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.).