Museum of Sex, Norton, Weeks
Museum of Sex, Norton, Weeks
I was struck by the condom exhibit at the Museum of Sex for two reasons. One, despite Talmudic law that prohibits the “waste” of semen, the two most largely used types of condoms – animal skin and latex – were invented by Jews (one American, one German.) This is as strange to me as the idea of Catholics inventing condoms. Granted, most participants in this country of each of these religions are secular, but the idea still seems rather strange to me.
Two, the exhibit focused largely on disease control rather than birth control. My health classes in high school always focused on pregnancy, so this was a general shift in point of view for me. However, I think it was wisely done – the exhibit makes condom use universally attractive. Pregnancy focused approaches to condoms are isolating to the gay community (I’ve had many gay friends dismiss condoms because men can’t get pregnant.) By focusing on STIs, the exhibit highlighted the benefits of condom use for everyone.
Condoms are an excellent – and still evolving – example of Weeks’ assertion that sexuality is not “a primordially ‘natural’ phenomenon but rather…a production of social and historical forces” (4). The history of condoms and the public’s reaction to them has permanently shaped sexuality (in our culture, at least.) Weeks states, “The meanings we give to “sexuality” are socially organized, sustained by a variety of languages, which seek to tell us what sex is, what it ought to be, and what it could be” (4). That is, in the case of condoms, “sex is” not merely for the married, nor only for heterosexual couples, so long as one is used, “ought to be” safe, through condom use, and “could be” disease and pregnancy free, through condom use. This is surely different from the view of sex in decades past where condoms were not so readily available, acceptable, and reliable – sex was for married couples and ought to have been for procreation and strengthening the marriage and religious bond.
Aside from condoms, I was really intrigued by The Sex Life of Robots animated porn, especially as the creator referred to the film as sex acts between “well lubricated machines.” Intentional or not, I believe this reflects on the porn industry today. The explosion of pornography from professionals to amateurs on internet porn sites marked a shift from named to nameless. We all know who Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson are, but most porn clips, with the exception of DVDs I assume, simply refer to the female participants as “girl,” “blond,” “brunette,” or, often, “slut.”
Additionally, those who make a living in the porn industry are put at extreme risk. Movies are often made without protection because some directors feel it ruins the fantasy element, scenes are filmed very frequently, and are often incredibly rough. With this, porn actors are nameless and disposable, making them seem more like machines that act for our benefit rather than people.
—-
(On another note)
Weeks states: “[The] long history of subcultures of male homosexuality throughout the history of the West…have been critical for the emergence of modern homosexual identities which have been largely formed in these wider social networks (9).”
and Norton states: “Personal queer identity arises from within, and is then consolidated along lines suggested by the collective identity of the queer (sub)culture (12).”
Though Norton is quick to dismiss Weeks and social constructionism as a whole, just as Weeks dismisses essentialism, I’m having trouble finding much of a difference between these two sentiments. Weeks acknowledges that biology and human instinct cannot be discounted, and sexual desire is a human instinct. Perhaps the term “identity” is the distinguishing factor (Foucault argued that inner self and identity are constructed, not innate,) but at least in my opinion, these quotes both seem to recognize that the individual and the community are two separate entities; the man who has a sexual desire towards other men recognizes this as an element of himself, then finds solace in a community of his peers and adapts to whichever “queer subculture” he finds. Perhaps I’m reading in such a way that agrees with my own opinions (the aformentioned). I recognize the root differences between the two fields of thought, but here they seem to converge.
(Updated, 11:49 PM, 2/18)
Tags: condoms, essentialism, homosexuality, museum of sex, porn, social construction
February 18th, 2010 at 2:12 pm
Hi Katherine, this is a good entry in terms of the Museum itself, but remember that the posts for the week are to make links between the readings. So please add comments that will tie together your reading of the exhibits and the 2 essays for the week. You might do this most readily in terms of your comments on the Condom exhibit. Also, please look at my comment on David’s post on Weeks and Norton.
Your discussion of the Sex Life of Robots is insightful.
February 18th, 2010 at 8:19 pm
I was also struck by the emphasis on disease prevention in the condom exhibit. While, as you said, this certainly is a positive message, I was a little perplexed on the constant referral of condoms usefulness in “family planning” rather than “avoiding unwanted pregnancies”. In my opinion, the former places an emphasis on the fact that procreative sex happens within a family, seeming to reinforce the idea that this sexual activity is “normal” and everything else isn’t – an idea that the museum’s very existence as well as exhibits seems to be in opposition to.
Then again, perhaps I’m attaching to much importance this particular discourse on sexuality.
February 18th, 2010 at 10:56 pm
Professor Quinby, not to worry. I had planned from the beginning to write a separate post about the readings, though perhaps it makes the most sense to tie together all three elements. I’ll edit this post and weave in the readings.
Kaitlyn, I hadn’t thought of the distinction between “family planning” and “unwanted pregnancies” at the exhibit, but now that you mention it, I think you’re absolutely right. The term “family planning” implies that those who are having sex are planning to start a family together, which is often not the case. Come to think of it, the condom exhibit constantly referred to promiscuous homosexual partners, pairings between prostitutes and their clients, and “family planning;” I don’t really recall reading much about heterosexual promiscuous couples, although this could be a mistake on my part.
February 20th, 2010 at 5:05 pm
I also realized after this post that perhaps the more-oft use phrase besides “family planning” is “birth control”, yet I think that also lacks the directness of “preventing unwanted pregnancies”. I think this directness is unappealing because of the view of women as child-bearers, and a woman who does not want children at all is seen as abnormal. Both the terms “family planning” and “birth control” imply that a woman will be having children (a family)/giving birth and that the women using condoms (or whatever other method of birth control) is just controlling when and with whom she does these things – not that she is completely removing this perceived aspect of “womanhood” from her life.