Your posting assignment this week is to comment on what you've learned about "Sex in Art, Part II."
See you there/then--
Anne
------------------------------------
"Pandora"
It was beautiful. This...jewel of a thing, it sparkled and that almost made its shape indistinguishable. In her mind it was pulsating, alive in a sense...wanting to open up like a flower and give itself to the viewer. She felt a voyeuristic thrill watching it sitting still in the darkness. There was a glow of life within it that needed to be freed.
She reached out, half in fear, to touch it with a single fingernail, rake its side and half-feel its texture through the most inanimate part of her body. It was going to ride the keratin up onto the finger and into her, she knew that. A powerful attraction was welling up between her and the thing, and she could not move until it became what it had to. It had to expand, occupy her world.
She cupped it, feeling the locked energy within it, waiting to burst and surround her. Carefully, eagerly, Pandora slipped her thumbs into the centre, an almost black void, breaking the seal, opening the box.
Bells danced in her head and the cloying sweet treble of creation spewed into her mind, a rhythm of birth, light tingles of music, the primeval sound of the box, godlike.
The universe exploded in an instant, unleashing everything.
Pandora opened the box and created the world.
Saturated with that initial curiosity to open things.
bloodlust would come soon enough.
------------------------------------
So, there you have it. What kind of imagery does this conjure for each of you? The irony is that he had not meant for it to be at all sexual, and was surprised when his friends had remarked on just how sexual it appears to be.
Any thoughts?
Decade
When you came, you were like red wine and honey,
And the taste of you burnt my mouth with its sweetness.
Now you are like morning bread,
Smooth and pleasant.
I hardly taste you at all for I know your savour,
But I am completely nourished.
~Amy Lowell
pomegranates arn't just sexual. they exibit female sexuality. first of all they're red. i don't know about you, but red is as sexy as a color (and colors are amazingly sexual) can get. it makes me think about passion, letting go of inhibitions, and deeply felt emotions. it also brings to mind the flush of sexually excited skin, swollen lips, tounges, and menstrual blood (a powerful feminine force weather you consider it sexual or not). secondly, they're a fruit. a plant's womb. jucy. sweet, and a little tart. you have to open the pomegranate up to discover it's treasure. the small, red, shiny jewels (as in the posted poem...we hear the word 'jewel' used frequently to discribe female genitalia) all puzzled together in the most amazing patterns. you have to work slowy to eat them...peeling back the thin layers to reach the seeds. and when you finally place a seed in your mouth it is smooth, taunt, then bursts with it's amazing juice...somewhere between a cranberry and a rasberry in taste. you can't eat one without being messy. you have to just dive in and dye your fingers red. mmmm...an amazing fruit. (too bad it's one in the morning and i can't run to the store to buy one ;-)
a few things to THINK about before/as you leave for Thanksgiving break:
When we return we will begin our presentations of sex ed curricula. Sarah H, HY, Maggie, Fritz, Nia will be the first to go, on Tuesday, Dec. 3rd; the rest of you should check the remainder of the schedule, updated on the course syllabus.
I'm expecting that, on your assigned day, each of you will take about fifteen minutes to present a "slice" of the curriculum you are preparing for your final (20pp. equivalent) project (the whole thing isn't due til Dec. 21st (check the syllabus for excruciating details about preparing your final portfolio). It's important to begin your presentation by explaining the parameters of your project: WHY are you doing WHAT you are doing, in the WAY you are doing it? What problems/issues/GAPS @ your site are you trying to address?
Sarah H had asked me for more guidance, but I am not willing to supply it (remember: I've never run this experiment before, and don't know what I'm looking for until I see what I get). Basically, the instructions are these:
--go somewhere you haven't been (i.e. your praxis site);
--learn to know the people there,
--figure out what they need (in terms of sex ed curricula, as broadly defined as need be);
--do the necessary research to fill the gap;
--and then create what is missing.
I very much look forward to seeing/hearing/experiencing your creations--
Til then,
Happy Thanksgiving,
Anne
I'm not saying that those things aren't sexual, but that they don't necessarily fit into the category of art (again, defined traditionally.) Which is similar to the problem that the sex in the media group had of excluding some things that were sexy, but not relevant to the 'media' aspect of their presentation. Is it problematic to categorize sex into different segments of culture/society to learn about it? It seems inevitable that the categories will spill over each other and some things that may seem relevant will have to be left out.
I'm trying to figure it out, and I guess the best way I can put it is... where was the sex? Yes there were tons of things that had sex in them, but so much of art is about the experience (experiencing something as art). And I really don't feel like most of the stuff presented to us in class dealt with art as a sexual experience.
For example: the music from the first class. I realize that a song like "No Sex in the Champagne Room" is a song that conceptually deals with sex, but is the song sexual? Not really... it's comedic. Lyrics are very important in terms of music, but there is a lot more than just lyrics that goes into making a song. I have an entire file of music called "Orgasm music" and a small portion of the song's lyrics directly refer to sex. Some are romantic love songs, some are depressing, some are about addiction, and some songs were played on the soundtrack of Cruel Intentions when Ryan Philippe was looking extremely sexy in that bright blue silk shirt coming up the escalator. --- The songs are very diverse and the reasons why those songs are orgasm music are very diverse. Some of it has to do with the lyrics, but a lot of is has to do with the tempo, beat, sounds, voice of the artist, and the vision the music evokes. Most of all it all has to do with my response to the music--- my experience.
The Friday after the first Sex and Art class, I had the absolute joy to go to the Tori Amos concert in Camden. At the concert, I couldn't help, but feel like I was experience so much sex in art that hadn't been present in our class. Tori has songs that deal with very sexual topics including "Leather" which was on Deb's CDs, but the sex in the experience was soooo much more that just the songs that dealt with sexual topics. Watching Tori perform, it seems in many ways that the performance is very sexual. (More so with some songs that others.) There was something very sexual about the way her body withered and pulsated with the music as she strattled the piano bench, with her arms extended between two pianos. In these moments it was as if the music flowed through her, out of her. It was the beat, the sounds, her body that was sexual... not the lyrics.
To me it seems that the concert was pure sex: two hours of orgasm music.
Also Tori talked about playing music w/ other musicians as a sexual experience. When she was introducing the drum and base player, she talked about how when you play with some people (and she used hand motions to express this) it was like losing a hard-on. But with these guys that was no problem.
It seems to me that we've lost so much in our discussion of sex and music and even more in sex and art. ---- I was encouraged by Jenny's comments in the second sex in art class on the article on Jazz music and sex, but those comments seemed very brief and it just seemed that we went right back to art that has images of sex, but that is not (for the most part) sexual.
Another thought I this--- is I was very frustrated in class Tuesday looking at the art, because I didn't feel like most of it was really sexual. (The food was probably the most sexual. But that had more to do with how people we eating it.) There were a lot of naked bodies, but is the naked human form sex? Is it sex in art?
Today I was watching the German film, Der Krieger und Die Kaiserin (eng title: The Princess and the Warrior) and during a scene I was watching I felt like if the Sex and Art people found a snappie of it they might have put it up as sex in art, even though the scene really had nothing to do with sex. In the scene a man (the Warrior... who is pretty troubled character) comes nude out of the shower, to see a woman illuminated in the corner of the dark room. The man, Bodo, asks were his brother is and gets no response from the women. He goes up to her and kneels before her. Eventually, distraught, he puts his head in her lap and wraps his arms around her. The camera pans to a higher angle (looking down on them) and we see him nude clutching onto her and her hand caressing his hair. It is this image that I thought could have been captured and put up as sex in art in our classes... even though there is nothing really sexual occurring in the scene. (The lack of sex is reinforced seconds later, when we are taken out of Bodo hallucinations and see that his body is wrapped not around the woman, but around the coal heater, which his brother must forcefully pull him from for a second time in the movie.)
I guess my point is that we were flooded with images/art that could be sexual (which in the end left me feeling like none of it was)... and it didn't seem to really lead to an interesting discussion of how art is sexual and why. Maybe it would have been more interesting to see have only a small range of art with a very thoughtful explanation as to why that are was sexual--- instead of a flood of images.
