Re: SEX IN THE FORBIDDEN ZONE- by Peter Rutter

are we that blameworthy?

It is entirely depressing to me, the book by Peter Rutter, sex in the forbidden zone.  Indeed a picture has been presented that has got me thinking in a rather confused way. I mean that I am thinking but at the same time, I am confused, confused at the fact that what I thought I knew is being overtly ruffled. I do not know how far, Peter went in his research and I also do not know how in depth he is with regard experiences of this sort. All I know that his book is thought provoking and at the same time very compelling. He seems to shift the blame from women to men. Indeed he works against the popular notion that in most cases of sexual misconduct in professions, particularly those that has to do with mentor and protégé, the men are to blame. They are to blame because all the women do is within the right to do so either because of a childhood deficit or because of societal demands. Imagine a case of a psychologist and his patient, a female. The female in one of her therapeutic sessions come out in a violently, sexual provoking way (when I say violently I do not mean physical violence). The men are touched at their weakest point and they fall. According to Peter, the man in authority has the responsibility to say no. I know that there are cases whereby the psychologist (the man in authority may very well include the lawyer, the clergy man, the teacher, even an artist. in fact anyone who stands in a position of authority, it must not certainly be a government official or a politician), may appeal for this and get his way without any court order knocking on his door steps for damages rendered to the woman. But are we saying that anytime there is, in the words of Peter Rutter, sex in the forbidden zone, the man is to blame? Are we saying that the woman has not part in this?

Peter defines sex in the forbidden zone as the fact of engaging in an unlawful sexual escapade in a professional situation. When I say professional situation, I do not mean that prostitutes or gigolos are to be considered here (but looking at this extensively, they may well be considered). I mean rather a situation that is built upon the edifice of trust, a situation that is summarily captured as one dealing with a mentor and a protégé, a situation that deals with one in authority and another under that authority. In his book peter says that this misconduct is based on the masculine domination of this world and the masculinity that that approaches every sphere of this life. It is based on the fact that the feminine is more docile and agreeable to the challenge of the masculine, it is hinged on the point that the masculine myths, which are three in number namely:

·         The woman’s deference

·         Her special powers

·         The woman as dark and destructive

In the first instance, the woman is meant to be at the beck and call of the advances of the man. She is taught to be the loving wife who gives to her husband, beautiful kids. The second instance provides the woman with the power to heal the wounded man, most particularly in a sexual way. This is due to her nurturing attitude. The third sees the woman as a destructive agent who makes the man suffer loss and rejection in the society. According to peter, this is the masculine myth that rules the society that is men controlled. The men are the challengers and the woman has been taught to give in to this challenge. Thus whenever the women acts in a seductive manner according to peter, it is because of the demands of a male dominated society. If she dresses provocatively, it is because she wants the admiration of men, which indeed boosts her self esteem. If she stylishly gives credence to her sexuality before a prospective male, it is make her noticed by the men. None of this is however intended for sexual gratification, even though peter is quick to say that as in men, women also desire sexual gratification, but are more able to express their emotions in a nonsexual way, which is interpreted sexually by the male. Since this is interprets thus, the male falls into such a mess. The woman comes out with the talk of “I had a crush on him, but it had nothing to do with sex. And I have regretted ever getting sexually involved with him. I am at a loss because of that…he has betrayed my trust…” The man comes out with the talk of “I was just responding to a want…she welded a power I could not resist…it is not my fault”. Peter says that the woman was just acting out in a male dominated world, thus the male should have towed the line of responsibility.

Let me be a novice in this area. Let me be naïve. I have every reason to believe that sexuality has a powerful influence on human beings. It should be said that men are more physical and women emotional. Since this is common knowledge then why would the woman provoke the man into acting physically? I agree with peter that women are capable of emotional love without the thought of being physical, but men are less adapted to this. Again since this is common knowledge, why would the woman provoke the man? She desires an emotional relationship, he desires a physical consummation. The woman thus goes to the furthest extent of preserving this relationship by consenting to the physical demands of the man. Can we say that inherent in that emotional desire, the desire of the physical is absent? I agree that men go overboard by means of their fantasy and would very much like to see to its actualization. This makes the woman the unfortunate prey. The fact that men dominate the world should give the woman no reason to live for the man. Let me state her that as much as women try to impress men with all their being, men also go the same extent. Do you disagree? Ask yourself, why would a man want to always look good? Even those that sag their trousers and put on ear rings, giving themselves tattoos, why would they do it? Is it merely for swag? There may be other reasons, but one inevitable one is for the reason of appearing sexually agreeable to his fans- women. Even the worst of criminals would want to be admired by the opposite sex. It is a fact that is common to both sexes. As such, why is it that it is the men that must always be responsible? Let us not imagine that it is only the woman that seduces, the man also has that power, and most make use of it. In men this is hardly noticeable simply because they are not women, period.

Is it true that when a woman is sexually provoking you, it has nothing to do with meeting with her animalistic want of that moment? Is it true that women are always the ones bearing the pains, most, after such violations?

Let it be said that men exude such powerful influence especially when they are in authority. Let it also be said that they almost, every time, look upon the love and concern shown them by the females as a call to consummation. But is peter trying to say that women do not provoke men? Is he trying to assert that even when they do they are in the right, because of male domination?

I do not believe that it is only the men that cross the boundaries of relationships, for women also do so. We should weigh the situation better, and ask ourselves, are the men always to be blamed? I know that women have been subjected to all forms of maltreatment from men, which is inexcusable, condemnable and wrong. I ask again, with regard to sex in the forbidden zone, are the men to be blamed, in all cases?

There is a fuller picture of this that was not presented by Peter. I will leave that for another time.