I think that this provides some great material to wade through the related personal story-ish posts we've had over the past couple months. I really agree with the discussion here about certain fetishes' potential for social liberation. But I still have this question:
If fetishes/sexuality are/is the product of cultural norms, then how can they ALSO be used to combat cultural norms? I guess that question doesn't really make sense because he already describes homosexuality as a weird social behavior (aberration) gone a little off the deep end...but I'm still wondering about the whole execution of the actual combat.
Would Freud argue that the actual "combat" is the gradual change of social norms through typical discourse/activism, eventually also shaping how we behave (doing certain sex acts, Desiring certain sex acts), or would he say instead that challenging norms would open us up to new pleasures, and the pleasures would guide us (through positive reinforcement) to an ethical sexuality?
I'm chomping at the bit!
First, to address toughstuff's first question: "If fetishes/sexuality are/is the product of cultural norms, then how can they ALSO be used to combat cultural norms?" A hardcore sociologist - i.e. one that declares that all behavior is the result of sociocultural norms - would see your question in an almost Calvinistic light. If cultural norms are all we have, and cultural norms can't be used to combat other cultural norms, then change is impossible and predeterminism reigns. Personally, I think the best way to change cultural norms is to show them in a new light. For instance, the tactic of the(relatively conservative) queer rights activists is to show that LGBT folks do not actually conform to the stereotypes: we're normal, productive, generally harmless citizens. In other words, they highlight a cultural norm or belief and then systematically tear it down.
I think it's dangerous to place ethical judgments on particular fetishes (or, for that matter, ANY particular activity). While I agree that M/F rape fantasy can certainly perpetuate the idea that violence against women is tolerable, BUT only inasmuch as the participants (or, in the cases of pornography or voyeurism, the viewers) buy into it. If two people engage in a rape fantasy conscious of the potential social implications, and have made the decision that their act is NOT an expression of generalized male dominance, but is instead simply a vehicle for sexual pleasure for BOTH parties, then what's the problem?
I have more to say, but I'm at work and I don't think my boss is particularly keen on my sexual philosophizing. More to come.
teehee -- "more to come." context is fun.
lewdandshrewd, I'm impressed that you managed to weasel Calvin into a discussion about sex fetishists. I'm sure St. Paul approves.
In response to the suggestion of valorizing specific non-normative, counter-patriarchal sex fetishes over more conventional sex fetishes (oxymoron?): I stand with lewdandshrewd, and hesitate assigning ethical value to specific fetishes over others. I'm kind of on a Serano kick, so I'll reference her again; Serano is critical about a phenomenon in the trans/genderqueer community she identifies as "subversivism." Subversivism is the belief that subversive gender performances are more queer, radical, and thus more desired than conventional gender performances. Serano notes how this favoring of subversive gender for its "liberating" and anti-patriarchal intents is actually far from liberating and anti-patriarchal. Bigender/genderqueer and butch lesbians and trans men tend to occupy this favored position in the niche culture. However, trans women and excessively feminine gay men (I find the term "excessively feminine" amusing) continue to get the boot. Trans women reproduce patriarchal systems by refusing to be active, assertive, and aggressive, like the men they "really are." Femininity continues to be conceptualized as constructed and artificial. Therefor to act femininely is to "fake it" and masque some essential gender truth.
This is obviously hypocritical. By claiming that "radical" sex fetishes should be more valued than "conventional" fetishes, we simply establish a new binary that positions "queer" fetishists on top. But... isn't that the most unqueer thing to do? To claim preeminence in a system of privilege or value; to claim some kind of stable identity with which to make such claims of superiority qua radicalism?
just some thoughts...
Thanks for the comments everybody! Should be a great discussion... I'm gonna try to address the issues/criticisms one by one.
1. "Subversivism"
Conventional gender and sexuality performances can also be queer, radical and liberating, but only if they are expressed and interpreted in such a way that their previous normativity is clearly refuted. Thus, for instance, it is possible to be a queer heterosexual by refusing to articulate and 'do' one's gender and sexuality in a way that reinforces its regularity, normativity, and normality. I recently watched two movies - one was a french film, whose name I can't remember right now, but the main character said at one point (when talking about a girl) that "there is no way that every healthy boy would not fall in love with her." There is no way that this can be queer, as the normative terror of heterosexuality was clearly part and parcel of its expression here. On the other hand, a queerer view of heteroseuxal relationships is offered in the movie 'Goodbye Lenin,' which, as far as I'm aware, refrains from such normative statements and treats the heterosexual relationship developing between the main characters as not something that is necessarily 'normal.'
