Pleasure as an Experience

By: Charisse Willis

During our class, we quickly learned that one cannot discuss pleasure without desire nor desire without pleasure. Similarly, neither can be discussed without bumping into stigmas and the idea of normalization. I must admit that I did not see the correlation between Johanna Oksala’s article, which discusses Michel Foucault’s idea of experience, and the topics of our class, but this was due to my own naiveté. Pleasure is very much so an experience and it is this experience that makes desire such a dangerous concept.

In this brief discussion of Oksala’s article, I wish to address four of the key points that she brings up:

“The experience of the subject cannot be the starting point for our knowledge of the world, because it is the knowledge of the world that constitutes the experience of the subject” (99).

I agree with this statement. It is impossible to separate our thoughts, beliefs, and experiences from the world that surrounds us as it is our world that defines these things. The idea that society and those which control it dictates what is right and wrong has played a large role in our discussions this semester. Going back to Schivelbusch and his discussion of spices, coffee, tea, and drugs, one can see that things go through periods of tolerance and intolerance. Spices were a way to demonstrate wealth and thus they came to symbolize it. A subject’s experience of salt and pepper could not be separated from the idea that one was supposed to desire these spices as one was supposed to desire wealth. 

Similarly, one can look at drugs such as opium and cocaine and see that they too enjoyed their heyday. There was a time when these substances could be picked up at pharmacies and ingested in public. Some substances do indeed cause harm and perhaps they do warrant restriction, but living in a society where cigarettes are extremely popular, it is hard to argue this point. It is simply that cigarettes are considered “okay” by those in control today, but who knows where we will be ten or twenty years from now.

“He [Foucault] makes a claim about bodies and pleasures, which in my view presupposes an understanding of the experiential body in so far as pleasure can only be understood as an experience of pleasure, not solely as a concept or as a practice…The rallying point for the counterattack against the deployment of sexuality ought not to be sex-desire, but bodies and pleasures (Foucault 1976/1990, 157” (100-101).

Here, Foucault is making the argument that bodies and pleasure can be used as a means of resistance to power. My mind goes to the chapter, “America Undressed,” from the book 1969. This chapter discussed pornography, indecency, and the one of the peaks of marijuana use. If there was any time where bodies and pleasure were used as resistance, surely it was the ‘60s and ‘70s. This was a time where people protested against wars and resisted a restrictive government by having sex in public, smoking marijuana, doing other drugs such as ecstasy, cocaine, etc. 

This era was not merely about those that desired sex, drugs, and alcohol indulging. This era was a time where these things were used to rebel. “Make love, not war” was not a slogan that promoted simply the act of sex. Instead, it was about using the body and pleasure as a way to protest against what those in control of society wanted.

“In an interview Foucault opposes the term desire because it functions as a calibration in terms of normality: ‘I am advancing this term (pleasure), because it seems to me that it escapes the medical and naturalistic connotations inherent in the notion of desire… There is no ‘pathology’ of pleasure, no ‘abnormal’ pleasure’ (quoted in Halperin 1995, 93-94)” (108).

This idea that there is no “abnormal” pleasure caused me to think back to Daniel Bergner’s, The Other Side of Desire. The book’s discusses the desires, categorized as abnormal or destructive, of four individuals. As stated earlier, desire cannot be discussed without thinking about pleasure, but in the book it is not the pleasure that Bergner’s subjects experience that is considered “abnormal;” it is the desire. 

For example, when Laura discusses that her family members saw Devotees, people who desire people with amputated limbs, there is no mention of pleasure. This could be because Laura’s family cannot fathom any pleasure coming from such a desire, but I think we should also take a look at why the desire is perverse and the action following the desire is not discussed. This also happens in the chapter that discusses pedophilia. The desire for young children is “not right”. There is indeed “pathology” to the desire, but the pleasure itself is not addressed. Why is this? Is it that condemning the desire subsequently condemns the pleasure?

 “By calling pleasure an event outside the subject, and not an experience of the subject, Foucault is clearly looking for a new perspective on experience. He is interested in experience as the possibility of surprise, a transgression of limit into something unanticipated or even unintelligible. Experience is an event outside the subject when it is experienced as transgressing the limits of the normal lifeworld into something that exceeds the constitutive power of our familiar normativity; in this sense it throws us outside of ourselves” (111).

This last quote also reminds of the Bergner text, the case of Jacob in particular. Jacob has a foot fetish. This fetish, though it does not do harm to anyone, is seen as something dirty and it provokes a feeling of shame. However, the pleasure that comes from this desire is what is interesting. The book makes the point that because of Jacob’s intense desire, he is able to experience a pleasure that “ordinary” humans or humans with “ordinary” desires will never experience. The theorist categorizes Jacob’s experience as something that transgresses the normal realm of pleasure. Furthermore, Jacob is not fully aware of this. For Jacob, this pleasure that he feels is simply his ordinary response to the fulfillment of his desire.

Could this pleasure, this pleasure that seems to be out of the grasp of those without “abnormal” desires, be the key to the experience that Foucault was attempting to discover?

A Closing Thought...

By Hayley Turner

When I heard that I would be taking a class about pleasure and desire I understood that I would be discussing sex and drugs, the two things I believed were associated with pleasure and desire. It was not until after our first few discussions that I realized that pleasure and desire is everywhere and can be associated with anything.

I would have never associated coffee and spices with pleasure. I’m not sure how many people in today’s society would. However books have been written on the pleasure derived from these substances. I also would have never thought of the Protestant ethic and Capitalism as areas to look for pleasure and desire but low and behold books have been written about them as well.

