It goes without saying that we all really liked the museum. I was surprised to learn so many things at once. This visit to the museum really had me question myself . What most amazed me was the exhibit on the multiples genders characteristic common in several species such as the Blue banded Goby and the Spotte hyena. " Sex and Gender are neither rigid nor permanent attributes". I never knew that certain animals could change their gender/sex at various points in their lifetimes to accomodate the needs of their society. In the human language, I believe we have a name for those who have both female and male organs: hermaphrodite. We also placed the them in the "unnatural" category. Now, in relation to what are they unnatural? Are they unnatural because this phenomenon does not happen elsewhere in the animal kingdom besides the human race? The museum of sex just proved this old belief wrong. Hermaphroditism, homesexuality, masturbation are all phenomenons that have been observed among several species in the animal kingdom, not to mention the plant kingdom as well. Hence, we really have to question our defintion of natural. What's natural and what is not? Is natural defined from a religious view, from a scientific view or from a medical view?
Hi everyone .. well, the Museum of Sex was eye-opening to say the least. I think I was most impressed by the exhibition on the Sexual Life of Animals.. I knew that "homosexuality" and "alternate"" forms of sexuality existed in other species, but really quite another to see the range of the phenomena in photos, diagrams, and concise museum posters.. the video on "g-g [genito-genital] rubbing" among bonobo females will, I think, forever alter my perspective on sexuality.. the narration was quite remarkable:
(paraphrasing) "when female bonobos engage in g-g rubbing, males often get alarmed, and try to break them up. [presumably from being excluded from the pleasure and from loss of power] So female bonobos find secluded areas away from the males to engage in g-g rubbing. [..] It is remarkable that the matriarchal society of the bonobo has achieved what the feminist movement of its human cousins could not - a true sisterhood.."
This commentary was something that I might have thought of in my own mind while watching - not something I expected to hear stated by the narrator of a (otherwise PBS sounding) documentary! I noticed a sign in the lobby on the way out that mentioned that the Museum of Sex doesn't receive any government funding - big surprise there! While I am generally a big supporter of government funding for the arts and science, and tend to be suspicious sometimes of purely "privately funded" entities, in this instance I could really see the advantage. It is not very often that one hears a "scientific" documentary that draws insight from a radical feminist, if not lesbian separatist perspective. Indeed, it opens up questions about what "science" exactly is after all, as we are usually inured to a completely "value-neutral" scientism, of which the PBS wildlife documentary is almost an ideal type. Of course, the documentary did have these aspects as well, which, combined, added to the rather surreal quality of it - the "objective, neutral, matter-of-fact" narrator (who ends up actually have a political/cultural "standpoint" - the PBS-like wildlife documentary which shows all the parts that are usually left out! Usually, we see the lounging, sleeping, eating - and of course, the perhaps didactic "red in tooth and claw" aspects of "nature" that remind us how different (or perhaps similar) we are from "nature". Instead, we see masturbation, "lesbianism", the female bonobo "mounting" the male after he mounts her, etc. It was also hard not to feel that there was something "pornographic" about the film - the calm, detached tone of the scientific observor/narrator notwithstanding - maybe it had something to do with the fact that when one (taking the Fifth of course) usually sees "sex" on film, it's in a pornographic context, rather than a documentary - so there seems to be something about the medium of film (or rather video, even more to the point) + sex = pornography, even when its not (supposed to be at least).
Which can serve as a segueway perhaps into my second observation, which was my experience during the "history of sex on film" exhibition. This was the last exhibit in the museum, and I needed to collect the museum tickets for our accounting/reimbursement situation (of course, a whole 'nother story) from a few more people. Of course, this time, the exhibit actually DID have lots of real, true pornography, which was being shown under conditions that recreated, advertently or inadvertently, the places where "sex on film in public" would usually be shown - the dark, somewhat crowded spaces of a porn theater- in this case, with a couple dozen screens and people dispersed around them, silently watching. Getting the last few ticket stubs turned into a rather awkward experience. As I strained to see who was who in the dark, I found myself coming up close to people, having to use the light of the screen to try to discern who they were - as I approached people, I couldn't help but feel some weird vibes.. it didn't help that it was mostly female students whose tickets I was looking for. At first I was almost insulted. Museum exhibit or not, after a couple attempts of approaching people in the semi-lit dark, I realized I was inadvertently occupying the role of the "pervert" in others' perceptual universe. The search for the last time was aborted.
Lastly, I was struck by the many hand signals for sex depicted in the bonobo exhibit - turn around, come closer, etc - it made me wonder about the origins of language in sexual desire..
I don't know about anyone else, but watching the bonobo video the day after the infamous "chimp attack" , with the bonobos eery visual similarity to humans, and then (in this film) sexual similarity, was a little unsettling for some reason..