Also just a little comment on the explanation of sex in the two video clips shown in the first section of sex and art: I was a bit disturbed by the comment that the Boys Don't Cry was an example of subtle sex in art. The scene was very explicit: nudity, kissing, caressing, zippers going down, simulation of penetration. I thought this was very interesting in contrast to the Madonna video which seemed much more subtle (First the entire song really could have just have been about dancing, having fun doing it and looking glamorous. And video didn't have anything really explicitly sexual, unless you consider Madonna's barely covered body explicitly sexual.) This also seemed a bit hysterically ironic to me, given whom Madonna is and how she's viewed by our culture.
Okay... those are just my thoughts.... Didn't mean to seems so negative... I did think both classes were quite interesting and fun, and I thought that the presenters put a lot of work into coming up with some wonderful stuff.... but the discussion or the result was not working for me....
later
Jess
""I am discussing with her how much I will teach her sexually," he informed me. Christina's English was not so good, so he repeated the quip in Kisukuma, and she cracked up again. "She already loves you very much," he continued, to me. "She wants to do anything you want. I have told her that you are afraid of AIDS, and that she must just suck. She says fine." Christina did not appear to have followed this, which was O.K. with me. Malek and the others had by now become skilled at running interference for me with the women in bars . . ." (page 65).
Is Ted O.K. with the fact that Christina has not understood so that he may exploit her? Or is he O.K. with the fact that she has not understood so as to protect her? I hope I am not reading into this too much, but this passage puzzled me and even after re-reading it a few times, I felt that it was eerily ambiguous.
As for Paul Grobstein's talk . . . biology has never seemed so conceptual to me. What I greatly appreciated was Paul's ability to, first of all, help us understand the biological notion of sex. But more interestingly, how this seemingly limited scientific definition, is still applicable to actual sexual phenomenon. The fact that Paul uses biology's definition - sex as a means to create maximum variety - in order to understand, 'justify,' or explain the variety of different forms of sexuality found today, is admirable. I am not as eloquent as he was in explaining this view, but I assume that those of you reading this, remember what I am alluding to. I wish I had taken BIOL 103 for my lab science requirement!
I want to iterate that this comment is not meant to be abrasive at all! I am trying to be direct and to the point - balancing between beating around the bush and being overly confrontational. I am offering a reflection on the course thus far in general and specifically on the presentation of sex in the media. I would like to remind us all that students make the class and we, at a liberal arts college - at BRYN MAWR COLLEGE! - have the luxurious opportunity to direct a classroom and its syllabus. If we do not take that power into our hands and use it, we should not complain.
I am actually particularly upset for not posting about law and sex. we started out the semester by talking about middle schoolers having oral sex. From what I remember many of us were frustrated that it hadn't occurred to many people that these kids (especially the females) may want to be having oral sex and that maybe that is not so bad. But then we get to class. And our discussion kept going back to us believing that this 14 year old girl, who had so many partners, did not have the agency to make those decisions. And when Anne forced us to line up and locate ourselves between thinking she should or should not have the ability to make these decisions for herself it seemed like most people were in the middle or heading towards not wanting to give her sexual agency. I am really bothered by this. The laws really get at me because they make the same assumptions that we were coming up with in class: that an adolescent girl was not capable of making the decision to have sex and therefore we need to PROTECT her. That's the most bothersome part. We need to watch out for little girls. We need to watch our for women. They might get themselves in trouble. I am not saying women cannot be coerced into having sex, what I am saying is that we should not always assume that women and girls cannot make these decisions for themselves. If we tell a girl she needs to watch out for men her entire life, her guard is up. She feels scared, and she becomes more vulnerable. Whereas if we tell a girl she is sexual and can make her own decisions, she really will be able to do that. if we tell women they will be victimized and they need to be protected from men, they will fall right into that categorization. That is hardly empowering for anyone. And look at basic rebellion patterns. It's the super restrictive and conservative parents that seem to end up with the rebellious children. Why can't we teach women to be responsible not defensive? What 13 year old girl do you know that not have any sex drive? If we decide that a girl cannot act on her sex drive then we are telling her to stamp out her feelings because she is too young to really understand them. but how can we tell her she cannot act on a sex drive when she has physically matured and is going through the same menstrual cycles adults go through. how can we tell someone how s/he feels? Have any of you ever been told that "you're too young to understand?" I have and it really pissed me off. If we are young we don't understand. We don't have feelings. Come on have more faith in the young. They only thing they know is what they feel and if you take that away from them you take so much more.
