We talk about sex and food at PDANation

Response to P: Top Seven PLUS!

I enjoyed the radio interview. I am not like my celebrated wife in one respect: I don't worry about "getting it all said" in such a venue but about getting in two or three major moments of impressive insight/cleverness out of ten or so that I prep to address intelligently. This is supposed to be a conversation, and I do worry about turning it into a lecture, especially one that isn't technically pertinent to (or workable within) the show format. I use the leftover airtime and the resulting slack to score style points: celebrity theory looms large in my lifestyle.

I do have an "agenda" where sexuality is concerned, however, and I don't want to leave the impression that I came to this blog with nothing to say about its most prominent issue. I could have continued for another two hours of interview time if I'd wanted to get really verbose. Here are the top seven issues about which I would have had the most to say:

1. MONOGAMISM The biggest racket in the history of civilization. I don't think the words "being set up to fail" are strong enough to describe the situation. But the absurdity continues, and one concludes that society is deliberately maintaining the standard, with heavy penalties for early withdrawal, because society loves nothing more than it does a good old-fashioned no-win scenario.

2. VEGAS It's odd that no one talks about local culture here, at least not the way one gets to hear about the vagaries of various neighborhoods (indeed, various STREETS) in New York City, e.g. Las Vegas is a major fashion center, an entertainment center of sorts, and has other claims to cultural presence, if not depth. Sin City has, in a way that most urban centers cannot even aspire to have, the potential to be a place with a lifestyle, not just a life. But it went in under eighteen months in 2007 and 2008 from being a strong economy and a "best-kept secret" to compulsively playing poor. Nobody wants to tell Vegas stories any more except about how we're all doomed unless we adopt all of Sandoval's budget cuts and let Harry Reid strip away (excuse the expression) the last elements of uniqueness about the place. There are several reasons why such posturing is poisonous not just to the construction and maintenance of valid local culture but to love and libido; it is almost enough to point out that it is so far from having a party atmosphere once you get half a mile off Las Vegas Boulevard that you begin to wonder if residents are deliberately having as little fun as possible until the "downturn" is over just to be on the safe side. "Paris in the spring" it ain't. P.S. Henderson is even worse, of course.

3. XENOPHOBIA A great deal of the airtime was spent talking about prejudice in one form or another. I could have talked about it a lot more, if I'd been inclined. To keep things as relevant to sex and sexuality as possible, I will just point out here that stigmatization doesn't mix well with the erotic, and conversely (and this is another point I could have discussed at length and may later), a greater emphasis in society on seeing to it that the erotic goes well would probably wash away a lot of the momentum of stigmatization.

4. SOCIAL CONTEXT The path leading to the bedroom is as interesting as what happens once everyone has assembled there. Placing sexuality in social context opens the discussion to a lot of the real dynamics at play, and it is exciting in its own right. Sexuality has a path that extends backwards some distance from the bedroom, a fact that some people know intuitively and others figure out rapidly.

5. CLINICAL SEXUALITY I've mentioned before in this blog that I have mixed feelings about clinical language having taken over "responsible" sexual discourse in the English-speaking countries. The case against begins with (1) Foucault's contention that attempts to turn sexuality into a discourse are coercive, and (2) the prevailing impression that sexuality is to be shaped to fit so that it doesn't interfere with the mores and mechanisms of society is a reversal of priorities: sexuality is a strong element of identity, and the goal of society should therefore be to preserve it, or at least to work around it. I stop just short of arguing that fucking is the only thing that IS relevant as a practical matter.

6. THE OTHER 95% OF THE WORLD'S POPULATION One of the more appalling elements of the culture on this continent is the belief that the residents are uniquely qualified to address sexual matters and to dismiss the possibility of contribution by offshore populations developing their own views of such matters. I leave the observation as its own case statement and speculate on how hypocritical it might finally be for such methodological mediocrity to go hand-in-hand with a supposed distaste for sexual assault, in symbolic forms as in material ones. As Spivak called for a "worlding of the world," I would call for a "worlding of the erotic" and of discussion about the erotic.

