"Yes, yes you're oppressed, too": intersectionality of identities

Earlier in the blog I posted a rant about verbs and adjectives, where I expressed my frustration with the words “female”  and “male” being labelled as nouns. I suggested that “adjective” was probably a more apt term for explaining bodies and identities. I refused (and still do) to consider myself a female (n.) because it ignores all the other components of what/who I am. I will consent to being described as female (adj.). In this post and others the concept of intersectionality was introduced. Because it is one of my favourite things to write/read/study about and because I found a text book from a couple of years ago today, I get to write about intersectionality again. The book is from a queer theory class I took in second year and is (creatively) titled A Critical Introduction to Queer Theory (Nikki Sullivan). Below I use the author’s example of “gayness” and “blackness” to write more about intersectionality.

Intersectionality does not just apply to identity, but to experience as well. In the chapter titled “Queer Race”, the author explores the terms “gay black” and “black gay”, in which the former term is the identity that one primarily identifies. These are not her terms; they are real social categories groups of people have created. They are presented as two groups in opposition to each other; race and sexuality as a binary. Traditionally and stereotypically “gayness” and “blackness” have often stood as independent, contrasting qualities. Effeminate gayness contrasts the masculinity supposedly inherent to blackness, and the two identities battle each other out for dominance. As a result, a feuded binary of “black gay” and “gay black” is created.

Are you scratching your head, wondering why identities have to duke each other out for dominant representation in the individual when they are simultaneously all their identities at once? And are you thinking that competing identities would logically lead to competing oppressions? If so, awesome- we’re on the same page. Arguing over “who is more oppressed” is just... illogical and dare I say childish? Playing the "Oppression Olympics" never results in a productive response to oppression and injustice; it assumes that people of both identities do not exist. Gayness and blackness exist together, simultaneously; they interact and intertwine with other identities with every experience. Racism doesn’t exist in a vacuum outside of homophobia, sexism or classism. Everything is overlapping into one huge mess of identities, experiences and oppressions. Identities do not merely add to each other, rather they create unique experiences by occurring all at once.

Couple of quotes

“It’s truly sad to read of a high school generation too detached to date, too indifferent for romance, too distant for commitment... You can’t help but hope that today’s teenagers will come to understand that to rob sex of romance, to divorce it from emotion, is to deny themselves exactly what makes it special” Scot Lehigh, quoted by Diane E. Levin in “So Sexy, So Soon: The Sexualization of Childhood” (in Childhood Lost, ed. Olfman)

I tried to like her article about kids and sex. Really, I did. But I found myself getting too frustrated with it to produce anything relevant to this blog and project. It’s like I was trying to cram a psychology discourse into a women’s studies class and expecting it to work, but it doesn’t work like that. One of these things was not like the other. And since the last while has been spent writing more in a notebook than online or even on my computer, little bits of information that may have otherwise gone unnoticed start to appear.  Compare the above quote with what Califia has to say:

“Why is sex supposed to be invisible? Other pleasurable acts or acts of communication are routinely performed in public- eating, drinking, talking, watching movies, writing letters, studying or teaching, telling jokes and laughing, appreciating fine art. Is sex so deadly, hateful, and horrific that we can’t permit it to be seen? Are naked bodies so ugly or so shameful that we can’t survive the sight of bare tushes or genitals without withering away?” (Califia, 1982 “Public Sex”)

First, Lehigh sounds like a naive little wiener of a man, who is in denial regarding the population’s attitudes surrounding sexual activity. Does he honestly think we’re taught that sex has emotion, romance and commitment? No, fuck no! Even in school, the version of sex education received is often (in my experience) “this is how babies are made. This goes there, and then this happens. Then you might get pregnant.   Or a disease, so be careful; here’s a condom.”  What about this says romance, love or even respect for another person? If you’re lucky, they tell you what’s happening biologically and how one might keep themselves away from disease and infection.

