I did not sign up to write a main post on this article, but I was compelled to write this post. Sorry for the confusion if this is the article you signed up for...:)
In her essay “Thinking Sex,” Gayle Rubin describes the wheel of sexuality and the lines drawn between “good” and “bad” sex. She portrays the realm of sexual experience as one that involves criticism and discrimination likening the negative attitudes towards certain sexual preferences to racial discrimination. Culturally the goal of most members of society is to move towards complete racial equality and tolerance; thus, likening sexual issues to race issues seems to advocate or suggest an inevitable move towards complete sexual tolerance.
This idea is easier to swallow when thinking in terms of sex that still holds only some social stigma (homosexuality, promiscuous heterosexuality) but harder to comprehend when thought of in terms of widely condemned sexual preference (cross-generational, for money, etc.) I was motivated to write this blog post when I came across the statement referring to men who love boys: “In twenty years or so, when some of the smoke has cleared, it will be much easier to show that these men have been the victims of a savage and undeserved with-hunt.” At this time, it seems incomprehensible that sex with children would ever be an acceptable form of sex. This statement causes me to question, where truly should we draw the line? And then I think back to the racial equality comparison where it is clear in my mind that no line should be drawn when it comes to race and race relations. However, if no line is drawn between acceptable and unacceptable sex, how can we protect those who are not yet capable of making an informed decision (children)?
Apart from that, the structure of this essay suggests that we are constantly moving in the direction of tolerance and acceptance. It is as if one day the thought of discriminating against men who love boys, prostitutes, transvestites etc. would be unheard of in the same way it is so hard for people to fathom slavery as a once acceptable institution. By “discriminating” I mean how people commonly view these sexual preferences/occupations as inferior and/or inappropriate. Rubin brings up the negative connotation of the word “pervert” as a word that assigns a negative outlook to certain sexual preferences. Does she mean to suggest that one day that word will no longer have that negative connotation or will not apply in the same way? It is certainly an apocalyptic idea to suggest that views of sexuality are not static, and will change as time progresses. By accepting that our ideas of sex today may not be the “be all and end all” on the sexual tolerance time line, we are forced to accept the idea that our beliefs surrounding these issues might need to be reconsidered, and that is a scary thought for most people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Elissa I’m glad you felt compelled to post something because I too felt compelled, but perhaps for other reasons. Luckily for me however, you posted something first, and thus helped me to concentrate my thoughts.
ReplyDeleteIf anything I think for me I've had enough of the pluralistic language of tolerance/toleration. Rubin, as you rightly point out Elissa, seeks to move the issues of sex/sexuality towards a general condition of tolerance/toleration.
The way I see it pluralism may be a necessary condition for any satisfying erotics (or complacent civil politics for that matter), but it isn't sufficient. I see a choice between:
satisfaction vs. pleasure-enjoyment, or,
I want X. I don't have X. I obtained X, and now I'm good (satisfied).
VS
I don't know what I want, I don't know where to get what I want, and I may never really get it, but whatever is going on right now, whatever (and whoever) happens to be pleasing me feels damn Good.
This is what is truly disturbing about the child/teen in the pedo/ebophilic relations (as well as the individual who has erotic relations with someone of the same gender but refuses the identity 'gay', think of the senators and congresspersons of late). The child may not 'know what it wants' but its fun all the same, and if it at a later time this pleasure is rejected as not apart of its sex-desire wants and needs, it was never because of the social-erotic pleasure. Pleasure can occur even if one never wanted it to.
Tolerance remains the language of,
"well it may not float my boat...but if it floats yours, then I'm 'cool' with it". Whenever someone says, "whatever floats your boat" BOLO, for they do not embrace or celebrate this 'whatever', they really do not even 'accept' it. The 'whatever' remains a variation on the norm and never the norm, and it becomes an act of sophistication or courtesy/mercy to not rid one's society of such variations; diversity as fun idiosyncrasy.