This semester has been interesting and has taught me a lot about pleasure and desire. The class has opened my eyes to pleasure that can be found within the norms of society but also pleasure that fall outside the norm. Some of these ‘deviant’ pleasures are included in the book The Other Side of Desire by Daniel Bergner. These pleasures include a fetish for amputees, a possible pedophile, a female bareness and the fetish of feet. Other pleasures that seem to fall outside the norms that I have learned about or discussed this semester include body modification, zoophilia, and excessive pornography.

Although we have discussed a broad range of pleasures and desires this semester, to me one thing is clear, I may find pleasure in one thing and others might find hate and distaste. Thus pleasure and desire like many other aspects of our lives is subjective and is based solely on the individuals. The aspect of desire that is based on society is how open individuals are about their desires. Thus, society places constraints on pleasure and desire, these constraints can include the law but can also just be based on societal norms and the confidence and openness of the individual.   

Querelle Killed Me!

Rainer Werner Fassinbinder’s film Querelle was a real trip, for most viewers. He took the auidience into  a surreal, dreamlike land, called “Brest.” It was there that we met Querelle, a pouty lipped, enigma. Querelle worked as a sailor and his captain was in love with him; always watching and recording every mysterious move Querelle made.

The ship docked in Brest, where a brothel was located. So began the strange and intense story that unravels. Querelle looses a dice game, (secretly on purpose) to sleep with Nono, the Madame’s husband. Querlle was a thief and a murderer. What was interesting was that every time the characters in this film were having sex, there was always a layer of anger, uncertainty and discomfort attached. The Police man basically forced Querelle at knife point to give him a hand job.

There was a bizarre scene at the beginning where Querelle and his brother Robert embraced but then slowly punch each other in the stomach repeatedly. Robert also fought Querelle when he found out that his brother had anal sex with Nono, the proprietor of the brothel. There seemed to be much sexual confusion. At one moment, the men of Brest were very open about being gay and making love to a man and the next, they were shouting things like “I’m no fairy!” I was very confused because I didn’t understand how the men defined themselves and their sexuality.

The only lady of the film, Madame Lysiane was a sad character. She was not seen very much however her role was very important.  In my opinion, she loved many men in Brest but no one reciprocated that love back to her. Her husband, Nono had sex with Querelle and seemed to be very attached afterwards. Querelle did not notice that she existed and his brother Robert was too passionate about Querelle to give Lysiane what she needed. Lysiane was heard repeatedly singing “each man kills the thing he loves” at the bar. I believe that she feels very lonely and insignificant in this male dominated world.

There were a lot of things that happened in the  middle of the story, but this plot led no where. The characters and dialogue were poorly developed; in general this film did not do anything for me. Maybe the message was so intense and buried in symbols or maybe there was nothing to this film at all. Whatever the case may be, I did not enjoy this film at the slightest. I wished that I could have learned something from Querelle.

In the end, the captain confessed his love for Querelle. They kissed and set off back to the ship.

Finding Your Sexual Self

     Niya here: In reading Kiini Ibura Salaam’s “How Sexual Harassment Slaughtered, then Saved Me”, Salaam recounts her days growing up in New Orleans where the majority of her femininity and sexuality was defined by her relationship with male strangers on the street. Catcalling, or as she described it the loud, yet silent, declarations of sexual advances often shouted at her became the bane of her social existence. This “bizarre training ground where predatory men taught me that […] no part of me was safe from comment” (Salaam, p326) caused her to form a set of unwritten laws to protect herself.

     Her self-imposed rules, which covered basic ways to avoid male groups on the street or to favor olden men than younger, in her mind kept her safe from sexual harassment throughout her adolescence. It was not until her college study-abroad experience in the Dominican Republic when Salaam for the first time began to accept and even emphasis her own body.  This newfound sexual freedom, however, was short-lived until Salaam experiences a string of sexual assault from male strangers. This experience morphed the slightly timid young woman into an angry and bitter woman.

     The anger Salaam expressed throughout her story ultimately reflects back to the issue of pleasure. A male catcalling on the streets is not something unique to the New Orleans. Historically, it can be traced to many of the cultural ideals that males dominate the public sphere and women the private, or the home. For those rare women who do enter the public sphere, they are subject to the male gaze. These notion still hold true, although somewhat subconsciously, throughout Salaam’s argument. She felt herself as an intruder in on the male dominated street corners, and thus tried to become invisible. It is only through the most traumatizing events that Salaam can assert her place in the public sphere, even challenging men on the street and finding herself as a visible (and possibly sexual) person. 

Consumerism and the Holidays

This is Sarah. Since it is the holiday season, I thought it would be appropriate to do a post on consumerism. Yesterday, I went to the mall to do some last minute holiday shopping. From the chaos and utter craziness I experienced, one would never know that we are in a financial crisis. Retailers are luring customers in with sales. Last year, I would not hesitate to buy an item at full price. This year, I bought all of my presents on sale. One of my favorite stores, Madewell, had a sale where all the already discounted items were an additional 30 percent off. I took full advantage. It is safe to say that the recession is a consumer's dream. People are now more inclined to buy due to bigger and better sales. Throughout my trip to Roosevelt Field Mall, people were in hysterics. I witnessed a woman in Bloomingdales fight with another woman over a last pair of shoes. The fight escalated to these women talking about each other's mothers. Long Islanders a pretty classy.

Ritzer's predictions were correct. Shopping is the new enchantment.

Ask. Tell.

This is Sheryl. In 1993, a law was put in place prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military. Since the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law was put into effect, over 13,500 service members have been dismissed from the military because of their sexuality.  The issue of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy has been in the news a few times recently due to an ongoing debate regarding lifting the ban on gays openly serving in the United States Armed Forces.  It’s been so up and down with the government that I can’t even keep track of the progress of the issue personally, but I saw an article with the latest updates about the matter on Yahoo News today and the issue is definitely of interest to me.  I am a firm believer that gay people should have the exact same rights as everyone else, including the opportunity to serve in the armed forces without having to hide their sexuality. 

President Obama made a statement in which he said, “It is time to close this chapter in our history.  It is time to recognize that sacrifice, valor and integrity are no more defined by sexual orientation than they are by race or gender, religion or creed.”  I personally could not agree with this statement more.

Obviously not everyone agrees with the ban of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and I wanted to get the opinion of someone who has served time in the military.  I have a friend who is in the military, so I asked him if lifting the ban would really be problematic or not, and I was kind of surprised by the conversation that followed.  He does not have anything against gays, but he does have a strong opinion on the matter.  He told me that “it would cause a mutiny.  There would literally be dead gay guys.”  When I asked him why, he told me, “We’re not queer and refuse to be known to associate with them…We have a reputation as ruthless killing machines, that fear and reputation is what we strive for and causes our enemies and allies to both fear and respect us.  If we allow queers, we’ll be seen as fairies and that fear will go away.”  He then went on to touch on the fact that there are strict rules regarding interactions with service members of the opposite sex because relationship issues can cloud peoples’ decisions, so gays shouldn’t be allowed either.  At this point my response was, “but if there are already gay guys in the military who just pretend not to be gay and they don’t ruin the fearful reputation then why does it matter? It’s not like the enemy is going to know if anyone in the unit is gay and therefore not be intimidated anymore.”  He responded to this by saying, “The enemies study us.  The gays don’t act gay so it’s ok because it’s not allowed and punishable still so we’re not condoning their actions.  The Taliban studies us to the point that they have our training manuals.  The overall opinion is that the military should consist of real men and gays can be in it as long as they stay in the closet.  It’s not fair to those who have fought and lost their lives and limbs and friends.”  So I asked him, “so just because they’re gay they’re not real men and don’t deserve to fight for or be willing to die for their country as well?”  He told me again that it comes down to the image.

I had never heard that perspective about the issue before and I was honestly shocked by it.  If anything, I would have thought of the issues within the military being homophobic issues regarding being in close quarters with gay guys for years at a time.  The article had a slightly different outlook, though.  It discusses a year-long study on the impact of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which included a survey of troops and their families.  The study found that two-thirds of service members did not think that changing the law would have much of an effect at all.  It is also noted that 92% of troops believe they have served with a gay person, and saw no effect on the morale or effectiveness of the unit.

I know plenty of people agree with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, but I believe that lifting the ban on openly gay people serving in the military is a very important step for gay rights.  Obviously the ban has not prevented gay people from serving in the military over the past seventeen years.  If 13,500 have already been dismissed because of their sexuality, one can only imagine how many did not get dismissed.  So they can fight for their country and the freedom and safety of their loved ones, but they can’t even truly be fighting for their own freedom because they can’t completely be who they really are while they’re enlisted?  That just isn’t right.  Gay people should be able to fight for their country if they want to, and they should be able to do so without having to hide who they are if they don’t want to.

Sex in a Cold Climate

This is Sheryl

In 1998, a plot of convent land in Dublin was sold by nuns to real estate developers.  An incredible discovery was soon made on that plot of land: the remains of 133 women buried in unmarked graves.  The women buried here were inmates of one of the ten Magdalene Asylums, institutes run by the Catholic Church which were essentially slave labor institutions.  The asylums were named after Mary Magdalene, a prostitute who repented and became a devout follower of Christ, according to Catholic belief.  The asylums were meant to rehabilitate girls who were considered “sinners” according to the Catholic faith.  The “sins” that these girls committed were related to sexual actions.  For most girls incarcerated, they had given birth out of wedlock and were separated from their babies and put into these asylums, usually by their families.  Other girls were incarcerated for engaging in sexual activities out of wedlock, whether they consented or not, or even simply being pretty enough that they caught boys’ attention.  The asylums were run by Catholic nuns who treated the women in a manner which, to call “terrible” would be quite the understatement.  Amazingly the last Magdalene Asylum stayed open until 1996.

                The documentary Sex in a Cold Climate tells the stories of four women who were forced to endure the tragic hardships of time spent in the Magdalene Asylums – three in the actual asylums themselves, and one in a related Magdalene orphanage.  Catholic belief saw sex outside of marriage as a sin comparable to murder, and engaging in such acts was means for punishment.  In fact, even to just ponder your own body was considered sinful.

                Brigid Young grew up in an orphanage connected to the Magdalene asylums. The girls were required to bind their chests in order to appear as flat as possible.  If a girl had nice hair, the hair was cut to prevent vanity.  Brigid recalled sexual harassment they endured on a weekly basis.  Every Saturday night, the girls were made to line up and strip naked as the nuns humiliated the girls by making fun of their bodies.  The orphans in the Magdalene Orphanages were not allowed to have any contact with the Magdalene girls.  The girls were made to believe that the Magdalenes were evil sinners, comparable to the devil.  Brigid recalls one instance when she brought laundry from the orphanage up to the asylum for the Magdalenes to clean.  When handing off the laundry, the Magdalene girl asked Brigid if her daughter was at the orphanage.  Brigid responded that she was in fact there, and the made a plan for Brigid to bring the girl to a part of the orphanage land where the Magdalene girl could see her daughter, however they got caught on the way.  A nun brought the girls to the Reverend Mother who beat the girls severely and violently shaved their heads to the point that their faces and necks were swollen, cut and bleeding from the scissors and razor, saying to the girls, “you’re not so pretty now, are you?”  All because they spoke to one of the girls in the Magdalene Asylum.