Instead of framing the law to protect women and girls, why can't we empower them? lets teach them to love their bodies and embrace the emotions and urges they have. If we do that then it's a lot harder for a women to really be coerced against her will. If we let her explore these sensations, emotions, feelings, urges, whatever she will really understand what she wants and it will be easier for her to make the decisions for herself.
I could ramble for hours but I have a couple questions I want to pose.
We didn't talk about the sexual agency of middle school aged maless. Where would you fall on Anne's scale? Say a 30 female sleeps with a 13 your old boy. Did she coerce him? Or a 30 your old maleman and a 13 year old male? Or a 30 year old female and a 13 year old female (think about the vagina monologues0?
I am actually particularly upset for not posting about law and sex. we started out the semester by talking about middle schoolers having oral sex. From what I remember many of us were frustrated that it hadn't occurred to many people that these kids (especially the females) may want to be having oral sex and that maybe that is not so bad. But then we get to class. And our discussion kept going back to us believing that this 14 year old girl, who had so many partners, did not have the agency to make those decisions. And when Anne forced us to line up and locate ourselves between thinking she should or should not have the ability to make these decisions for herself it seemed like most people were in the middle or heading towards not wanting to give her sexual agency. I am really bothered by this. The laws really get at me because they make the same assumptions that we were coming up with in class: that an adolescent girl was not capable of making the decision to have sex and therefore we need to PROTECT her. That's the most bothersome part. We need to watch out for little girls. We need to watch our for women. They might get themselves in trouble. I am not saying women cannot be coerced into having sex, what I am saying is that we should not always assume that women and girls cannot make these decisions for themselves. If we tell a girl she needs to watch out for men her entire life, her guard is up. She feels scared, and she becomes more vulnerable. Whereas if we tell a girl she is sexual and can make her own decisions, she really will be able to do that. if we tell women they will be victimized and they need to be protected from men, they will fall right into that categorization. That is hardly empowering for anyone. And look at basic rebellion patterns. It's the super restrictive and conservative parents that seem to end up with the rebellious children. Why can't we teach women to be responsible not defensive? What 13 year old girl do you know that not have any sex drive? If we decide that a girl cannot act on her sex drive then we are telling her to stamp out her feelings because she is too young to really understand them. but how can we tell her she cannot act on a sex drive when she has physically matured and is going through the same menstrual cycles adults go through. how can we tell someone how s/he feels? Have any of you ever been told that "you're too young to understand?" I have and it really pissed me off. If we are young we don't understand. We don't have feelings. Come on have more faith in the young. They only thing they know is what they feel and if you take that away from them you take so much more.
Instead of framing the law to protect women and girls, why can't we empower them? lets teach them to love their bodies and embrace the emotions and urges they have. If we do that then it's a lot harder for a women to really be coerced against her will. If we let her explore these sensations, emotions, feelings, urges, whatever she will really understand what she wants and it will be easier for her to make the decisions for herself.
I could ramble for hours but I have a couple questions I want to pose.
We didn't talk about the sexual agency of middle school aged maless. Where would you fall on Anne's scale? Say a 30 female sleeps with a 13 your old boy. Did she coerce him? Or a 30 your old maleman and a 13 year old male? Or a 30 year old female and a 13 year old female (think about the vagina monologues0?
After all the breaking down of sexual norms that we have done in this class we cannot get past a 13 year old who wants to have sex. Check that, a 13 year old GIRL. She needs to have people make decisions about her sexuality for her. Furthermore, we continued to use "sex" to mean vaginal penetration by a penis. I think lauren rightly called us on this when she asked how we would feel if it were an adult woman and a young girl. I would push this further, what if a 13 year old girl wants to have sex with another 13 year old girl - is that ok? It may be an importantly different scenario but I would like to know why. Finally would we prohibit a 13 year old boy from having sex?
I my suspiscion, like lauren's, is that we haven't gotten out of the framework of treating young women as victims, as people who need to be told how to deal with thier sexuality.