“I desire you is obscene. You make me feel good is more subtle – the Other is here the subject of pleasure, not the object of desire. Desire only wants orgasm; pleasure seeks to please. There can’t be any desire to please – ‘pleasing’ is implacable. In days gone by, pleasing occupied the place of desire – today, desire discharges us from the need to please."-p. 84, Cool Memories, Jean Baudrillard
I'm not sure that Rubin is working to "move the issues of sex/sexuality towards a general condition of tolerance/toleration." I don't think there is *anything* positively 'generalizing' about Rubin's argumentation. In fact, I think it hinges on the ways that specific (if internally messy) lines are drawn between specific people and practices—and that Rubin is not simply advocating tolerance, but asking us to reconsider the conditions by which we decide to tolerate—or *not*. It is really these conditions—of knowing, norming, classifying—that are of interest to Rubin. And it is definitely within these conditions that tolerance can take place—and be strictly limited, as well. Rubin, I think, would turn us toward a different model than 'general tolerance'.
ReplyDeleteI follow what you writing Dr. Schaberg. That is definitely a great correction. I would follow her in regards to that issue. Often the artificialities of 'good sex' (and the lines that circumscribe what constitutes it) are thoroughly posed as "natural". 'Bad sex' however is seen as artificial (from homo-erotics which do not produce offspring to S&M which of course involves external devices and technological equipment) and the line drawn stems from this. However, do you not think that Rubin argues against the very creation of 'lines' in regards to classifying, and thus "normifying" erotics? In other words, is Rubin not in favor of polyvalent desire and potentially infinite actualization of one's desire?
ReplyDeleteI agree that Rubin is not pushing us towards a state of general tolerance in this article, but I do think that the blurring of lines drawn between people and social practices, and constant progression of our thoughts in regards to "good" and "bad" sex does seem to move in a direction of increased tolerance? My point was more to say that this article suggests that what we consider "unnacceptable sex" could change in the same way other social stigmas have changed drastically over time. I also think that the concept of change is where the apocalyptic element of this article is most prevalent. Our beliefs concerning sexual, or almost any social stigmas, are not static. For me, the apocalyptic nature of the text was clearly demonstrated in the concept of society's view of pedophiles shifting from predator to victim. This shift would be the death of many determined and unyeilding belief systems.
ReplyDeleteI'm sort of with Bryan here. In totally reconsidering what we qualify as "good" and "bad" sex, wouldn't we inevitably blur, broaden, or reconstruct the "lines/boundaries" of what sexual practices are tolerated. The general trend, it seems, is a trend toward acceptance of all sorts of sexual activities not matter how "weird" or "inappropriate" we think they are. I can only assume that the more we redraw these ilnes, the more "normifying" erotics will become. The way I see it, there are only two ways we can go here: towards a conservative backlash or complete lenience. To be quite honest, the discussion to me seems almost futile. It may be relevant to Western culture, but what is relevant to us may not make a bit of difference in another culture. I'm just not sure it is possible to "globalize" sex.
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm really interested in these sorts of phrasings:
ReplyDelete"...in a direction of increased tolerance..."
"The general trend, it seems, is a trend toward acceptance..."
"The way I see it, there are only two ways we can go here: towards a conservative backlash or complete lenience."
Here we might usefully wonder: how is it that we come to talk about sex in terms of 'directions', 'trends' and 'ways'? How many things in life do we *not* think about in this way? (Consider our handy breakfast cereal example.) What causes us to think about sex in terms of 'lines' to be crossed or blurred or whatever? Really, think about it: it is a bizarre way of thinking about things.
So, when Bryan asks: "However, do you not think that Rubin argues against the very creation of 'lines' in regards to classifying, and thus "normifying" erotics?" Yes, I totally agree: I think Rubin is arguing against this 'line-drawing' activity, and against the norming (or "normifying") of erotics. And this does NOT mean simply "Anything goes!" or "General Tolerance!" Rather, and I think this is KEY, such a rethinking of sex would call for greater specificity, heightened awareness of power dynamics and structures, and increased attention to the particularities and details of sex—'sex' would cease to be a (usefully) generalizable subject. It would be more like cereal, perhaps.