The Language of Sex, Part 1

So let us rise, then, from our speakeasy, this secluded room in our brains, where innuendo and double meanings flow from synapse to synapse like a well crafted sit-com, and we shall talk about sex.  Specifically, the time that we live in, where sex has become at once more prohibitive a subject than alcohol in the 1920's, and yet more widely talked about and displayed than ever before.  I want to combine the thoughts of Neil Postman and Michael Foucault and see why things are the way they are.  Specifically, why innuendos and double meanings find their way into our daily communications, from children's shows to normal conversations, even amongst people for which talking about sex is permissible.  Secondly, why Disney at once seems to prohibit even the most innocent of acts (such as wearing a bathing suit), and yet will allow jokes about sex and body functions to be shown in even its animated shows.  Also, and on a related note, I want to look at the peculiar public image of Miley Cyrus, who has demonstrated the argument of the dual nature of the Language of Sex in today's society. 

Postman is most known for his, "The Medium is the Message," statement.  How we communicate is just as important, if not more so, than what we communicate.  Gutenberg changed the medium from an oral retelling of stories and news (or hand-printed scrolls and books stashed away in monasteries and mansions for the literate and the pious to interpret) to a written medium.  Books became cheaper and more available. Thus, more people could afford, and need to, read.  It increased their knowledge, gave them more information on which to enhance their lives.  But with this was the writing of books with more fictional, more erotic content. you can find a listing of these on Wikipedia , under Erotic Literature.

You can't talk about sex without also talking about control.  To deny human beings of the most basic, the most biological of needs, and to have those human beings consent to the rules that are set, that must be control indeed.  Whether we are talking about rules coming from God, Church, or the State, there is a power that controls people's emotions, their need and appetite for sex.  For the moment, let's leave out the relationship between God and sex, as that is an entirely different post.   We can look at the Church, who, pre-Gutenberg, had the ability to reproduce books, to read them, and to interpret the rules of Catholicism to assert their power over the people of Europe.  It was St. Benedict, founder of the monastic group, who asserted that monks must sleep with the lanterns burning, and with their clothes on, as to prevent them from relieving sexual urges with fellow monks.

What's really interesting about what Foucault has to say on the subject (and btw, Foucault's books on the subject of sexuality should be taken only as a basis to further research, as his theory's lack specific examples and more concrete sources from Church and Industrial documents. The ideas are sound, but need more work, especially as it concerns modern day society.) is that much of the relationship between the church and sex in the post-Gutenberg world comes from 1700's Italian theologian Alfonso de Liguori, whose views concerning sex was very conservative.  His idea was that the "sins of the flesh" went far beyond the act of sex itself, but rather to the inner workings of the human mind.  He says that while reviewing the sins in your life for forgiveness by God (through confession to the RC priests), one must analyze every thought, even unto examining dreams, to find the roots of sin and flush them out.  What results from this is the publishing of diaries, memoirs, of lives of sexual hedonism, the most noted being the Marquis de Sade.  One that Foucault mentions is an anonymous writer, who published My Secret Life in the late 1800's.  In the memoir (which might have a Frey-like fictitious exaggeration to it), he says, "a secret life must not leave out anything; there is nothing to be ashamed of...one can never know too much concerning human nature." In analyzing his own actions, his own subconscious thoughts, he is basically creating erotic literature while doing what Liguori suggested to wipe out sexual thoughts. He also is following Alexander Pope's "An Essay on Man," which says, "Know then thyself, presume not God to scan / The proper study of Mankind is Man."  In publishing this work, he turns a psychological exercise into an economical one.  He has produced literature that people must pay for.  This is much like modern day erotica sold at the bookstores, or, since we live in a visual society, communicating through visual images rather than words for the most part, it is very similar to easily obtained pornography today.

Because it's only since the invention of the camera (especially the Polaroid) and the television, that we have moved, resolutely, from communicating in print to a medium of visual images.  And while, in the past, only those who could read had access to erotic material, now anyone that can look and understand language has access to visual erotic imagery.  Thus, as Postman looks at in The Disappearance of Childhood, children now have as much access to sexual material as adults once did.  Thus the boundaries that were once set up by the church and by inaccessibility to information are now removed, and children can find out about sex at any age, as long as they can use the keyboard or operate the television remote.