                Brigid also recalled being sexually assaulted by a priest.  She reported that he masturbated on her multiple times, and though at the time she did not know what exactly was going on, she knew it wasn’t right.  She knew that if she had said anything about the incidents, she would have instantly been sent to the Magdalene Asylums, so she was forced to keep it to herself.  Brigid managed to leave the orphanage, avoiding ever becoming a Magdalene, but the torture she went through in the orphanage stayed with her for the rest of her life, especially negatively affecting her marriage.

                Christina Mulcahy had sex out of wedlock and got pregnant.  She gave birth to a baby boy and hoped to marry the baby’s father.  However, the nuns overseeing her after the birth cut of contact between Christina and the baby’s father, and took away her baby, then 10 months old.  The nuns wouldn’t even let Christina say goodbye.  After being separated from her son, Christina attempted to return home but was told by her father that she was not allowed back in his house, as she had disgraced her family by giving birth to an illegitimate child.  Christina managed to escape the asylum after three years and was able to seek refuge with an old friend of hers temporarily before escaping to Northern Ireland.  She married and had a family of her own, but did not tell them about her first son until 6 months prior to the filming of the documentary.

                Martha Cooney was sexually assaulted by a male relative at the age of 14.  After telling her cousin about the incident, her family immediately sent her away to one of the asylums.  She was rescued by her cousin after spending four years in the asylum.  She never wanted to marry or make a commitment to anyone, because she didn’t want anyone to ever have power over her again.

                Phyllis Valentine grew up in a Catholic orphanage and was told one day that work had been found for her in a Laundry, and was transported to one of the Magdalene Asylums.  She was told right away that her hair would have to be cut because long hair was not allowed, and her long hair was cut up to her ears.  Phyllis began to rebel, not attending mass or meals or allowing the nuns to cut her hair, throwing fits and losing her temper until they backed off.  She was finally released after eight years.  She recalled how difficult it was to be out in the world after spending time in the asylums, fearing that people knew about her past just by looking at her.  Phyllis married but had no desire for the sexual aspect of her marriage, feeling ashamed every time her husband touched her.  She had children, but eventually divorced because of her emotional issues resulting from her time in the asylums.

                The girls were required to work in laundries seven days a week without pay.  Cleaning the dirty clothes was supposed to be representative of cleaning the dirty sins from their lives.  The girls worked side by side but were not allowed to speak a word to one another.  Phyllis asked early on to be paid for her work, to which the nuns simply laughed in her face and told her that she was there to work, without pay, until someone came to get her.

                Since most of the women were unwed mothers, one of the main objectives was to sever the thoughts the women had about their children.  They were not allowed to see their children or hear anything about them, aside from the occasional news of their children being adopted.  Many women became hysterical about this, resulting in punishment by the nuns.  Corporal punishment was extremely common.  Girls would be pushed, slapped, punched, and whipped by the nuns on a regular basis.  They were told that their lives were no longer worth living, that they were not worthy of a life outside of the walls that trapped them in.

                The church has kept the number of girls who passed through the Magdalene Asylums a secret, though the number is believed to be about 30,000.  There was nothing Godly or Christly about the asylums.  Brigid describes them as “devils dressed in nuns’ habits.”  Phyllis does not pray or go to church anymore.  She believes that if there was a just God, none of the girls would have had to go through the torture they endured.

                The film The Magdalene Sisters tells the stories of the women featured in the documentary, showing accounts of the torture and abuse the girls actually went through on a daily basis.  The girls were completely stripped of their rights.  Both films are extremely powerful and wonderfully depict the unimaginable things these girls were forced to endure because their chastity was considered compromised.  

Better Than Chocolate

Jennifer:

Photo courtesy of ia.media-imbd.com

“But what happened to Todd?” Ah, the words of a mother in denial. In Anne Wheeler’s Better Than Chocolate, the mother’s role appeared to be the most noteworthy (not of course because she reminds me of anyone I know). At the start of the film, she calls her daughter and seems concerned about her withdrawing from school. However, it was not long before she broke down about her own life and her recent learning of her husband’s affair. Without letting her daughter get a word in edgewise, she invited herself to move into her daughter’s apartment.

Upon arrival and over the course of the next few days, we watch as she expresses her own disappointments about her life and how her children turned out. She frequently comments on her daughter’s clothing, yet seems to still be in denial about her sexuality, ignoring the obviously intimate relationship she has with Kim, Maggy’s rather new live-in lover. Lila’s trouble with accepting her daughter’s sexuality did, however, help her liberate herself and explore her own sexuality by pleasing herself with what she assumed were her daughter’s sex toys. I must mention I was a bit surprised by the use of sex toys and even masturbation itself as these are taboo subjects not often seen in film.

This scene was quite interesting in that Maggie’s mother, Lila, had previously said that because she would no longer be having sex, all she had left in life to make her feel better was chocolate. She accidentally drops one of the chocolates under the bed and coincidentally finds the box of pleasures.  At this point, I wasn’t certain as to what was “better than chocolate”. Sex? Seemed like it. However, it becomes apparent toward the end that love was indeed what the director had been looking to show, a theme that can be somewhat cliché, but according to reviews, many viewers enjoyed.

The development of Lila’s relationship with Judy, a male to female transvestite, only added to Lila’s oh so familiar personality. She sought comfort and companionship from Judy. She confided in Judy and considered her someone she could relate to and who not only understood her, but understood her as a woman, not knowing she was once a man. I found it rather satisfying when Lila learned of Judy’s original name, Jeremy. See, they are normal people, too!! Their relationship also played a significant role in Lila’s acceptance of her daughter’s queerness and obvious love for Kim. Although Lila was not one of the main characters, her role was essential in the execution of the plot and seems to have left the greatest impression. 

