Robert Mapplethorpe and Tom of Finland

Our discussion of Tom of Finland made me think of the photographer, Robert Mapplethorpe (1946-1989), who was mentioned in the article “Dressing up Power.” I think these two artists addressed many of the same themes (and I think I read somewhere that they were friends).


Mapplethorpe was an American photographer. He was known for his portraits, still lifes with flowers, and his frank documentation of gay subculture. His nude studies of black men are among his more controversial photographs. Lahti quotes Jane Gaines in reference to both Mapplethorpe and Tom of Finland, stating: “What is striking about interracial homosexual desire (the case with the white male photographer’s desire for the black male body) is that from the point of view of official culture, this is a double-crossing that cannot be ideologically rehabilitated – it is incorrect on two counts [being a gender and race infraction of social rules].” The cropping of Mapplethorpe’s images and the fragmentation of the body parts reduce Derrick Cross (the subject of the photographs) to a purely sexual being.

I have been thinking about the conversation we had in class – about whether or not the information we as viewers know about the artist affects our reading of the images or our feelings about them. Robert Mapplethorpe is a white man, but I find these images problematic not just because I know this about the artist. The viewer is prompted to identify as a white male “because of the fantasy of mastery inscribed in the ‘look’ which implies a hierarchical ordering of racial identity.” He aesthetically objectifies and eroticizes racial difference. Lahti connects this same idea of “race as a category of pleasure” to Tom of Finland’s drawings, stating that they may “call into question discourses that try to regulate the ‘racial’ borders.” Both Tom of Finland and Robert Mapplethorpe raise questions about the importance or relevance of their personal history in relation to the understanding of their work and the balance between reinforcing or transgressing boundaries, be they racial, sexual or class-related.

http://www.mapplethorpe.org/portfolios/

Should We Rise Up and Protest Against Czech Arousal Testing of Gay Refugees?

Czechs Defend Arousal Testing of Gay Refugees

I’ve heard people described as “card carrying gays.” Maybe we should all start carrying cards that certify our sexual orientation—that way we wouldn’t have to undergo silly tests like this one…


In this class, we have been discussing the evolving and competing definitions of homosexuality throughout history. Is it defined by acts, desire, or identity? Looking at this article, how does the Czech government define homosexuality? Here is a summary of the article: the Czech government has introduced a new test to “verify” the claims of gays seeking political asylum for reasons of discrimination on the basis of their homosexuality. The test is as follows. Those indicating homosexuality as the reason for seeking political asylum are exposed to heterosexual porn. If they show sexual arousal (the Czech government assures that the examinee’s responses are monitored by a “medical specialist”), then they fail the test (not a certified gay, so to speak) and therefore cannot obtain asylum.

Clearly, the Czech government’s test defines homosexuality solely as a type of attraction/desire and shows no interest in the type of sexual acts in which the examinee has partaken nor does the test care how the examinee defines himself (granted, sexual history and self-identity are harder to test than bodily responses). How does this construal of homosexuality stack up against past conceptions of homosexuality?

In Katz’s Inventing Homosexuality, we read that before the late 19th century (when the term homosexual was first coined) those who partook in same-sex acts were viewed as just that, people who partook in same-sex sexual acts (not as a separate group or identity). In colonial America, for example, sodomy was an act, not a sexual orientation or identity. Not until the late 19th century did specialists such as Freud and Hirschfield begin to frame homosexuality as a medical condition—as a type of attraction. We can see echoes of these specialists’ focus on same-sex attraction/desire (and not acts or identity) in the Czech Republic’s arousal tests.

Can homosexuality simply be boiled down to biological responses to certain stimuli? After watching Victim, we talked in class about Farr’s (ambiguously presented) sexuality. Can a man who has same-sex desires but has never acted upon them and doesn’t identify as a homosexual be labeled as one? Can we judge homosexuality solely on attraction?

Another criticism I raise against this test is that it forces a binary categorization of sexual attraction/desire. Either the examinee responds to the pornographic images or doesn’t—there is no gray area. What if the person is bisexual, or just responds to the erotic nature of the pornographic material? I agree with the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights when it questions whether the test “reaches sufficiently clear conclusions.”

And what of the sexism inherent in this “phallometric” arousal test. How would one test lesbians (or other female-bodied persons without a penis) who seek asylum?

