Re: Sex Museum
Re: Sex Museum
Surrounded by archaic condoms, syphilis-infested genitals, animated porn, myriad sex toys, mini LCD screens projecting various fetishes, safe sex posters and HIV/ Aids prevention ads, and some other fun things, I had the following thoughts:
1) This museum is the perfect place to bring naïve adolescents.
2) It certainly feels different when there are so many forms of sexual material placed in the same area with such intimate proximity. One minute I’m observing Keith Harring’s art about safe sex and the next minute, I’m looking at scandalous drawings of Daffy Duck and other animated characters. It almost felt cathartic, being that we are sexually oppressed, to be in an area so jam-packed with sexual paraphernalia.
3) Donkey play is funny, by my standards.
4) I feel it is vital to have something tangible, such as the Museum of Sex, in discourse relating to sex, because it helps—well, me at least—to have an image of different sexual taboos when speaking about sexual taboos. In regards to the reading—Foucault, namely—there is one section in the museum that flashes through my mind when I think about the oppression of a person’s sexuality—the section with a poster detailing the physical appearance of someone who has masturbated. First, the boy looks normal; second, the boy’s eyes are drawn almost like the eyes of a frog; lastly, the boy’s lips and tongue are inflated as if triggered by an allergic reaction. There is also a brief history of religious sects proclaiming masturbation to be evil, which was fun. It’s society versus the one’s ability to act on sexual impulses.
Stay tuned for more comments on the next post.
February 20th, 2010 at 1:17 pm
David, it’s pretty interesting to compare reactions to the various exhibits, ranging as they do from outright laughter to utter sadness. I experience the full spectrum myself. Since I’ve already commented on your Weeks and Norton post by indicating certain things to think about, I’ll suggest here the one that comes most to mind for the next Foucault reading from this comment that you make: “It’s society versus the one’s ability to act on sexual impulses.” Why don’t you write about this insight of yours in light of Foucault’s own use of war metaphors, at the bottom of p. 93 (in the chapter on Method)? I think this will guide you to clearer distinctions between repression, oppression, and production of sexuality.