I deliberated what approach to take with this, Excalibur’s Love and Sex Supplement, for some time. After reading through numerous volunteer contributions, I found one recurring theme: almost all of these pieces, in some way or another, discuss how sex or love is shown to us — by the media, by our friends, and by technology.
There have been countless articles on how the media portrays “sexy,” but far less on how the shape of sex itself is changing.
A supplement on the “State of Sexy” would have focused on the objectification of women, increasingly racy music videos, and younger people becoming targets.
That’s interesting, but it’s been done in other places.
Instead, I want to show how the act of sex, and its meaning, is evolving (or regressing, depending on your viewpoint), along with the definition of a relationship.
Are people more publicly open about sex now than they were 30 years ago? Absolutely. It’s one of the most common topics of conversation. Is this a good thing?
Ultimately, you’ll be the judge, but perhaps these seven pages will help inform your opinion. Is sex becoming less special? This is a complicated question, and I’m not sure I even know my own opinion of it yet.
I’m inclined to say the viewpoint of sex in the 1950’s and 60’s was not just conservative, but unhealthy, and people are far less confused and self-conscious about sex now than they were then.
But has it gone too far in some places? I’ve always thought part of the significance of sex comes from its privacy. It’s a special connection with another person behind closed doors, and it indicates things beyond the physical act: trust, attraction, and comfort.
I’ll be the first to observe that this attitude is becoming outdated. Sexual intercourse has gone from a massive secret to a quiet conversation, and now to public knowledge.
Remember Jesse Eisenberg in The Social Network saying, “This is what drives life at college. Are you having sex or aren’t you?” (FYI, it seems like Mark Zuckerberg, or at least his cinematic interpretation, was onto something: in 2012, Facebook was linked to one-third of all divorces.)
This supplement will look at sex as a valid business, and I don’t mean the clichéd “sex sells” trick.
I’m instead referring to a society in which sex is so open, it’s becoming a logical place to make money. Some websites are arguably on the cusp of legalizing prostitution, by simply giving it a different name.
One article will examine pole dancing, with modern strippers less frowned upon, and more frequently celebrated for their confidence and athleticism.
In 2000, eHarmony urged people to “meet their match” through a series of questions designed to find your special other. In 2012, Tinder’s selling point was to skip the boring questions and get right down to what’s really important: hot or not? Is this shallow? Or do we not instinctively pursue people who we were first physically attracted to anyway?
I’m not making a case for or against here, but both sides of the debate are defensible.
We’re now in a place where a movie can show Joaquin Phoenix have sex with his phone (no, I meant to say with), and get nominated for five Academy Awards.
Not all of this supplement will focus on sex. We will also explore the broader concept of love, and what it means to be in a relationship in 2014.
For example, with Valentine’s Day just two days away, this supplement features a piece asking what sexual orientation the holiday is really aimed at. It keeps with the theme of society telling us what a normal relationship or sex life looks like, but it’s a far more statistics/theory-based account.
Another piece looks at how society strips women of their independence, making them look for values in their partners rather than themselves. As this mini-issue’s coordinator, I can say that the toughest part about taking on love and sex is that nobody feels particularly right or wrong.
There’s no big bad guy to fire away at, and some of the articles in these pages are at odds with each other.
At this point in my life, I prefer an exclusive, committed partnership, with a private sex life, but I wouldn’t define that as the only kind of relationship, or the only kind of love.
I can’t argue on the side of polyamory, because I’ve never felt it, but the world is becoming more and more comfortable with the idea of multiple partners. This supplement doesn’t have a solitary argument to make or an opinion to state. I might not agree with every idea in it, but I think they’re all interesting.
Even if one of these pieces goes against your every moral, I believe it’s worthwhile to read the thoughts of your opposers.
My hope is that you, who have picked up this issue of Excalibur, will peruse the Love and Sex supplement from start to finish, if not at once then at least over the course of several days.
At only seven pages, it’s a modestly sized collection.
Through these articles, you may gain a better comprehension of your own standing in the love and sex discussion, which would be worthwhile to know, since to repeat Jesse Eisenberg, “This is what drives life at college.”
If that doesn’t sound interesting enough, then may the promise of a few steamy, sexy articles compel you.
