Is sex interesting?

Sex seems capable of creating anarchy, and those who are committed to predictability and order find themselves either standing in opposition to it, or occasionally trying to pretend to themselves that it doesn't even exist. My local newspaper, the New York Times, for example, does not include images of naked people. Many of its readers might enjoy it much much more if it did, but those same readers still might not buy it if those images were in it, because if it contained such images it couldn't be the New York Times, it couldn't present the portrait of a normal, stable, adequate world - a world not ideal, but still good enough - which it's the function of the New York Times to present every day. Nudity somehow seems to imply that anything could happen, but the New York Times is committed to telling its readers that many things will not happen, because the world is under control, benevolent people are looking out for us, the situation is not as bad as we tend to think, and while problems do exist, they can be solved by wise rulers. The contemplation of nudity or sex could tend to bring up the alarming idea that at any moment human passions might rise up and topple the world we know. - Shock to the system

same text by Wallace Shawn appears in July 2009 Harper's under the heading "Is sex interesting?"

Секс интересен?