The government states that this phallometric arousal test is used only as a last resort or when “it was not possible to use a different method of verification.” Let us hope they find a more humane (and less awkward) manner of conduct their work.

FIRE REGIS

We haven't spoken or read much about sexual assault in this course, about crossing the boundaries of consent. I saw something about it on a feminist blog recently that really disturbed me. A 26-year-old famous musician with an ultra-curvy figure was on the Regis and Kelly Show. After her performance, Nicki Minaj spoke with the hosts of the show. Regis, almost 80, complimented her fashion sense. "I like this hem," he said, reaching his hands around the bottom of her short dress. Then he deliberately patted her butt a few times.

I saw the video a few days ago and felt really upset by the way he looked at her, touched her, and talked to her. Maybe the cartoonishness of her look - the neon hair, bright tight short dress, bright lipstick, tiny waist and huge butt, kind of vacant stare - added to his queasy tripped-out feeling. A blog called Super Hussy compared the spectacle to the 19th century freak show "performer" Sarah (or Saartjie) Baartman. Subject to many caricatures and pejorative terms, Sarah was an enslaved African woman forced to exhibit her dances and body parts, particularly the large butt (steatopygia) and extended labia genetically found in her ethnic group. Europeans viewed Sarah as so profoundly different and inhuman that normal rules of propriety and boundaries did not apply.

Back in 2010, do parts of Nicki Minaj's identity make this seem more okay? That she, like Sarah Baartman, is a black woman with a big butt? That she wears tight clothing and presents herself primarily as a sexy girl? Her style seems to parody something about the performance of girliness but in interviews she expresses no real desire to be anything but cute. Is her parody that is too subtle for me, or are costumey outfits just a trend? Either way, she didn't respond at the time, but tweeted later "Lol. I was in shock!"

*
A few reporters - men of color, incidentally - have been fired recently for their supposedly racist musings. Juan Williams, author of several books on black history, said he gets nervous on airplanes when he sees Muslim passengers wearing "Muslim garb," and National Public Radio fired him. Rick Sanchez, arguing that there is a racist bias in TV reporting, said Jon Stewart is not oppressed as a Jew because "everybody who runs CNN is a lot like Stewart, and a lot of people who run all the other networks are a lot like Stewart." CNN fired him.

These stations decided that these men's racial comments were outside the boundaries of legitimate discourse, or that the men were to embarrassing for the stations.

I've seen no one on the internet suggest that Regis Philbin should be fired for crossing a boundary of consent and inappropriately feeling up Nicki Minaj. Maybe it's because talking honestly about race is new for many reporters, but treating female guests like sexual objects is not new for talk show hosts.

Genes and eugenics

http://www.torontosun.com/life/healthandfitness/2010/12/02/16404841.html

We have been reading over the past couple of weeks how the idea of biology has affected the way we observe sexuality over time. As we get more and more obsessed with using science to explain difference, the genes have become a principal. All from the sad person gene, the gay gene, and now the promiscuity gene, we want to explain why people are different.

Of course we are not interested in finding the genes that make us normal. We are not interested in which genes make us monogamous, or hard working, or heterosexual. Although I think genetics it is legitimate in its search for biological explanations to why we are who we are, general obsession with genes focuses on what, as a society we find transgressive. Putting it in a different way, the common interest on genes is not in personality traits but in psychopathology.

There is an interest in discovering the gay gene, or the promiscuous gene, because they are undesirable traits. And however we disagree on the way that eugenics has been used, as in Spurlin’s discussion of the holocaust and the current approach to AIDS. The obsession with genes is rooted, in my opinion, in the same logic. If there is one particular gene configuration that makes you promiscuous that means that we can make an attempt to avoid it. Maybe we can grow into a species without cancer, LGBT, or promiscuous people.

I think that although we can say that our society tolerates transgression in people, many people would not think twice if they could avoid having a sexually deviant child. Finding a genetic reason for difference opens the door for hope that one day we can add genes to the pool of traits we can choose to have in our kin.

Dr Laura: “Problems with Two-Income Marriages”

http://www.drlaura.com/blog/problems-with-two-income-marriages/37717

Dr. Laura is a pro-family writer and personality who has built up her empire to include a radio show and an extensive website, and much of her work primarily focuses on relationship and family advice, to which she adds her extremely conservative bent. She also increases her credibility by going by the name of “Dr Laura” when in fact she has no doctorate of any kind.

