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” , 1st 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment