This is the third part of a new series of Fifth Columns featuring my
columns from 1971 to 1973 in the Laurentian University student
newspaper Lambda, that inspired me to write the Fifth Column many
years later. They will be presented here in four parts.

The original print copies have been run through an Optical Character
Reader to present them in full text (rather than images) here.

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 11#02 1972-09-19)

By Richard W, Woodley (with love) For Nancy

Perhaps the most important aspect of an individual’s life is that
person’s relationships with other people. In our present society
this is also probably the most difficult aspect of an individual’s
life,

In our increasingly depersonalized society people are afraid to feel
and afraid to trust. The goal in personal development is the
development of control, The individual must not lose control over his
or her emotions or life. What this tends to mean, however, is that
instead of giving in to one’s own feelings and needs one rather has
control and responds in the manner one is socially conditioned to.
The individual is conditioned to “protect” oneself at the expense
of the development of his or her full human potential in
relationships with other people.

Indeed, keeping oneself to oneself is the basic protection mechanism
emphasized. To let another close to you, or know you as a real
person, is seen as threatening,

The basic means society uses to prevent the development of full human
relationships is the promotion of superficial relationships.

One of the ways of doing this is through the sexual double standard.
Females are brought up with the cult of virginity and being a “good
girl” while males are brought up with cult of “scoring’’ and
making it, Obviously there is a conflict here.

Life becomes a sexual game, For the males sex becomes the object of
relationships rather than part of relationships; while for the
females the object is to avoid sex regardless of the circumstances of
the relationships. At the same time males are taught that there are
two types of girls – those you have sex with and those you respect
and attempt to cultivate full relationships with. The females, on the
other hand, are taught that all that males are interested in is their
body, and that they should protect it at all costs.

Personal relationships under these circumstances tend to be
superficial with the individuals involved too concerned about being
“good”, or making it, or whether she is a “nice girl”, to be
able to develop any sort of real personal relationships,

When the “rules” are broken the situation all to often ends up in
frustration or guilt.

For people to develop fully as people requires the ability to develop
their interpersonal relationships to the fullest and most rewarding
extent, The form these relationships take should not be set for them
by society’s rules or norms. This is particularly true of the
critical sexual component of these relationships.

People should not be encouraged to build relationships for sex, nor
should sex be discouraged from a relationship if it has potential for
making that relationship fuller and more rewarding.

The effect of present socialization processes does nothing to
encourage or enhance the individual’s personal relationships or
personal self-development.

What it does, however, is guard against the danger to the present
“mega-political” society that would be present if people started
to come together as humans. The whole consumption-growth ethic would
be threatened if cooperation replaced competition as the basis for
social relations. I people could develop as full humans, with full
human relationships with each other, the result would inevitably be
cooperation with each other rather than competition with each other.

But, what is the answer. Education is usually too late, Despite how
rationally people may understand the difference between what is right
for them and society’s imposed ‘‘moral’’ norms, they find
it very difficult to overcome ingrained socialization. Regardless of
the publicity given the “new morality’’ and changing sexual
attitudes, the majority of people are still brought up with the
traditional “moral’’ norms ingrained in them, Despite their
ability to reject these norms intellectually they remain ingrained
within them., The result is only doubt or guilt.

All too often this means the prevention of the fulfillment of true
human relationships (or worse the termination of such relationships)
because of guilt that the individual knows is not justified but feels
anyway,

What is the answer?

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 11#03 1972-09-26)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

“Sex for the sake of sex’’. This is getting down to the nitty
gritty – and there is no logical or rational refutation to advocating
such a position.

“Morality’’, so called, has never actually been moral, but has
always served society – and the needs of society have not always
coincided with the needs of people.

The necessity for some form of social control over sexual behaviour
came with the linkage of sex with conception and birth; and society’s
necessity, or desire, to control population. The most successful way
of controlling human behaviour has never been legal, but rather
religious or moral controls. The intricate moral network of church,
state, education and family has been much more effective than any
forms of legal control. Thus ‘‘moral codes’’ were established
to control sexual behaviour.

Despite the decreasing role of the state in personal morality, and
the decreasing influence of the church, ‘‘morality’’ is still
defined by society in much the same way as it was in the past.

