Sexual Purpose
Yesterday I resolved several things
In a rough paraphrase of Foucault: the operations of power remain effective only to the degree their functioning remains hidden. He spoke to why political theory continually fails to behead the king, I would like to speak to why we can't get our hands out of our pants (or the pants of others)
For a while now, I've had a partial post about gender, performance, etc sitting on blogger unfinshed, because I've been unable to find the terms to explain just what I'm talking about. The point is: the belief our sexual identities are produced through a single sexual act (intercourse [insertion] or the lack of it) makes it impossible for us as a 'liberated' people to be truely free in our sex.
The idea that 'sexual acts' refers back to one specific form of contact (genital/intercourse) effaces the significant pleasures and pains that involved with other types of contact. Certain touches, caresses etc outside of the bedroom weild sexual power whether we know it or not. Dirty jokes or talk, hugs etc are sexually significant, and construct the types of relationships we have with people in a profound way; they shape our thoughts and actions in ways other types of contact wouldn't. They also construct our gender roles- the teller of a joke assumes a particular position, the listener of joke reacts in a particular way in order to create an effect on the perception of the speaker. Reducing 'sex' and 'gender' to a relationship of intercourse ignores the significance of the more regular processes determining our gender and sex roles.
When this happens, we loose several things. The first thing is a sense of pleasure. Sex means more than intercourse, and we should contribute the same devotion, time and exertion to these things. This makes each part of the relationship more fulfilling and rewarding in its own right. Understanding sexual relationships as something more than genital/intercourse removes pressure to awkwardly push 'forward' into a particular type of act that raises the physical and long term stakes of a relationship.
The second thing is a sense of violence. Reducing sex to an act obscures the regular violence created by more casual acts of sexuality. The forced hug of a teacher, the pointed glance of a stranger, the unwanted comment 'flattering' a passerby all should be considered as sexually violent acts, even if they don't directly address genitalia or intercourse.
A third is an understanding of nuance and conflict in gender. The fact that a man has sex with men doesn't determine the types of relationships that man has with women, other men or any other gender form. It does not unify or cement their approach to people occupying other gender roles. Making sex a question of intercourse makes us ignorant to the nuance of any gender role, the conflict that lies in most people, 'gay' or 'straight' in how they relate to people.
Last, we will remain tied to processes of domination and repression we keep pretending to dispose of. The 'liberated' sexual body we find in the image of the pill-wielding, post sexual-revolution woman will always be tied to a process of control. Control in the subtle violations and gendering processes we find in the workplace or the street, domination in the discourse of inadaquacy played out on the bodies of 'women.' If control over that one act (intercourse) remains sufficient to be 'liberated,' we will always loose sight of what it means to be sexually fulfilled.
In a rough paraphrase of Foucault: the operations of power remain effective only to the degree their functioning remains hidden. He spoke to why political theory continually fails to behead the king, I would like to speak to why we can't get our hands out of our pants (or the pants of others)
For a while now, I've had a partial post about gender, performance, etc sitting on blogger unfinshed, because I've been unable to find the terms to explain just what I'm talking about. The point is: the belief our sexual identities are produced through a single sexual act (intercourse [insertion] or the lack of it) makes it impossible for us as a 'liberated' people to be truely free in our sex.
The idea that 'sexual acts' refers back to one specific form of contact (genital/intercourse) effaces the significant pleasures and pains that involved with other types of contact. Certain touches, caresses etc outside of the bedroom weild sexual power whether we know it or not. Dirty jokes or talk, hugs etc are sexually significant, and construct the types of relationships we have with people in a profound way; they shape our thoughts and actions in ways other types of contact wouldn't. They also construct our gender roles- the teller of a joke assumes a particular position, the listener of joke reacts in a particular way in order to create an effect on the perception of the speaker. Reducing 'sex' and 'gender' to a relationship of intercourse ignores the significance of the more regular processes determining our gender and sex roles.
When this happens, we loose several things. The first thing is a sense of pleasure. Sex means more than intercourse, and we should contribute the same devotion, time and exertion to these things. This makes each part of the relationship more fulfilling and rewarding in its own right. Understanding sexual relationships as something more than genital/intercourse removes pressure to awkwardly push 'forward' into a particular type of act that raises the physical and long term stakes of a relationship.
The second thing is a sense of violence. Reducing sex to an act obscures the regular violence created by more casual acts of sexuality. The forced hug of a teacher, the pointed glance of a stranger, the unwanted comment 'flattering' a passerby all should be considered as sexually violent acts, even if they don't directly address genitalia or intercourse.
A third is an understanding of nuance and conflict in gender. The fact that a man has sex with men doesn't determine the types of relationships that man has with women, other men or any other gender form. It does not unify or cement their approach to people occupying other gender roles. Making sex a question of intercourse makes us ignorant to the nuance of any gender role, the conflict that lies in most people, 'gay' or 'straight' in how they relate to people.
Last, we will remain tied to processes of domination and repression we keep pretending to dispose of. The 'liberated' sexual body we find in the image of the pill-wielding, post sexual-revolution woman will always be tied to a process of control. Control in the subtle violations and gendering processes we find in the workplace or the street, domination in the discourse of inadaquacy played out on the bodies of 'women.' If control over that one act (intercourse) remains sufficient to be 'liberated,' we will always loose sight of what it means to be sexually fulfilled.
posted by Duncan at 9:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home