http://blog.ted.com/2009/12/02/cindy_gallop_ma/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/magazine/teaching-good-sex.html?pagewanted=all
Both of these articles take a really different view of sex than Mackinnon. Discussion revolves around pleasure and frank discussion. There's a discussion of gender bias and the ways to achieve parity. There is no shaming and while there is a challenge to male dominance or male-centered sex, it is not a blame situation but a "make it better" discussion. The attitude about sex and sexuality acknowledges gender but privileges personal desire and experience where Mackinnon would put gender as the central issue. This sort of reminded me of the issue of trans identity in a feminist discourse that has adopted the idea of social construction. What do we do with the very real personal experiences of trans individuals? We can't minimize them, and I don't think we have the right to try and put them within the boxes of the theory we've adopted. It's the same with personal desire. To trivialize what we want in our lives by putting all of it on society and by making us victims to culture is insulting. At the same time, we can't deny that we are, to a great extent, impacted by our culture.
I agree with Mackinnon that women, and men for that matter, are fish swimming in a bowl of female objectification, but I can't agree with her that sexual desire and pleasure can be boiled down to an issue of gender discrimination or gender violence. The discussions in these articles point to an attempt to try and make sure that women and men are healthy and satisfied in their sex life, to reveal the dangers and discuss the potential benefits of pornography, and to demystify sex. I know Mackinnon's issue is that we're too deep in the fish bowl to get any clean water (sorry this metaphor might be going too far), but it seems like an open discussion of what is happening during sex and how it can be about two people (or five) and not about only one partner can only be beneficial.
What do y'all think? Do you think discussion and awareness is the answer? If not, what do you think we can do about the messages we send in sex education, contemporary culture, and pornography?
First of all, thank you for bringing to the forefront these sources for conversation and discussion. I already read the Times article before, but the website "Make Love Not Porn" was totally new. Unfortunately, both sources are exclusively heteronormitive. I do think that each perspective about sex, however, can be translated into most manifestations of "desire." Therefore, still quite informative. But, there seems to be latent problems with adhering solely to a heterosexual perspective for sex talks. It perpetuates the idea that heterosexuality is the "normal" way to want to have sex. This is directly forcing heterosexuality down young people's throats. There must be, either, a better attempt to express all the "sexual proclivities" of individuals or they must limit the examples of the fundamentals concerning the discussion of sex (i.e. speak openly with your partner about sex to ensure that "bad" things aren't happening).
ReplyDeleteTim, totally agree. The emphasis on heterosexuality is frustrating, and honestly, even as a gay student, I didn't notice the heteronormative bend of these sources. My bad. I also agree with your point about broadening our discussion and making sure that we don't shame anyone with a non-traditional preference. Even if we talk openly about sex and desire, it's a whole different project to make sure we're talking in a way that doesn't privilege heterosexuality to the exclusion of others or reduce any other sexual preference to a derivative or deviant of heterosexuality. Related to our discussion of Mackinnon, this might be what is going on. Same-sex relationships, non-traditional relationships of any sort, are just different reflections of the power of the patriarchy and of heterosexual inequality. It seems like Mackinnon has found a new and sort of ironic way to privilege the heterosexual as the original from which all others are derived.
DeleteI think you're point of contention with Mackinnon is very important, and it is one that I didn't realize on my own. She in fact does not address desire or pleasure in terms of the female. She has taken the sexual act to the radical point of seemingly suggesting that we as women should not even participate; yet, I feel that the extremity of her argument has some value. The problems that arise from the normative dynamics of heterosexual intercourse are very serious. As we discussed in class this includes the definition of rape and how to treat victims of rape, and as the previous post points out, it also reifys the dismissal of homosexual activity as functioning within the dominance of what Mackinnon defines as male sexual desire. I think her radical perspective is perhaps the only way to address these very problematic characteristics of normative sexual activity, because it really sheds light on the extent of which male dominance has defined most sexual interaction. I do think it is a problem that she doesn't develop her conception of female pleasure, but I think this is because she is taking the dominance/ submission dynamic to its extreme, by arguing that there is always a submissive player in sexual interaction which is defined by male sexual desire. She uses pornography to point out how male desire continually strikes out and maintains its dominance by taking advantage of our visually controlled culture. With this in mind, I do not believe that pornography can be beneficial, or that we should be visually introduced to sexual experience with visual imagery of others having sex. This feeds directly back into the visual dominance of our culture and it removes our own bodies from the sexual experience. It makes it something that you can master with tools gathered from visual representations of sex rather then actual experiences.
ReplyDeleteAll this said, I think the points you have made in class about the real experiences of rape victims, transexuals, homosexuals, etc. cannot be ignored, and I think Mackinnon does overlook them. I guess the point that I am trying to make, is perhaps the reason her argument is dominated by the dominance of male desire because in real experiences, the issues come back to that dominance. I feel that I'm unable to fully articulate or address the complexity of this issue, but this is my best try.
Ariel, I don't disagree. Honestly, after reading Mackinnon, I turn into even more of an angry feminist, which is saying something. I agree that the extremity of her argument has value. What she's saying about male dominance and the real and direct way that she's saying it force us to consider things from an extreme perspective, and as you noted, force to recognize that our objectification and oppression is, in fact, extreme. My issue with Mackinnon is that her strategy leaves very little to no room for complexity. I don't believe that every facet of desire and sexual interaction can be forced into the box she provides. I also think that claiming every situation and inclination as a result of violent and oppressive misogyny in our culture and ourselves can be dangerous and as essentialist and patronizing as arguments about men and women being "naturally" one way or another. I can't get on board with telling women that one more thing, sexual pleasure in any form, is off limits to them, or for that matter telling men that any sexual interaction that they have is oppressive. As you mentioned and in line with Tim's notes about heteronormativity, Mackinnon's theory completely marginalizes and reduces the experiences of LGBT individuals. Can variant sexual desires, identities, and relationships really all reach back to heterosexual socialization and some form of the heterosexual original? Like I said to Tim, I think that's insulting and not nearly complex enough. Should we really look at gender and sexuality as this directly connected, basically fused? Doesn't that work for the heterosexual hegemony that Butler discusses? What does it mean to tell a woman that her desires are not hers and in fact, contribute to her oppression and violation? But then again, what does it mean not to discuss sexual desire as a product of socialization and as another means of oppression? I guess this is why I think Mackinnon is essential and awesome in a lot of ways. I just don't think she can be the end of the story and I think we have to read her alongside Rubin and Carole Vance and others who say, whoa wait a minute. Not sure that got us anywhere at all but just thought I'd respond and say hi. :)
DeleteSarah,
DeleteThank you for responding to my ramblings. I feel very unresolved with my feelings on Mackinnon. At first, I was really impressed with the radical tone of Mackinnon's essay, and when you first spoke against it in class I was a little taken aback; therefore, it took me a minute to fully understand what you were getting at. I finally feel like I have a grasp on the point your were trying to make against her. It totally makes sense that you would take issue with where she places women in sexual interactions, and furthermore where that places everyone functioning outside of heteronormative sexual interactations. I think you are definetly right in arguing that we should not be guilted into thinking that we are doomed to the submission of male dominance any time we particapate in a sexual act. Her argument leaves very little room for complexity and that is a problem. So, thank you for giving me a stronger critical look at an already extremely critical theory.