‘‘Morality’”, in fact, serves nothing. It has not adapted to
meet the needs of society and the state has abdicated any
responsibility for it. It stands alone, based on tradition and has
not adapted to the changing needs of people. Indeed the latest
Vatican edict justified itself by referring to the necessity of
respecting ‘‘venerable tradition’’.

But there can be no justification for‘ society’s interference in
sexual behaviour. With present means of contraception and abortion an
individual’s personal sexual behaviour need have no effect on
society.

The moral decay arguments are senseless, in that they are circular.
All they mean is that if a large number of people disregard present
sexual norms the whole “moral’’ system will break down. But
since the system serves no needs, personal or social, its breakdown
is meaningless. Indeed its breakdown will simply result in a greater
degree of personal freedom. In a situation where sexual behaviour
will affect only those concerned there is no need for society to have
any place in controlling it. Any decisions regarding the individual’s
sexual behaviour must be personal ones.

There should be no condition for sexual activity other than mutual
desire and consent. This should, of course, exclude any form of
social seduction or any social pressures either way. The individuals
should, of course, understand what they are doing and understand the
reasons for it. Perhaps then people will not pretend that their
relationships are other than what they are simply for the sake of
“moral” justification. Then the relationships will have a better
chance to develop freely into closer and deeper ones.

There are, of course, broader social implications. Tied in with
present sexual norms is a complex social and family system. For one,
sexual freedom will end the necessity, and often the tragedy, of
marriage for sex, As well it will open the way for a whole new series
of life styles and living arrangements other than the traditional
family (a key part in the present socialization process) with
potential for a society where people can live together in a truly
human fashion,

Sexual freedom may even provide an alternative to the massive and
highly exploitative capitalist ‘‘pleasure industry’’ for the
human body, being the marvellous creation that it is, is completely
capable of providing people with their own pleasure and what is wrong
with people giving pleasure, or indeed affection, to each other.

We all recognize that sex is better with someone you love. So is
walking down the street; but we walk with our friends, and even with
strangers, and it doesn’t hurt anyone,

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 11#04 1972-10-03)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

Any critical analysis of society must examine the institution of the
family. The nuclear family is a key in the socialization process and
a cornerstone of the present order of society.

The institution of the nuclear family is perpetuated by means of a
complex array of social norms and taboos. A legalistic system of
sexual relations serves to ensure the perpetuation of this system
(and perhaps for this reason alone such a system of sexual relations
should be abolished).

The nuclear family concept is a smothering one. It brings up children
with a limited contact with their own peer group, as well as with an
even more limited contact with adults.

The children are brought up highly dependent on two people. This
hinders their development in terms of their ability to develop
relationships with adults other than their parents, as well as with
their peers, As well it develops within them a limited dependency on
their parents, which will be replaced later by another limited
dependency on their marriage partners.

The children in such a family are dependant solely on their parents
for security. If for any reason their parent’s relationship is
threatened, their whole sense of security is threatened.

This itself is complicated by the security orientation of society
itself, whereby security has replaced freedom as a basic personal
value.

Indeed, such marriage relationships do not aid in a child’s
development but are usually continued in an effort to preserve the
family (“for the sake of the children’’) due to the presence of
children. Such children are not aided by developing in such, often
hostile, environments.

It would seem much more logical for children to be brought up in a
freer environment that has potential for a greater variety of
relationships (with their own peer group as well as adults).

This of course, requires a much freer system of interpersonal
relationships in society so that relationships can develop in
whatever ways are fulfilling for the individuals concerned. This
requires the complete abolition of any legalistic system of morality,
The key in developing relationships must be simply a striving for as
much fulfillment as possible for those involved, including children.

There must be the abolition of all restrictions on interpersonal
relationships, including sexual relationships, as well as the
elimination of any concept of legitimacy. All children are
legitimate!

Such a society must bear a social (i.e. joint) responsibility for its
fellow people, especially children, Children need not be dependant on
any two parents; in fact it would be preferable if they did not know
or identify with their natural parents as such. Rather they should
relate to all of their fellow people as humans,

That this is possible is demonstrated by the fact that extended
kinship families of similar. nature existed in the past and avoided
many of the problems of alienation and insecurity that our. present
society possesses. Such a system, though not based on kinship, could
clearly solve many of our present social problems.

That this will be called “sinful’’, ‘‘anarchistic’’,
‘‘unworkable’’ and ‘‘revolutionary’’ is obvious.
Revolutionary it will be – but revolutionary social change is “he
only way to counteract a socialization process that perpetuates an
inhuman society, with the critical problems of alienation and lack of
personal fulfillment that is inherent in such a society.

