Jul. 27th, 2009 05:14 pm
I love The Onion
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
textualdeviance"Abstinence-only lunches"
It's also hilarious not just because of the thing it's satirizing, but because of how true the article really could be, too. It's no accident that the same sort of paranoid asceticism pushing against sex ed is also pushing against having a healthy relationship with food--and backfiring in exactly the same way.
Just as the moral arbiters want us to believe sex is only for procreation, they also want us to believe food is only for delivering nutrients. The idea that there could be another, completely legitimate purpose in experiencing the physical pleasure of good sex or tasty food is completely beyond them.
And, just like how American sex culture has gotten split into madonnas and whores because we can't accept our natural needs and desires for sex (both in the physical sense and in the bonding-with-others one), American food culture is the same. We can't openly enjoy eating good food. We have to hide it, couch it in terms of sin and redemption, and, when we can't take the pressure anymore, some of us go and binge or engage in other damaging behaviors.
It's also no accident that sexual AND food binges are portrayed as acceptable and even honorable for men, and the height of shameful indulgence for women. The same is true for many of the rest of the seven deadly sins, too, particularly wrath and sloth. We women come into the world with a moral debt to society just for carrying Eve's sin, and thus we rarely get the chance for absolution or indulgences the way men do. (And we never get to enjoy all the "sins," even if we're allowed one or two. Like both food and sex? Not so fast, missy!)
I wish that I could say this kind of ridiculousness was limited to the tightly wound soapboxers from the religious right, but a massive segment of American secular culture has absorbed these notions of sin and shame with regard to our bodies and what they need and want. It's just barking TV talking heads scolding us for these things instead of clergy.
Still, with all this pressure, it's no surprise that so many of us have deeply troubled feelings about these issues. Some of this is generic fear of mortality--knowing that our bodies have needs reminds us how fragile they really are--but some of it is just constantly competing messages between righteous deprivation and sinful decadence. Between obedience and rebellion.
The truth, of course, is that there is a happy and healthy middle ground; a place where our bodies are satisfied regularly enough that we don't feel the need to go to extremes. But it's very hard for most of us--especially those with backgrounds that include strict religion or parenting--to settle in there. And I deeply envy those who have managed to do that.
It's also hilarious not just because of the thing it's satirizing, but because of how true the article really could be, too. It's no accident that the same sort of paranoid asceticism pushing against sex ed is also pushing against having a healthy relationship with food--and backfiring in exactly the same way.
Just as the moral arbiters want us to believe sex is only for procreation, they also want us to believe food is only for delivering nutrients. The idea that there could be another, completely legitimate purpose in experiencing the physical pleasure of good sex or tasty food is completely beyond them.
And, just like how American sex culture has gotten split into madonnas and whores because we can't accept our natural needs and desires for sex (both in the physical sense and in the bonding-with-others one), American food culture is the same. We can't openly enjoy eating good food. We have to hide it, couch it in terms of sin and redemption, and, when we can't take the pressure anymore, some of us go and binge or engage in other damaging behaviors.
It's also no accident that sexual AND food binges are portrayed as acceptable and even honorable for men, and the height of shameful indulgence for women. The same is true for many of the rest of the seven deadly sins, too, particularly wrath and sloth. We women come into the world with a moral debt to society just for carrying Eve's sin, and thus we rarely get the chance for absolution or indulgences the way men do. (And we never get to enjoy all the "sins," even if we're allowed one or two. Like both food and sex? Not so fast, missy!)
I wish that I could say this kind of ridiculousness was limited to the tightly wound soapboxers from the religious right, but a massive segment of American secular culture has absorbed these notions of sin and shame with regard to our bodies and what they need and want. It's just barking TV talking heads scolding us for these things instead of clergy.
Still, with all this pressure, it's no surprise that so many of us have deeply troubled feelings about these issues. Some of this is generic fear of mortality--knowing that our bodies have needs reminds us how fragile they really are--but some of it is just constantly competing messages between righteous deprivation and sinful decadence. Between obedience and rebellion.
The truth, of course, is that there is a happy and healthy middle ground; a place where our bodies are satisfied regularly enough that we don't feel the need to go to extremes. But it's very hard for most of us--especially those with backgrounds that include strict religion or parenting--to settle in there. And I deeply envy those who have managed to do that.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
There's a group for post-surgery patients I'm expected to go to, also. I think it's led by my dietician, the QUEEN of food shame. I fully intend to tell her where to stick it. Ugh.