7. IT'S ALWAYS TIME FOR SEX I am suspicious of the partitioning that goes on regarding sex and sexuality: this time of day is not "appropriate," that location is not "appropriate," &c. I tend to think a lot of the boundaries have been set just to discourage and even to stigmatize sexuality itself: the real message behind fencing it in is that it is the sort of thing that deserves fencing in. The arguments for such boundaries should have and do have a heavy burden of proof to sustain. Otherwise, the idea that the local culture is "sex-positive" is as much of a joke, and for the same reasons, as the signs designating "free speech zones" that now dominate, and indeed could be said to define, the local culture.

Sexuality has endured despite centuries of attempts to end it, or to gear it exclusively to the ends of certain groups of people. I don't mean to imply above that all of the pissing in the pool by such oppressive social entities has ruined it or destroyed the possibility of its growth. I do mean to say that for the pissing in the pool to have reached the point where it is considered the "responsible" and "rational" approach to the subject is a real coup. And anyone who wants to engage in any other sort of potentially valid approach to the issue has to understand he is facing a discursive hypocrisy of legendary proportions. Perhaps the defining feature of the erotic is that it bugs the hell out of some people for no good reason and that these people have gone to great lengths to suppress it and hand each other laurels for their benevolence and wisdom in so doing. The net result is that the subject becomes closed for discussion, and everyone "just knows" that that is optimal. The oppressive effort didn't just have control as a goal; it had rectitude as one. It really wanted to be in the right. It isn't, and to know that it isn't is the beginning of the individual's journey towards real rewards in this area. Suddenly there is more to talk about than we can even fit into the day. But simultaneously, and for the most rewarding of "reasons," there is the release from the oppressive construction of "reason" and no obligation to "get it all said." And I did mention that that appealed to me, didn't I? :)

I've been thinking about the intersection of sex and stigmatization ever since our appearance on Curvacious Bounty of SinCity las week. I've had a lot of insights on how sexuality is used to stigmatize, but possibly the most immediate is being baffled as to why anyone would want to sleep with a xenophoobe.

7 Things about Sex and Life I wish I had said last night

Carl and I made a guest appearance on the Curvaceous Bounty of Sin City last night. What fun! But alas, given how much we can talk forever, I walked away feeling like I had much more to say. So, in the light of day, here's my top 7 things I would have loved to discuss:

1. Dating -- in anticipating the show, Carl and I did a lot of talking about dating and the fact that we never really dated. We became friends, then friends with benefits and then we moved in together and then we got married. We did more dating, in the sense of going places and having fun, after we moved in together. Dating is so artificial and on this, the most artificial of "love" holidays, I guess that's a good message. If you get along with someone and let that grow, questions like where to go, what to do and who pays become irrelevant to just being together.




2. Sex with disabilities -- this may be a more taboo subject than fat sex. Fat sex has some respectability at least as a fetish. Preferring a larger partner is , well a choice, and while the sex police may tell us what we should and should not do, most regard personal desire as something that should not be questioned thoroughly. But choosing to have sex with a chronically ill person and a person with disabilities doesn't resonate with the desire question. While feminist friends were shocked at John Edwards' choice to have an affair while his wife Elizabeth suffered and eventually died from breast cancer, there was a part of me that understood him and his choices. I have a lot of guilt that my husband who was 8 years my junior and only in his early 30s when I became ill, found himself married and in love with a woman who was limited in her abilities to express and reciprocate that love and desire. It has not been easy and it has taken a lot of exploration, talking and understanding to create a sex life that is satisfying for both. And, that satisfaction is not always there. Carl's illness has moved us from a well partner/ill partner to a couple with disabilities, but that does not mitigate matters as much as one might think. This subject needs to be discussed openly because, well, there isn't much available to help.




3. Monogamy -- This might not seem like a subject that a couple who has been monogamous for 20 years would want to discuss, but it is one we have discussed, especially within the context of the point above. If you love someone and you are not able to provide for the sexual needs of the one you love, our society seems to condemn the unsatisfied partner to a life of sacrifice that not only limits the well partner's fulfillment but leaves the partner with disabilities burdened with guilt. This was a tough point for me. My brain told me that polyamorous arrangements were logical, but I was reared in monogamous society and my heart felt fear and jealousy. To me, this is about freedom and love. I cannot believe that tying a person down is compatible with freedom or love. So working through the feelings seemed the only option. I still have those feelings but I recognize them as leftovers of a way of viewing the world that doesn't make sense. I know that Carl stays with me because he loves me. If I had insisted that he stay because of my illness or disability, I would never know. I could live alone easier than I could live with not knowing.




4. Stigma -- I'm not sure if I said everything I wanted to say about stigma, but then I'm never sure if I can say it all. Here's what I want to say: fat liberation will not come simply because we feel good about ourselves and find a way to love ourselves. These things help because they minimize the impact that stigma has on our lives and because it is poor strategy to let the bigots tell you how to feel. But it doesn't change things all by itself. When I woke up this morning I thought about memes and repetition and I think this is what I missed saying last night. It has often been said "familiarity breeds contempt." But I believe that after that contempt, it leads to, well, familiarity. 100 years ago a sociologist named Georg Simmel wrote about the social process of encountering and eventually accepting strangers into one's social circles. One of the basic things he observed was that the extent to which a group perceived a stranger to be different, was the extent to which it was difficult to include a stranger. So strangers perceived as more "alike" were accepted faster and the social distance between the new comer and the group became smaller. Strangers perceived as "different" were held at a greater social distance and this might even be true after they were accepted by the group. Fat people being seen in media and cultural product as well as just out and about in public, not only provide "role models" as discussed last night, but they make fatness familiar. Instead of regarding fat people as more "different" than "alike," familiarity leads to an understanding of commonality and that commonality can lead to less stigma. In the same way as soldiers who figure out that the enemy is human with common aspirations, loves and needs, do not make very good soldiers, it is impossible to treat people for which we have things in common as "less than human."
   




5. Glee -- I don't know much about the show or the characters though I did read a lot about Lauren Zizes. One thing I meant to point out, but didn't get a chance to do is that when Lauren was first introduced the writer for the episode was not the show's creator and her character got a lot of negative media attention and blog attention. The latest episode that has created so much buzz was written by the creator of the show and I believe was a direct response to the critiques. This is a great example of cultural lobbying, which I think is probably more effective than political lobbying in fighting stigma.
   




6. Commercialization of Valentine's Day -- Love and sex are commodified in our culture and holidays like Christmas and Valentine's Day are the high holies of that commercialization. I can only get am radio in the car and so I've been listening to ESPN radio a lot lately. I am mortified at the pressure that is being placed upon men for Valentine's Day. Apparently women are seen as only accepting expensive jewelry as a sign of love. Men are being told in ad after ad that they are in competition for their woman and that they must have an "edge" by buying the "right" gift that "tells her" what you feel (and underneath the message, gets him laid). The only pressure placed upon women in the ads I've heard is a local sexual dysfunction clinic advertising gift certificates to help men who don't perform as well as they used to. I cannot conceive of ever considering buying my man (or any woman buying for any man) a "gift" that says "you need viagra." How passive aggressive is that!




7. Deconstructing "clean" and "dirty" -- One of the aspects of the Curvaceous Bounty show is how explicitly the women discuss sex, their own sex lives and life in general. Las Vegas fits this well. But I have to admit that juxtaposing "clean" with "dirty" is problematic for me. Labeling words as "dirty" or "bad" worries me about as much as "bad" or "unhealthy" foods. Again, for me the first principal is freedom. Dichotomies limit freedom to two choices and pressure us to believe that only one of those choices is honorable. This is not a criticism of the choice to speak a certain way last night to appeal to Pat Ballard's fan base. I have no problem with choosing to gear a particular product to a particular audience and besides the forbidden aspect of the evening and the "slippages" in response to that constraint was fun, in the same way that sometimes it is fun to be coy as long as it leads to giving in. But I would have love to explore the myriad ways in which there are multiple levels of speaking about sex and that they do not have to be dichotomized into "clean" or "dirty" categories. But then I'm a geek and weird things like language turn me on.

So, I am now issuing a public challenge to my partner in crime and the main author of this blog. What, Mr. Foxy MBA, are your top 7?