The faults within Heterosexuality return to the forefront
again with this week’s readings. The dominant and submissive roles attributed
to sexual partners are interrogated by Gavey and Hakvag. Their arguments remind
me of our discussions earlier in the semester made by Griffin, Mackinnon, and
Cahill who were similarly critical of heterosexuality and its normalization of
rape.
We began with Griffin in Cahill’s article and their
interrogation of heterosexuality which enabled the social acceptance of rape as
“heterosexual love finds erotic expression through male dominance and female
submission” (Cahill 28). Similarly Cahill states that “rape is a variation on
normal heterosexual activity” (38). More radically Mackinnon explicitly argues
that sex and rape are the same for women “under conditions of male dominance” (174).
Furthermore Cahill and Mackinnon critique the concept of consent as an act of agency
on the part of the women. Which is problematic due to the power dynamics and structure
of inequality which women experience.
In conjecture with those articles I have been trying to
think through the murky concept of coercion and how it can be unpacked in such
a way for me to move on in my own sexual encounters. As I commented before in
response to Cahill and Mackinnon: How do we continue to have sex of any sort
under the understanding that our desires as intrinsically tied to gendered
power dynamics? Closely related to this question was another comment brought up
in class discussion: How can women (or submissive sexual partners in general)
find agency in their sexual encounters? Can they find agency in choosing to
have undesirable sex?
To begin this thought process I
first found it necessary to reconsider the motivations for which sexual partners
of any sort choose to have sex. In our current Western culture, sex is
understood to be the cornerstone in all stages of a relationship. From beginning
to end of any sexual encounter sex is used as a lure, a bargaining tool, a form
of stress relief, and an obligation. In class an interesting comment was made:
why is having undesirable sex so different from doing other undesired acts? In
my opinion I believe it is due to the overall ambiguous and multipurpose nature
of sex itself. Cultural, religious, and social norms have imbued sex with so
many meanings that truly it has become a chameleon. Yet just like a chameleon it
moves within certain environmental limitations.
Overall I think that before we can
interrogate the existence or possibility of agency in undesirable sex, we need
to first understand the motivations for sex. As with other topics such as
fashion norms, body ideals, eating practices, I believe agency can start from a
person’s justification for action. It is certainly not the end point,
structures of inequality that are consequences of culture and history cannot be
ignored, but it can be a starting point for the entire discussion.
No comments:
Post a Comment