Queer Theory has been criticized for deconstructing away oppressions, and I think we should try to be sensitive to that criticism. I don't think that it is realistic at this point to call for a level playing field in gender and sexuality - the task should be stripping 'conventional' sexual acts of their normativity, so that the sexual menu can be broadened. I certainly don't think that the subversive fetishes/acts should assume the mantle of a 'new normativity,' but on the whole it *is* them that are at a disadvantage overall, and for that reason, I am willing to advocate for them.
I do agree with fannie though, in that these new niche cultures of non-normativity should not become new sources of dictatorial normativity - so the femme lesbian, or the 'very' femme trans woman feminist should certainly not face any kind of discrimination, and this discrimination would certainly be anathema to the reasons why these non-normative groups have been created in the first place.
I do not have anything against people who are 'doing the conventional thing' (whatever that may be) - as long as they are making an effort to not be normative about it and to not encourage the degrading of others who may not be like them.
2. The Danger of Placing Ethical Judgements on Sex
It *is* dangerous to place ethical judgements on fetishes and its one of the reasons I had such a hard time writing this last post. This is part of the reason why I focused on the more positive aspect of fetishes that can serve as vehicles of challenging social norms, rather than the critique of normative fetishes.
I don't know if I buy the argument that sexuality is this free area where "everything is ok." I do agree that if the partners doing the questionable sexual activity are fully aware of the social implications of what they're doing, then its ok - but how realistic is it to expect this of people? who is actually aware of lines of thinking such as queer theory, critical gender or race theory, that might make them sensitive to these issues?
What worries me about this attitude to sexuality is that there has emerged a discourse in recent times that basically says that - "ok, there are oppressions in society - racism, homophobia, sexism etc... etc... etc.... but there are certain areas of life in which they are unavoidable/acceptable/ok and if we confine them to those areas, then we are not doing any damage." For example, I had a discussion with someone the other day who claimed that it was ok to be on your guard if there are hip-hop style dressed black men heading your way on the street because they are "statistically" more likely to be violent - however, this 'situational racism' wasn't that bad because he was sure that he could confine it to "situations in which there is physical danger."
Although sex is certainly qualitatively different for this, I don't see how he cannot expect this kind of an attitude to filter into and continuously infect all of the other areas of his life, making racism a continuous precense. In that sense, I think its necessary for to think about the racist, sexist, ableist, classist implications in sexuality and at the very least to ensure that the attitudes portrayed therein are not impinging on or reinforcing attitudes in life in general.
3. If fetishes/sexuality are/is the product of cultural norms, then how can they ALSO be used to combat cultural norms?
Ironically, normative discourses can contain within them the seeds of their own undoing. So, for example, the medicalization and categorization of homosexuality, also enabled "the homosexual" to speak on his own behalf and to call for rights.
I would also say that the cultural norms that produced "the fetish" (a medico-psychiatric classificatory discourse) are not the same as the social baggage that a fetish may carry - so it is possible to challenge the social baggage using the fetish..
I'll deal with the Freud question a bit later... feeling a bit tired 
.
Where to begin, where to begin...
Yes, fannie, I do try to please the saints whenever possible. It's my calling.
Re: "Sex as a free area where 'everything is ok.'" From my perspective, there's a huge difference between saying everything *IS* ok and everything *CAN BE* ok in the realm of sex. I definitely don't prescribe to the former notion, and I can't quite bring myself to completely espouse the latter, but it's certainly more appealing. Ethics is one of those fields that's SO difficult to discuss, because theoretical ethics and practical ethics are extremely different. From a theoretical standpoint, I stick by my position that sex is a venue where it CAN BE ok to do things that, under other circumstances, are typically unjustifiable. But at the same time, I agree with aqueertheory that it's not particularly realistic to expect people to have the level of cognizance necessary to be aware of the social implications of their actions. But that's not to say it's impossible!
Re: normativity. It sounds to me like fannie and aqueertheory are advocating the subversion of nearly all of our social norms (correct me if I'm wrong). If that's the goal, what will we be left with when we succeed? If we're not trying to establish a new set of norms, our goal is - by necessity and definition - an anarchic society. I agree that the "niche [fetish] cultures" of non-normativity should not be the source of new "dictatorial normativity;" i.e. they shouldn't be a new gold standard by which we should run society.
Re: ethics and sex. While I recognize the validity of talking about some ephemeral concept called "ethics" (I was, after all, a philosophy minor in college), sexual ethics is very much about SEX: the act, the people involved, and the immediate circumstances. I prefer to make ethical judgments on a case-by-case basis, since each one may very well be different.
I'm at work again, and neglecting my job, so I need to stop. More to come. Or cum, whichever. :P
Commenting by HaloScan
