The Sacredness of Desire
Power dynamics, the fungibility of preferences, and intuitions around the primacy of desire
Sex is explicitly described as sacred within Christianity, and traditional cultures generally permit sex only between married individuals and ideally for the purpose of procreation. The ubiquity with which sex has been imbued with special significance and strictly regulated across cultures reflects its value for reproduction and as a source of pleasure and connection as well as its significant inherent risks, particularly for women. As we’ve progressed technologically we’ve reduced some of the most material risks associated with sex: pregnancy, through both contraceptives and safe and accessible abortions, and disease, through the improvements of modern medicine generally.
As technology advanced in these areas the cultural norms around sex began to liberalize as a result of broader cultural trends as well as in response to the technology itself. And as the material and social costs of sex were lowered, particularly for women, the amount of sex outside of marriage rose1 and the traditional, sanctity-based, arguments against vices like pornography and sex work were left resting on weaker foundations. Still, even without concerns related to sanctity, pornography and sex work were industries that used the bodies of women, often vulnerable women, to create pleasure for men.
On the one hand feminists desired to protect women and their sexuality from degradation by patriarchal men, but this ran the risk of recapitulating the sexual repression of traditional Christian-American culture. And on the other hand, they desired to liberate women (and later gay people, kinksters etc.) to sexually express themselves without shame, but this ran the risk of serving up vulnerable women to the excesses of toxic male sexual desires through the vehicle of capitalistic profiteering. This tension led to the feminist “sex wars” or “porn wars” of the 1980s. Amia Srinivasan describes the conflicting views of sex embodied in this internal conflict in her essay Talking to my Students about Porn2:
The intensity of the “porn wars” is more understandable when you bear in mind that porn came to serve, for feminists of an earlier generation, as a metonym for “problematic” sex in general: for sex that took no account of women’s pleasure, for sadomasochistic sex, for prostitution, for rape fantasies, for sex without love, for sex across power differentials, for sex with men. Pornography thus became not just one contested question among many in a new politics of the personal, but a lightning rod for two conflicting views of sex. The “anti-sex” view was that sex as we know it is a patriarchal construct—an eroticization of gender inequality—from which there can be no true liberation without a revolution in relations between men and women. Short of this, separatism, lesbianism, or abstinence were (at best) the only emancipatory options. On the “pro-sex” view, women’s freedom required a guarantee of women’s right to have sex when, how, and (subject to the other party’s consent) with whom they liked, without stigma or shame. While contemporary feminism—in its insistence on women’s right to sexual pleasure and consent as the sole boundary of permissible sex—has largely taken up the pro-sex perspective, many feminists still feel the pull of an older, more circumspect approach to sex. To them, sex once more appears to be in need of revolutionary transformation. In this sense, the worries that animated the porn wars are still with us.
The feminist sex wars began in the early 80s with the mainstream, as embodied in particular by the figures of Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon, on the anti-sex side. However, by the late 90s, as Srinivasan suggests above, the pro-sex movement had largely won (although, as she also notes “the worries that animated the porn wars are still with us” as evidenced by the rise of anti-porn sentiment among newly relevant right-wing feminists). The feminists on opposing sides of the sex wars certainly held different beliefs with respect to the expected harms and benefits of particular forms of sex and sexual expression, but they also held different views on the sacredness of sex—in particular, in terms of the the degree to which sex ought to be “set apart” from normal, non sacred things.
lists 62 reported correlates of sacredness, drawn from various other sources which he sorts into seven categories: it is valuable, we show that we see it, it unites us, it is set apart (from mundane things), it is idealized, we ‘feel’ rather than ‘think’ it and touching makes and shows it (i.e. it rubs off on things). From these I selected the correlates which I felt were most relevant to how many, including many secular people, reveal that they view sex as sacred.It is valuable
1 - We want the sacred “for itself”, rather than as a means to get other things.
We show that we see it
14 - We enjoy sacrificing for the sacred, to purify & respect sacred, including via odd beliefs.
