opportunity to explore and experience and to reach the heights of the human potential for achievement, those who regard life as rather more spiritual in its nature, are more likely to regard sexuality in more respectful terms. Their perception is more likely to include sexuality in the company of aspects such as creativity, sharing and laughter. None of them essential to human survival per se, but all of them essential to happy living. The degree to which we choose to be open to our own sexuality then is dependent on the degree of ambition that exists within us to live a rich and meaningful life. If we hold no sense of ambition to do anything other than to survive as best we can and to get through life as painlessly as possible, there is no requirement for an awareness of, or an openness to, sexuality. If however, our desire for enhancement in life includes the desire also to open ourselves to the vastness of human potential and to live and create with an open heart, then the proper expression of our sexuality, amongst other aspects of spiritual beingness, is absolutely essential. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 1999. All rights reserved. Coming Out, Ready or Not (May 1997) Ellen DeGeneres' announcement on her show Ellen and in real life that both her and her character are gay has created a media frenzy in the USA. Why does this matter so much? Following comedienne Ellen DeGeneres’ recent coming out, 41% of polled Americans (Entertainment Weekly) said they would not let their children watch her show after they found out she was gay. A similar situation occurred in the UK where ratings plummeted when entertainer Michael Barrymore announced that he was bisexual. In both instances the popularity of the shows took a dive once the stars publicly admitted that they were gay. In the golden age of the film era, in the thirties and forties, the big movie studios had more control over their actors and actresses and the media. The extent to which movie moguls went to preserve the illusionary personas of their stars was extraordinary, even in some cases to the extent of arranging marriages in order to prevent the public suspecting anything other than good old-fashioned heterosexuality. It is now known that Rock Hudson, who died of AIDS was a homosexual, apparently an open secret in Hollywood during the time of his popularity but skillfully kept from the public at large until after his death. Cary Grant was also revealed to have been bisexual, although his appeal to women everywhere must have been constantly reaffirmed by his five marriages to famous women. No doubt it is more difficult for the public to come to terms with a gay star who is constantly in the public eye than those old stars of a bygone era. Many of them are now long gone and might only occasionally pop up in a late night television movie. What is more, such was the power of the studio machine, that the fond illusions created in the hearts and minds of the viewing public seem indelibly ingrained and are often difficult to erase. There is also the presence of vested interest where many people would rather continue believing the illusion than acknowledge the reality. But what is the reality anyway? Why is it that when Ellen DeGeneres announces she is gay and is seen at public events with a female lover at her side, viewers reportedly desert her in droves? And these are viewers who obviously gained a lot of pleasure from watching the show before they knew the truth. And even now, when they do know the truth, what do they really know? What is the truth? And can they know it by implication, by what they read and see on TV? Simon Walker, special policy adviser to ex British Prime Minister John Major, said that if everyone in Britain could have met John Major in person, his popularity would have been exceedingly higher. He was implying that the kind of person Major is was not efficiently communicated to the average British voter and that if it had been, Major would have achieved more convincing results. Could the same be said of Ellen DeGeneres? If her viewing public could meet her in person would this be enough to change their perception of her and restore her ratings? This of course can never be proven but it highlights something important. The problem with her ratings lies in the changed perception of her audience towards her. Their perceptions are obviously different now to what they were when news of her homosexuality was not public knowledge. Perception is a curious animal. Most people assume that their perceptions reflect the truth, that they reflect reality. The DeGeneres example proves how much we depend on our perceptions to give our life meaning. If our enjoyment of Ellen depends on her being a heterosexual and if now that we know she is gay we can no longer enjoy the show, then the enjoyment was a fabrication in the first place. If experiences like enjoyment rely on what we know, that is, the workings of our intellect, to find expression then these experiences are not true experiences at all but products of thinking. When we are thinking about something we are not experiencing it. Feeling and thinking are both equally necessary in the course of our lives but we cannot think and feel at the same time. The moment we begin thinking we cease to be consciously aware of emotional and physical stimuli and we lose the ability to experience what is happening to us. Try it. Choose a part of your body and focus your awareness on it. Experience the sensations in that area. Then begin thinking about something, preferably unrelated to the experiment. You might notice that the thinking diminishes the physical sensation until you are no longer aware of the chosen area. It’s also probable that you won’t be aware that you’re not aware of that area. The body has special processes for dealing with the mass of stimuli occurring in our life at any one time. If we were able to think and feel at the same time, imagine the confusion our lives would be. In order to enjoy something we must suspend the processes of thinking about what we are doing and surrender to the experience. Conversely, thinking becomes extremely difficult if we are in extreme pain. When we use intuition we are not accessing the power of thought, but the power of feeling. This is why intuition is often at odds with what we know or think is reality. Often our feeling about something indicates that something is right. When we try to confirm the suggestions of intuition with our thought processes often we will abandon the intuitive information in favor of what our thinking tells us. This of course does not always lead to a successful result. Achieving a balance between the use of our thoughts and the use of our feelings is the true ideal in daily living. Some people regard the influence of the emotions as undesirable; some will say that if we could think less we would live a better life. In fact the presence and working of each of these functions is crucial to our existence and to our ability to prosper in life. An appropriate and harmonious marriage of the two will achieve the optimum results. We asked a group of people to imagine an old friend confiding in them that they were gay and for the group to report on how their perceptions of the relationship changed as a result of the new knowledge. All of them reported that such a revelation would be a shocking occurrence in their lives. No one in the group was what you’d call homophobic; the concern for each of the individuals was that their entire past, present and future with that person would be suddenly transformed. The same perhaps would be the case if the revelation had been something else of an equally significant nature. Nothing in the relationship’s past would be perceived in the same manner, nothing in the perceived future would therefore be as it was before and the uncertain nature of how to relate to the person now would present them with a struggle. Each person recognized that what they ‘knew’ about their relationship with that person would no longer be certain. What we ‘know’ about life and how that influences what we do and what we can and can’t do is one of the greatest obstacles in the way of leading a life of greatness and genuine spirituality. In reality, the fact that Ellen DeGeneres has admitted to being gay hasn’t changed anything – it seems she’s always been gay. And people found her funny before they knew she was gay. Many viewers have undeniably switched off since the revelation and some may have even switched on because of it. Whatever the case, the inspired point of view is to allow our responses, not our thoughts and perceptions to determine our friendships and to seek to give credence to what is in our hearts, not what we create with our minds, to guide us in our love of life and of the people we choose to deem as friends. Wayfarer International, Copyright © John & Melody Anderson, 1997 - 2002. All rights reserved.