Understanding Human Ambivalence About
Sex:
The Effects of Stripping Sex of Meaning
Birds do it, Bees do it, Even educated fleas do it ...
Cole Porter
Despite its potential for immense physical pleasure and the crucial role
that it plays in propagating the species, sex nevertheless is sometimes a
source of anxiety, shame, and disgust for humans, and is always subject to
cultural norms and social regulation. We (Goldenberg, Pyszczynski,
Greenberg, & Solomon, 2000) recently used terror management theory (e.g.,
Greenberg, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1986) to lay out a theoretical framework
to explain why sex is so often a problem for human beings. We argue that
sex is threatening because it makes us acutely aware of our sheer physical
and animal nature. Although others (e.g., Freud, 1930/1961) have also
suggested that human beings are threatened by their creatureliness,
following Rank (1930/1998) and Becker (1973), we suggest that this
motivation is rooted in a more basic human need to deny mortality.
Consistent with this view, Goldenberg, Pyszczynski, McCoy, Greenberg, and
Solomon (1999) showed that neurotic individuals, who are especially likely
to find sex threatening, rated the physical aspects of sex as less appealing
when reminded of their mortality and showed an increase in the accessibility
of death-related thoughts when primed with thoughts of the physical aspects
of sex; no such effects were found among individuals low in neuroticism. If
this framework is to provide a general explanation for human discomfort with
sexuality, two critical questions must be addressed: (a) under what
conditions would people generally (independent of level of neuroticism) show
such effects, and (b) what is it about sexuality that leads to these
effects? The present research was designed to address these questions by
investigating the role of concerns about creatureliness in the link between
thoughts of physical sex and thoughts of death.
Terror Management Theory and Research
Building on the ideas espoused by Ernest Becker (e.g., 1973), terror
management theory (TMT; e.g., Greenberg et al., 1986) begins with a
consideration of how humans are similar to and different from other animals.
Humans share with other animals a collection of inborn behavioral
proclivities that serve ultimately to perpetuate life and thereby propagate
genes, but can be distinguished from all other species by more sophisticated
intellectual capacities. One byproduct of this intelligence is the awareness
of the inevitability of death--and the potential for paralyzing terror
associated with this awareness. TMT posits that humankind used the same
sophisticated cognitive capacities that gave rise to the awareness of the
inevitability of death to manage this terror by adopting symbolic
constructions of reality, or cultural worldviews (CWV). By meeting or
exceeding the standards of value associated with their CWVs, humans elevate
themselves above mere animal existence and attain a sense of symbolic
immortality by connecting themselves to something larger, more meaningful,
and more permanent than their individual lives.
In support of this view, over 100 studies (for a recent review, see
Greenberg, Solomon, & Pyszczynski, 1997) have shown that reminding people of
their own death (mortality salience or MS) results in attitudinal and
behavioral defense of the CWV. For example, MS causes experimental
participants to dislike (e.g., Greenberg et al., 1990) and aggress against
(McGregor et al., 1998) individuals who disagree with participants' views.
Research has also shown that MS leads to increased estimates of social
consensus for culturally significant attitudes (Pyszczynski et al., 1996),
heightened conformity to cultural standards (Simon et al., 1997), and
greater discomfort when performing behavior that violates cultural standards
(Greenberg, Porteus, Simon, Pyszczynski, & Solomon, 1995). Further, the
effects of MS are specific to reminders of death: thoughts about giving a
speech, taking or failing an exam in an important class, experiencing
intense physical pain, being socially excluded, or becoming paralyzed do not
produce the same defensive responses as do thoughts of one's own mortality
(e.g., Greenberg, Pyszczynski, Solomon, Simon, & Breus, 1994).
