“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment