|
緒論
-
什麼是性行為? |
|
性及性行為的術語演變史
8：性就是性 |
|
上述簡介的術語演變簡史，能夠幫助我們看清一個基本的事實：當我們討論人類的“性”行為時，我們並不只是在表述一些實際發生的客觀事件。這時，我們同樣在針對這些事件發表著非常獨特的觀點。簡而言之，這時，我們正在表達一些主觀的（並且可能缺乏遠見的）價值觀。想要祛除無所不在的各種“性的”信號，並把“性”理解成一種基本的和無所不在的力量，則需要採取一種現代人專有的心境。這種心境並不必定要把性愉悅的能力看得如何地強大，或者不必要把充滿活力的性愛生活看得如此之多。事實上，有非常充分的理由可以把沉湎于聲色之樂的性看作是衰敗和窮途末路的徵象。專注於性的生活並不等同於性欲的滿足。無論怎樣，謹慎地對待與性有關的整個事物似乎才是精明之舉。
例如：眾所周知，許多所謂的原始人並不瞭解在一定情形之下的“性”元素（“sexual”
element）；然而，這些情形對於現代西方研究者來說則暗含著“性”的含義。甚至對於非常強調性滿足的人來說，他們也許與原始人一樣，並不知道在一定情形之下的“性”元素；他們只是不瞭解性滿足背後可能存在的許多“文明”內涵。
我們自己文化環境下參與“性”活動的年輕孩子可能也是同樣的情形。他們根本不把自己大多數的這種活動看作“性”的活動。的確如此，成年人好像明白無誤地解釋出來的東西，他們只會逐漸和並不情願地加以接納。
最後需要補充一點的是，許多男女混合群體的性偶遇交往被界定為正常的人際交往問題，這恰恰是現代精神病治療師所普遍認可的狀況。但是，在單純的男人或單純的女人群體裏同樣的性偶遇人際交往問題，則被做出了不同的界定。在這裏，“性的”交往方面似乎並不是十分重要的，由此根據參與者是否為男女混合群體或單一性別群體，就想要把同樣的性偶遇交往問題做出不同的解釋[1]。
金西於1948年發表的首個《報告》的封面
正如書名所指出的那樣，這部書是以生物學的研究視野完成的（例如，一部典型的生物學研究著作也許可以擬成：《雄性黑猩猩梳理體毛的行為》）。非生物學專業的學者可能會選擇不同的書名，但是金西有意要表示與當時占主導地位的有關性的醫學觀點保持距離。非常有趣的是，金西並沒有提出“性行為”這個術語的定義，而只是假定讀者知曉性行為的含義是什麼。
Front cover of Kinsey’s first “report” of 1948. As the title indicates, the book is written from a biological perspective (for example, a typical biological study might read: “Grooming Behavior in the Male Chimpanzee”). A non-biologist would have chosen a different title, but Kinsey wanted to signal his distance from the then prevailing, mostly medical view of sex. Interestingly enough, he offered no definition of term “sexual behavior”, but simply assumed that the reader knew what was meant.
.
因為語義及文化差異上的原因，此處翻譯成中文時，對原文有所改譯——譯者注。 |
|
|
 |
|
Introduction - What is sexual behavior? |
|
History of the Term 9
|
|
The preceding brief history of the term can help us understand a basic truth:
When we talk about human "sexual" behavior, we are not simply describing some objective factual occurrences. We are also choosing a very special point of view from which to focus on these occurrences. In short, we are expressing a certain subjective (and perhaps shortsighted) philosophy. It takes a special, modern frame of mind to detect "sexual" signals everywhere and to conceive of "sex" as a fundamental and all-pervasive force. This frame of mind does not necessarily reflect a greater capacity for sensual pleasure or a more vigorous love life. In fact, it may very well be the sign of a crippled or impoverished sensuality. A preoccupation with sex is not the same thing as erotic fulfillment. In any case, it seems only prudent to approach the entire subject with caution.
For example: It is well known that many so-called primitive peoples fail to see the "sexual" element in certain situations which seem to suggest nothing but “sex” to the modern Western observer. This may be true even for peoples who put great emphasis on sexual satisfaction. They simply do not see its many possible “civilized” connotations.
The same can be said of young children in our own culture who engage in "sexual" activity. Much of this activity is not regarded by them as being sexua! at all. Indeed, the seemingly obvious adult interpretation is adopted only gradually and often reluctantly.
Finally, it is a common experience of modern psychotherapists that in sexually mixed encounter groups many interpersonal problems are defined as being “sexual” in nature. However, these same problems are often defined quite differently in all-male or all-female groups. Here the “sexual” aspect does not seem very important, and thus the participants are prepared to look for another explanation. |
