Well! Everyone who commented was able to take huge chunks out of my argument in yesterday’s post about whether sex acts can be inherently liberating.
Upon further reflection it might have been so easy because I said… whatever I was trying to say… so clumsily. And even what I was trying to say seems to forcefully contradict the position I took here and here on marriage not as a precipitating event but as a continuous act of creation.
Since I did actually have a point, even if it was a muddy one (and one based on rusty recollections of a fiendishly unapproachable point of Hegel’s), I’m going to try one more time to square that particular circle. I’m perfectly prepared to be wrong about this, but that’s ok since one of my reasons for blogging is to unlearn all the stuff I only think is true.
So. The gist of my post yesterday was that no individual act of sex can be liberating because, I maintained, such acts are always consequences of a previous, precipitating act that, I hinted, might derive from something as squishy and poorly defined as some kind of “self determination.” Kochanie, Amber, Lime, A, Colette, Toolesage, and no doubt others correctly pointed and laughed (with various levels of sympathy.) The main problem being that, say, self-determining that I’m going to be a fireman when I grow up doesn’t make me a fireman. Among other things I pretty much have to actually put out fires.
It’s not always that straightforward though. When I was a young man an extraordinary number of my friends declared that they were bisexual, a declaration that evidently gave them strong senses of personal liberation despite the fact that very few of those self-proclaimed bisexuals ever had sex with someone outside of the gender they already preferred. Still, I think the fact that so many people made that declaration created a space in which a small number of people felt comfortable having acts of bisexual sex (meaning trying sex with someone outside the gender “assigned” to them as hetero- or homosexuals.) Anyway, if I’d used this example yesterday I’d have said that the precipitating act of liberation was the public declaration of bisexuality and that acts of sex undertaken in that created space wouldn’t necessarily be liberating acts in and of themselves. Which would be accurate only in the most narrow, nit-picky way imaginable. Instead, each act within that space made the space more real, more clearly defined, more… I don’t know… traversable. It’s worth mentioning that along those lines, as bisexual chic faded and as most people in my circle of friends settled anew on a gender of choice, the space of bisexuality in that group retreated again into abstraction — acknowledged, remembered, but generally no longer made real by action.
Now here’s the tricky part, the part that made me question whether individual acts of sex can be liberating in themselves. Imagine there had been no moment of bisexual chic in my circle of friends. And imagine further that instead certain people choose to have sex with someone outside their “assigned” gender our of curiosity or horniness and thus became bisexual, as it were, by accident. Imagine further that they discovered they enjoyed sex with both genders and decided to continue to be bisexual without necessarily declaring themselves so or affirming it to others. Would it be correct to consider those individual encounters as acts of liberation, at least in the same sense as before?
Next, imagine an individual (their gender is irrelevant in this case) who, when they date men, always perform a blowjob because they took to heart Dan Savage dating dictum that “blowjobs are standard.” Imagine further that they encounter the big “hummer debate,” begin to think about the pros and cons, and determines that, in fact, performing blowjobs isn’t just the point of etiquette they’d thought it was but instead was an act they enjoyed, took pride in, looked forward to. Imagine further that they no longer felt obliged by convention to do it but instead derived satisfaction not only from the act itself but also from liberating themselves from the constraints of either orthodox (conservative traditionalist) or unorthodox (radical separatist) conventions. With me so far? Ok, now. This individual is out on his or her next date with a man. They’ve reached a quiet point in their date, they’ve got time and privacy, and our hypothetical individual, who’s done this before with the same person, is right on the verge of giving his or her partner another blowjob…
So here’s the deal: My intuition says this next blowjob will happen in a space of liberation. Is that true? My intuition also says that the blowjob given on the preceding evening did not happen in a space of liberation. Is that true? If both of those things are true (and I’m only proposing, not insisting, that they are) then where do you see the act of liberation taking place? At the point the decision was made? At the point where the blowjob itself takes place? At both points?
And finally, just to confuse things further, let’s imagine the date himself has no idea of the debate, no idea of his partner’s reorientation, and simply says to himself “Thank you, Dan Savage, you’re the man!“ Does this complicate the idea that his date is now engaging in a liberating sex act? If so how? Again my intuition says yes, it complicates it greatly, but I’m not sure I could explain it coherently.
Anyway, accept my apologies if this is all ground that’s been covered elsewhere. But do send me links.
[Update: It just occurred to me that this same line of reasoning could equally demonstrate how something becomes an act of participation in degradation/self-oppression. (Imagine the second-date scenario above where our individual encountered the hummer debate and decided instead that contrary to the blowjob he or she enjoyed giving on the previous date the one he or she was about to perform was in fact support for patriarchy/heirarchy.)
