talking to carol

Carol answers a few questions from Irreverend Thymes for a website called CREATING HEALTHY BOUNDARIES WITH 'GOD' (it's "designed to intercept anthropomorphic illusion," says the good Irreverend). On www.thechurchatparonomasia.com her replies can be seen with other interviewees in a round table format.


Irreverend Thymes: Carol, all too often 'safe sex' is defined in society almost entirely in terms of the physical. Since Good Vibrations and its Off- Site Sex Education program (OSSE) have wisely, empathetically included the emotional safety component as well, what would you say is the cardinal element involved in lovers' helping assure (for the beloved and for themselves) the probability of 'emotionally safe sex'?

Carol Queen: I'd say the amorphous mix of empathy backed up with good communication is the most crucial. Partners need to understand one another's hopes and expectations, which is sometimes very challenging -- different sexual histories, gender-influenced stories about the role of sex and relationship, comfort in speaking out: all these things make a difference, altering the context in which sex happens and our experience of it. It's easiest to stay (emotionally) safe when you know what your partner wants and expects, and what it means to them. (And emotional safety influences physical safety, in part because it's the context of safer sex communication, in part because it plays a role in self-esteem.)

Irreverend Thymes: I believe that if humanity's closest relative, the bonobo (pan paniscus), could articulate what is has learned in the course of its evolution into non-violent living, loving and learning, it would attempt to do so through sex-positive channels like Good Vibrations. This having been said, can you speculate on why human societies have continued emulating male- dominant, violent chimpanzee 'culture' rather than nonviolent, co-dominant bonobo 'culture', sexy and orgiastic as it is?

CQ: Delightful!! The image of bonobos running a sex store is way too precious.

I think humans have learned to value power over pleasure, is the short answer, and to complexify it a little, it's partly because too few humans have felt great pleasure, nor have we (especially in the West and the Middle East, where anti-sexual religions have had a hold for so very long) been given permission to aspire to it. The anti-sexual focus of these religions can't be overstated even in its influence over people who do not consider themselves religious. The more pro-erotic a spiritual system is, the more space people under its influence have to discover pleasure's importance. Dominance, struggle over resources (including war), a hoarding mentality and the political and economic systems that follow... all these things are associated with male domination, sure, but they can also be associated with a scarcity perspective that de-emphasizes sharing and abundance. I'd argue that a jealousy-based, male-dominated monogamy is comparable to that, and a pleasure-based system where jealousy is minimized and women have full power is its antithesis.

Irreverend Thymes: As a sexologist, would you say there's one particular issue monopolizing the emotional landscape of monogamous and polyamorous couples (and other configurations of lovers)?

CQ: One *particular* issue? I might not go that far, but I can suggest some very common ones. The question "Am I (and are we) normal?" gets in the way of a lot of sexual exploration and comfort. The notion that there is a way we *should* be is truly a disruptor or inhibitor of both relationships and people.

The other thing involves our comfort in communication and sometimes the failure to notice when we've stopped (or ever adequately begun). This is related to assumptions, another troublesome set of "should's" -- "She should know I don't like that," "He should know this without my having to tell him," etc. When you get into the land of polyamory or multiple partnerships of any kind (including trios and casual multi-partner situations) this is especially tricky because it can be easy to assume one partner's likes, limits, or understandings are the same as another's.

And discussing this, of course, leads to the question of time and commitment, which can be as big an issue for monogamous twosomes as poly people, because it doesn't have to be one's time spent with another lover that leads a partner to feel under-appreciated -- it could be commitments to work, hobbies or friends that lead to jealousy.

Irreverend Thymes: As I'm sure you know, a religious disinformation campaign has been underway for awhile now (via the Vatican) discrediting the wearing of condoms as a viable means for stopping the spread of HIV. What would you say to people who are taking this disinformation seriously?

CQ: Oh, where to start? My first impulse is to say "Consider the source" -- but they *trust* that source and have never been encouraged to think critically about it.

So really I'd break it down and say that medical research shows that condoms *are* effective, and the goal of medical research is to study and stop the spread of disease -- whereas religious and conservative sources of this "information" have a different goal, which is to stop people having sex out of wedlock (and even using condoms for contraception). And that's a perfectly acceptable goal to agitate for... not *realistic*, mind you -- but it's not acceptable to mislead people to achieve it. This misinformation has one very problematic consequence: that people who believe condoms don't work won't use them, even if they do find themselves having sex. It means people won't be prepared for protection, and when desire strikes (or they are forced or manipulated into sexual contact), they'll be unprotected.

Irreverend Thymes: Carol, what do you believe is the kindest, most positive thing we can collectively do as human beings to help assure a less dangerous, more benign planetary future?

CQ: Treat every single person with respect.