The Celluloid Closet

By Melissa

This documentary takes a closer look at homosexual depiction in cinema throughout history. I believe it is only human nature to want to be represented within the media of one's culture. When african americans turned on the television they hardly ever saw people who looked like them, the same went for homosexuals. Cinema frowned upon open expressions of homosexuality.

When homosexuality was originally expressed in film it was something to poke fun at. Only the extreme stereotypes of gay life were depicted, men dressed up in formal gowns and women in suits. The men were laughed at while the women were viewed as appealing to both sexes. These images sent out negative stereotypes of disgust toward the gay community. But still many members of the gay community thought it was better to have a negative depiction in the film than no depiction at all. They searched for validation that they weren't alone and that in fact they did exist.

Much of the early cinema regarding homosexuality warned people against them. It also suggested that it was a "disease" which could be "cured". They were viewed as monsters in some films. Since this was a prevalent them in homosexual references, those who wishes to openly show homosexuality in a positive manor had to do so using subliminal messages. The actors had to learn homosexual cues while the gay audience had to be able to look for signs.

Openly showing sexual perversion was one of the last taboos present within cinema. Gay men and women always had to hide in the shadows, with ideas that they will never find love and even if they do they must die. It didn't help that the word fagot was openly used as an insult for all people, not just homosexuals. It is funny home America would show violence on the big screen before human sexuality. That says a lot about our culture.

In the end gay cinema was allowed to air but there is still caution in producing a "gay" film. It is still believed that if an actor stars in one of these films, then their career is sure to end. I do hope one day this image will change and homosexuals will be openly shown in the movie theaters. But until then, let us cling to Brokeback Mountain and Bound for inspiration.

High Heels a norm that can't be changed?

Recently I watched at Nightline segment pertaining to high heels and the lengths women will go to be able to wear the shoe regularly. The program showed medical procedures that allow women to wear high heels longer with less pain. One of the interesting point made on the show is how removing high heels from society is an unrealistic expectation because women must wear heels to be professional. The doctor being interviewed gave the example of a female lawyer who would never be seen in a court with out heels. He states Birkenstocks are not professional. 

My feeling on the high heel is that it does not have to be a societal requirement. The reason it currently is, is because we as a society make it so. I do agree with the doctor that the Birkenstock is not professional and should not be worn in court but women do have shoe option besides the heel and the Birkenstock. Flats for example can be very professional and fashion forward, but the Nightline segment never mentions flats.  I also feel a fashion statement that can leave lasting medical concerns should probably be examined and change to help society live healthier and happier lives. 

Fun With Money

This is Jamie.
    In the beginning of the Pleasure and Desire course, we discussed some popular sources of pleasure.  Sex and money seemed to be the most popular themes.  Sex is of course, a biologically-driven desire.  Is it inaccurate to say that money may almost be as well?  


    As part of my "mental health break" from finals and papers, I watched "Fun with Dick and Jane" on TBS.  While I have seen this movie before, since having Professor Nerio as an instructor for two semesters now, his face seems to pop up in my brain whenever I see potential for a sociological discussion topic.  So this time watching the film, I started to ask myself a lot of questions.  


    *SPOILER ALERT*  If you have never seen this movie, Jim Carey and Téa Leoni play a married couple who are happy, good-hearted parents with regular jobs and a comfortable amount of money.  Dick gets promoted as Vice President of a huge company.  This new salary would ensure a lifetime of financial assurance for their family and this prompted Jane's brilliant idea to quit her job.  Well, the huge corporation, Globodyne went bankrupt leaving all employees, unemployed.  Dick and Jane were desperate and after a series of bad luck, the couple went a little bit crazy.  Dick decides to rob a convenience store.  When at first it was a joke, the concept seemed more and more appealing and plausible and the couple begins to get professional.
    
    Dick and Jane buy all sorts of "theft equipment" allowing them to rob their neighbors, stores and bank accounts.  They had a child to feed and they felt entitled to the money they lost.  The value of money changed the entire personalities of two very normal, good-hearted people.   Their thrive to get what they wanted took over any moral values they had always committed to.  Kind of seems like a biological appetite doesn't it?

Digital Shmigital

This is Jamie.
    Everywhere you look there is a cell phone, a laptop, an ipod, a bluetooth headset.  Wow, even my computer recognizes "Bluetooth" as a word not incorrectly spelled but as the wireless networking device so recently created as yet another technological advance.  How much faith can we put in these devices?  Numerous studies have shown that cell phones give us cancer (what doesn't?) and the headphones attached to our ipods are permanently damaging our hearing!  Young people especially do not think about these consequences and will put faith in these skinny, lightweight seemingly animate objects in some serious ways.

    The internet is scary!  You type in your credit card number with every piece of your financial account information into your laptop to buy movies, books, clothes, vibrators, etc. and no one thinks twice about it! I know my mother (there I go mentioning my parent in the same vicinity of "vibrators") will go on the internet and shop, shop, shop, yet if I ask for the last four numbers of her social security over the phone for insurance purposes while I'm at the doctor, she screams, "MAKE SURE YOU TEAR IT UP!! BE CAREFUL WITH THAT!"

    Hackers are smart.  When was the last time you met a computer-expert who was dumb?  Remember Bill Gates? Pocket-protector, big glasses, suspender-wearing NERDS!  They know it all and some of them will try to invade your life.  My brother had his identity stolen not too long ago.  Bye, bye bank account!  I should mention that my brother is extremely technologically and computer-savvy aside from his sheer brilliance in a variety of other areas.  He is the last person to take a risk and lives by the motto, "proper, prior planning prevents poor performance"  My point being that even someone who is super careful can get struck by the hands of the scary internet world.  YOU could be next!