In the above article entitled “Problems with Two-Income Marriages”, Dr. Laura begins by stating that many, (and if not all, she seems to say), families or couples living on two incomes are choosing to do so instead of doing so out of necessity, which immediately begins this article with judgment and a feeling of guilt put onto those involved in families that live off of two (or more) incomes. She goes on to argue that having both parents work (she assumes an atmosphere that either includes kids or will in the future) is damaging to the home environment and to the children involved.

She goes on to show a very simple example of a couple transitioning from two incomes to one, and then proposes very simple measures which are supposed to be enough to make up for a person’s entire income, making it seem like living off of two incomes is a choice for excess at the expense of your family. And importantly, her example is a heterosexual couple that wants to have children; again showing her bias towards what she thinks is ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’- heterosexual partnerships that produce children.

And most importantly of all, I think, is how she ends the article. Dr. Laura states, “I really do believe that marriages and families do better with a division of labor, unification of purpose, priority on attitude and atmosphere, and a joint effort to make ‘money in/money out’ be more sensible and marriage/family-friendly”. I think that this statement makes clear Dr. Laura’s bent towards a strict family structure in which the wife is supposed to stay at home and be the welcoming and caring wife and mother, while the father can work and make the money for the family to get by on, and I think it also makes clear that she views that sort of strict family structure and patriarchy as what is most healthy for raising children as well. I think that despite her lack of extremely explicitly saying this, it is clear through her use of examples where the father/husband keeps working and the wife/mother stops, or is supposed to.

I think that not only is this article of offense and judgment to those many families who absolutely need two or more incomes in order to survive, but I think that Dr. Laura is ignoring all forms of family and relationships that do not fit into her heterosexual ordering of the family- she has no consideration for single-parent homes, homosexual partnerships, homosexual parents, children with divorced parents, etc., but I have little doubt that she would view all of these environments as unnatural and especially damaging to any children involved, despite extensive scientific evidence to the contrary (studies that show actually lower levels of abuse in children with homosexual parents, etc.).

The Element of Space

In Jennings book, Tomboys and Bachelor Girls, a large aspect in the development of the lesbian community was the element of space. Space was also a factor in the homosexual identity after World War I, as seen in A History of Homosexuality in Europe: Berlin, London, Paris 1919-1939. In both cases, the homosexual community was forced to create its culture and identity in certain spaces that were alloted to it; For example, gay bars and pubs were centralized to a certain district in both London and Paris, and lesbian clubs were forced to locations where they were discreet and camouflaged.

Coincidentally, the homosexual community today in the United States - at least Chicago - sees the same sort of "herding" of gays into a certain section of the city. Boystown, located on the north side of Chicago, is known for two things: 1) Its proximity to Wrigley Field and 2) The abundance of rainbow flags that encompass its 15 block radius. Boystown is, as the saying goes, where the gays go to play, and not so ironically where much of the homosexual community makes up its permanent residence.

So why is it that 2010 in the north side of Chicago is no different than the 1930's or 1950's in London? I'm not entirely sure of the history of Boystown, but I believe I can safely assume this isn't a random parallel. Did society believe that by containing the gay population in a certain area that they would be able to remove them from their city, and culture, all together? It may seem like a pretty silly notion, but maybe if the gays didn't have to be seen by the more superior heterosexual population, then maybe homosexuals didn't really exist.

Chicago today is a pretty gay-friendly city. It proudly boasts one of the most lively and large gay-pride parades in the nation, and the gay bars that I have been to in the city have still been some of the best times I have had. So why, then, is Boystown still known as the "gay" part of the city? And does this go to prove that no matter how accepting and gay-friendly a city is, does it still give the city some sort of "relief" that the gay community is centralized to a certain area?

Should Gay TSA Agents Be Barred from Giving "Same-Gender Pat-Downs"?

http://americansfortruth.com/news/should-gay-tsa-agents-be-barred-from-giving-%E2%80%98 same-gender-pat-downs%E2%80%99.html

Americans for Truth about Homosexuality, an anti-gay hate group, called for the banning of “self-acknowledged homosexuals” from the security screening position. Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, states that same-gender pat-downs are meant to reassure travelers and make them feel more comfortable. But Americans for Truth about Homosexuality raises the question, “isn’t it just as inappropriate for a ‘gay’ male TSA agent to pat down male travelers as it is for a normal, heterosexual male TSA agent to pat down female travelers?”