Where was I when sex was supposedly romantic? When high school students had sex for anything but physical pleasure, money, to get what they wanted, boredom, and guilt or because they liked a person or just “felt like it”? I don’t ever remember being around when “sex divorced emotion”; it was never there to begin with. The two might have correlated weakly at best, but they were never causal or deeply involved. When the fuck was sex special?! And who the fuck has the right to tell me that it is inherently so, just because they felt some emotional attachment to the chick they fucked?

Sex is not inherently anything. That’s really the only conclusion I have been able to come to by reading everything I have and writing some of it down. Sex is an ever changing category, and evolves through the discourses we use and perspectives we look through. It can be a biological function, psychological at times, sometimes reproductive, and is regulated through protectionist, social constructionist, and to contrast, essentialist languages and ways of understanding. Sex is never “only sex”; it is not just that term that makes babies. It is far beyond heteronormative, heterosexual sex.  It can involve anyone and everyone, and may mean something different to each individual. It’s impossible to define in a few sentences or apparently in a blog over the course of four months.  Asking “what does the author mean by sex” is a question that must be asked time and time again if we want to have a chance at understanding their work and insights.  The category itself must always be questioned and challenged if we hope to create an understanding of what sex “means”. As with any concept, it is culturally, historically and contextually specific; ever changing with multiple intersections and layers to its definition. 

I put these two quotes side by side in an attempt to question even further what I thought I understood about sex. I’ve told you what I initially thought of Levin, and previous posts give an indication of where I’m going to go with Califia’s thoughts. He continues to send my academic heart aflutter, and this quote really helps to solidify some of the things I’ve learned/have come to know about “sex”. Sex is contextually specific and is by no means synonymous with “intimacy” or closeness, as it is often presented. Califia challenges the sex=romance=intimacy line of thinking when he lists acts that are intimate by are not “sexual” by any typical definition.  

This isn’t a good-bye to the blog, even if it’s starting to sound that way. I have a lot more work to do for this semester’s worth and hope to continue this next semester. I’m not trying to draw conclusions on something that will never end; not providing answers to a question that wasn’t asked. I guess I’m just trying to regurgitate and interpret a little of what I’ve been reading. Hardly unique, but originality slipped through the cracks when I decided to talk about sex. 

I’m saying goodnight for now, because I want to get this posted soon. I’m coming back to this after leaving for a couple hours, and kind of just want to hit the “publish post” button. Things all of a sudden got really heavy in my head and anything I say risks being tainted by these emotions and thoughts.  Night, blog.

Public and private sex

I’m still working my way through Public Sex: The culture of radical sex by Califia, and in the end I’m not going to have written a response to everything that he’s said in his book. Obviously this would be too much, unless I neglect the other books on my shelf to read and respond to only Califia. But it would also be impossible because within every essay in this book there are tiny trinkets of wonder. Even if it’s just one or two paragraphs, my mind is fascinated by the thoughts he produces. In 1982 he published a piece called “Public Sex”, where he continues to feed insight into my understanding of the topic.

He compares and contrasts the public and private concepts of sex.  Although they are often presented as public “versus” private, the terms intertwine and interact in an attempt to give (most) people freedom and choice.  Public and private “rights” are not often the dichotomy they may be portrayed as being. “Public and private” expectations refer to the right to privacy people expect within their own home or pseudo private places, the expectation to public acknowledgement of one’s existence and identities. In short, we want to be who we are and have it acknowledged without banishment and prejudice from society, but we also want to reserve the right to have privacy regarding any part of our life (including but not limited to our sex lives).

Of course, rights to privacy and public acknowledgement are not granted to children or youth. And they are especially not granted to children/youth in intergenerational relationships. Most often, Califia argues, intergenerational relationships or sexual interactions are met with protectionist discourses. Rather than liberate all people from the confines of expectation, the liberation discourse protects only the privileged adults. Children and youth are still regarded as a group that needs protection and guidance, but in a limited sense; they are not to experience sexuality and sex. They are merely told of its existence and why it is bad for them.