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 11#05 1972-10-10)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

Dedication; *‘A lifeless rock can lead to the fulfillment of a
beautiful dream.”

There appeared in the last issue of Lambda (Vol., 11, No. 4) a letter
which I feel that I must reply to.

I sympathize with the author, whom I will assume is a woman. If that
was how she experienced her first sexual experience, then perhaps it
is understandable that she feel the way she does.

However, that does not excuse her generalizing her experience to all
womankind.

In doing this she contradicts herself. After stating: ‘‘the world
just forgot to tell her that she needs the perfect counterpart and a
willingness to please that is so intense that it can lead to the
beauty and joy she was looking for’’, she concludes that “sex
is always a bitter disappointment to a female the first time’’.
She implies that all males are, as her first partner was, preoccupied
with themselves, and a loving caring lover – “the perfect
counterpart” – is not to be found among the male portion of the
species.

As much as I vehemently attack the role that males are socialized
into – the aggressive self-centred role – I know that the
socialization process can break down, either generally or for a
specific relationship, and that it is possible for a man to have the
feelings about a woman that she describes as befitting the “perfect
counter-part”.

Yes it is a dream, but the answer does not lie in extending the dream
indefinitely towards its destruction or destroying it prematurely –
the answer lies in fulfilling the dream,

Problem number one is that sex is something that men do to women and
something that good girls avoid, until, of course, they, marry and
then it is something that they passively submit to as their “duty’’
as wives.

Problem number two is rules. Rules that have no rational basis can
easily be dismissed, and then what is there to take their place, to
base judgments on.

With these problems in mind I will attempt to look a little closer at
the example given,

First of all “Ron” is somebody special – everybody is somebody
special.

“Jane” is placed in a situation that she is obviously not
prepared for. She is confronted with unknown emotions, feelings, and
desires. To say that ‘‘she decides HE is worth it” implies that
she is allowing him to have sex with her (sex is something a man does
to a woman) and exhibits an obvious social bias, She wants to please
him, perhaps out of fear of losing him. She is indeed confused – she
may then realize that the rules make no sense – so what does she do,
she submits.

What does he do – he acts his role. He attempts to seduce her (it is
worth social points) and, successful, he realizes sex in an
aggressive self-satisfying manner that is the male role, Since the
rules do not apply to him (the double standard) he does not even have
to reject them, He need not even feel guilty, for he may feel that
“Jane” truly cares for him and is simply fulfilling her female
role of passively pleasing him,

The answer to this dilemma is what I am trying to put forward. Rather
than ignore it, as the author of the letter would like to do, I am
putting forward an alternative.

If “Ron” had not been socialized in the predominant male role, or
had cared enough about ‘‘Jane” to ignore his socialized role,
he would have been more concerned with ‘‘Jane’’ as a person
and with her needs.

If “Jane” had not been so concerned about rules she could have
been more concerned about “Ron’’ and what his true feelings
towards her were. When a girl is taught that something is wrong and
then realizes that the basis for believing it to be wrong has no
validity – it may then appear to be right, Of course that does not
follow logically. If she had another criteria for judging whether sex
would be right or wrong (or more properly fulfilling or
disappointing) she would have something to base her decision on.

In the example given, the result being negative, there was one vital
clue that should have alerted “Jane” to the fact that “Ron”
may no have been the ‘‘perfect counterpart“. A lot of urging
does not seem to be the action of someone concerned about the
delicate emotions of a virgin (please excuse the stereotyping). In
fact the opposite stance would have been more appropriate. If a man
cares about a woman he is careful not to lead (or follow) her into
any action that could possibly hurt her. Though he may want both of
them to experience fulfillment, he would do his best to ensure that
it would strengthen their relationship, not harm it. They would
discuss it – philosophically, and in terms of themselves (if people
cannot talk about sex they have no business engaging in it!),

Providing they both care about each other, and are sure of their
actions, they have a good chance of finding fulfillment. However,
given present socialization, sexual fulfillment for a female is not
automatic – with the double standard, the male has a better chance
since it is natural (socially natural) for a woman to want to please
him. But he should seek to please her also, and she should help him
please her (she should tell him what makes her feel good). Then true
mutual fulfillment follows naturally.