***
When we talk about innuendo, double meanings, we immediately think of movies like Airplane!, whose jokes I am still getting even today.  Everytime I watch the movies, I find another joke that has, until now, gone beyond my understanding.  Also, there are no better masters of double meanings than the writers of modern day sit-com television shows.  Night Court, in the late 80's, was amazingly bawdy, humorous, and serious, all at the same time.  In both these examples, the writers worded the jokes so that children and teenagers would get one set of jokes, and the adults another, and so the whole family could watch a show that was sexual in nature, but the underlying meanings could only be received by those who could understand them. What is amazing about this idea is that the writers for some of the Disney Channels sit-coms are very much aware of the adult audience and incorporate sexual innuendo into the shows.   For example, on Phineas and Ferb, in the Spa episode, there is a scene of Buford sitting in the hot tub, and says "It's not plugged in!" as bubbles come up around him.  It's obvious that we are talking about farting in the hot tub, which is more a joke of bodily functions, but I don't think that most children would have caught on to it, as fast as the line was delivered. An even better example is on The Suite LIfe on Deck, season 3, ep. 1, "The Silent Treatment," where Cody, Zack, and Woody are in a secular monastery with Andy Richter guest starring.  Aside from the elongated "Little Dinghy" joke, there is a part where they speak during the silent hour, and are taken to the back room. When they come out, Cody says, "My Butt... talk about cruel and unusual punishment." Woody: "And for an hour!" Zack, who resolves the innuendo: "Forced to sit in those uncomfortable chairs and think about what we've done." To any adult, it is not sitting in chairs that has made their butts sore.  But children would not have gotten that line, as unstated as it was.

Disney is very controlling about any semblance of sexual tones in their shows.  Even to the point of avoiding swimwear in situations where it would be normal.  In the episodes that I have seen (which is near all of them), no major actor/tress on Hannah Montana or Suite LIfe has worn a bathing suit.  Hannah Montana takes place on a Malibu Beach, and yet Miley Cyrus has never worn a bikini or even a one-piece on the show.  Neither has Emily Osment.  Nor, to think of it, has Michell Musso, Moises Arias, or Jason Earles.  On The Suite Life on Deck, which takes place on a cruise ship, neither Debbie Ryan nor Brenda Song have worn bathing suits (outside of the Neptune Follies episode, where they were masked and in disguise), and the Sprouses also have remained covered up (even the Mermaid episode, where Dylan is in the hot tub, you can only see his shoulders.). It makes no sense that teenagers on a cruise ship would not wear bathing suits (or go shirtless). They even made special reference, on the Beauty Pageant episode, that they didn't have a swimsuit competition.

This control, I feel, is what makes the actresses (mainly) react so strongly when graduating from their company.  This is why Miley Cyrus has tried to flaunt her sexuality, following in the footsteps of Mouseketeer Britney Spears.  It is such a rebellion to run away from the control that Disney has on their employees.  Because in this case, sexuality and flaunting flesh is an expression of freedom, much as a child would rebel against a parent by dyeing their hair red or the like. Miley is simply a product of the rules that has forbid expression of one's own self for the creation of a family friendly, perfect role model that can be put on a television show to make money.  And because we live in a visual society, where we communicate through images, Miley can express her freedom through that medium, and everyone, including the children that have looked up to her, can see it.  It is the nature of the media that we use.   It is a paradox. On the one hand, we want to keep children as innocent and as unaware as possible until we are able to educate them using the values that we have coveted.  But also, we want to make money by influencing children into buying into a brand, be it Hannah Montana herself or the items that she sells when commercials come on.  So, in effect, we create the breakdown in childhood solely by the medium that we use to communicate.

I will want to continue this line of thought as I read Foucault work and expand the ideas to the modern day, just as I did Postman's ideas.  I think by deconstructing the reasons behind many of the beliefs that we have, we can see where they come from, who is controlling them, and who will benefit.  The discourse on sex is an important one, as it touches some of the most basic aspects of our lives, how we live, what we believe, and how we act in today's world.

(an addendum... when I tried to put Tags on this blog on my blogspot account, it won't let me use "Sex" as a tag. Seems there is some censorship in the world of the internet after all.)

Tyger, Tiger: Tiger Woods and Hard Core Pornography

It's all about control, really. Money and sex and power. Politics and manipulation. It's who we are. Trying to come up with some excuse for living. To find some niche in this world and to make something out of ourselves. And that's where the power comes in. In Blake's world of Experience, that's what we must grow into. Finding responsibility and affluence and power in this world, without succumbing to the temptations and the vices that are so easily attained these days. And in this world are so many people that tell us how it's supposed to be, who give us the top story, the popular headlines, the promises that we'll be taken care of by those more powerful than us, but who in actuality are savvy enough to make us believe it. The government and the media, two of many forces that would make of us victims whose only recourse is to rely on others to provide for our supposed happiness.