15 - We feel reluctant to feel sacred joy, awe, etc. if we have not sufficiently earned it.
21 - We have rules regarding how to approach sacred stuff, in part to protect us.
It unites us
25 - We want our associates to share our views of and attachment to the sacred.
26 - We get offended when others seem to deny our sacred views, and oft respond strongly.
It is set apart
33 - Sacred things are sharply set apart and distinguished from the ordinary, mundane.
35 - Re sacred, we fear a slippery slope, so that any compromise leads to losing it all.
36 - We dislike mixing sacred and mundane things together.
37 - We dislike money prices of sacred, & trades to get more mundane via less sacred.
In particular, as I suggested above, almost all of the correlates grouped under “it is set apart” are particularly relevant here. But while many people continue to maintain that sex should not be sullied by practicalities or compromise or money, pro sex feminists sometimes go as far as to represent sex work, the explicit trading of sex (sacred) for money (mundane), as empowering. At the same time, they see age-gap, wealth-gap, fame-gap, or any other gap that can be seen as creating a significant power differential relationships as problematic, because under these conditions consent is potentially “complicated”. But what does it really mean to say that these conditions complicate consent?
In thinking about this question I decided to look into what the legal reasoning is which motivates statutory rape laws. Statutory rape laws are often understood to criminalize nonforcible sexual activities between adults and teenagers under the age of consent. While the existence of an “age of consent” implies that a minor cannot really consent, these laws still differ from laws against child sexual abuse, which do not consider a difference between forcible and nonforcible activity. In reality, these laws are often much stricter than most people would expect, as many states continue to maintain that sex between minors, even very close in age, is technically illegal (in most of these states, sex between teenagers close in age would be a misdemeanor rather than a crime and these cases are rarely prosecuted).
On this topic, I came across a very interesting (to me at least), and thorough article written in 1994 by Michelle Oberman in which she raises concerns about modern statutory rape laws. She points to the potential issues inherent in the move away from gendered laws which assumed that teenage girls cannot consent to sex under any conditions, even with teenage boys, to gender neutral laws which either didn’t apply to or were not enforced on teen sex between individuals close in age. These changes implied that teen girls (and boys) are capable of consent, while at the same time recognizing that their immaturity and insecurities make them so vulnerable to the manipulation of some adults that they require legal protection from them. In arguing that young women are not really competent to legally consent Oberman says3:
[...] the fact that some girls might consent to sex which is inherently exploitative [...] is not evidence of their competence to consent, nor of their “womanliness,” but rather, of their immaturity and vulnerability to exploitation. A multiplicity of factors induce girls to consent to sex: to feel liked or loved, to feel closer to someone, to become popular. Desire often is not the motivating force in girls’ sexual exploration. (pp. 18)
Oberman also notes that:
[...] consent does not reflect the descriptive factual inquiry by which the system differentiates sex from rape, but, more precisely, represents a normative categorization. Essentially “[c]onsent is only the label we attach to cases of conduct deemed legitimate.” (pp. 24)
In raising the example of teenage girls choosing to have sex with teenage boys out of a desire to “feel liked or loved, to feel closer to someone, to become popular” as examples of why they are not truly competent to consent, Oberman implies that sex had for reasons other than sexual desire is not really legitimate. And this implication is the insight which I think continues to confuse the discourse around consent, in particular when power imbalances are invoked.
Let’s take the classic groupie + star sexual encounter. In a recent Decoding the Gurus episode, streamer Destiny came on to exercise his right to reply to their critiques. The conversation briefly touched on his tendency to date and sleep with fans, and the potential for such a relationship to be exploitative in the case of very devoted followers. Destiny explained why, given his lifestyle, this was the only reasonable pool from which he could date, and Chris seemed to more or less accept his explanation for why it’s tough to date “regular people” and to imply that Destiny could likely differentiate between a fan who was highly exploitable and ones whom he could have a more even relationship with.