Sexual expression is a most human expression. I can conceive of no
better way of communicating caring, kindness, tenderness, gentleness
– love. Perhaps this is not as it always is – but it is as it can be!

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 11#06 1972-10-17)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

Caring is perhaps the hardest, or the easiest thing to do in the
world.

We all have a tendency to put down those we disagree with. If the
difference is one of politics we call them fascists or communists. If
the difference is one of lifestyles we call them ‘‘old fashioned”
or immoral. We may make a joke of them behind their backs – even to
the point of cruelty. It’s inhuman,

They are people and have as much worth as people as ourselves. Their
views and opinions are shaped by their environment and socialization
process as were ours.

Why do we put them down when we could understand their reasons, and
get to know them as people, with just a little effort.

People are so much more than their outer shells – their intellectual
output. There is an inner self, a humanity, that transcends all outer
facades. If only we can reach this. If only all of us could know each
other as we really are. Perhaps then there would not be the seemingly
inevitable conflict present in the world. It only takes a little
effort.

We should stop arguing and start talking and listening. Instead of
concentrating on forming counter arguments in reply to others,
perhaps we should concentrate on listening to what they are saying
and why they are saying it. Perhaps instead of trying to win debating
points we should think about what others’ arguments mean to them
and what they say about the person using them. Perhaps we should ask
why others feel the way they do and why they say the things they say.

Rather than trying to prove our superiority perhaps we ought to try
to see beyond the outer facades of others. We should try to reach
them as people and let them know us as people.

Of course this means letting down our defences and our outer shells,
our masks, our self-worshipped images of ourselves.

It means listening not only to the intellectual output, but to the
emotional overtones and the real meanings. It means reaching for the
spirit – feeling – caring.

We are all human and our artificial outer differences need not stop
us from loving each other.

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 11#07 1972-10-24)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

Social change is what this column is talking about. Social change is
necessary if people are to live as humans, in what is now in many
respects an inhuman world,

But how do we achieve social change. Doctrinaire Marxists would point
to the necessity for a violent international workers revolution. But
despite the possible theoretical validity of such a strategy, it is
presently not a viable strategy for Canada.

Socialists in Canada have seen the need to work within the electoral
framework and within a reform minded workers party.

The NDP is the workers’ party, the peoples’ party in Canada and
represents the interests of the common man, rather than the interests
of the corporations and capitalistic development as do the Liberals
and Conservatives.

The NDP is the only party that sees political conflict in terms of
class struggle. The NDP recognizes that there are vested interests in
this country that have control of its social and economic system –
vested interests that perpetuate themselves and their wealth by
exploiting the labour and resources of the Canadian people – vested
interests that are for the most part foreign, and that are ‘‘buying”
us with our own money – vested interests that have reason to support
both the Liberal and Conservative parties.

The NDP is the only party that realistically sees that Canada’s
independence is threatened from the outside. The NDP is the only
party that has a realistic policy to retain and regain Canadian
independence. It is within the NDP that the Canadian independence
movement exists.

It is the NDP that is proposing the elimination of government gifts
and tax concessions to the massive and wealthy foreign capitalist
conglomerates that control this country, It is the NDP that is taking
the first small steps (and people within the NDP that want to take
more effective steps) towards a realistic redistribution of wealth in
this country.

It is the NDP that is proposing a tax system that doesn’t take from
the middle class to give to the corporations, while throwing a few.
crumbs to the poor, It is the NDP that proposes that the wealthy
corporations pay their share, so that the burden may be taken off the
middle class and so that the poor may share in the wealth of their
country.

It is the NDP that believes education should be a right rather than a
privilege. It is the NDP that believes students should be given free
tuition along with living allowances. It is the NDP that proposes
massive federal aid to education, and aid directly to students, to
ensure equality and accessibility to education for everyone in this
country.

Sure, the NDP is a reformist party. Stephen Lewis called it “the
only free enterprise party in this country’’ in explaining its
policy of withdrawing grants from wealthy foreign corporations and
offering them to small independent Canadian businesses.

But still, it is in the NDP where the possibility of building a party
dedicated to fundamental social change exists. It is within the NDP
that there exists an organized presence for building a socialist
party in Canada. It is within the NDP that the future of this country
lies,

When you vote on October 30, you have your future and your country’s
future in your hands.

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 11#08 1972-10-31)

By Richard W, Woodley (with love)

Laurentian University’s residence system offers a diversity of
repression.