   Recently, I put all of my good faith into my trusty MacBook.  Saved all my files including my lengthy Senior Thesis and a research paper about the Inca Civilization of Peru.  You might imagine that the latter was not one of the most simple pieces of writing to formulate so its loss was quite the tragedy.  Once I was able to pick my jaw and all of my insides off the floor of the uncomfortably warm study room I had been residing in for weeks, I did everything I could to recover these documents.  I spent about an hour on the phone with Mac & Microsoft Word tech experts because my faith in this rectangular thing with buttons had led me to believe that programs that shut down "unexpectedly" will find the files it closed during.  It was no use.  Even after a trip to the Apple store, no one could help me except for giving me a free, new installation of a non-corrupted version of the very program that had essentially ruined my life (for the time being).  Thanks for nothing, technology.

Bridalplasty

This is Sophie.

pictures courtesy of Google Images

 

I mentioned in our last class a new show on TV called "Bridalplasty".  To me this program is synthetic in that it fundamentally bases the "perfect" wedding/marriage on the woman needing all the necessary plastic surgery work in order to be the "perfect" bride/wife.  This is the type of culture that makes me wonder how people from other countries view the U.S./Americans.  Having said that, I do not, by any means, think that all Americans view the idea of marriage or women through this lens, but I do think it says a significant amount about our culture.

I wonder if the women on this show choose to go on it themselves or if their fiancées encouraged them to do so. (the above woman is currently on the show and the list to her right is her "wish list")  Obviously I would find something wrong if my future husband wanted me to compete for plastic surgeries in order for me to become the "perfect" bride, and I would also find something wrong if my future husband did not try to discouraged me to go on the show if it was initially my idea.

On one of the commercials for this show, the host says something like "you may still have a wedding, it just won't be perfect" as she called out the name of the bride that was kicked off the show.  This astounds me that what would make a wedding perfect would be for the bride to have multiple plastic surgeries.  What has the union of marriage become?  Is it not a celebrated bond between two people who respect and love each other?  Are we really being told that now the basis of marriage is on physical appearance and this is what determines the rest of our life with another person?  

Susie Sexpert

This is Jamie.

    "Susie Sexpert's Lesbian Sex World" was delightful to say the least.  Brief and forward, Susie Sexpert delves deeply into the world of female sexuality without any shame at all.  I wouldn't say that I am deprived or nervous to talk about sex in this way but it certainly empowered me just to read how nonchalant she is about this topic because it just reenforces the normalcy about it.  There is nothing wrong with questions so why do women blush at the subject?

     It is frustrating that our culture saves sex topics for the dirty magazines and E! Hollywood Specials.  I like how Susie Bright points out that Consumer Reports does not include a section on vibrators.  This is funny because it is so true!  One thing I am uncomfortable with is throwing my Dad in this same paragraph but I have to say that I am familiar with Consumer Reports because it happens to be my Dad's favorite piece of literature.  He relies on it for decisions on which cars, phones, and other electronic gadgets to buy for our family.  Is Cosmopolitan the only magazine for women who want fun electronic advice from?  That  is not to say that my Dad's favorite magazine should be flooded with images of vibrators, but why not have a women's section or magazine of equivalent value based on actual tests and data.  I'd like to know which straightening iron is better for my hair but I cannot always listen to my hairstylist who wants me to buy the one from her salon, or the Conair commercial that will only feed me empty promises.  Maybe I want to see some stats!

            Hedwig and the Angry Inch was a movie everyone should watch, as everyone needs to view The Rocky Horror Picture Show. It is another iconic movie that is so different it will always be remembered. This movie follows Hedwig, a homosexual young man who grew up in communist East Berlin, and dreamed of leaving his war-ridden homeland to find his soul mate. He thinks that he finds his soul mate in the person of U.S. Sergeant Luther Robinson. But he does not accept him for who he is and wants in to undergo a sex change with the promise that he will take him from East Berlin to America. His mother gives him her passport, and her name: Hedwig. Shortly after coming to America Luther leaves Hedwig and he begins his life and music career. We see his life begin in an unwanted country and unwanted body. Hedwig uses his music and flashbacks to show the viewer his life story and current endeavor of chasing his ex-love’s tour around the country, because he stole Hedwig’s music.

           
The music itself is amazing and covers many different styles. It has left many people buying the soundtrack and even getting tattoos of them. They are completely riveting. Underneath all the humor and the music, however, was the serious theme of feeling spiritually "whole". Hedwig seemed to interpret this as through finding love and one's soul mate, in the song “Origin of Love.” 
Having not even the faintest idea of what the film was about other than that it was a musical, I was very pleasantly surprised at how much fun I had with Hedwig, and how at the same time it never strayed far from its serious theme.

          
In the end you feel for Hedwig, who could be stereotyped as a diva, but is revealed as a deep character with a sense of loss. She ends up finding her half by looking inside and finding herself and not trying to be what others want her to be. This was a beautiful, inspiring, rock and roll film.

Ashley Burger

TiMER --:--:--

          This past weekend I came across a movie on Netflix called Timer and it inspired me to make another post. Although it was probably a B rated movie, the concept was amazing and I have not stopped talking about it all weekend. The question it poses is this: if there were timers that you put on your wrist to tell you when you would meet your true love, would you get one? I automatically answered yes, but after watching the movie I have become skeptical.

            This movie is, of course, set in America and again shows our constant need of instant gratification and living on the fast track. The problem with these timers are that so much of our lives changed without people even realizing it. These timers took over so fast that most of the country had one. You get them installed when you are 14 and it either tells you how many days until you meet your one or it is blank. This changed the way everyone lived their lives. There was no point dating anyone or investing in anything. There were no wrong turns, broken hearts, or wasted tears. But don’t we learn from our wrong turns and mistakes? Most people chose not to waste their time. Although, you would get to spend those days counting down not worrying, traveling the country, and doing what you always wanted to do.

