|
绪论 - 什么是性行为? |
|
性及性行为的术语演变史
8：性就是性 |
|
上述简介的术语演变简史，能够帮助我们看清一个基本的事实：当我们讨论人类的“性”行为时，我们并不只是在表述一些实际发生的客观事件。这时，我们同样在针对这些事件发表着非常独特的观点。简而言之，这时，我们正在表达一些主观的(并且可能缺乏远见的)价值观。想要祛除无所不在的各种“性的”信号，并把“性”理解成一种基本的和无所不在的力量，则需要采取一种现代人专有的心境。这种心境并不必定要把性愉悦的能力看得如何地强大，或者不必要把充满活力的性爱生活看得如此之多。事实上，有非常充分的理由可以把沉湎于声色之乐的性看作是衰败和穷途末路的征象。专注于性的生活并不等同于性欲的满足。无论怎样，谨慎地对待与性有关的整个事物似乎才是精明之举。
例如：众所周知，许多所谓的原始人并不了解在一定情形之下的“性”元素(“sexual”
element)；然而，这些情形对于现代西方研究者来说则暗含着“性”的含义。甚至对于非常强调性满足的人来说，他们也许与原始人一样，并不知道在一定情形之下的“性”元素；他们只是不了解性满足背后可能存在的许多“文明”内涵。
我们自己文化环境下参与“性”活动的年轻孩子可能也是同样的情形。他们根本不把自己大多数的这种活动看作“性”的活动。的确如此，成年人好像明白无误地解释出来的东西，他们只会逐渐和并不情愿地加以接纳。
最后需要补充一点的是，许多男女混合群体的性偶遇交往被界定为正常的人际交往问题，这恰恰是现代精神病治疗师所普遍认可的状况。但是，在单纯的男人或单纯的女人群体里同样的性偶遇人际交往问题，则被做出了不同的界定。在这里，“性的”交往方面似乎并不是十分重要的，由此根据参与者是否为男女混合群体或单一性别群体，就想要把同样的性偶遇交往问题做出不同的解释[1]。
金西于1948年发表的首个“报告”的封面。正如书名所指出的那样，这部书是以生物学的研究视野完成的(例如，一部典型的生物学研究著作也许可以拟成：《雄性黑猩猩梳理体毛的行为》)。非生物学专业的学者可能会选择不同的书名，但是金西有意要表示与当时占主导地位的有关性的医学观点保持距离。非常有趣的是，金西并没有提出“性行为”这个术语的定义，而只是假定读者知晓性行为的含义是什么。
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.
因为语义及文化差异上的原因，此处翻译成中文时，对原文有所改译——译者注。
 |
|
|
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. |