Califia argues that sex is not inherently damaging or detrimental to children. When children are denied information and purposely kept ignorant on matters of sex and sexuality, they are harmed by the lack of knowledge that older generations failed to provide.  Under a guise of “protection” and “danger”, youth are told sex is inherently harmful and none of their business. This routine of shame and protection harms youth’s future understanding of sexuality and sex. If as children they are taught that sex is dirty, shameful and wrong, as adults their perception of sex will be altered. No child is born thinking that sex is inherently wrong- it is a message brought to them by parents, educators, society and even sexual liberation movements. The liberation movement that tells us our sex/sexualities deserve both the right to privacy and public acknowledgement is the same one that says “but not for children”; denying them the right to “explore” their sex and sexuality and receive informative, truthful knowledge regarding sex and sexuality.

Though Califia does not go into detail as to the harm that a lack of correct information brings to youth, I remain certain that he is correct. Knowledge is power- the more we know, the more apt we become in making beneficial and productive choices. For example, youth learning that condoms are not effective and even dangerous are misinformed and are at risk of STIs, HIV/AIDS and unwanted pregnancies. This is most often the group of youth that are taught abstinence only sex education in their school systems; an approach that has proven time and time again to be ineffective.  Abstinence only education is notorious for laying guilt trips, shaming sexualities and telling children to “just say no”. Presenting youth accurate information about sex and sexuality does not promote any kind of sex. But it does give youth the same power as informed adults. They are able to learn and understand the risks that come with their decisions if they are told the truth.  Youth, as well as adults should have the right to their private sex lives while being acknowledged in public as sexual beings.  

This is almost a side note to this post, but I’m unsure of where else to put it in the blog. Califia asks the reader to question the borders between “public” and “private”. While presented something of a dichotomy, they are never entirely separate. The borders are constantly blurred when we consider semi-private spaces, such as motel rooms, secluded areas of parks, camping sites or public bathrooms. “Intimate” or private activities often take place such as sleeping, eating, showering and talking with loved ones in these semi-private spheres. The lack of the distinction between multiple spheres blurs the borders between public and private, making us question what activities belong in which category. When we don’t have an answer or placement for each activity, we begin to understand the blurredness of Califia’s arguments. While he is an advocate for both public and private sexualities, he does question their distinction and presentation as a dichotomy.

Women and children first: protection from the obscene

Hi world,

This is the first real post after the semester has ended, and I thought I would have lots to say about the world, the news it offers us, but thus far on winter break not much has been done in the way of work... whoops. I’ve been reading lots but the writing kind of took a dive. That’s going to change because I still have lots to say, and I’ve done lots of reading that needs commenting on. Perhaps most importantly, I need to finish this course so A can give me some kind of grade, so I can move onto hopefully another directed study, and keep the blog going for it. (Wouldn’t it be epic if I failed a directed study?) Anyway, I knew when I started to read Califia that we would continue to have words beyond the initial post because their work is so goddamn fantastic. The academic, rebellious and academically rebellious parts of me are all aflutter when I read Califia. The following is written about parts of the book “Public Sex: The culture of radical sex” , 1^st edition. (Full citation at the end of the post.)

In “Among Us, Against Us- The New Puritans: Does Equation of Pornography with Violence Add Up to Political Repression” (1980) Califia explores the definitions of “obscene” both as a broad concept and as it pertains to sex. If you’ve read any of this blog or have thought about obscenity at all beyond the word itself, you’ll likely recognize that it is an idea that is socially constructed. What we consider obscene changes constantly. (A brief aside: I’m going to continue on the premise that obscenity (and everything else) is socially constructed so I can get beyond just pointing and saying “social construct”.  If you don’t subscribe to social constructionists theories, you probably won’t agree with much of what is to come.  You may even rebuke it in the name of the lord. Not that I care. But if people can present the bible as fact, I can act as one of Califia’s disciples.)

