Main Post February 22

This selection of reading from Patricia Hill Collins’ book Black Sexual Politics is among my favorites of the semester. Her approach is very academic and her language is highly intellectual, but approachable. She elegantly takes into account America’s broader history, colonial background, and globalization in her discussion about sexual politics as they concern both men and women of dominant and marginalized races. This is something I think Douglas fails to do; understandably, Douglas’s focus is more on the way things are and the way sexual politics manifest themselves in the contemporary context (mostly through media), but Collins is able to draw a well defined outline of these manifestations without excluding the history behind them, which I think is of upmost importance to a genuine understanding of the present. In the same vein, Collins takes into account the male’s role in her discussion of sexual politics. As we discussed in class, Douglas makes no attempt to include or even gesture toward the many examples of sexual exploitation of males that correspond to the scenarios of embedded feminism in her book. Regardless of whether or not Douglas was conscious of this exclusion while she wrote her book, I think anything written about sexual relations or politics in our society must, at the very least, acknowledge the ways that females and males are affected by the constructs of our society. Limiting your scope does not allow you to be more specific or detailed; it makes your points incomplete and makes your argument lack perspective. Collins achieves the most well-rounded perspective of any author we have read to date. Even though the title is Black Sexual Politics, and she has a notably feminist perspective, Collins embraces the fact men and women of all races and earlier time periods play a role in shaping the sexual and political climate of today. This is particularly true for Black Americans, a demographic that Collins notes has had trouble defining sexuality for themselves. Throughout history Black men and women have been relegated to an image of “wild” sexuality by the White majority; they have been constricted to a very well defined sexual “other.” Collins touches on something that I have been waiting to come up in our reading for some time now: America’s puritan heritage. Our Puritan foundation is of fundamental importance to any discussion of the contemporary sexual climate. Remember, it was only 300 years ago that the Puritan lifestyle completely dominated this continent. In my opinion it is the entire reason that Douglas is able to discuss embedded feminism; our Puritan heritage is the source of our desire to subdue sexuality and maintain a façade of propriety in our media. Collins makes the terrifyingly true statement that this is also how color-blind racism can permeate even our most progressive discussions about sexual politics. Our culture and Black Americans in particular have a very difficult task in navigating this sexual climate, which is fraught contradictions and catch-22s.

My response has already briefly touched on Susan Douglas’ article because I feel like these two readings overlap so poignantly. Douglas focuses this “Sex R Us” chapter on the way our society has visibly moved away from the Puritan mindset (taking a few risqué Calvin Klein advertisements as an example) without abandoning the Puritan conscience completely (most people seem to think there is something inherently “wrong” or “too far” about all of our media). The clever title of this chapter emphasizes how sexuality is used to sell anything and everything in Western society. Douglas gives her standard two-sides-of-the-coin argument for how this may appear, in one hand, as a liberated sexual society in which we are free to express ourselves and our bodies. While, in the other hand, it reinforces the sexual pressures, expectations, and power structures of our social environment.

This same argument surrounds what Douglas calls the “sexpert” and the very gendered sexual advice magazines that Cosmo and Maxim have turned into. The sexpert knows about sex, talks about sex, initiates sexual encounters and discussions, etc. Douglas argues, though, that their expertise often reinforces the idea that sexual power comes from an ability to please; essentially, it continues the ever-important search for sexual approval. This is another point where I think Douglas’ book falls short in its discussion of the male situation. In a way, I think society’s pressure on males to perform sexually is just as strong and much more embedded than the females pressure to “Please Your Man” as so many Cosmo headlines read. I think women, in general, are much more inclined to discuss sexuality openly, especially in public forums like the media. Men, however, are expected to know how to perform and any open discussion or questions about sex is usually taken as a sign of an inability to do so. Sue Johansen is the Sexpert for the Oxygen network. She interviewed with Conan O’Brien and Ray Romano (two men known to making fun of themselves by joking about their sexual insecurities) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANML1tTa7W4 . It is easy to see that, as comedians, Ray and Conan have to make fun of themselves in order for this interview to work. Sue is allowed to talk openly and make suggestive puns. But the men are clearly uncomfortable talking about these things. Both Ray and Conan turn themselves into the butt of the joke by feigning complete ignorance. The imbalance in our society’s willingness to talk about sex is not a reflection of a heavier burden on women to “know about sex.” Instead, it is a sign that our society places expectations of knowledge on men more heavy-handedly. I think this is why our media and our society is cluttered with the patriarchal and degrading media that we know so well. It is more acceptable for a man to rap about his sexual prowess and make music videos with scantily clad women than it is for him to have any discussion about sex that might lead people to believe he is anything less that well equipped or well practiced in sexual activity (unless, of course, their goal is to make us laugh).