Ha! I didn't even think of it at the time, but in retrospect that must have been an extremely awkward experience! I thought, however, that the dark setting equipped with hot pink and black lights was actually a great environment for the sex on film exhibit. That exhibit didn't just set up a narrative, materials, and information for one to think about; it forced us into an environment, which both reflected and instigated the broad range of insecurities, prejudices and social dissonances intrinsic to sexual film culture and sexuality more generally. To me, this utilization and instigation of the patrons' reaction as a means of creating live commentary (exemplified in Dominic's ticket collection experience and also Keshia's observation that a museum-goer looked really embarassed touching the rubber breasts in the last exhibit) was one of the major highlights and successes of the museum.
Can talking about, writing about, viewing and reading about this much sex be healthy? Well, since I have not fallen to my death as of yet, I guess I am okay. I finally got a hang of this blogging thing (I was having issues login in) and I feel like I have so much to say. I hope I don't say too much that has already been said.
One of the most common themes in everything that we read and viewed over the few beginning weeks of this semester were the MANY different aspects of sexuality and why it has become incredibly difficult to define. The Preface of our textbook gives the dictionary definition: the condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex. However, I have already realized that this has changed GREATLY over time. Sexuality is social, political, economic, resistant, condoned, religious, appreciated, rejected. It is about power, tradition, culture, liberation, restraint, privilege, regulation and opposition.
Jeffrey Weeks states sexuality as: "a growing awareness of the tangled web of influences and forces." I never really separated sexuality into any categories. The areas that have become important in the "social organization of sexuality" seem so dependent on each other. I was not really able to connect with each specific point because the lines between them were gray.
On Rictor Norton's essay, I just found it interesting - or i recently learned - that "queer was a word used for homosexuals AND homophobes." I never knew that and personally thought that was a great fact.
NOW... ABOUT THE "MUSEUM OF SEX" : I found it so insanely awkward (and i don't know if this was just me) to be next to other people while watching these videos. I found that I didn't get immature and giggly unless someone was beside watching the same video. I also 'caught' a woman touching one of the "real dolls" breasts. I thought that was insanely funny. I use the word caught not because I saw her do it but because she literally looked like she had done something taboo even if the sign said "please touch." Overall, I LOVED the museum. I thought it was beautiful. As a woman it was empowering to see sex and sexuality as an art form rather than something we should be ashamed of engaging in or feel responsible for.
Comments
museum report
Hi everyone
It goes without saying that we all really liked the museum. I was surprised to learn so many things at once. This visit to the museum really had me question myself . What most amazed me was the exhibit on the multiples genders characteristic common in several species such as the Blue banded Goby and the Spotte hyena. " Sex and Gender are neither rigid nor permanent attributes". I never knew that certain animals could change their gender/sex at various points in their lifetimes to accomodate the needs of their society. In the human language, I believe we have a name for those who have both female and male organs: hermaphrodite. We also placed the them in the "unnatural" category. Now, in relation to what are they unnatural? Are they unnatural because this phenomenon does not happen elsewhere in the animal kingdom besides the human race? The museum of sex just proved this old belief wrong. Hermaphroditism, homesexuality, masturbation are all phenomenons that have been observed among several species in the animal kingdom, not to mention the plant kingdom as well. Hence, we really have to question our defintion of natural. What's natural and what is not? Is natural defined from a religious view, from a scientific view or from a medical view?
Museum of Sex reportback
Hi everyone .. well, the Museum of Sex was eye-opening to say the least. I think I was most impressed by the exhibition on the Sexual Life of Animals.. I knew that "homosexuality" and "alternate"" forms of sexuality existed in other species, but really quite another to see the range of the phenomena in photos, diagrams, and concise museum posters.. the video on "g-g [genito-genital] rubbing" among bonobo females will, I think, forever alter my perspective on sexuality.. the narration was quite remarkable:
(paraphrasing) "when female bonobos engage in g-g rubbing, males often get alarmed, and try to break them up. [presumably from being excluded from the pleasure and from loss of power] So female bonobos find secluded areas away from the males to engage in g-g rubbing. [..] It is remarkable that the matriarchal society of the bonobo has achieved what the feminist movement of its human cousins could not - a true sisterhood.."