But, again, what does it mean for a devoted fan to be highly exploitable? It seems to mean that if they had sex with him mainly because they wanted to have sex with “Destiny the famous streamer” rather than because they were really turned on and sexually attracted to him at the moment, that would be bad? Or if they let Destiny “get away” with behaviors or accepted traits that they wouldn’t accept from most people they were dating, such as non-monogamy or flakiness or his, ahem, lack of handsomeness, that would constitute exploitation? But why would we think of this in these terms? And why are we only really concerned about sexual relationships? Why wouldn’t any relationship, be it a friendship, business partnership etc., be considered rife for exploitation and worthy of suspicion whenever there’s a power imbalance?
And moreover, how do we decide which categories of difference create legitimate concerns with respect to consent and exploitation? Imagine that your friend has always been monogamous and prefers monogamy, but has decided to be in a relationship with a non-monogamous person because they really love them and enjoy spending time with them and are willing to give up sexual exclusivity to be with them. Is this equally exploitative? Or what if it wasn’t non-monogamy they were putting up with, but some other more mundane compromise such as dealing with an extremely messy or disorganized partner in light of their many other benefits? To give one more example, why is it that we tend to be more concerned that the young woman in a relationship with an older, wealthy man is the one who is vulnerable to exploitation as a result of their wealth and age gap rather than being concerned that this pathetic horny man is vulnerable to exploitation in light of their sexual attractiveness gap?
Isn’t this just an expression of individual preferences and how they trade off? For many people, preferences are largely fungible across various axes. So If it’s kosher for someone to trade off messiness for charm, why is it a sign of exploitation if they trade off non-monogamy, or whatever else, for fame or money? As the above quotes from Osterman suggest, I think it’s because even many of the most secular among us maintain a sense that sex is sacred, but instead of believing that it must be “kept apart” and is only legitimated through marriage, we believe that it is only legitimated through mutual sexual desire. This shift in the boundaries which define sex as legitimate explains why many find it shocking that, until recently, marital rape was considered impossible. As Osterman notes “the established definition of consensual non-procreative sex [...] is premised on a notion of mutual pleasure.” (pp. 65).
I think this implicit definition of “truly consensual” sex is why, despite the ostensible victory of the pro sex feminists, many women, even those who aren’t concerned about promiscuity per se, continue to worry about the harms of prostitution. And why when
or point out the lucrative nature of these professions many respond with “this is why sex work is a trap!” These comments reflect that the view of sex as sacred, where desire is required to legitimate sex, remains intuitive to many, even among those who support broadly liberal sexual norms.What I struggle to make sense of is how some seem to maintain the sacredness of desire with respect to bounding legitimate sex in all cases except those of explicit sex work. If it’s completely fine, and maybe even empowering, for a woman to make money off of porn or escorting, why is it problematic for her to trade sex for proximity to fame or the benefits which come from a stable relationship with a wealthy man? My hypothesis is that the explicitness of these arrangements is seen as desacralizing sex by keeping it so obviously separate from anything related to love or attraction, whereas in the fame-gap or wealth-gap cases lines are often intentionally kept blurry.
As Robin noted in his explanation of what connects the correlates of the sacred4: “we usually see love as more sacred than sex; today sex mainly gets sacred via its connection to love.” Hence, for non-traditionalists who are pro-sex, removing sex from love in such an undeniable and explicit way allows it to be desacralized, and therefore for it to be legitimately traded for mundane things like money. As I conclude, I’m still questioning how inevitable it is that we view sex as sacred. My intuition here is that most of us, or at least most women, must train ourselves out of seeing it as sacred using reason and utilitarian arguments, rather than being socialized into seeing it as sacred. But perhaps I have this the wrong way?
My main gripe with Louise Perry’s work is that I feel she fails to account for this expected rise in the equilibrium level of casual sex as a result of the lowered costs to women. Perhaps it’s not that women are having more casual sex because they’ve been convinced by liberal ideology that it’s empowering and/or are too agreeable, but because they always wanted to be having more sex and were only put off by the high costs that came with it.
Srinivasan, Amia. "Talking to my Students about Porn." The Right to Sex: Feminism in the Twenty-First Century, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2021, pp. 35.
Oberman, Michelle. "Turning girls into women: Re-evaluating modern statutory rape law." J. Crim. L. & Criminology 85 (1994): 15.
Hanson, Robin. "We See The Sacred From Afar, To See It The Same." Seeds of Science (2023).
These are good questions, and I think that you will find the answer becomes apparent if you assume that everyone intuitively and unconsciously understands that sex is a market, and an inherently and unavoidably unbalanced one. They likely don't consciously think of it that way because no one has articulated it to them that way and people have overlaid other concepts. But if you consider that both perspectives are a way to try to solve an unbalanced market problem, then both the conservative/sex is sacred stance AND the progressive/desire-is-required stance make sense.
Everyone (well, most everyone) wants sex. But to get it, you need another person to "transact" it with you, so it's a market. The problem is the demand is universal, but the supply is actually quite low, because everyone wants sex from the same relatively-small subset (i.e. young, attractive people). If we assume that people live to 90, and that they will spend 70 of those years with some desire for sex, and if we also assume that most people are only sexually attractive for maybe 25-30 years of their lifespan, and even within that "span" of attractiveness, only about half of people are actually considered "attractive"...then you have a problem where 100% of people want something for a span of 70 years, and they all want it from only 15% of the population. Add in the fact that men have this desire even more strongly than women, on average, and it creates even more market imbalance.
In other words, if they could, all (straight) men would only be having sex with a small sub-set of women in a particular age range correlating with fertility. And if it was all based on attraction-only, no one would ever have sex with old men, or unattractive men. And because of the gender differential in desire, some people would still have sex with old or unattractive women, but they wouldn't be willing to pay or give or trade-off much of anything to do it.
I think all adults understand this intuitively. The young themselves don't, always. So how does society solve this imbalance without creating a lot of problems and strife? Many people do NOT want young women do be able to fully capitalize upon their market power here. It would create too much of a monopoly for them. It would screw over everyone else, and if they were allowed to fully realize upon the high demand for what they have, they'd be able to increase the costs way too high.
Society therefore tries to find ways so that young, attractive women are unable to capitalize on the natural monopoly they hold, either via religious shame or making it outright illegal or other norms discouraging it. And for the most part, women don't complain TOO much about that, because those same women will one day age out, and they likely realize that their future selves will be screwed in a situation where young women have zero social impediments from fully marketing and capitalizing upon their sexual assets.
For the feminists, this creates a problem, because the interests of young/attractive and old/unattractive women are directly in conflict, and feminism is not good at acknowledging or dealing with instances where different groups of women have directly conflicting interests. Thus, the constant wars over this issue, where they never quite acknowledge the real issue, which is that a gorgeous 20 year old selling sex appeal is in fact empowering herself and likely engaging in the most lucrative possible work she could, while directly dis-empowering all other women.
For non-religious right-wing people, their preferred solution is to try to keep the costs of sex with young women as low as possible while also retaining maximum leverage and bargaining power for men. And honestly it's so thinly-veiled and transparent that they've never been able to impose their vision absent force.
For religious people, the solution is to allow sex only in life-long contracts, which circumvents the market distortion created by the age-based supply and demand skew. Because you marry a hot 25 year old and the trade-off is you're stuck with them at 75, so it solves the problem.
And for ordinary people, substituting the life-long-within-contract-only sex requirement for the requirement of mutual sexual desire is a slightly different way of solving the same supply-demand skew. Because young and attractive people are naturally attracted to each other, and then everyone else just has to pair up roughly according to equivalent attractiveness-level, which seems seems intuitively fair, balanced, and reasonable to most. So two hot 25 year olds can pair up and it's a fair trade, or two non-hot 25 year olds, and the same for two 45 years olds or 65 year olds -- in all cases it fixes the age-based supply/demand skew. This is basically how things work in practice for 90% of the population, until technology rubbed the market skew into people's faces a bit too much, and made it much easier to transact among market participants, without having to do so publicly or risk getting caught.