            This literally blew my mind because there were so many pros and cons. The movie followed two girls who were step sisters, one who had a blank timer and one who would meet her one when she was 40. They were both considered failures at love by their mother. When their brother got the timer, at age 14, his displayed... 3 days. Both of the girls were devastated. What would you do with all that time? The sister with the blank timer was determined to find her one and only dated guys without timers and would make them go get one after a couple of dates. This is where I became a skeptic about these timers. She brought her dates in to this franchise looking store. The workers were all overly cheery. It looked like eharmony on crack, that took over the world. This is where the viewers learned that you must pay to have the timer put in, a fee every month, a removal fee if you decide to get it removed and that if removed you can never get it again. But, there is a 100% guarantee to work. What do you do?

            At some points in the movie I started to think this company just took over the world and forced American’s to believe in it. When the little brother met his one, their timers went off and they just looked at each other awkwardly. His one was the family’s maid’s daughter, who spoke no English. They knew they would fall in love, but when? It was almost like an arranged marriage. I started to think what if a company just matched people by their profiles and gave them a date they would meet each other, then would you automatically fall in love with that person, because a company told you to? Can you control love that much? Can you force your love on someone you really do not love, do not know, but know you are supposed to?

            There are so many questions that came up for me. All I can say is to watch the movie, it will really get you thinking. It is not dense, but at the same time is so dense I could write a ten page paper on it. The only way you will get it is if you watch the movie and come up with your own opinion. Would you let the instant gratification take over your life?

Ashley Burger

Sex workers and burkhas

Are sex workers only concerned with pleasure? Do women in burkhas (coverings that Muslim women wear to cover their entire bodies, and only reveal their eyes) repress themselves from freely showing their desirably bodies? Sex workers and women in burkhas are more similar than one could imagine.

Tanmeet Sethi recounts her life as an Indian doctor and her struggles as an Indian in American society. As she accepts some aspects of both Indian and American cultures, she compares and contrasts the norms of these two cultures in her narrative entitled, “Ladies Only.” As a doctor, she travels to her native homeland to educate sex workers about HIV. Unlike most people that pay a visit to the brothels, Sethi wants to focus on the stories of these women. Delighted to interact with another human, these workers cannot wait to share their stories of empowerment. It must be surprising to hear empowerment and sex workers in the same sentence. Rest assure, these women have come a long way from their troubled and horrific pasts.

One girl told Sethi that she was no longer wanted at her husband’s home. Her family was unable to give her in-laws a big enough dowry and her disgusted in-laws wanted nothing to do with their daughter-in-law. Scared, disappointed, ashamed, this young girl did not want to go back to her parents. She would forever hurt her younger sister’s chance of finding an eligible suitor. Many women have troubling stories that haunt their pasts, but prostitution has helped these poor uneducated women find a life of freedom. Sethi advises these women about the dangers of HIV, and they know that customers must use condoms at all times.  At home, these women were at the command of their husbands and his family. Now, they can live freely amongst friends and have the freedom to rule their own lives.

While in a café abroad, Sethi encounters two Western women sipping their lattes. The women see two fully covered women in burkhas and do not understand how these women continue to live in such oppression. Sethi agrees with their concerns, but tells them that these women are also making a powerful statement by covering their bodies. Unlike the Western women, they do not subject themselves to sexual remarks by men, and only reveal their eyes to their public. The world cannot judge their bodies or face and this sends a strong message to the public. As Sethi exclaims the independence these women experience, the western women simply cannot understand. How can covering your body and not showing the world how perfect your body is be so freeing? The western women wear tight shirts and capris and carefully reapply globs of makeup, Sethi ponders: Which women are really oppressed?

-Nidhi

Old World versus New World

Dad:  “Almas, you know that you won’t be a spring chicken forever. While I was in Philadelphia, I realized how important it is for you to begin thinking about our culture, religion and your future marriage plants. I think it is time we began a two-year marriage plan so you can find a husband and start a family. I think twenty-two will be a good age for you. You should be married by twenty-two.”

(Almas thinking in her head): I needed to begin thinking about the “importance of tradition and be married by twenty-two? This, from the only Indian man I knew who had Alabama’s first album on vinyl and loved to spend long weekends in his rickety, old camper near Cheney Lake, bass fishing and listening to traditional Islamic Quavali music?

Dad: “I have met a boy that I like for you very much. Masoud’s son, Mahmood. He is a good Muslim boy, tells great jokes in Urdu and is a promising engineer. We should be able to arrange something. I think you will be happy with him!”

(Almas thinks in her head): Masoud, Dad’s cousin? This would make me and Mahmood distant relatives of some sort. And Dad wants to “arrange something”? I had brief visions of being paraded around a room, serving tea to strangers in a sari or shalwar kameez (a traditional South Asian outfit for women) wearing a long braid and chappals (flat Indian slippers), while Dad boasted my domestic capabilities to increase my attractiveness to potential suitors.

Ever wonder why some cultures enforce the idea of an arranged marriage on younger generations? How can some immigrants in America still encourage their children to follow traditional marriage customs from the old world? Daisy Hernandez and Bushra Rehman compile stories of ethnic women from around the world. The book includes compelling personal narratives of women that are entangled between satisfying political and cultural norms while they search for their own identities.

Almas, a native to the bread belt of America, is studying philosophy, women’s studies, and international relations at the University of Kansas. As an Indian Muslim, she must face the prospects of an arranged marriage to a Muslim boy that is a distant relative. While worrying about her philosophy final during her spring semester of sophomore year, Almas needs to consider to an arranged marriage proposal from a man that she has never met. And you thought finals week was stressful?