I think this concern stems from the belief that homosexuals are less likely to be able to control their sexual urges, that they won’t be able to avoid getting turned on by performing the pat-down, and that they are less likely to behave professionally. It is also interesting to note that Napolitano says that same-sex pat-downs are meant to protect women from being groped by men, while the AFTAH is mostly concerned with “normal” men being groped by homosexual men; so that it appears that people need to be protected mostly from the male TSA agents. Additionally, Napolitano’s statement has to do with how the person being patted-down feels, while the AFTAH worries more about how the person doing the patting-down will behave, both assuming heterosexuality. The AFTAH’s assumption of heterosexuality as the norm positions homosexuality as a threat.

Responses to the AFTAH article pose the question: What is it about same-gender pat-downs that is supposed to make us more comfortable? Perhaps it is because we assume that this reduces the likelihood of feeling violated or that someone with the “same parts” is touching us. But really same-gender pat-downs are an imperfect solution or create a false sense of guaranteed safety. Also, it seems clear that the AFTAH has not considered gay and lesbian travelers – would they also like to ban them from being patted-down in the off-chance they will enjoy it? So while the group acknowledges the illegality of discriminating against people based on their “sexual orientation,” they argue that self-identified homosexuals should not be placed in positions that perform pat-downs so they will not be put in “sexually compromising situations,” even arguing that it is somewhat irresponsible for the TSA to not know which of its employees identify as homosexuals. And I think they’re being serious.

Humanizing Sexuality with Condoms?

Pope's comments on condoms

This article caught my attention last week and I have been waiting eagerly to blog about it! Having grown up in a devout Catholic family and attended Catholic school for 12 years, I am very aware of Catholic views toward contraceptives. During high school sex education (called “human morality” class) contraceptives were never discussed. What’s the point of discussing contraceptives when one is not supposed to be having sex in the first place? The Church’s teachings were always presented in stark black and white terms. The use of contraceptives was “immoral” in all cases.

In his new book, Light of the World, Pope Benedict says that when used to control disease, condoms "can be a first step in the direction of moralisation, a first assumption of responsibility….a first step in a movement toward a different way, a more human way, of living sexuality." Although Pope Benedict didn’t lift the Church’s ban on condoms, his statement acknowledged the existence of a gray area in what was once a nonnegotiable matter.

In Lost Intimacies: Rethinking Homosexuality under National Socialism, William Spurlin connects the Nazis’ racialization, gendering, and politicizing of the Holocaust to current governments’ (lack of) response to the AIDS pandemic. AIDS activists have accused governments of antigay and racial motivations (framing AIDS as simply a “gay” or “black” problem) for ignoring the crisis.

Activists have leveled the same criticisms against the Catholic Church. Because of the Church’s strong stance against homosexuality, many Church leaders have feared that taking proactive steps toward combating the spread AIDS would be considered an endorsement of (or a softening of the stance against) homosexuality. The Pope’s recent statement on condoms comes as the Vatican also addresses renewed criticism directed toward it’s inaction during the Holocaust. Does the Church want to avoid another such holocaust?

And what does the Pope mean by “moralizing” and finding “a more human (way) of living sexuality?” The Church is not new to “moralizing” sexuality, but how does one find a more “human” sexuality? The Pope mentions condom use as a “first assumption of responsibility.” Does a more “moral” more “human” sexuality mean a more responsible sexuality? I believe most AIDS activists and sex educators would not argue against an increased emphasis on “responsibility” in sexual practices.

While Church’s acknowledgement of the utility of condoms is a positive step toward combating AIDS, if the Church continues to define a moral sexuality solely by its own strict moral standards (and shaping its response according those who adhere to these strict morals), it turns it back on millions who die from a disease that could have easily been prevented.

Preferences

Under National Socialism in Germany, Nazis constructed a severely exclusive national identity. For Aryan men and women considered "healthy," the Nazis encouraged sex – even outside of marriage – to promote the race. Their propaganda pushed the idea that everyone else's sexuality was disgusting and dangerous. William J. Spurlin's book Lost Intimacies connects queer theory with Holocaust studies to theorize the role of sexuality under Nazis, and he questions how this attitude has manifested itself in contemporary societies. He notes the U.S. government's lackluster response to the AIDS epidemic, and how eugenic ideas influenced the public image of AIDS victims as racially and sexually other and inferior.

