사이드바 영역으로 건너뛰기

게시물에서 찾기sexuality

5개의 게시물을 찾았습니다.

  1. 2009/04/25
    Binaries 'n Bullshit
    G-raf
  2. 2008/12/21
    젠더로 노예화
    G-raf
  3. 2008/12/20
    Fuck you(7)
    G-raf
  4. 2008/12/05
    포르노 이야기 (영상)
    G-raf
  5. 2008/12/02
    포르노 프로젝트에 대해(2)
    G-raf

Binaries 'n Bullshit

Is ‘sex’ as socially constructed as ‘gender’?


“Gender” is generally believed to be a socially produced cultural component pertaining to lifestyle, behavior, state of mind, desire, etc. whereas “sex” is generally considered a biologically determined fact of the body. One of the most obvious problems with this hypothesis becomes clear when we are confronted with another common fragment of discourse regarding sex and gender: that “gender” is a cultural component that follows the biologically determined, invariable state-of-being called “sex.” In other words, that gender is determined by sex. A cultural construction determined by a biological fact.

If gender is a culture which can be applied to distinctly “gendered” social norms, then it would seem that gender would have relative self-determination, independent of so-called “biological” conditions. However, according to the popular assumption of gender determined by sex, gender is an assemblage of social norms, mentalities, desires (in the context of heteronormativity) and lifestyle characteristics that is not free to determine, compose, produce or reinvent itself. The implicit assumption is that culture, social norms, modes of expression, desires, etc. (components of “gender”) are determined by and dependent on the totalitarian fact of biology.

In other words, sex and gender as the same thing residing in two different regions (this implies that sex is socially constructed alongside gender). These two different regions parallel the Cartesian dichotomy of “body” and “mind” or “spiritual” and “material.” Sex as the material version of gender residing in the body and gender as the spiritual version of sex residing in the mind.

When these two A/B categories contradict each other or fail to match up with expected social norms, the contradiction often seems to be either overlooked or penalized through cultural regulation, alienation, etc. The “male” who fulfills social expectations of “appearing male” while behaving, moving, thinking or expressing “himself” in a manner that contradicts “his male appearance” relating to anatomy might face social alienation and/or demands that “he” conform to predetermined “male” social norms. Such nonconformity may be overlooked by retreating to the female/male dichotomy, resorting to the “feminine male” reference: if something is not female, then it’s considered male and vice versa. The standards regulating what is considered to be a sexed appearance or gendered behavior are not universal, but are socio-historical constructions just like the related Cartesian dichotomies of body and mind.

What makes these assumptions regarding sex/gender even more problematic is that the biological fact of sex is restricted between the biological fact of A or the biological fact of B, female or male. Therefore, gendered social norms can only fall between two categories which inevitably makes social regulation, demands for conformity, cultural penalization, etc. necessary to sustain these two categories. My assumption here is that gender/sex can’t realistically conform to only two categories such as female and male. I’m assuming with no other evidence aside from my personal observations and life experiences (hardly scientific), that gender/sex can form multiple varieties within one person and that these various sex/genders can be abandoned and new gender/sexes can be freshly created in complete spontaneity, from moment to moment. This assumption is influenced by Deleuze and Guattari’s concept of gender/sex as “free multiplicities” synthesized from “local and nonspecific connections,” with people becoming “not one or even two sexes, but n sexes.” (Delueze, G. Guattari, F. (1983). Anti-Oedipus. University of Minnesota).

Schools of science such as “biology” or “anatomy” providing “evidence” (as recognized within the ideology of science) for binary sexed bodies is something that should be viewed with skepticism. Science functions quite similar to church hierarchies, providing the unquestionable “truths” to unanswerable questions, legitimizing the status quo (Bey, H. “The Information War,” Hakim Bey and Ontological Anarchy, www.hermetic.com/bey/, retrieved Apr 24, 2009). With the function of providing ahistorical, universalized definitions of the sexed body, science plays a factor in legitimizing oppressive gender roles since gender is commonly perceived to be determined by the biologically defined sex of the body. Groups and individuals that are socially victimized and dominated are socialized into adopting cognitive frameworks of perception that lead people to suppressing themselves and conforming to established categories of what is recognized as normal and acceptable (Bourdieu, P. (1998) Masculine Domination, Stanford University Press).

In this context, exercising gender/sex autonomy, in Guattari/Deleuze terms, “becoming” our own sex/genders can be very difficult since our autonomy is restricted by what is socially recognized. Apply for a passport and check “M” or “F” on the sex section of the application. What is socially recognized is confined to what conforms to social norms, or “normalized” by the preexisting definitions gender/sex. Social norms making social recognition a possibility. In that sense, exercising individual sex/gender autonomy needs to coincide with widespread changes in an entire society (Butler, J. (2004) Undoing Gender, Routledge).