You have your choice among a number of alternatives, from University
of Sudbury, where you will be held by the hand and treated like a
child; to the more “liberal” University College, where you will
be given the kind of guidance any teenager needs.

The residences at Laurentian do a very good job of protecting the
morality of their “children’’.

Thorneloe College, being an all male residence, in the true spirit of
the double standard, does not regulate morality to the same extent as
the others. It has no rules regarding the opposite sex, though
visitors, as in all residences, must have an escort to be allowed the
use of residence facilities.

University of Sudbury, on the other hand, is sexually segregated and
mixing of the sexes is prohibited except on the ground floor up till
midnight on weekdays and 1:30 AM. on Fridays and Saturdays. To ensure
strict control over its “children” the residence regulations are
in the form of a contract which excludes the Landlord and Tenant Act
from applying to the residence.

In Huntington College the sexes are also segregated and escorts are
required for males visiting the female section and for females
visiting the male section. Visiting hours are from noon to midnight,
except for Fridays and Saturdays, when they are extended to 3:00 AM.

University College is also sexually segregated, by floor, but allows
freedom of movement within the residence. However, visitors must be
signed in, with visiting hours extending till 3:00 AM. University
College has a strange rule stating that visitors may not be signed in
after midnight; so that if you arrive at 11:59 you may stay till 3:00
AM. but yet at 12:01 you are not allowed in.

The common theme of all the residences appears to be the. taking on
of a responsibility for the residents’ welfare and more
specifically, the residents’ morality, This is a concept known as
‘‘in-loco-parentis”, meaning that the residence administration
acts in the place of the residents’ parents, This is, indeed, a
strange concept to apply to adults (dare I use the term) who, if they
were not attending university, would be out working and living on
their own.

Is this to say that university students cannot take care of
themselves or make decisions concerning their own lives, that other
people their age, who are working, are capable of ? Or, is there some
special danger within the university community, that does not exist
in the work world, that students must be protected from ? Is it an
attempt to protect the virginity of the first year girls from the
vociferous sexual appetites of the senior males ?

Perhaps it is time that somebody recognized that university should be
a place where people develop their minds and their personalities –
where people learn to live together and interact with others – where
people learn to make decisions concerning themselves and their lives.

Morality is a personal matter and, unfortunately, it is likely
moulded before a student enters university.

At this point, the student has either accepted the moral code of his
or her environment or rebelled against it. In the first case they are
unenforceable, at least as far as regulating the students’ moral
conduct is concerned.

It is indeed unfortunate that the university is used as a further
means of moral indoctrination, By its nature, as a community of
adults, with many different views, it is the ideal place for the
development (not indoctrination) of a personal philosophy and
“morality”. It is a place where adults can come together and
discuss problems, and consider alternative lifestyles and values, and
judge for themselves, rationally and spiritually, what is most
fulfilling for them.

This of course assumes that we are adults and assumes that we should
be allowed to take responsibility for our own lives.

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 11#09 1972-11-07)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

Society has deemed it necessary to structure the interpersonal
relationships of individuals. Specific types of relationships must
fall within specific role patterns. According to society’s norms,
intimate relationships must be of a permanent nature.

Marriage is the institution that society provides for intimate
relationships, and marriage is permanent. If a marriage doesn’t
last “forever” it is said to have failed. This is regardless of
how fulfilling the relationship may have been during its existence.
However, if a marriage lasts “forever’’, regardless of the
quality of the relationship, it is said to be successful.

There is no rational explanation or justification for this
structuring of relationships. Indeed, in many cases this can be a
hindrance to the development of full relationships.

The type of relationship we are talking about is one where two people
can relate to each other as human beings with no outside restrictions
on the form the relationship takes. This requires that no limitation
be put on the intimacy of such relationships.

A full human relationship requires closeness. It requires that people
be free to be honest with each other and vulnerable to each other. A
full human relationship is a relationship of the emotional, the
spiritual and the physical.

Why must these relationships be permanent. In many cases one is not
prepared for a permanent relationship. Should that preclude one from
developing a full human relationship on a temporary basis.