As for the laws, they may be necessary and they can only do so much, but i expect more out of a class that has up to this point done so well with escaping convential traps with women's sexuality.
As for the media class itself i feel like some things got confused. It did not bother me that the collage was a depiction of maistream images of sex. What did bother me was that with fifteen minutes left in class it seemed that we were not going to discuss how they were detrimental and exclusive. I believe this is simmilar to Elisa's point but not the same as i don't want to put words into her mouth. To me this seems to be one of the most obvious and important things that needs to be disucssed in a class about sex and media - that is the desexualization of whole groups of people. I don't mean to be accusatory b/c things may not have gone as planned as is the case most of the time in teaching. Yet i think it is important to understand how the choices we make about what gets discussed and what gets passed by effects the groups who never get discussed. But more importantly those of us in the dominate, race, sexuality, gender or class, never get to prolematize our role an unaware dominator.
By no means do i believe that the media group had any intention of excluding anyone or leaving out something markedly important. If it weren't for elisa's comment i may not have realied all the exclusions myslef. But this is why i feel the need to point it out with such emphasis - i, who try to be aware of these issues, once again passed over enormous groups of people becasue i have the privilege of being in the dominant culture. I scare myself when i do that. I guess mostly i am thanking elsia for not allowing me to once again ingore people - in the very least i came out of our class even more aware of how easy it is to forget one's privelege, and how easy it is to take for granted that people realized the privelege they have and the privelege being presented.
ok that's so much more than enough, and probably not all relevant. please please feel free to discuss and hash all this out, there's a lot here.
In a way i agree with jess in that i would have liked to talk more about music and sex rather than just having it as a background peice. Much of what i write in this forum relates to the interwining of the sexual and musical. I also agree that a lot of what was presented were sexual LYRICS and not necessarily sexual MUSIC - for me the two are sometimes related but very much distinct ways of expressing sexuality. When writing about what struck me most i wrote about jenny's guitar playing - i just kept coming back to the wailing of the guitar. I have to agree that guitars are super sexual if not just muscially most definitely symbolically. They have a long fallice that you move your hand up and down, carress it just the right way to get it to do what you want. The body looks disticntly female - it is where the sound gets created, where it resonates. The playing a guitar and pleasuring someone sexually involve intamate knowledge of the instrument/body, its nuances and the goal is to make it sing sing sing. The anaolgies could go on and on - i remember it being articulated perfectly in Catcher and the Rye but i've lost my copy so i don't have the quote. i'll see what i can do about that....
ok that's it. wish we could have talked more about music but only time for so much...
In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is punishable by death.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman's genitals, but is prohibited from looking directly at them during the examination. He may only see their reflection in a mirror.
*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Muslims are banned from looking at the genitals of a corpse. This also applies to undertakers; the sex organs of the deceased must be covered with a brick or piece of wood at all times.
*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
There are men in Guam whose full-time job is to travel the countryside and deflower young virgins, who pay them for the privilege of having sex for the first time...Reason: under Guam law, it is expressly forbidden for virgins to marry.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
In Hong Kong, a betrayed wife is legally allowed to kill her adulterous husband, but may only do so with her bare hands. The husband's lover, on the other hand, may be killed in any manner desired.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England - but only in tropical fish stores.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
In Cali, Colombia, a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the first time this happens, her mother must be in the room to witness the act.
*~*~*~*~**~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
In Santa Cruz, Bolivia, it is illegal for a man to have sex with a woman and her daughter at the same time.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
In Maryland, it is illegal to sell condoms from vending machines with one exception: prophylactics may be dispensed from a vending machine only "in places where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the premises."
--go somewhere you haven't been (i.e. your praxis site),
--learn to know the people there,
--ASK THEM FOR THEIR IDEAS ABOUT WHAT COULD BE
ADDED TO THE PROGRAM, WHAT THEY THINK THEY NEED
OR WOULD LIKE TO HAVE (in terms of sex ed curricula, as broadly
defined as need be),
--do the necessary research to fill the gap,
--create what is missing (in a form equivalent to a 20-pp. paper),
--take 15 min. to present a piece of this in class, explaining
the context--that is, why it's taking the form it is.
See you on Tuesday--
Anne