A philosopher on our side?

[Vicious Trollop]

I was so excited in my Eros & Pathos class this afternoon, I had to come share with you guys. We discussed Michel Foucault's theories of sexuality - let me see if I can recapitulate:

- In modern advanced capitalism, "truth" and "identity" are constituted by the power structure of social institutions

- Sexuality, our bodies, are saturated by this pervasive power system

- Individuality is sold through consumerism, style the means of expressing personhood and sexuality

- Sexuality, whatever the form, is a self-defeating discourse: it is scripted and invented by power structure, which sells it as (the illusion of) identity

- There is no sexual liberation; no sexual norm, deviation or practice is truly radical; it has all been co-opted and redefined by the capitalist machine (that is, the power structure sells any form of sexuality as individuality, but the moment you buy in you've lost your self to the system)

- So the only way to make a real, free choice, leading to true individuality, is to choose outside the system, which could be:

a) a secret language of sexuality, outside the discourse of power and unaffected by it (ie, stay in the closet)

or B!) most revolutionary of all, asexuality: the power machine cannot package us, can they?

Perhaps this is more aimed at celibacy (the free choice is the main thing) but asexuals too would be untouchable by mainstream consumerism: "They" do not speak our language, they cannot control a body with no desire on any level to be objectified.

But the point, the ideal goal, is to take back the body and define it on our own terms, define our identity along new lines. And that's exactly what we're trying to do, isn't it?

Any thoughts? (or clarifications from people with a stronger theoretical background?)

"I must confess that I am much more interested in problems about techniques of the self and things like that rather than sex ... sex is boring." - Foucault

hmm. perhaps I should make that my signature.

[Guest]

There is no sexual liberation; no sexual norm, deviation or practice is truly radical; it has all been co-opted and redefined by the capitalist machine (that is, the power structure sells any form of sexuality as individuality, but the moment you buy in you've lost your self to the system)

I completely agree with this quote. Sexual liberation is a joke.

Interesting quotes, Lauren. I'd have to say it's good to hear a philosopher on our side.

[Borrible Cal]

That's really interesting, lauren--I've always avoided reading Foucault, for various reasons, but now I think I shall have to start investigating his work!

Perhaps this is more aimed at celibacy (the free choice is the main thing) but asexuals too would be untouchable by mainstream consumerism: "They" do not speak our language, they cannot control a body with no desire on any level to be objectified.

But the point, the ideal goal, is to take back the body and define it on our own terms, define our identity along new lines. And that's exactly what we're trying to do, isn't it?

I can see your point about celibacy and choice coming into play here, and I'm wary of essentialist arguments (for example, constructing asexuals as 'naturally' outside the capitalist system, as we too exist physically and socially within that system, and can play the system's rules if we wish to or if we aren't paying attention to what we're doing), but on the whole it sounds like a quite valid argument to me! Good luck with following this one through, if you choose to.

Borrible Cal.

[AVENguy]

I've thrown around Foucault around asexuality a good deal, and never had quite that take. It's a good one!

Though I don't think that we get an out. We've still got to deal with the sexual power structure, alot of the project we're engaged in here is turning asexuality into a sexuality, making it understandable in the language of sexual discourse. By labeling asexuality as analagous to a sexual orientation we're giving it a place in the capatalist power structure of sexuality, same w/ alot of other stuff we do here. Speaking personally, the way that I become empowered as an asexual is by learning to redefine the power structure of sexuality so that I have a place in/can access it. To do that I "subvert" it, but not in any way that would count to Foucault.

In a way, Foucault would say that we can't take our bodies back "on our own terms." Once we HAVE terms they're part of the dominant discourse/power structure.

I DO think that we do interesting things w/ getting away from desire that deserve to be looked at, to the extent that not desiring sex carries over to not desiring sexual power (not my area, unfortunately, since I'm all about hijacking it.)

[SuperFly]

In theory Foucault is a pretty interesting philosopher....

in practice he had sex with young boys.....

[AVENguy]

Your point being?

[ApolloSeek]

Foucalt is correctly in saying asexuality is a liberation from the capitalist

power structure in one way.

Most ads appeal either directly or indirectly to sexual attraction to sell.