Further to that, should any relationship be considered permanent. No
relationship can be completely permanent. Relationships are always
developing and changing. Some may last ‘‘forever”, and indeed
improve with time, yet are these not continuous rather than
permanent. Others may reach a point where they are no longer
fulfilling; should they be considered a failure despite the fact that
they were fulfilling human relationships while they lasted. Should
they not be terminated at this point to allow the individuals to live
the rest of their lives,

We are living in a university community where many are unsure of
their future plans. A community in which many of us spend six months
of the year, and the other six months elsewhere. Our ideas and
philosophies are developing. Interpersonal relationships should be
the most important part of our lives. Yet society restricts these
relationships.

Getting to know people is important. Communication is important.
Communication involves the expression of ideas, emotions, feelings
and, at the highest level, the communication of one’s spiritual
self to another. Communication must not be restricted. Physical
contact is one very important means of communication,

However society’s ‘‘moral’’ norms re- quire that physical
(sexual) communication be reserved for permanent relationships.

Firstly, if such permanent relationships were considered desirable,
should one not know the other as completely as possible before
entering into such a relationship,

Secondly, such relationships are not desirable as they commit people
“forever” to a relationship that may not continue to be
fulfilling for either of them.

It seems much more logical to encourage people to develop
relationships, that are as fulfilling to the people involved as
possible that provide the greatest exchange of human communication
and human understanding as possible. These relationships should not
be permanent – they may be temporary or they may be continuous.

There is nothing wrong with an ideal of two people living together in
a full relationship “forever”, However one should recognize that
such a dream can fail, and then comes the time for the termination of
such a relationship.

There is also nothing wrong with two people living together in a full
relationship for a temporary period of time. Such a relationship may
be continuous or it may be terminated by circumstances, but it
remains a fulfilling and worthwhile relationship regardless of its
length,

If two people can relate to each other, exchanging understanding,
concern, and love k for even a second, then something very wonderful
has happened.

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 11#10 1972-11-14)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

This column has appeared to be mainly concerned with interpersonal
relationships of a male-female orientation. However, it is not meant
to be interpreted in that exclusive a manner.

It is the opinion of this column that all human relationships are
worthwhile and that love is possible between any two humans. This
column has stated that the full expression of love requires the
physical (sexual) expression of love. This column must, then, accept
the naturalness of sexual relations between persons of the same sex.
We cannot reject this unless we are willing to reject love between
persons of the same sex; and we are not willing to do that.

In considering the heterosexual – homosexual question we must deal
with a number of contradictions which we may not be able to resolve.

The first being the fact that, in considering the homosexual person,
our whole theory of socialization is questioned, as the homosexual
person does not fit into the prevalent socialized role pattern.

We must, then, put more emphasis on the physical aspect. If we accept
the fact that some people tend to be sexually oriented towards the
same sex, while others tend to be sexually oriented towards the other
sex; we must accept a physical basis for this orientation. (We reject
a social basis because, due to the strong emphasis towards
heterosexuality dominant in our socialization process, the homosexual
person cannot be readily explained in terms of socialization.)

Does this mean that all people are prevented from completely loving
individuals of one of the sexes due to a basic sexual orientation or
is this just a dominant factor in each of us that may break down.

The world would likely be a better place if we were all bisexual, and
could all love each other completely. Perhaps we are.

Perhaps this is where the socialization process comes into effect.
Perhaps people who are basically heterosexual are so socialized that
they cannot conceive of their potential for completely loving a
person of their own sex. And perhaps people who are basically
homosexual, and realize their ability to completely love persons of
their own sex, are prevented by the socialization process, through
alienation or rejection, from perceiving their ability to completely
love persons of the other sex.

It is clear that any tendencies towards feelings of a homosexual
nature are seen by the dominant heterosexual society as “immoral”
and that there is indeed great social pressure to suppress, reject,
or rationalize these feelings away. If we accept the natural ability
of all of us to completely love all of our fellow humans, regardless
of sex, then we must realize that somewhere along the line this
natural ability has been suppressed by the socialization process.

The individual who has not suppressed or rejected these natural
feelings (towards persons of the same sex) is rejected by the
dominant heterosexual society. Perhaps at this point a
reverse-socialization process, manifested in a rejection of the
dominant society and the dominant sexual orientation, suppresses that
individual’s natural ability to completely love persons of the
other sex.

The answers are not clear and will not be until we recognize and
accept the naturalness of all human relationships, regardless of
whether they are between persons of the same sex or persons of the
other sex.

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 11#11 1972-11-21)

By Richard W. Woodley (with love)

What is love.

