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.