|
The rumored case of the president's sexual affairs has brought a good deal of the country to its knees (some on pads and some on nails) to press our faces to the window of our standard-bearing role model, and pronounce him fit or finished.
But "what if it's all a lie?" some say. Aren't we all going to be ashamed of ourselves?
I for one will feet reluctant to apologize for imagining the worst. The reason these sexual issues are so compelling is because they ring so true to life. A great many Americans
are gasping for air, wishing someone powerful would show what kind of integrity is possible in one's own love life; what a lover's ethic could be.
Who among us hasn't been rocked by a romantic triangle, confronted with the agony of consequences set in action by the painful truth -- or a risky lie. I've been in all three rotten corners of that triangle myself: the lover who pursued her desire at all costs, the object of that desire, and the one who felt betrayed by the pursuit.
In each case, whether I chose secrecy or confrontation, I did so without a net. There was no consensus by which my peers or family judged my actions, only the situation itself.
Oh sure, I know what my culture's "moral standards" are: a virtual cheesecloth of "Just Say No" incantations. I know the law on sex, seldom invoked but oppressive as ever, which criminalizes some of the very things that Linda Tripp accuses Bill Clinton of doing in his Oval Office: sodomy and adultery.
What wouldn't I give for a guy with veto power to get up and say, "You know, one thing I've learned from this awful mess is that we must decriminalize sex between consenting adults. " Now that would take some honesty, not to mention balls.
When was the last time a political leader came forward to say it's important to affirm the freedom of erotic association and choices?
They won't do it because sexuality is what they shame their opponents with. They are chickenshit and duplicitous, and if ethics have anything to do with action, there's your hallowed "moral standard."
Clinton will never tell everyone to fuck off and mind their own business because he does think it's everybody's business -- he's criticized and censured the sexual behavior and opinions of others for his entire political career. It's not only some nasty compromise he's made, he believes in it. He believes in sin, and Madonnas and whores; he believes sexual pleasure will lead you astray. He bought the compost heap and now he's lying in it.
If Clinton were a born-again feminist instead of a Christian Goody Two-shoes, he
would recognize that he is being humiliated for his sexuality. The presidency itself is being made out to be a floozy. Maybe if Bill talked to a few professional whores, he'd get a glimmer of what it's like to be disciminated against for your sexuality every day of the week. But Bill doesn't have the first clue about that. His own chauvinism is handing him the rope.
So let him hang -- but what about the rest of us? Many of us are clear on the kind of sexual politics we'd like to support in public life, but we're still utterly lost when it comes to our own private twisting and turning.
We lie with gallantry to protect someone's feelings or reputation, we lie with pragmatism to save face, we lie in fear to avoid conflict, and we lie in loyalty -- or at least to keep the appearance of a promise. Underneath those sympathetic emotions, however, we lie to maintain control.
If you lie to your lover to protect his/her feelings, you are first and foremost protecting yourself from his/her reaction: anger, disappointment, indifference, whatever. If your beloved learns what you are up to, then s/he will be able to react, and you will not be able to control the story.
The not-so-noble reason people lie about sex is less complex. Sometimes we don't report an occasional one-night stand because we consider it unimportant. I remember one time a woman who had an encounter with my lover approached me in the park, saying, "Don't you want to talk about this? Didn't he tell you?"
Yes, he told me, and not to be rude, but I forgot about it. He had fun, it was nice, but it didn't change our lives. As a veteran of open relationships, I've learned that while some affairs create unbearable jealousy and insecurity, others just don't have that punch. Maybe you have other fish to fry -- and I think Hillary understands me on this one.
There's a difference between secrecy -- hiding significant information -- versus privacy, which is our right to maintain a level of existence that isn't constantly orbiting around our mate. Secrecy devastates relationships, but privacy enhances them because it distinguishes us and resists the urge to merge.
I know what I've just described may sound "unnatural" to some. Most Americans I talk to act as if monogamy is God's natural law -- that's what most of the world thought about slavery for centuries as well. Modern monogamy is a combination of our natural tendency to “pair up," chilled by a heavy dose of property right -- "YOU BELONG TO ME" -- which suppresses our equally natural desire for sexual variety....
If the president lies about his sexual affairs and he is hiding significant information from the nation or his wife, he will not find a lasting peace. I know that in the short term, his denial feels like a huge relief to millions of secretive Americans who don't relish discussing intimate problems. Out damn spot! Can't he -- and we -- just go to work on time and leave
sex out of it?
Uh, no, not actually, because sex is going to come up behind you and bite you on the ass -- and the harder you deny it, the deeper the mark.
If a president were truthful, and that truth questioned our hypocritical "standards," it would signal the revolution I've longed for. But the sexual revolution has never been led by the government -- it's the last to respond and the first to defend the most degrading status quo. Only those in the trenches of lust, unfettered by political opportunities, can test
honesty, respect privacy, and honor our commitments without false pretenses. Mr. President, where's an army of lovers when you need them?
-- Susie Bright
|