How does the male/female binary relate to the heterosexual/homosexual binary?


“Hetero” refers to the “other” whereas “homo” refers to the “same.” If we were allowed to freely interpret and recreate our own definition of hetero/homosexuality, we wouldn’t necessarily need to confine these sexualities to a gender/sex binary or accept these two sexualities as the only sexualities that exist. If there is an extensive variety of sex/genders, then there would also be an extensive variety or a multiplicity of sexualities that could refer to each and every sexual relationship between these numerous gender/sexes if cognitively or linguistically possible, or necessary. Within such a context, “heterosexuality” or “homosexuality” would comprise general, somewhat vague and nonspecific references.

However, if we must restrain our creativity, our dreamy idealism of the “what might be possible,” then we must consider heterosexuality as the sexuality which confines sexual relations between the “female” and the “male,” and homosexuality as the sexuality which confines sexual relations between the “female” and “female” or “male” and “male,” as defined within the restrictive gender/sex binary. Even within contemporary restrictive codes and sexuality references relating to the female/male binary, if we consider the inclusion of bisexuality, then we have a hetero/homo/bi-sexual ternary. “Bi,” signifying “two” or “both,” includes every sex/gender comprising the gender/sex bi-nary when attached to the “sexuality” term.

If all of the sexualities included within the homo/hetero/bisexuality ternary are considered in terms of their codified relation with the male/female binary, “bisexuality” seems like the only sexuality within the ternary that would become linguistically insignificant if our concepts of sex/gender transcend the female/male binary. That is, if “free multiplicities” of gender/sexes become socially recognized, then references to a “bi”sexuality would become incomprehensible because there would no longer be a sex/gender “bi”nary (Delueze, G. Guattari, F. (1987), A Thousand Plateaus, University of Minnesota ).

The connotative meanings of terms constantly change and terms are always free to appropriate and recreate. “Homosexuality” can refer to sexual relationships and sexual preferences between people of the same sex/gender(s) within a vast multitude of various gender/sexes, and “heterosexuality” can refer to sexual relationships and preferences between people of different sex/gender(s) within a wide variety of gender/sexes, unless the connotative meaning of both “homo” and “hetero” are recreated anew. Unless the definition of “bi” is appropriated and/or historically changes, it refers to “two” or “both” which restricts sex/gender as well as sexuality within a bi/ternary system.

Current efforts to free up sexuality which can amount to simply recognizing and giving a straightforward reference to one’s own sexuality(s) are undermined by the gender/sex binary. “Polysexuality” refers to sexual relationships and sexual preferences with various sex/genders outside of the sex/gender binary. “Pansexuality” refers to sexual relationships and sexual preferences with the totality of all possible gender/sexes. The question of which sex/gender(s) is the codified boundary which restricts sexual possibilities within the binary or otherwise signifies the vague and abstract, perhaps “hypothetical” gender/sexes.

Polysexuality can face complications if someone is determined to or feels compelled to signify which specific sex/genders with whom we prefer to engage in sexual relationships. Other than “trans,” which seems to refer to any of the “other” gender/sexes outside of the binary (although “trans” has become a completely new sex/gender which can be diverse), which specific gender/sexes (outside of the binary) can a polysexual person make reference to? What is the function of referring to that which hasn’t received social recognition? Can references to the socially unrecognized widen the boundaries of what is socially recognized or maybe even socially recognizable? Would this action function as a “forcing to recognize” mechanism? Has it, historically? Or would it function as the production of misunderstanding when new concepts migrate into the mainstream, into the realms of the widely recognized?

There certainly isn’t a totalitarian framework within which references to the contemporary socially unrecognized can be determined to have a homogeneous outcome that’s independent of socio-historical context and/or spontaneity alike. “My sex is not ‘female’ or ‘male,’ but ‘human,’ as long as ‘human’ is the animal species that I belong to, among a wide variety of species on this planet, including seaweed which is delicious to eat sometimes.” Perhaps one can undermine the gender/sex binary by making references to the socially recognized, although such references may be disregarded as “humorous” due to not referring to what is codified as sex/gender. A: “Where are you from?” B: “I’m from earth, like you, right?” (no reference to a nation-state). A: “Do you have a girlfriend?” B: “I don’t want a boyfriend or girlfriend, just regular intimate and sexual relationships.” (evading heteronormativity without making references to codified “other” sexualities, but perhaps generating more questions through unclear and general references).