Because asexuals have no sexual attraction, ads that use sexual attraction

as a lure won't work. Therefore asexuality denies the capitalist power

structure access to the pocketbooks of asexuals.

Unfortunately, there are not enough asexuals to pull off an effective boycott-

yet.

But I can dream, can't I?

P.S. This is posting #600. I am now too A-sexy for this site

[Jayann]

I dunno about that. While I'm not attracted to the models advertising certain products, I'll admit that I'm a weak-willed capitalist bitch enough to want to be good-looking, myself.

There are both sexuals and asexuals who could care less about their personal images, but I'll like some products that are advertised with some kind of sex appeal because I sort of like the idea of being attractive myself.

Maybe that's me being vain, though. :?

[ApolloSeek]

I dunno about that. While I'm not attracted to the models advertising certain products, I'll admit that I'm a weak-willed capitalist bitch enough to want to be good-looking, myself.

Please explain why the good-looking models are there in

the first place? The obvious sexual undertones or in some case, loud overtones?

Advertisers use appeals to sex attraction because it works. They take

surveys and conduct focus groups. They contract university people to

do research. Sex sells.

How many ads do you see with pictures of people doing triple integrals?

Is Viagra sold on its ability to make you write like James Joyce? No.

There are both sexuals and asexuals who could care less about their personal images, but I'll like some products that are advertised with some kind of sex appeal because I sort of like the idea of being attractive myself.

Maybe that's me being vain, though. :?

There are some sexuals and asexuals who don't. There's not enough

of them to offset the ones who do. Advertising is a business and must

make a profit. This gives a strong incentive for them to know what

works and what doesn't. You see all the sex because it works. If showing

pictures of people doing vector calculus sold stuff, that's what you'd see.

[Jayann]

...I didn't say that sex doesn't sell, Apollo. We never disagreed on that.

All I was saying was that, even as an asexual, I don't feel especially "liberated" from capitalist sex appeal in marketing. Sex appeal is more than just being attracted to the models, can be wanting to be like them so you can be attractive yourself.

I don't see where we disagreed.

[Red Angel]

...I didn't say that sex doesn't sell, Apollo. We never disagreed on that.

All I was saying was that, even as an asexual, I don't feel especially "liberated" from capitalist sex appeal in marketing. Sex appeal is more than just being attracted to the models, can be wanting to be like them so you can be attractive yourself.

I don't see where we disagreed.

This makes a lot of sense if what's being sold is cosmetics, or shampoo, or something. But the industry even tries to use sex-appeal to sell things that have nothing to do with sex, attractiveness, or anything of that nature. Heck, many of those advertisements you get in the mail for new Internet service (which most likely is inferior to what you already have) will have a picture of an attractive female on it.

There's a reason for this. They did a study in which they took a control group of men (though there may have been a few homosexuals, and maybe even an asexual or two among them, most of them were presumably heterosexual) and showed them pictures of plain-looking women. Then, they took the experimental group of men and showed them pictures of attractive women. After that, both groups were offered two choices in how they were to be compensated for their time. They could either take a relatively-small amount of money right there and then, or a greater amount some time in the future. Kida an adult version of the Marshmallow Test discussed in Emotional Intelligence.

What they found was that the men shown pictures of attractive women were significantly more likely to take the there-and-then reward, while those shown pictures of plain-looking women were significantly more likely to take the greater reward in the future.

However, when they did a similar experiment on women (showing one group pictures of plain-looking men and another group pictures of attractive men) it seemed to have no effect on them in that sense. This could explain why you don't see male models on advertisement for Internet products.

Of course, I never saw any footage of this experiment, and never read the full details of how it was done. As a matter of fact, all I know was what I read about it in an article that Netscape's news page pointed me to. But nontheless, I found it interesting.

I wonder what would have been revealed if they had interviewed the participating men to find out whether they were heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual.

[YP]

I've got a copy of the Foucalt books on order at the moment, I'm quite interested to read a bit more into this subject now (before I never really thought about sex, or the lack of it at all, now I've discovered this site I'd quite like to develop my own thinking about who I am and dig a bit deeper).

May get back with my thoughts when I've got through them in a few years time...

[hafnium]

its abusing my intelligence to think that i wud buy a product just because roshan advertises it