Califia begins by telling the reader that as a child or young adult, adults were unwilling to tell him about sex other than a bland version of anatomical correct images. This, Califia, asserts was the least of what he wanted to know about sexuality. To him, interest lay in the anatomy of lust, pleasure and sensuality. He is able to bond together ideas that have previously been detached, challenging and question the obscene and definitions of sex. He connects masturbation and “lovemaking” (those are so not my words) in ways I’ve never previously heard of. Califia challenges what we consider to be “sex” when he considers masturbation and watching porn to be just as sexual as normative definitions of sex.  We are challenged by his suggestion- do we consider all sex obscene? Do we even have a solid definition of sex? Or have I been mistaking the words “sex” and “pleasure”? Califia wanted knowledge of passion, pleasure and lust- qualities which are perhaps not inherent in sex.  They may be connected, but are never synonymous.

Learning about sex is hard for a child to do, as Califia points out. Adults rarely take the time to converse with children about much beyond “this is how babies are made”, which is often rife with scientific and social inaccuracies. Regardless of the false information adults give their children, they often give them no information about pleasure, passion and everything that sex supposedly means, or at least sometimes comes with sex. I’m sensing Califa was never alone in his desire to know more about these subjects. The censorship that adults offered made it to a much higher level; Planned Parenthood outlined the legal definition in The Sex Code of California:

“Obscene matter means matter taken as a whole, the predominant appeal of which to the average person, applying contemporary standards, is to prurient interest, i.e. a shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion: and is matter which taken as a whole goes substantially beyond customary limits of candor in description or representation of such matters; and is matter which taken as a whole is utterly without redeeming social importance”  

Califia’s assessment of the definition makes it apparent that we are often without freedom of sexual speech.  Although this article is 30 years old, some of the examples and following arguments are still relevant.  At the time, however, Califia labelled one group as being one of the most influential; Women Against Violence in Pornography and the Media (WAVPM), a group that worked to enforce definitions and laws surrounding obscenity.  Their work is easily problematized; looking at their arguments makes me think they’re all bat shit crazy. They have endlessly broad definitions of violence and pornography, all of which they state are harmful to all women at all times in all of its forms.  Yet, it seems their perceptions of genders and sexes are very limited. When the broad definitions of violence and pornography (very few of which consider consent to be the most important factor in giving an act a label) are applied to what we’re being told about “men” and “women”, huge generalizations are made. (It is always two genders for WAVPM; I shudder to think of their trans politics.)

 Women and men are constantly presented within the dichotomy of “pure women” and “vile, lustful men”. The perpetuation of this stereotype means that women are constantly being viewed as a victim of men’s sexuality. Women are viewed as having no sexuality of their own, and any voluntary engagement in sexual acts is immediately questioned. For example, Califia states that WAVPM considers all women in sex work coerced but innocent at the hands of the ubiquitous man.  In an attempt to “free” women from prostitution, groups like WAVPM fail to take into account the many variables that each person faces. They don’t question what they can do to help sex workers that might make their jobs safer. Instead, they seek to destroy sex work all together and leave the scene before they can pick up the pieces.

Citation for book:

Califia, Pat. Public Sex: the culture of radical sex.  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania:  Cleis Press, Inc.  1994.