The reason that an ugly but famous guy sleeping with a pretty young fan bothers people, or an old wealthy man sleeping with a pretty poor woman, is not actually because of concerns over influence or power (as you correctly point out, old men are quite exploitable by young women). It's because it creates a market disruption by circumventing the accepted solution (life-long contract or equivalent-attractiveness-level-trades). And markets are collective where what others do DOES directly impact one's own possible options. If old men with money are allowed to easily purchase sex from young women without any taboo, it pisses off the young men, who don't have money, and who hate the thought that their equivalently-attractive female peers can simply be bought so easily. And because of all the "sacredness" and other obscuring voo-doo that people surround it with, it allows all the other old men to start thinking that young women are actually ATTRACTED to old men, and that they should be able to get one too (this specific problem is at least fixed in the case of direct prostitution). And then that screws over all women, who don't want old men to think they can get young women without paying very dearly for it.
When Aella or Hanania point out the actual fact that prostitution is extremely lucrative for young, attractive women, most everyone else will react against that. Because it's clear that by allowing them to freely capitalize on their asset without stigma would make them TOO valuable, to literally everyone else's expense OTHER THAN an equally small portion of wealthy men. But they don't say it that way because it sounds too much like whining or envy or being a sexual communist. So instead they come up with reasons that sound more like they're concerned with vulnerable people, such as sex trafficking or exploitation concerns. Their actual concern is that too much of a free-market in sex will create disastrous social implications because the supply and demand are inherently, biologically extremely skewed, and basically everyone who isn't wealthy or attractive will get nothing, in that type of regime.
If a 60 year old man is free to spend all his money on a 25 year old purchased girlfriend, without shame or stigma, why on earth would he stay married to his 60-year old wife? Or why would she stay with him, if he's spending all his money on mistresses? And how would young or poor men have any hope of ever having a girlfriend? And why would anyone want to pair up long-term, unless it was for a purely economic-type partnership without an implied expectation of love and sex? These things sound extreme, but they are actually the logical result if you open the door for utterly unstigmatized transactional sex on a short-term basis, allowing for any type of trade-off. Even the people who supposedly claim to be most in favor of legal prostitution are almost certainly relying on an assumption that it would remain stigmatized and somewhat unusual (which I think is a very bad assumption to make).
Anyway, food for thought. I've found that most people are unwilling to go along with my market-based analysis -- it's too coldly economic for them -- but I've found that all of the seemingly irrational positions people hold make perfect sense when viewed that way. Most people will protest that in fact they very much love and are still attracted to their 60 year old wife, or that most women would never want to be prostitutes like that...personally I think they are fooling themselves and only think that because they've lived in a society with the mix of the religious and attractiveness-matching norms that keep the rails on the real marketplace, or how people would behave absent such norms. A truly free market with out any governing norms/taboos would be very bad for most, so regulating things by repressing the conduct of both young attractive women and older men with money/fame helps everyone else.
In ages prior, the skew was not QUITE as much of a problem because the risk of pregnancy limited behavior, and older men aged out of capacity earlier. Viagra, birth control, abortion, and the ability to easily and anonymously transact sex without anyone finding out has amplified an existing wired-in market skew several times over.
Also, I fully agree with your first footnote and criticism of Louise Perry.
I really liked this article.
“As we’ve progressed technologically we’ve reduced some of the most material risks associated with sex [reducing justifications for considering it sacred].”
I think this is true, but I also wonder often how much of sex’s sanctity is hardwired into our psychology via genes. There’s good evolutionary reasons for men to feel strong sexual jealousy and to act exploitatively, for women to be cautious of sex with uncaring men, etc. I’m firmly on the side of greater sexual liberation, but I do worry sometimes my position will start to run into genetic barriers soon.