[100 Challenge] Roberta Gattel_91

Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality, Gayle Rubin, 1984

“Sexuality is as much a human product as are diets, methods of transportation, systems of etiquette, forms of labor, types of entertainment, processes of production, and modes of oppression […]. Sexuality in Western societies has been structured within an extremely punitive social framework and has been subjected to very real formal and informal controls […]. There are at least five other ideological formations whose grip on sexual thought is so strong that to fail to discuss them is to remain enmeshed within them. These are sex-negativity, the fallacy of misplaced scale, the hierarchical valuation of sex acts, the domino theory of sexual peril, and the lack of a concept of benign sexual variation. Of these five, the most important is sex negativity. Western cultures generally consider sex to be a dangerous, destructive, negative force. Most Christian tradition, following Paul, holds that sex is inherently sinful. It may be redeemed if performed within marriage for procreative purposes and if the pleasurable aspects are not enjoyed too much. In turn, this idea rests on the assumption that the genitalia are an intrinsically inferior part of the body”.

It's surprising how a text from 41 years ago is still able to talk to us about sex and sexuality in a current way. To date, "Thinking Sex," despite presenting some controversies (for example, on the subject of pedophilia and around the topic of consent, where it is not specified what is meant by consent nor what the legal age for having sexual relations is) remains a lucid, powerful and... angry writing.

We often hear that sex and sexuality are secondary, frivolous, or, worse, private topics that do not belong to the public sphere and do not have the relevance of the "things that matter," such as politics, the economy, healthcare, war, etc. But is it really like that? Is sex really that marginal?

According to Gayle Rubin, and also in my opinion, no. Sex and sexuality are central in politics: in the laws that regulate civil unions, the right to inherit, the custody of minors, and adoptions; in the formation of the state and nationalist propaganda: the monogamous heterosexual family and the woman as a reproducer of culture and future citizens are essential to the survival of the national system. Sex and sexuality are fundamental in school: many school curricula censor topics related to homosexuality and transsexuality so as not to "create confusion" in children; sexual education itself is addressed only if supported by the relevant legislation, and there are not many States that provide it. Sex and sexuality are central to ethics and morality: in the code of conduct (what are the sexual behaviors that can or cannot be expressed?); in the dress code (which parts of our naked bodies can we show in public?); in the value code (what are the sexual behaviors of which we should be ashamed? which are the right sexualities and which are the deviant ones?). Sex and sexuality are substantial in mass and personal culture: many of the sexual taboos we have are linked to millennia of misinformation, mystification, and censorship; the censorship still in vogue in photographs, films, and even artistic products prevents full access to knowledge of the anatomy of our bodies and prevents the normalization of our naked bodies as something natural, free from morality (also a cultural product); the media promotion of just one type of sexuality (heterosexual) and relationship (monogamous) conditions the choices of many people, builds desires that do not correspond to the real desires of individuals and contributes to increasing ignorance and false myths around our bodies and our sexual inclinations.

Sex and sexuality are essential in the economy, in the pornography industry where “current revenue estimates for the US range from $9bn to $97bn a year. The latter figure looks excessive, but a conservative estimate is $15bn. That makes it bigger than not only Netflix ($11.7bn) but also Hollywood as a whole ($11.1bn) and Viacom ($13.3bn)” (The Guardian, Dicember 30th, 2018  

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/30/internet-porn-says-more-about-ourselves-than technology#:~:text=Current%20revenue%20estimates%20for%20the,words%2C %20online%20porn%20is%20huge).

And in the sex jobs market ("According to an Istat report, in Italy, prostitution is a 4.7 billion euro market"; Il Sole 24 Ore, https://lab24.ilsole24ore.com/sex-and-the-economy/puntata-5 #:~:text=Secondo%20un%20rapporto%20Istat%2C%20in,in%20caso%20di%20necessit%C3%A0%20economiche). Finally, sex and sexuality are substantial in the religious field. On this point, I don't want to go into specifics but to remember a text that has remained in vogue for hundreds of years and which was used as a reference manual during the persecution of Witchcraft: the Malleus Malleficarum (The Hammer of the Witches). A volume written in Latin by the German priest Heinrich Kramer in 1486 to eradicate heresy and paganism. The book focuses a lot on female sexual conduct and advises you to beware of both lustful and sex-loving women and ambitious and unfaithful women because they are the ones most inclined to sign pacts with the devil. In addition to this reminder of marginalization towards independent women who dare to experience pleasure, the manual offered itself as a guide in sexual education, imposing sex on couples only for reproductive purposes and banning many sexual positions as heretical because they were considered anti-conceptional, including the Doggy Style position. The Malleus Maleficarum fell into disuse during the Enlightenment, meaning it remained in vogue for more than two hundred years, leaving its influence on the subsequent conduct of the Christian Church and an indelible mark on popular culture.

My great-grandmother said that when she went to confession, the priest always reminded her that she had to carry out her "conjugal duty" but that it was vital that she did not feel pleasure. “And what did you tell him, Grandma?” Mom asked her. “I told him yes, and then I did what I wanted,” she replied. “Do you think I follow the priests?”. This script repeated itself with my grandmother and then with my mother, too. The last episode that was told to me dates back to the mid-90s and concerns my mother: before starting the confession, the priests always asked her if she was married, if she had arrived at the wedding as a virgin, and if she had extra-marital affairs. Another episode that may fall within the "ambitious and unfaithful woman" target of the Malleus Malleficarum may be that experienced by one of my aunts who, in the mid-2000s, divorced her husband and the town priest excluded her from the religious community, refusing to offer her confession and the sacrament of communion.

I doubt that the priest thought that my aunt, with the divorce, would start taking night flights and dancing wildly with Satan; nevertheless, he could not forgive her for her diabolical sin: that of having led her life according to her own needs, her feelings and her pleasure; and not according to his presumed duties: obedience, suffering, anhedonia.