Life update

     I'm alive. And done exams. This is probably the worst attitude in the world to have, but all my mind can think right now is "thank god that's done". Part of me doesn't even care if I failed, wasted four months of my year and spent 1000$ doing it. I worked my ass of and I failed. But if I let myself think slightly negatively about it, it becomes a slippery slope, usually leading me to think about the worst things in the world. And then I have a panic attack. So we're just not going there now. Probably eventually. Just not now.
     So I'm keeping up with this blog over the break, and into next semester. Hopefully doing another directed study where I can keep this up. Otherwise it will likely just get lost in a sea of other projects I started and I've become oddly attached to this website, despite the fact that I'm pretty sure the only regular reader in the one who is marking me on this...(hi Ann!)
  A sign I should be in school for awhile longer: the period of "Yay! freedom! I can do anything I want!"  after an exam and before complete boredom sets in is about two or three hours. And yet... I managed to fuck up psychology like no one's business. Whatever. I'm looking into transfer programs... I may finally live my dream of being a student in Southern America. (No, not South America. I mean the American South; Alabama, Texas, Kentucky, Arizona. )
I'm not working on anything new right now, but will start something today. Possibly more Kincaid or Califia... not sure yet. I'm giving Curiouser another shot, and might try to work my way through the chapter on The Exorcist (the movie from the 70s, not one of the newer ones or the book). This means I'd have to watch the movie again and take notes. And the first time I saw it a few months ago, sleep was minimal for about four days after. So if I start writing a post and then part way through, it appears as though I cried and ran away, it's most likely I watched the Exorcist alone again.

With all the reading I've done this week, why am I posting about TV? Version 2.0

I'm procrastinating. It's pretty much what I do best. But I had to write about this, and it's something just thrown together, not from a word document. If you know me, you know I'm secretly addicted to TLC shows and specials, particularly the ones involving drugs, medicine, operations, prisons, addiction of any kind or bodies. And possibly some of the one's about food. So when I saw that there was a new special about a boy with 8 limbs on last night, I was pumped to watch it. I justified this by saying I was going to write about it for the blog, and continued to study while it was on. It's also no secret that part of the reason I love watching these shows is because I hate them so much. I usually disagree with what they're saying, getting annoyed and often yelling at the TV. This show was no exception.
A six year old boy was born with a "parasitic twin", growing from his abdomen in the form of legs, arms, a butt and possibly a penis, as well as a large hernia. The entire tone of the show was about "saving" this "poor boy in India", and we were supposed to think the family members who didn't want to operate on the boy were crazy or uninformed about the miracles of modern medicine. And it's true, I did feel awful for the boy because medical people kept trying to touch his protruding limbs and he kept screaming, crying and trying to avoid being touched. No one seemed to be explaining to him why the doctors were trying to touch him, which is bound to be scary as hell for anyone. Eventually they just drugged him up when he kept squirming and crying so they could poke and prod as they pleased. I understand that sometimes this is necessary, but it just seemed like a case where they drugged a kid to shut him up, never telling him what was "wrong" with him. He was supposed to gather this for himself by the way people stared at him in public, or when other people tried to touch his twin, I guess.
He did get the surgery to remove the hernia and the twin. The limbs and the other external parts were removed as well as some other parts of the twin that were growing inside, like parts of a bowel, some body fat belonged to the twin. (They could tell by the way it grew, it wasn't attached internally to him.) Surgically, it looks like they did a beautiful job, the little boy was fine and even playing on a tricycle within a couple weeks. His parents cried and were so grateful that their son was fine and now "normal". I'm not completely stone cold; I can get that his parents wanted everything for their child including a safe surgery. But was it medically necessary? The show gave no indication that it altered his health in any way; the discourse used in the show was a very protectionist one. "We have to save this boy and make him normal", which says more about his life socially and culturally than it does medically.
The boy called his twin "his baby". I wonder if he took home some of the parts in jars. I know I would try to. Or at least demand to see them when I woke up. Did he have an emotional attachment to the limbs and body parts? I can imagine so... they were live body parts, very much a part of his life. They contained blood and fat, and were there for his entire life. I just hope he's happy when he's older about the decision his parents made for him.

be right back.

Hi blog,
I'm kind of taking a break from you for a moment while my mind swims in psychology, papers and other places. Posting is going to be minimal for the next 8 days, but it should pick up when I finish for the semester. Well it kind of has to. Or else I may fail.

The social construction of everything doesn't make some things any easier.