This commentary was something that I might have thought of in my own mind while watching - not something I expected to hear stated by the narrator of a (otherwise PBS sounding) documentary! I noticed a sign in the lobby on the way out that mentioned that the Museum of Sex doesn't receive any government funding - big surprise there! While I am generally a big supporter of government funding for the arts and science, and tend to be suspicious sometimes of purely "privately funded" entities, in this instance I could really see the advantage. It is not very often that one hears a "scientific" documentary that draws insight from a radical feminist, if not lesbian separatist perspective. Indeed, it opens up questions about what "science" exactly is after all, as we are usually inured to a completely "value-neutral" scientism, of which the PBS wildlife documentary is almost an ideal type. Of course, the documentary did have these aspects as well, which, combined, added to the rather surreal quality of it - the "objective, neutral, matter-of-fact" narrator (who ends up actually have a political/cultural "standpoint" - the PBS-like wildlife documentary which shows all the parts that are usually left out! Usually, we see the lounging, sleeping, eating - and of course, the perhaps didactic "red in tooth and claw" aspects of "nature" that remind us how different (or perhaps similar) we are from "nature". Instead, we see masturbation, "lesbianism", the female bonobo "mounting" the male after he mounts her, etc. It was also hard not to feel that there was something "pornographic" about the film - the calm, detached tone of the scientific observor/narrator notwithstanding - maybe it had something to do with the fact that when one (taking the Fifth of course) usually sees "sex" on film, it's in a pornographic context, rather than a documentary - so there seems to be something about the medium of film (or rather video, even more to the point) + sex = pornography, even when its not (supposed to be at least).
Which can serve as a segueway perhaps into my second observation, which was my experience during the "history of sex on film" exhibition. This was the last exhibit in the museum, and I needed to collect the museum tickets for our accounting/reimbursement situation (of course, a whole 'nother story) from a few more people. Of course, this time, the exhibit actually DID have lots of real, true pornography, which was being shown under conditions that recreated, advertently or inadvertently, the places where "sex on film in public" would usually be shown - the dark, somewhat crowded spaces of a porn theater- in this case, with a couple dozen screens and people dispersed around them, silently watching. Getting the last few ticket stubs turned into a rather awkward experience. As I strained to see who was who in the dark, I found myself coming up close to people, having to use the light of the screen to try to discern who they were - as I approached people, I couldn't help but feel some weird vibes.. it didn't help that it was mostly female students whose tickets I was looking for. At first I was almost insulted. Museum exhibit or not, after a couple attempts of approaching people in the semi-lit dark, I realized I was inadvertently occupying the role of the "pervert" in others' perceptual universe. The search for the last time was aborted.
Lastly, I was struck by the many hand signals for sex depicted in the bonobo exhibit - turn around, come closer, etc - it made me wonder about the origins of language in sexual desire..
I don't know about anyone else, but watching the bonobo video the day after the infamous "chimp attack" , with the bonobos eery visual similarity to humans, and then (in this film) sexual similarity, was a little unsettling for some reason..
Ha! I didn't even think of it
Ha! I didn't even think of it at the time, but in retrospect that must have been an extremely awkward experience! I thought, however, that the dark setting equipped with hot pink and black lights was actually a great environment for the sex on film exhibit. That exhibit didn't just set up a narrative, materials, and information for one to think about; it forced us into an environment, which both reflected and instigated the broad range of insecurities, prejudices and social dissonances intrinsic to sexual film culture and sexuality more generally. To me, this utilization and instigation of the patrons' reaction as a means of creating live commentary (exemplified in Dominic's ticket collection experience and also Keshia's observation that a museum-goer looked really embarassed touching the rubber breasts in the last exhibit) was one of the major highlights and successes of the museum.
I Know It When I See It, Read It, and Hear It
Can talking about, writing about, viewing and reading about this much sex be healthy? Well, since I have not fallen to my death as of yet, I guess I am okay. I finally got a hang of this blogging thing (I was having issues login in) and I feel like I have so much to say. I hope I don't say too much that has already been said.
One of the most common themes in everything that we read and viewed over the few beginning weeks of this semester were the MANY different aspects of sexuality and why it has become incredibly difficult to define. The Preface of our textbook gives the dictionary definition: the condition of being characterized and distinguished by sex. However, I have already realized that this has changed GREATLY over time. Sexuality is social, political, economic, resistant, condoned, religious, appreciated, rejected. It is about power, tradition, culture, liberation, restraint, privilege, regulation and opposition.
Jeffrey Weeks states sexuality as: "a growing awareness of the tangled web of influences and forces." I never really separated sexuality into any categories. The areas that have become important in the "social organization of sexuality" seem so dependent on each other. I was not really able to connect with each specific point because the lines between them were gray.
On Rictor Norton's essay, I just found it interesting - or i recently learned - that "queer was a word used for homosexuals AND homophobes." I never knew that and personally thought that was a great fact.
NOW... ABOUT THE "MUSEUM OF SEX" : I found it so insanely awkward (and i don't know if this was just me) to be next to other people while watching these videos. I found that I didn't get immature and giggly unless someone was beside watching the same video. I also 'caught' a woman touching one of the "real dolls" breasts. I thought that was insanely funny. I use the word caught not because I saw her do it but because she literally looked like she had done something taboo even if the sign said "please touch." Overall, I LOVED the museum. I thought it was beautiful. As a woman it was empowering to see sex and sexuality as an art form rather than something we should be ashamed of engaging in or feel responsible for.