Unlike most traditional Muslims, Almas does not want to conform to customs. As an athletic child, Almas was an undesirable daughter in her mother’s eyes. Almas did not resemble those Bollywood beauties that were elegantly dressed in saris and adorned in gold bangles and necklaces while they elegantly danced and showed off their petite bodies. Almas was just the opposite.  She was a brawny, graceless, Indian Muslim (that did not wear a veil) girl with crooked teeth. Her mother thinks that Almas is so undesirable and will not be able to find suitable husband.

Torn between religion and customs, Almas cannot find a way to reveal her newly developing identity to her father. An activist, Almas discovered that the feminist view and queer rights is more appealing than those old Indian values. While dating a white man, she is trying to hide her undying crush for an actress at the college’s Theatre Department. Can you imagine trying to figure out your sexual identity at the same time your father is finding eligible bachelors for you to marry months after graduation? Almas’ dilemma is not something out of the norm. Many South Asian women fear “coming out of the closet” due to fear of rejection by their families and society. Should Almas pursue her sexual pleasures and desires instead of fulfilling her duties as an Indian Muslim woman? You be the judge.
-Nidhi

Chubby Chasers: Fetish for Fatties

By: Hayley Turner

The article Belialian Woman By Hydra M. Star looks at the group of men who like full figured women, the chubby chaser. The article examines if chubby chasing is natural, abnormal or a fetish. The consensus from those interviewed and Star’s own experiences is that chubby chasing is only considered something because if falls out side of the social, media and fashion norms of today, that portray skinny as beautiful. Star interviewed Marilyn Mansfield, plus size pin-up and fetish model. One of the quotes that Mansfield gives is, “my experience, I rarely have met a gentleman who didn’t enjoy feasting their eyes on a gal with full breasts, hips, or a big rear end.” This is an interesting perspective when popular culture steers away from fat. However Mansfield, Star and others believe that it is popular culture itself that keeps men from being chubby chasers. Much like women want to be skinny to be desirable and fit into the norms, men choose skinny women because it is the norm and not necessarily what they desire.

One of the key point the article make is that what is beautiful has changed and continues to change and how once bigger was beautiful. An example the article gives is Marilyn Monroe who at the top of her career was between the sizes 12 to 16. Today Monroe would probably not be a leading lady since she falls outside of the norm which currently state that a size 10 begins plus size.

           

To close the article Star states that big or little everyone just need confidence, confidence to be who they are and confidence to love who they are. This will help change norms and create a society where chubby chasers, lose their title and are once again just ‘normal’ guys, going after 'normal' women.

Escaping the Corn

         King Corn was a rather shocking documentary, which took a closer look into the corn industry. The two men, Ian and Curt, who made this documentary found it interesting that our generation is assumed to have a shorter life expectancy than our parent’s generation and wanted to find out why. They found it is because we are what we eat. After having their hair analyzed they found that both of their hairs were made of corn. They then decided to move out to Iowa, from Boston, and rent and acre of land to grow their own corn and follow it throughout the country.

Provided by google

        This was a rather eye opening film. It enlightened the viewer on how much the corn industry has changed in the past 50 years and how this has turned from a family practice into a corporation. It is shocking that farmers can no longer eat their own crops anymore. They have to be sent off to be processed. Most of the farmers would never even eat what they grew. Also, the corn has been altered to be able to grow closer together; it is about quantity versus quality. Furthermore, the men were surprised at how little work they had to do in order to grow the corn. Most of the work was waiting because of the tractors and technology we have developed through the years. It was about efficiency. When the men took their finished product to the corn elevator to sell they ended up loosing $9 in the long run, until the government paid them for their labor. It is interesting how the government has changed. Decades before they paid farmers not grow much corn, making it more valuable. When a new head came to the agricultural department, he said grow as much as you can, using whatever land you can. Now we have so much corn it has become almost worth nothing and we use it for almost everything.

          When Ian and Curt's crops were ready to be harvested they found that they could not accurately track it because the corn would be mixed in with the rest of the farmer’s corn and shipped off in various places. They then decided to see where it could possibly go. There were many places it could go such as oil, food for livestock, food for humans, soda, and/or made into high fructose corn syrup. It is amazing the affect corn has on America and could be the cause for obesity and type II diabetes. The fact is that it is so cheap they are using it for everything they can. Most things in the grocery store have high fructose corn syrup, as does soda, and now the meat is infused with corn as most fast food restaurants. There is no escaping it. To think we would rather pay less than live longer is crazy to me. As a man who was interviewed in the film said... if America demanded grass fed cows, we would give it to them, but America wants cheap. It takes almost twice as long to grow cattle eating grass and grazing. But, instead they put them in close quarters, so they cannot move and will gain weight, and feed them ground up corn. It is proven that if these cows were not slaughtered to eat they would die in a few months anyways from the malnutrition from the corn. This food was not meant for their systems.

        It is a sad cycle we have fallen into and maybe if more people were aware there would be change. But, as I tried to sit and have a conversation with my roommate about this film she stopped me quickly saying, “STOP… I don’t want to know. I love my hamburgers and I want to enjoy them.” But even if it is taking years off of are lives? Do we choose to live in ignorance? This film also shows our societies need for instant gratification. We cannot wait for corn and cows to grow naturally, we need them now. The more the better! But, we are compromising our lives. It is interesting that when my brother went to Canada and had McDonald’s he said it was so much better. This is because the government has stricter food regulations in Canada. What is America letting into our food and at what cost? I would highly recommend seeing this film, it will make you think twice about what you put into your mouth.

Ashley Burger