How else have racially restrictive ideals of sexuality influenced our current world? And how much responsibility do we take for ridding ourselves of this kind of sexual imperialism? John Mayer's controversial and very personal interview with Playboy included some inflammatory comments on race. Throughout the interview he insisted that he is "not a bad boy," and that he wants to show girls how much he loves and respects them.. But only white girls. "My dick is sort of like a white supremacist," he says. "I've got a Benetton heart," he insists, "and a fuckin' David Duke cock." It sounds like he finds it unfortunate but utterly unchangeable that his body reacts this way. Is his - or his dick's - prejudice that fixed, or does he have the responsibility to work through his prejudices?

Several months later a new meme came out called Privilege Denying Dude: a well-dressed young white man with short quips showing his (maybe well-intentioned) ignorance. "I'm gay," says one. "I know what racism feels like." Another: "Those Halloween Costumes aren't offensive," he says. "I lived in Japan for three years." Here's another:

I think we all have preferences when it comes to dating and attraction. But these are influenced by strong cultural messages saying that light white girls are more pure and beautiful, that people with health disabilities are asexual, and so on. We can't talk ourselves into being attracted to someone we're not attracted to, but we can become aware of destructive prejudices we internalize, so that we can begin to map a way out of them.

John Mayer's comment was hurtful to many readers, and offensive for its reference to the KKK, meaning that he was not only talking about his preferences, but invoking violence against those beyond his sexual attraction. And as a famous person, his words contribute more substantially to influencing American culture - and conceptions of who belongs - than for the rest of us.

But at what point are preferences just preferences, and when are they a product of the racism/sexism/heterosexism/ableism/ageism/antisemitism/ism/ism/ism that we haven't yet shed? Nazis didn't exclude only Jews or homosexuals from their race-building, but also those with physical handicaps. If a preference for blond hair and blue-eyes is dangerously influenced by eugenics, what about attraction to people with perfect skin or physically fit bodies? Is it always wrong to exclude a group of people as undesirable?

John Mayer also said that he loves fantasizing - when he masturbates, and even when he's having sex with someone else. So he should know that his penis doesn't operate entirely separately from his mind. We may have preferences, but the more we decolonize our minds, the more our preferences will be idiosyncratic, rather than sweeping and dangerous exclusions of a whole class of people.

House Proud: The troubling rise of stay-at-home daughters

http://bitchmagazine.org/article/house-proud

So I think this article on stay-at-home daughters is really interesting. Fast synopsis: this particular religious movements such as the Christian Patriarchy Movement tru to go back to the “traditional” gender relationships in the family, where daughters are put in a position of wifes-in-training, and the males in the family have absolute power. Fathers give their authority to husbands, and women’s ultimate goal is to marry and to become the keeper of the home.

Although marriage life and being a stay-at-home mom is a legitimate choice for many women, these movement takes it a step further by regarding women, if not explicitly, the property of the men in their life, first their father and then their husband. It think that this is really interesting in context of the readings of this past week, when we discuss the idea of the construction of a nation as heterosexual. I think that this movement, in a different way, also wants to promote create a society based on hyperheterosexual ideals. By giving men the ultimate power in the formulation of the family, this movement is feeding on a type of cult of masculinity. The growing level of women’s independence can be seen as emasculating, and therefore as a threat to the stability of the society’s structure. The “prime purposes of feminism are to establish a lesbian-socialist republic and to dismantle the family unit,” echoing Pat Robertson’s notorious statement that feminism is a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.” Independent women are therefore a revolutionary tool that will destroy everything we love and cherish. Women keep their status as atavistic, and giving them greater power is dangerous: again, masculinity equals stability, femininity equals hysteria. Interesting when we think about revolutionary Russia and the way emancipated women and greater gender equality were seen as a symbol of the success of the revolution.

This article also reminds me of the trend of virginity balls, similar to debutant balls, but with the difference that the girls swear to their virginity and to their relationship with their father. Same idea, different presentation.

I think that the promoting of the idea of women’s ultimate goal as marriage links back to our discussion on the persecution of lesbianism. Lesbians were prosecuted less than male homosexuals, first because they are less visual as a subculture, and then because of the idea that lesbians would come to their senses, and go back to their heterosexual roles; their sexuality being defined by men.