Given the socially recognizable norms and codes through which we are able to exercise our creativities, our capacity for autonomy may seem confined and restricted within the boundaries of the socially acceptable. However, history shows that social norms, codes and what is considered “acceptable” are not static or stable. Freedoms are confined within socio-historical contexts, but at the same time, freedoms have the capacity to play a role in creating socio-historical contexts when exercised with vigor, spontaneity and enthusiasm (and...and...).

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

젠더로 노예화

사회학과
이나영 교수님의 몸과 섹슈얼리티 수업에서
너무 자꾸 지각했던 바람에 보고서를 썼는데
과도하게 썼던 것 같다. ㅋㅋ

















응 15장까지 썼다. 미친다.
사실 너무 빨리 써서 이런 의견, 분석, 생각, 다 바꿀 수 있겠다. 별로 확실하지 않다는 말이다. 섹슈얼리티는 절대 확실하지 못할 이슈이다. 흠...섹슈얼리티의 당황성으로부터 탈주하지 못하도록 좋은가? 젠더 좃까!
진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

Fuck you

The first thing i need to say is...i'm drunk

the second thing i need to say is...i'tm lonely and alienated as hell.

i'm not corean and don't know how it is to live in corea as a corean person...any corean person of any class or race or gender or sexuality.

first of all, sexuality is so different for every people in the world.

i don't know how to explain it, but i don't know what kind of sexuality i am and i never want to know. i like to leave my sexuality undecided, agnostic, maybe pansexual, if you will.

but wholly shit. does anybody feel so lonely that they are crazy?

maybe i need to move to itaewon and integrate with more of foreign people here.

i'm writing in english because it feels more comfortable to let my thoughts flow like a waterfall.

i need to day that i don't really feel like a foreigner in corea. i feel more like an alien. not from this world or anywhere close to it.

do many other corean anarchist postmodernist-types feel the same way? i don't know.

either way....

i got serious problems, but i don't know what they are. i don't feel like i'm connecting with anybody here.. i don't know if it has anything to do with sexuality, but one thing i do know is that i'm lonely. shit. lonely and alienated as hell.

and everytime i have interest in somebody, they always have more interest in corean friends of mine...maybe my corean friends are more masculine or just more corean....i don't know. sexuality is so fuckin stratified into hetero-bi-homo here in corea and it drives me fuckin crazy. no matter what sexuality i try to conform to....either way....i feel like there's no fuckin way to survive here with all the expectations and conformity. i'm not any sexuality. fuck the categorizations of everyhting from food to music to localities to 사투리 to politics to gender to sex to....

that's the way i feel now anyway.

as a non-asian foreign, i feel like a complete alien. not a foreigner. foreigners are recognized as humans. but these big, tall, wierd-looking "white" or "black" foreigners are like complete aliens from mars or jupiter. we have no personhood as we get stared at in the subway or sidewalk. it's not a bad thing or good thing. fuck the good/evil binary way of interpreting it. we just need to live on with it. and perhaps the only reason i can speak from this what-the-fuck perspective is because i received a relative amount of "white" privilege as a mixed person in my home country. that puts me in a privileged position as many people think of me as "white." but.....fuck race, because mixed people can't handle you're bullshit. i get different identity recognition from all the various perspectives of race. "what am i? fuck you, i'm nothing."  "human, hopefully."

whjere are all the lonely anti-authoritarian activists and radicals? where are the crazy fuckers? where are the insane artists?

i can't believe i'm writing this blog, but fuck! this is how i feel and if you think i'm crazy....
...well...maybe you're fuckin correct.

either way, i gotta say:

i feel lost in a puddle of mud. that's not bad, but maybe it's not good. i don't know.

either way, i gotta say it feels like shit. like bullshit. i don't know.

one thing i gotta say is fuck the whole system. fuck it and we gotta change it...perhaps until there is no system at all.

is that why i'm lonely? awwww shit.
진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

포르노 이야기 (영상)

여기 블로그에 영상을 어떻게 올리는지 모르겠다. 완전 짜쯩난다. 그래서 그냥 유툽의 링크를 붙여놓지 뭐. 포르노에 대한 영상이다. 몸과 섹슈얼리티 수업에서 동지 5명이랑 만들었다. 보게 되면 내가 어땠냐고 물어보고 싶겠지. 22분 정도 걸린다. 폭발 옥수수를 준비하고 재미있게 봐라.

 

제1의 영상

 

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=QnG4hP6WvO8

 

제2의 영상

 

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=SMwtQp9wiDw

 

제3의 영상

 

http://kr.youtube.com/watch?v=5735DBf__4Y

 

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크

포르노 프로젝트에 대해

몸과 섹슈얼리티 사회학과 수업의 조별 프로젝트에 대해 성찰하는 보고서이다. 우리 조는 포르노에 대해 연구했고 토론했고 생각들을 나누고 영상을 만들었다. 영상은 영상언론조사와 비슷하다. 나중에 올릴 것이다.


