|
...In its social function and context, 'sex' marks identity as gender –
feminine or masculine. It also marks territory and boundaries through
stereotypes of what it is to be female or male. Accompanying this comes the
distinction between 'normal' bodies – those who conform to the gendered
classification system – and 'the other' bodies – those who refuse or
transgress borders, boundaries and gendered scripts. Conforming bodies
are privileged, transgressive bodies are rejected or the objects of pity,
contempt, humour, scorn or caricature.
By using the physical landscape of the body as specific markers of
sexuality, society sets the parameters of legitimate human sexual etiquette
about breasts and genitalia that bring sexuality and power into play. When
there is the possibility of deviance from the socially and morally defined
norms for sexuality, people's behaviours are constantly surveyed and
scrutinized, under the edict of the 'decent' or 'colloquial'.
It is appropriate to speak of the watchful 'gaze' that monitors human
thought and conduct, upholding and maintaining the accepted standards
for sex, gender and forms of human relationships and denying or
condemning all 'others' (that is, 'othering' them). Difference marks them
as evil, perverts, or not human. As scapegoats for the evils in society (its
intolerance, moral shibboleths, secret deeds and hidden illicit desires)
they become the victims of their own 'crime', which is the dark side of
the social and moral majority. This moral and spiritual ambivalence is
responsible for much of the conflict and confusion in contemporary
human relationships.
***
There is no 'natural' norm for bodies or sex. What does exist is a
variety of accepted cultural descriptors for the sexed body, with varying
degrees of conformity to social norms. The binary demarcation or
stigmatisation of the body as male/masculine and female/feminine has
made gender the fundamental basis for classifying human beings. Indeed,
what 'neutral' category can there be for conceptualising the 'human',
when the 'natural' ascription for both men and women is 'man' and
'mankind', along with the associated pronouns, 'he', 'him' and 'his'? The
word and concept he has been easily integrated into language to mean the
'all powerful' and fear of woman and her body appears to be at the core.
In the 21st century the heterosexual mind-set still dominates in most
societies. This thinking, through its strict male/female binaries,
automatically marginalises those who don't, won't or can't conform. There
can be difficulty with acceptance of 'other' sexualities. However, in this
quest for binary simplicity, it is with 'ignorance' and 'fear' that society
acknowledges the possibility of erotic desire for multi-sexuality.
Margaret Mead in 1975 challenged the heterosexual bias by recognising
bi-sexuality as a 'normal' form of human behaviour. It is interesting that
although bi-sexuality has now been accepted in fringe magazines such as
Blue, the gay and lesbian community has viewed bi-sexuality as noncommittal
within a sexual relationship. Sadly the very idea of fluidity of
desire is often seen as traitorous and cowardly. This fails to accommodate
the other layers in which people exist as whole in body, mind and spirit.
In Australia some states are still grappling to recognise sex-changed
bodies or allow the alteration of birth certificates after surgical gender
reassignment.
***
Even though there is a plethora of information to be sifted through
about sex and gendered bodies, there seems to be no 'natural' norm for
bodies or sex. What does exist is a variety of acceptable forms for the
sexual body, carrying varying degrees of conformity to social norms.
However, the binary demarcation demonstrates they are not conceived
as neutral. In society sexed bodies (male/masculine, female/feminine)
are also categorized as either 'normal' or 'deviant', according to their
conformity or nonconformity to the 'appropriate' sex and its roles. The
construct of difference, from the binary point of view, essentialises human
beings into male/masculine or female/feminine, and does not allow
difference to be dynamic or various. The film Boys Don't Cry one redeeming
feature is that Brandon's love-interest raises her social consciousness
sufficiently to escape her prescribed role and environment when she leaves
town.
***
Western societies do not embrace wholeness as a practice. Each societal
system demonstrates ownership of bodies differently. In feudal society
the body belonged to the lord of the manor, and was under his jurisdiction.
In industrial societies the body became a cog in the wheel used to produce
wealth for the industrialist at the expense of individual health and
education. In communist systems the body was a cog in the wheel for the
state; although health and education were taken care of, there was a tight
reign on personal expression. In capitalist systems the body is a cog of
consumerism in the buying and selling of identity. All systems consider
the body as a site for knowledge, reward, and punishment and control in
different ways. Michel Foucault's work, for example, shows the various
ways across time by which the body as a tangible thinking, feeling object
has been regulated and controlled through discipline, punishment,
surveillance and 'regimes of truth', and is thereby led to accept the orders
and laws of the system.
***
Negotiation and mutuality can be a vehicle towards the wholeness of
the mind, body and spirit. As a wish list for exploring spiritual sexuality
without shame, vulnerability, detachment, distractions, the use of
affirmations can be helpful when searching for ways to fill the gaps. Loving
the self and others as you wish to be loved can be the biggest affirmative
action you have aspired to. Positive thinking can bring the spirit, mind
and body together and may help to solve problems with fragmentation
and detachment... back to top
|
