?So many cultures have quite strict codes governing female sexuality,? she said. ?If that sexuality is relatively passive, then why so many rules to control it? Why is it so frightening?? There was the implication, in her words, that she might never illuminate her subject because she could not even see it, that the data she and her colleagues collect might be deceptive, might represent only the creations of culture, and that her interpretations might be leading away from underlying truth. There was the intimation that, at its core, women?s sexuality might not be passive at all. There was the chance that the long history of fear might have buried the nature of women?s lust too deeply to unearth, to view.
When I read this I thought to myself� "start the article here!". All research is embedded within culture. Gender and sexuality, being so fundamental to every culture are even more embedded. This means that assumptions we make about gender and sexuality can influence our thinking and research without us even being aware of them. They're there in the questions we ask, the subjects we recruit, and how we interpret our data. We're as mixed up in at as the people we want to research, so pulling back and looking at something with a completely objective eye can be impossible.This cultural context also means that what research describes might not be how things actually are, but how the current culture is shaping them to be. Could past attitudes about sexuality and gender resulted in very different results? It's entirely plausible. For me, this means that our sexuality is not set, it's flexible and "fixing" something that is undesirable may be more about changing the culture than developing a drug or therapy. As someone always hoping for a bit of a revolution, this idea appeals to me.First on my list of themes for the revolution would be something left entirely out of the discussion in this article: pleasure. In any discussion about sexuality in the United States, especially one that takes place in the mainstream media, pleasure is often the elephant in the room. The following scenarios seem entirely plausible: women in pleasure-less sexual relationships don't want to have sex as often; women who are not having the kind of pleasure they were raised to think they should get feel inadequate and don't want to have sex as often; women who were raised to think the kind of pleasure they do have is wrong or should not be expressed feel guilty and... you guessed it, have less desire. It could even be that what women were responding to in the porn films including the bonobos was pleasure.In other words, maybe what women really want is true, uninhibited, guilt-free, glorious pleasure -� be that by themselves or with a partner. It's just a thought, but it's certainly something worth researching. Or, we could start a pleasure revolution. I think I know the perfect spot for the headquarters. :)Update: Obviously this article is generating a lot of discussion on the blogosphere. Here are some other perspectives. If you've written about this, please post a link in the comments.FeministingCory Silverberg at About.comFuture Feminist Librarian ArchivistNeuroanthropologyght not be how things actually are, but how the current culture is shaping them to be. Could past attitudes about sexuality and gender resulted in very different results? It's entirely plausible. For me, this means that our sexuality is not set, it's flexible and "fixing" something that is undesirable may be more about changing the culture than developing a drug or therapy. As someone always hoping for a bit of a revolution, this idea appeals to me.First on my list of themes for the revolution would be something left entirely out of the discussion in this article: pleasure. In any discussion about sexuality in the United States, especially one that takes place in the mainstream media, pleasure is often the elephant in the room. The following scenarios seem entirely plausible: women in pleasure-less sexual relationships don't want to have sex as often; women who are not having the kind of pleasure they were raised to think they should get feel inadequate and don't want to have sex as often; women who were raised to think the kind of pleasure they do have is wrong or should not be expressed feel guilty and... you guessed it, have less desire. It could even be that what women were responding to in the porn films including the bonobos was pleasure.In other words, maybe what women really want is true, uninhibited, guilt-free, glorious pleasure -� be that by themselves or with a partner. It's just a thought, but it's certainly something worth researching. Or, we could start a pleasure revolution. I think I know the perfect spot for the headquarters. :)Update: Obviously this article is generating a lot of discussion on the blogosphere. Here are some other perspectives. If you've written about this, please post a link in the comments.FeministingCory Silverberg at About.comFuture Feminist Librarian ArchivistNeuroanthropology