And Tiger Woods was just one of many victims to fall for the temptations of this world. He was a genius athlete, and the only thing that mattered was the Golf game. But companies came aside him and said, if you'll just wear this hat, or this shirt, or those shoes, will give you money. Or drive away in this car, shave with this razor... the list is endless. We'll even give to your own non-profit organization, help the kids in the urban centers play golf and forget their troubles for a while (or whatever). Make you think you're doing good for other people. Just become a walking billboard. And the other temptations.... the ones that got him into trouble..... yes, he was the victim in these actions. But we ought not to take pity on him.

For he was the one who gave them permission to do those things, to say what they say, to control his life for him. He gave them the sanction to profit off of his abilities. And now, without him, they will have to find some other gifted soul to make money off of. Perhaps it will be some tennis phenom, or the gifted pitcher for the Yankees. Who knows...

***
I was recently listening to a lecture given by Ayn Rand in the mid 1970's, called "Censorship, Local and Express," where she outlined the major Supreme Court cases for Obscenity rulings. The rulings, she found, were quite interesting, and I found a direct connection between pornography and Tiger Woods.

Modern pornography is an indirect result of the media on which it is produced. There were, of course, paintings that were considered obscene long before the camera and the photograph were invented. The invention of television didn't affect the amount of porn that was produced in the beginning, as, outside of 8mm reels that were located in adult Nickelodeons and movie theaters even up to the 1970's, there was no way to experience pornography at home except for magazines and still shots in books...etc.... Admittedly, the invention of the Polaroid camera did what the Internet did in terms of bringing the recording of desires into the forefront, as now photographs could be made instantly, and in private, so that everyone now could have pictures of their desires (be it legal or not). It was ultimately the invention of the VCR that made pornography available to all citizens.

But that is just the history of porn through the lens of the media that made it. To stem the tide of such material, various court cases were argued in the 1970's. The most important case was Miller vs. California in 1972. Miller was convicted of sending unsolicited advertisements of sexually explicit magazines to people, and so he argued that the conviction violated his 1st Amendment rights. The Supreme Court heard the case and upheld the lower courts decision. It was the reasoning for this upholding that interests me. Chief Justice Warren Burger showed that, to hold trial on an obscene work (I'll let Wikipedia do my work for me):

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether 'the average person, applying contemporary community standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. (from the article on Obscenity)

However, as Rand pointed out, there are no definitions given to what may be offensive, or who an "average person" might be. Also, what are the "contemporary community standards" that a work must be judged upon? In other words, the conservative Judges ruled that the government has the right to deem something obscene, and therefore, exempt from 1st Amendment protection, by some vague idea of moral law, that which could change from courtroom to courtroom.

There were other judges that upheld the lower courts decision based on the idea that Interstate business transactions had been made, so the federal government had the right to regulate those transactions. This reason was given by some of the more liberal Judges, who, although disagreeing with the idea of regulating based on moral principles, at least ideologically, found it easier to regulate business transactions as regulations of material things.

I have always said, even before I had heard it in Rand's lecture, that the Republican politicians are very willing to have small government, as long as they retain the right to regulate moral or ethical laws. Democrats find it abhorrent to regulate morality; however, they see a large, powerful government as a way of taking care of its citizens, regulating the material and business transactions in order to maintain control over people's lives. Neither method of control is acceptable, in my opinion. Rand goes a step further, in saying that the two political parties control those issues that they value most. In short, the Democrats want to control your things, your material possessions, while the Republicans want to control your mind, your thoughts.

So where am I going with all this? As I was listening to this lecture, I recalled the issues that the media brought up about Tiger Woods. The arguments against Tiger fall into two camps. He has committed immoral acts according to "community standards" and therefore should be allowed to fall from the pedestal on which he has been placed (note that the media is the entity that put him there). In doing so, he has committed a breach of contract from the businesses using him as a billboard, staining their image and decreasing profits. The stories you hear on the news is either shocking revelations of immorality, or how many sponsors have pulled their use of Tiger in advertisements.

It all comes down to control. One opinion is outraged over the immorality of the act, and the other revels over the loss in profit from failed business ventures. In each case, we oogle over the acts done, and the money lost. And all the while, the media profits from increased ratings. As they should, as we have become programmed to emotional outrage over immoral acts (to the point of getting pitchforks and branding torches), or in morbid curiosity over the loss of so much profit, as if in satisfaction that the loss of revenue somehow makes us feel better. The media realizes all this and feeds us other people's failures, so that we might feel good about ourselves. We have become a society in which success is tolerated as long as we can profit from it. And failure is expected, even anticipated, as the vultures look forward to pulling every last scrap off the bone.