포르노에 대해 연구하는 프로젝트를 시작하기 전에 포르노에 대한 이야기나 토론을 많이 해보지 않았다. 사실은 이렇게 보이는 것일 뿐이다. 중학생이였을 남성 친구와 같이 포르노를 발견하게 후에 포르노에 대해 수다했지만 역시 남성의 성욕과 호기심의 관점에서 이야기했다. 몸과 섹슈얼리티의 수업의 발표 조원님들은 여성이라서 포르노에 대한 새로운 시각의 몇개를 발견하게 되었다.

포르노를 분석해 비판하는 학문 보다 프로젝트를 하면서, 특히 영상을 위한 인터뷰를 하고 조원님들과 이야기하는 것으로 깨우치게 되었다. 여성과 남성의 포르노에 대한 의견들, 인지범위, 인지대상, 이용방식 등등의 차이점은 굉장히 넓다. 보통 남자들에게 포르노가 정상화된 동시에 여자들이 포르노에 대한 괴리에 정상화되었다. 여성과 남성의 상호관점으로 보면 포르노는 남성에 독특한 성적 환상을 만족시키는 기계로 여겨졌다. 남자니까 포르노를 당연히 보죠라는 말을 많이 들었다. 것을 해석해보자면 2가지의 생각이 나오겠다.

하나는 여기 한국에서 남자들이 활발한 성욕을 향유하고 섹스를 원하는 것이 당연하다면서 여자들이 섹스를 싫어하고 남성인 애인을 위한 희생으로만 섹스를 한다는 통념이 만연하다. 모국에서 이런 말을 들어본 적이 없고 나에게 만연한 통념으로 보이지만 역시 만연한지 확실하지 않다.

다른 하나는 포르노는 남성만의 성욕을 만족시키기 위해서 봉사하는 기계라고 많이 들었지만 사실은 남성의 성욕을 과도하게 확장시키는 기계로 여기게 되였다. 포르노는 성욕을 만족시키는 아니라 과도하게 연장시키는 역할을 차지한다. 사실을 인정하면 간강률이 포르노 산업의 수익과 확장을 따라가는 것을 많이 이해할 있겠다.

여성해방운동 중에서 포르노의 검열과 정부에 의한 제약에 대한 논쟁도 알게 되었다. 내가 주디스 버틀러(Judith Butler) 비슷하게 생각하듯이 포르노 때문에만 섹슈얼리티에 관한 문제들이 부상하게 된다는 생각은 잘못이라고 비판한다. 섹슈얼리티의 문제들은 포르노 보다 깊숙한 사회적 문제이고 우리의 기초적인 사고방식과 무의식적인 욕망에 거주한다고 생각한다. 이성애, 동성애, 양성애 등은 인종들의 구분화처럼 사회적인 특권수위체계를 건설하기 위한 편견이다. 여성과 남성은 인간이고 동성애와 이성애는 성애이다. 우월주의가 아니면 사회적인 특권순위를 유지하고 강화시키는 복잡한 구분화이다.

포르노 때문에 섹스를 스포츠와 비슷하게 보고 성능으로 평가하고 섹스를 성애나 친애의 표출으로부터 괴리되었음 아니면 섹스의 표출으로부터의 괴리와 섹스를 성능가치(performance value) 평가하는 문화 때문에 포르노가 부상했냐? 시작과 끝을 규명할 있다는 A or B라는 사고방식이다. 섹스를 후에 애인에게 어땠냐는 질문의 문화의 원인을 규명할 있을까?

차라리 우리의 현실을 재형성하고 재구성하고 재발명할 있다고 믿는다. 일상생활의 현장에 미흡된 문화를 해체해 내던져버리고 새로운 문화를 창의, 창조적으로 만들 있으면 좋겠다.

그러면 섹슈얼리티의 문제를 해결하려면 먼저 자기자신 속에 문제의 거주함을 인정해야 한다. 프로젝트는 나에게 그런 역할을 하기도 했다. 나는 섹스를 처음 하기 전에 포르노를 발견해서 섹스를 처음으로 해봤을 때까지 호기심 때문에 많이 시청하게 되었다.

섹슈얼리티에 대해 개방적으로 솔직히 이야기를 하고 생각을 나누는 것도 사람들의 상호소통, 섹슈얼리티의 문화적인 문제, 문제해결, 등등을 위한 중요한 역할을 차지할 있다고 믿는다. 섹슈얼리티 대회를 개최해보자는 말인가?         

진보블로그 공감 버튼트위터로 리트윗하기페이스북에 공유하기딜리셔스에 북마크