Creatureliness, Death, and the Regulation of Sexuality
If humans manage the terror associated with death by clinging to a
symbolic cultural view of reality, then reminders of one's corporeal animal
nature would threaten the efficacy of this anxiety-buffering mechanism. As
argued by Becker (1973; see also Brown, 1959; Kierkegaard 1849/1954; Rank,
1930/1998), the body and its functions are therefore a particular problem
for humans. How can people rest assured that they exist on a more meaningful
and higher (and hence longer lasting) plane than mere animals, when they
sweat, bleed, defecate, and procreate, just like other animals? Or as Erich
Fromm expressed it, "Why did man not go insane in the face of an existential
contradiction between a symbolic self, that seems to give man infinite worth
in a timeless scheme of things, and a body that is worth about 98 cents?" (Fromm,
1955, p. 34). From the perspective of TMT, then, the uneasiness surrounding
sex is a result of existential implications of sexual behavior for beings
that cope with the threat of death by living their lives on an abstract
symbolic plane.
Consistent with this analysis, there is a long philosophical and
religious tradition of elevating humans above the rest of the animal kingdom
to a higher, more spiritual plane by valuing and preaching control over
one's body, emotions, and desires (e.g., Aristotle, 1984; Plato, 1973; St.
Augustine, 1950). Among the Ancient Greeks, the body and sexuality were
viewed as obstacles in the pursuit of higher spiritual and intellectual
goals. Early Christian figures, such as Saint Augustine (354-430 A.D.),
suggested strict regulations of man's sexual nature (e.g., he suggested that
people not make love on Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, or during the
40-day periods of fasting before Easter and Christmas and after Whitsuntide;
Kahr, 1999). Origen of Alexandria (182-251 A.D.), another distinguished
father of the early Christian Church, worded so much about the sinfulness of
sex that he castrated himself in order to become more completely abstinent (Kahr,
1999). In the 4th and 5th centuries A.D., handfuls of men and women rejected
burgeoning Christian customs and joined "cults of virginity" in which men
and women lived apart and dedicated themselves to lives of celibacy (e.g.,
Rousselle, 1983). More recently, Victorian puritanical attitudes towards sex
were backed by medical professionals: Blindness and insanity were reported
consequences of too much sexual activity, and preventative measures, such as
toothed penile rings and avoidance of oysters, chocolate, and fresh meats,
were recommended (Kahr, 1999). Even in a modern liberated culture such as
our own, sex toys are outlawed in a number of states, debates roar about
pornography and sex education, and the sexual antics of President Clinton
were recently headline news.
The controversy surrounding sex is by no means specific to Western
Judeo-Christian tradition. All the world's major religions restrict sex,
usually condoning it only for procreation in the sanctity of heterosexual
marriage. Eastern religions, such as Hinduism and Buddhism, sometimes
incorporate sex into religious practice, such as in Tantrism, but to do so
sex is elevated to a divine plane; even in these religions, however,
celibacy is practiced by the most holy members (Ellwood & Alles, 1998). In
some Hindu groups, sex is forbidden during certain phases of the moon (the
first night of the new moon, the last night of the full moon, and the 14th
and 8th night of each half of the month are considered particularly unlucky;
Gregersen, 1996). A tradition common among some Islamic followers, although
not prescribed by the religion itself, involves a painful and dangerous
procedure in which the clitoris is removed and the vagina is stitched up to
assure chastity prior to marriage (a permanent alternative to the metal
chastity belts of the Middle Ages of European culture; Toubia, 1993).
There are a number of other theoretical perspectives that provide insight
into the human propensity for regulation of sex. Indeed, Becker (1962)
argued that strict sexual regulation became critical for harmony and
cooperation among our primate ancestors because, with a monthly estrous
cycle and group living, there were always receptive ovulating females and
potential conflict over access to them. From a similar evolutionary
perspective, Trivers (1971) and Buss (1992) have suggested and empirically
investigated a number of evolved psychological mechanisms that serve to
promote reproductive success by restricting procreative behavior. It has
also been suggested that sex is regulated, especially among women, for
reasons such as social power and control (e.g., Brownmiller, 1975; de
Beauvoir, 1952).
continue
top ~ pages: 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8 ~
send page to
friend
Written in 2002. Last reviewed: 9/05
|