There are people who look past the scavenging vultures and reach a conclusion far beyond the World of Experience. In the case of pornography, Justice William O. Douglas said that the Government had no right to interfere in the private lives of its citizens, and hailed the 1st Amendment as protection against censorship and control by a Authoritarian government. His opinion echoes that of Voltaire, and also of many Libertarian voices today. Each individual has the right to determine what is obscene and what isn't, and if they decide that a work is obscene, they should refrain from experiencing it.

In the case of Tiger Woods, the dissenting voice comes from Mike Huckabee, who stressed that ultimately, this is an individual problem for Tiger and his family. The public has no right to interfere or examine the private lives of individuals, even "celebrities" such as Tiger and his wife. We should all be examining issues that actually concern us, issues that were so easily put aside by the media and our own brains. Immorality and Failure are far more interesting than Health Care, or the supposed Environmental crisis. It's not the media's ultimate fault that we were so easily distracted. It is ours. We have given them the sanction to victimize Tiger Woods, to pull apart his flesh and expose him to the world, while we sit back and watch. They are simply doing what will make them profit, what will give them control over our lives. We have become a society of onlookers, like those who slow down gandering at traffic accidents. We have become the people sitting in Plato's Cave, watching the shadows of images on the wall, while those who control the fire do as they please.

[Not exactly sure I got where I wanted to go with this, so I'll edit it later. If anyone actually reads this, thoughts would be appreciated.]

C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves, The Anonymity of Porn

I've been reading a classical essay on Love by C.S. Lewis, called The Four Loves. Many years ago I used the chapter on friendship as a part of a research paper that I wrote on the theory of Friendship being just as important as love, and if blessed by God, is just as if not more uniting in soul and spirit. What struck me as interesting this time was the chapter on Eros. (For reference, the four loves, according to Lewis, are Affection (Storge, or Family love), Friendship (Philia or Amacitia), Eros, and Charity (loving the unlovable.) )

In the chapter on Eros, Lewis divides Erotic love into two separate entities. Lust (which he calls Venus, which makes no sense, since Eros and Venus are the same Greek/Roman deity. I would cast Lust into more the realm of Dionysus or Bacchus) can exist without Eros. Remarkably, Lewis says that fulfilling lust is simply a biological need, as desire, much as being hungry or sleepy. He doesn't apply the puritan philosophies that all lust is Satanic and should be repulsed. Hunger is not a sin, neither is passing gas, so the biological desire to have sex is not one either. It's when the sex violates a bond, or a promise, such as marriage, or creates some sort of wrongness, then that is the sin that must be forgiven. Lewis reminds me of Joel Osteen, in that God has the only right to determine what is right and wrong, what sin has been committed. We cannot determine that anothers act of passion is a sin, is right or wrong, since that is between God and that other person. We have only the responsibility to love one another and to apply the laws of our nation to determine justice. Divine justice, forgiven through Grace, is determined by God, not by some preacher or the followers of any religion.

***
C.S. Lewis lived many years ago, and did not experience the wonders of the Internet. I wonder what he would have said, having seen the anonymity that the Internet provides its users. His point in the Eros chapter that made the biggest impact on me was the idea that nudity, the removal of clothing, turns us into human ideals, mere shadows of the Human form (as Plato would say). We become man and woman (or two people), passionate and universal. And this is all good theory, but when I read this, I immediately thought of the impact that pornography has on people viewing it.

What is it that we see in porn? Sure, there is the attractive body (bodies) of our fellow man (or woman), naked in all his glory, performing some sexual act and inviting us to watch. Opponents of pornography, such as women's groups, would say that porn, from posing in Playboy to participating in adult entertainment, is denigrating and insulting to the woman and to womenkind. I would counter that instead, porn makes one anonymous. Because, especially with adult videos, we incorporate ourselves into the movie, replacing the partner of our choice with ourselves. We moan when they moan, we reach our climax when they do. And the cameramen know this and spend more time on closeups, where the face of the other person is not shown, so that we can pretend we are that person. The people on the screen become the anonymous, universal place holders of man or woman.

This is why pornography is so addicting. Not because of the actors on the screen or in the magazine, but rather because we replace them with ourselves, and in this, we can fulfill lustful needs without having another person there. And, in some cases, it's the only way to do this. Because socially speaking, not everyone has the ability to find that special Beloved (as Lewis says) to merge lust and Eros together and spend a lifetime with. It is the lust aspect of Eros that turns love into a craving, and without lust, the lack of a loved one in our lives becomes bearable. We hold off making a bad choice which might hurt someone by releasing the tension that lust, a simple biological need, creates in our lives.