The sex-psychologist Christoph Joseph Ahlers, in a recent interview with “Zeit,” repeated the idea that sexual interaction is the most intimate form of communication and that communication is the most important function of sex.
It is all about the Plumbing
Sounds lovely, but if we took this seriously, all kinds of fun problems might arise. For example, when the Catholic church insists that one only may have sex, even within a marriage, if one wants to procreate, this would mean that spouses should really only communicate intimately when they want to increase the number of Catholics. One reason, then, for the ruthless contribution to the overpopulation by some religious fundamentalists may be that even they like to sneak in a bit of intimate communication?
Not so, of course, because the majority of traditional sex performers still prefer lights out, throw rocks at each other (get your rocks off), “close your eyes and think of England,” I know what’s coming, hopefully soon, I have to show that I am a real man/a real woman, “was it as good for you as for me” (since we did not listen to each other), etc.
If we are good, we know how to do it. We are fully prepared. If we are not, we might get scared (again). Why do we need to come with an arsenal of knowledge to intimate contact, including the knowledge that it may be better to act as if we have been naive or ignorant, at least for a woman? A good argument can be made that much of preparing ourselves comes out of fear of the unknown, the sense that we couldn’t perform, get high ratings, if we did not come with a solid pack of experience, i.e. pre-judice.
Too Much Intimacy with God
It’s a bit like the instructions for prayer. You should be completely open to your God, open your heart, have a naked soul (not body, God can’t see through clothing, on the head or elsewhere, thank God), and listen like a child to what He has to say. In the meantime, let me, the priest, tell you what God is saying to you, has been saying to you, inflamed bush and all. Actually, it is better that you let me, the priest, serve as your communication partner with God. I am your surrogate god, thou shalt have no other surrogate beside me (except for procreation.) No wonder that in some (former) religions temple priestesses and temple prostitutes were indistinguishable. It’s a proud tradition, thousands of years old. So what is this recent uproar regarding too intimate communication between shepherds and their flock all about? If we are conservatives, we surely would respect history, or?
One of the deepest form of total body communication is of course the mystical ecstasy so often admired in the saints of all colors and cultures (and in Tantric sex). The troublesome aspect of such mystics is, however, that they claim that God has spoken to them directly, has said something new, broken through the prejudicial layers of volumes of tradition. Such intimate communication is as unacceptable, except in retrospect (when the Saint has been killed), as intimate communication between two lovers who join under the sun in tender, open, completely unprejudiced communicative exploration.
What would happen to priests, educators, therapists, parents, and bad-mouthing peers, if such true closeness, innocent as on the day we were born, became what we actually yearned for? Inconceivable – because it would always leave behind all pre-established concepts, laws, morals, stereotypes, and all.
Perhaps the fear of such unprejudiced closeness between people is why we have so many laws against anything to do with physical love, while we promote violence as the most cherished form of ecstatic prejudice.
If the most intimate form of communication became more widespread, there is a plausible possibility that the truth might come out, here and there, under the covers, and that surely would not only be a threat to religious authority but also to national security. Unless of course, Presidents like George W. Bush or Barack Obama can pull a Joan of Arc on us and say that God has spoken to them. That’s better than sex (ask Mary).