Last year, this column attempted to answer this question. It did so
in a rather romantic and subjective manner.

It will attempt to do so again, also in a subjective manner, as there
is no objective way of analyzing the concept of love. It will,
however, be based on an additional year’s experiences, learning,
thinking, and reflecting (and one very special factor).

The idea of falling in love has been rejected by those who prefer to
refer to love as a decision and a commitment.

Of course, one has to decide to love, but there must be a basis for
love. Though theoretically we should all be able to love anyone, our
society has managed to see to it that this is not possible, so that,
in reality, one is only able to love certain individuals.

Falling in love is when you find an individual whom you know that you
can love, Then you must decide to love.

The decision to love involves a number of things. First, a
realization of a wonderful feeling and a mutual need that cannot be
explained. This may be reinforced by physical attraction and
compatibility of philosophy, interests, politics, and general outlook
on life.

With this comes the question of commitment. Love does not require a
commitment, though the characteristics of commitment are usually a
part of love. If one feels the need to make a commitment then one is
not sure of one’s love.

What happens after one decides to love. With love comes intimacy (or
perhaps rather with intimacy comes love) and, as Dr. Eric Berne
points out, ‘‘Real intimacy takes place between real people, and
usually progresses more or less quickly to sex.”

It is natural and healthy to express one’s feelings for another in
a sexual manner. Two people that love each other should express their
love to the fullest extent possible.

Society will often attempt to prevent this if it does not occur
within a certain framework, as this column has repeatedly pointed
out. This is one reason why I am so bitter towards society – while
encouraging exploitative sex it discourages fulfilling sex.

We wish, however, to take this one step further and state that one
may have full and deep feelings towards more than one person. There
is no reason for the sexual expression of love, or caring, to be
limited to one person.

Even if two people have decided that their love for each other is
such that they wish to live together, this should not prevent either
of them having sexual relations with others if the circumstances
warrant it.

What this column is calling for, is for people to look at morality
for what it really is (or perhaps should be). Morality is a concept
that implies a means of living together in the most fulfilling way
and in a way that. avoids hurting people.

‘This column may be taking some rather revolutionary positions
(perhaps not), but seen in this context I believe it to be living up
to its principles.

Of course, what this column proposes is based on an acceptance of
this view of morality. Consideration must be given to the fact that
people are presently socialized according to the present society’s
“moral” norms, and this concept of morality, as any concept of
morality, must be applied with the utmost regard for individuals and
circumstances.

However, it is hoped that the day will come when morality will be the
quest for human fulfillment, freedom, and peace.

 

The Fifth Column
(VOL 11#12 1972-11-28)

by Richard W. Woodley (with love)

When we speak of a morality based on personal fulfillment, freedom,
and peace, we imply that these things are lacking in our present
society, and indeed they are.

One of the major reasons for the lack of human fulfillment in our
society is the alienation of the individual from his or her daily
existence,

Karl Marx documented this alienation as it referred to human work.
With the development of capitalism, along with the demise of the
handicraft system, the individual’s work was no longer a part of
the individual – it was no longer his or her own creation but that of
the capitalist. The human labourer became only a cog in the
capitalist’s machine.

In modern day capitalism this is even more developed as work has
become merely a means to an end, One works to live (provide a means
of subsistence) and to provide a means (financial) of buying
entertainment (pleasure?) when one is not working, The worker does
not receive fulfillment from his or her work.

But alienation has gone further in our society, with attempts to
structure all time and all activities for the individual, Leisure is
indeed becoming increasingly alienated and often focused on the
worship of artificial culture via the mass media.

Education itself is also alienated from the student (or perhaps
consumer) as it is no longer a personal process of self- fulfillment
and development but rather a process of training for an alienating
job in society.

The alienation of our society is seen in the legislation of our lives
– our work is structured for us by the capitalist – our leisure is
structured for us by the capitalist pleasure industry – our culture
is structured for us by the capitalist mass media and our
interpersonal relations are structured for us by moral norms aimed at
protecting and perpetuating the capitalist status quo.

Breaking away from such a system is extremely difficult. Our concepts
of happiness and ‘‘good’’ have been developed (via
socialization) to fit into the system. But happiness that is based on
something outside the individual is not the same as personal
fulfillment based on what is inside the individual.

For
more from Lambda see Laurentian
University student newspaper Lambda – Internet Archive