|
...When it comes to the topic of desire, can we really have it as we like it,
to passionately involve ourselves in things we love or dream to do with
abandon? What happens when people freely act out their desires? Imagine
a gathering of men and women enjoying themselves, appearing frivolously
happy, laughing loudly, and not concerned with the people around them,
how do others survey this scene? Often there are frowns, noises of
disapproval, or feelings by others that they are voyeurs and should not be
watching. Perhaps the negative reaction from the voyeurs is reflecting their
own desires that are 'being held in custody' along with their fear of societal
rules being transgressed.
So what exactly is desire and what passions does it drive us to fulfil?
Imagine desire as a motivating force that drives the energy of passion in
everything we do. In Western mythology, Eros, the divine icon of erotic
love, along with further transformations as Cupid and Amor, is responsible
for fuelling the energies of sexual love and desire. Exploring and explaining
issues of lust, desire and sex through gods and goddesses in history was
the accepted way to explore the feelings, thoughts and behaviours initiated
by desire. Initially, Eros recognised the goddess and glorified her in birth,
sex, death and regeneration, but later the divine icon of erotic love became
fixated with the death and resurrection of male deities. With this worship
of male deities came the resurgence of more violent elements of desire
as personified by the son of the Greek god of war, Ares. In addition,
when the divine sexual energy of the goddess was subsumed by paternal
and masculine manifestations, this appropriation told women their sexual
desire was impure.
In earlier times the 'sacred harlot' openly demanded, 'Who will plough
my vulva? who will plough my high field? and who will plough my wet
ground?' The sacred harlot in the guise of the evening star was honoured
just as her role as the eternal virgin in the guise of the morning star was
seen as equally important. With the shift of Eros to the masculine
interpretation this polarisation of harlot and virgin became a narrative of
positive and negative, good and bad. With further religious influences and
the narratives of Eve, the idea of nakedness and desire became associated
with evil and impurity. Religious Puritanism, with its fundamentalist views,
sexualised nakedness and loaded it with sin. The social narrative of the
nude through the body's contours, is demonstrated by Grotz in Volatile
Bodies as to, 'confine and constitute corporeal capacity, both stimulating and
stifling social conformity'.
Social conformity is a strong force to be reckoned with. Consider, for
example, how the French film Romance, about a female schoolteacher
exploring her sexuality and desires, fell foul of the censorship board
because it portrayed actual intercourse and erect penises. What is the real
problem when sex and nudity are part of real life? As Erika Addis,
president of 'Women in Film and TV' in Sydney, comments, 'the banning
of the film is very symptomatic of the times'. Our times seem dedicated
to moralising from traditional perspectives which do more to contain a
person's desires than to allow them to negotiate their desires through
principled thought.
***
There appears to be a double standard in the patrolling of lust, desire,
and nakedness through censorship. For instance, British, American and
Canadian law interprets obscenity as an erect penis, to the extreme that a
Canadian woman's film was banned for showing a five-second shot of an
erect penis being fitted with a condom. Australia follows similar standards
as demonstrated through the photographic collection of Olympic athletes
entitled Atlanta Dream, which featured Australian athletes naked and
posed.1 Although the aesthetic appeal of the photographs was high, no
part of the women's bodies were censored, however not one penis was
shown.
That censorship is closely tied to moral and ethical codes that are
socially constructed and enforced is no surprise. Censorship will always
reflect the dominant ethical and moral preferences of the society, and
will be used, to control images, behaviour, and desire. The notion of
ownership and control of desire has been handed down through
patriarchal structures of religion and law, which act to enforce controls
through censorship and protection. Religion in Western culture has been
largely responsible for taking custody of the gaze in order to 'crucify the
Eros'. As James Murray notes the way to avoid sin, as taught by the church
in the gospels, is to recognise that 'the light of the body is the eye. But if
your eye is evil your whole body will be full of darkness'.
If our eyes are held accountable for what we 'see', then how we
interpret this knowledge and how we act on that information is likewise
accountable. How males and females 'see' and 'are seen' through the lens
of desire, is distinctly different. In the flesh men and woman generally
look, see, and behave according to culturally informed rules that act to
legitimise a 'contract of the gaze'. When eye contact is made between the
surveyors and the surveyed there is a known code of etiquette with that
look that elicits an understanding of the next move to be made. The gaze
from the phallocentric viewpoint sets up notions of lust, desire, and
eroticism between the participants. Within the look and contract there is a
tacit understanding of domination and submission. This double standard
of desire is easily digested by men because it empowers them, but makes it
difficult to reshape their thinking, even if the wish to do so is present.
Women, who buy into the no-fuss principle, find collusion is often the
easier option. Indeed the quintessential image of woman is ' ...an image
created by men and fashioned to suit their needs'... back to top
|
