I appreciate the attempt. I agree that discussing sex more openly, especially with and around children, is likely to be broadly of benefit. I am, however, left with some concerns. Please accept my attempt at a thoughtful critique.
I acknowledge the “draft” status of this story but I don’t think this narrative line is very promising, and it notice it falls into at least a few of the cultural potholes I think we’d do well to avoid. The “make love not war” message is fine (if a little abstract) but I don’t think it helps support an “easier and lighter tone” or points to any needed truth about being sexual in the world. Rather, it comes off as needlessly moralizing.
Ea acts on people without their consent: changing their bodies and altering their fundamental way of being, binding their ability to choose unless they act the way she wants them to. Strong objection! This does not convey a message I would like to see more of.
I disagree with the heteronormative, PIV-only, binary-reinforcing nature of the narrative (though I acknowledge that it rhymes with many creation myths). Sex (both biology and interaction) is far more complex than that, and we have ample stories in the culture that make it harder for people to think into that space.
Emphasizing only PIV sex is a gross oversimplification and needlessly specific at the same time. Not “carving reality at the joints” at all. This is another mistake that comes to us from the culture. Consider, instead, a simpler and broader definition: “sex” as acting on a body specifically to produce pleasure in that body. And for more-than-one-person sex, we must emphasize consent!
I disagree with conflating “love” with “sex”, though I recognize once again that the culture does so very hard. This is both confusing and euphemistic. We need to separate the concepts of attachment, sexuality, and strong goodwill; not encode them all as a single category.
There is only the slightest nod to the dangers of sex. Fluid transfer is a known disease vector and attempting to complete a pregnancy is about as safe as crashing a car, to say nothing of the cognitive side-effects of engaging in powerful hormone-changing behaviors. I suspect you intended for these issues to be addressed in other moments with Ea? This sort of story, I think, should probably cover all the bases at least a little. Sex need not be the huge dark secretive deal we currently tend to make of it, but it does need to be approached with an enormous amount of respect for the possible consequences. Without that, informed consent is impossible.
Maybe you don’t need an origin story? I can’t easily think of one for Santa or the Tooth Fairy. If somebody’s written those, they don’t appear prominently in the culture. Maybe a story about what happens when the Sex Fairy visits a person would be more in line with the extant mythology.
I really appreciate your care in having a supportive tone here—it is a bit heart aching to read some of the more directly critical comments.
great point about the non-consentual nature of Ea’s actions—it does create a dark undertone to the story, and needs either correcting, or expanding (perhaps framing it as the source of the “shadow of sexuality”—so we might also remember the risks)
the heteronormative line I did notice, and I think could generalize straightforwardly—this was just the simplest place to start. I love your suggestion of “”sex” as acting on a body specifically to produce pleasure in that body.”
And yes, there are definitely many many aspects of sex that can then be addressed within this lore—like rape, consent, STD, procreation, sublimation, psychological impacts, gender, family, etc. Taking the Freudian approach, we could really frame all aspects of human life within this context—could be a fun exercise.
I guess the key hypothesis I’m suggesting here is that explaining the many varied aspects of sexuality in terms of a deity could help to clarify all its complexity—just as the pantheon of gods helped early pagan cultures make sense of the world and make some successful predictions / inventions. It could be nicer to have a science-like explanation, but people would have a harder time keeping that straight (and I believe we don’t yet have enough consensus in psychology as a science anyway).
yeah I don’t know how cultural myths like Santa form or where they start—now they are grounded in rituals, but I haven’t looked at how they were popularized in the first place.
I know of a blog you might find interesting: “Small Gods” is a series of portraits of contemporary deities (the author made up) with short explanations of their domains. There are plenty of puns, and also some surprising seriousness. Maybe you’ll find it inspiring to explore some other work in the genre?
I appreciate the attempt. I agree that discussing sex more openly, especially with and around children, is likely to be broadly of benefit. I am, however, left with some concerns. Please accept my attempt at a thoughtful critique.
I acknowledge the “draft” status of this story but I don’t think this narrative line is very promising, and it notice it falls into at least a few of the cultural potholes I think we’d do well to avoid. The “make love not war” message is fine (if a little abstract) but I don’t think it helps support an “easier and lighter tone” or points to any needed truth about being sexual in the world. Rather, it comes off as needlessly moralizing.
Ea acts on people without their consent: changing their bodies and altering their fundamental way of being, binding their ability to choose unless they act the way she wants them to. Strong objection! This does not convey a message I would like to see more of.
I disagree with the heteronormative, PIV-only, binary-reinforcing nature of the narrative (though I acknowledge that it rhymes with many creation myths). Sex (both biology and interaction) is far more complex than that, and we have ample stories in the culture that make it harder for people to think into that space.
Emphasizing only PIV sex is a gross oversimplification and needlessly specific at the same time. Not “carving reality at the joints” at all. This is another mistake that comes to us from the culture. Consider, instead, a simpler and broader definition: “sex” as acting on a body specifically to produce pleasure in that body. And for more-than-one-person sex, we must emphasize consent!
I disagree with conflating “love” with “sex”, though I recognize once again that the culture does so very hard. This is both confusing and euphemistic. We need to separate the concepts of attachment, sexuality, and strong goodwill; not encode them all as a single category.
There is only the slightest nod to the dangers of sex. Fluid transfer is a known disease vector and attempting to complete a pregnancy is about as safe as crashing a car, to say nothing of the cognitive side-effects of engaging in powerful hormone-changing behaviors. I suspect you intended for these issues to be addressed in other moments with Ea? This sort of story, I think, should probably cover all the bases at least a little. Sex need not be the huge dark secretive deal we currently tend to make of it, but it does need to be approached with an enormous amount of respect for the possible consequences. Without that, informed consent is impossible.
Maybe you don’t need an origin story? I can’t easily think of one for Santa or the Tooth Fairy. If somebody’s written those, they don’t appear prominently in the culture. Maybe a story about what happens when the Sex Fairy visits a person would be more in line with the extant mythology.
I really appreciate your care in having a supportive tone here—it is a bit heart aching to read some of the more directly critical comments.
great point about the non-consentual nature of Ea’s actions—it does create a dark undertone to the story, and needs either correcting, or expanding (perhaps framing it as the source of the “shadow of sexuality”—so we might also remember the risks)
the heteronormative line I did notice, and I think could generalize straightforwardly—this was just the simplest place to start. I love your suggestion of “”sex” as acting on a body specifically to produce pleasure in that body.”
And yes, there are definitely many many aspects of sex that can then be addressed within this lore—like rape, consent, STD, procreation, sublimation, psychological impacts, gender, family, etc. Taking the Freudian approach, we could really frame all aspects of human life within this context—could be a fun exercise.
I guess the key hypothesis I’m suggesting here is that explaining the many varied aspects of sexuality in terms of a deity could help to clarify all its complexity—just as the pantheon of gods helped early pagan cultures make sense of the world and make some successful predictions / inventions. It could be nicer to have a science-like explanation, but people would have a harder time keeping that straight (and I believe we don’t yet have enough consensus in psychology as a science anyway).
yeah I don’t know how cultural myths like Santa form or where they start—now they are grounded in rituals, but I haven’t looked at how they were popularized in the first place.
I know of a blog you might find interesting: “Small Gods” is a series of portraits of contemporary deities (the author made up) with short explanations of their domains. There are plenty of puns, and also some surprising seriousness. Maybe you’ll find it inspiring to explore some other work in the genre?
https://smallgodseries.tumblr.com/