The prospect that an individual in one apartment might be performing a liberating blowjob at the same time his or her neighbor is performing a self-oppressing one is… actually it’s probably why the whole hummer debate was so acrimonious in the first place. —fl]
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-06-29 17:24.
It seems like you're saying that there's an internal act - the decision, the realization, the paradigm shift - that creates the "liberated" space. And without that internal declaration (I don't think you're implying that the declaration must be public) there is not really liberation, just a mushy, ongoing, doing-it-out-of-habit kind of thing.
There is an *intention* that must be present in order for an act to take place within a liberated space. Is that right?
I think I would agree. (I'm not a philosopher, but I married one!) There is a difference in *meaning* of an act, based on the internal state of the person.
I would further say (and I think you were also saying this) that each act that takes place within that liberated space contributes to shaping and fleshing out the meaning of the liberation. Each act contributes its own stamp to what it means for the person to be liberated. I would posit that most people perceive that "fleshing out" process as the sense of liberation, and the internal declaration as merely an intention.
I would also posit that acts can occur which reduces the sense of liberation (old ways of thinking intrude, or a bad experience, etc) -- So it's dynamic, much like your idea about marriage being continuous (which I agree with, btw).
This is an idea I've been playing with for about a month, as I explore liberation in my own life. My ideas on this subject are not well-formed, but I think you are essentially right in what you say.
A conclusion I have reached is that there is more meaning, more *significance*, when we think about who we are, and who we want to become, and infuse our acts with intention and purpose and will.
You have been a good influence on me, along with Ayn Rand, and The Biker and The Teacher (eclectic, huh?).
Thank you.
[Except for the part about liberation being based on an unspoken decision (I think it at least has to be spoken) that's a clear summary of the questions I was trying to ask. I think I should have been clear that I'm genuinely not yet sure about conclusions might follow --which is why I'm asking for more input. Finally, you're getting input from a very broad range if you're listening to both me and Ayn Rand since I tend to reject everything I've ever read of hers, including the words "and" and "but." (I'm not saying she's all wrong, any more than that I'm all right. Just that we have almost directly opposite opinions of the appearance of the individual in society.) Thanks, Swan. --fl]
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-06-29 18:11.
Hegel caught my eye so I decided to catch up with the debate here. I'm actually going to agree with your original post despite the interesting arguments to the contrary. I think your best position right now is the rhetorical one - the audience of the sex act in question is key to any possibility of liberation.
[The piece of Hegel I was thinking about wasn't his classic Master/Slave dialectic but his discussion of the process that begins, but doesn't end, with the assertion "this man is not a slave" where legal emancipation is instantaneous but subsequent personal and interpersonal transformation is required to make it real. And yes, I could be remembering the particulars all wrong -- I only made it through part of his introduction to the Phenomenology of Spirit and even that *hurt!* :-) Thanks, Ellie. --fl]
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-06-29 20:06.
I agree with the examples you gave, but I do think that there can be a moment of clarity when a sexual act would become liberating. Maybe better described as a loss of self consciousness, where there is no purpose or consequence. I am having a hard time describing what I mean too. It's not impersonal, but there is no background monolog.
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-06-29 21:50.
i think that everyone's getting it wrong in dividing the two moments. i don't think there's a "moment" when the liberation occurs - that is, i think that it's a process, not something that can happen in a second. the process begins when you think, "maybe i enjoy this." it continues when you say, "i find giving blowjobs to be an enjoyable thing." and it's complete when you give a blowjob and enjoy it.
think this is a fair compromise?
and i really don't think that creating a space that's open and liberation-friendly is the same thing as being liberated. by saying you're bisexual and never experimenting it, you're embarking on a journey of liberation and probably creating a healthy atmosphere for people who are truly interested in sexual experimentation. perhaps you're liberating yourself by saying "yes, i accept that my friends and even myself may be bisexual." and then acting on that by accepting your friends' statements of bisexuality. but you're not liberating yourself in respect to the sex act itself because for one reason or another you are still not performing it. i mean, to draw a very very very distant comparison - a woman who says "i'm going to leave my controlling husband" hasn't liberated herself until she actually leaves him, you know?
[I agree it's something that's continuously created -- sort of like freedom where you can't just say "Well, now that I'm free I'll always be" and you never have to worry about it again. And hmm, it's the opposite of the egregious "once a 'queer' always a 'queer'" thing or the equally weird fetishising over how "losing" virginity instantly makes one a man or woman with no further effort. Thanks, A. --fl]
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-06-29 22:33.
Maybe only kids know how to wear jeans a little lower and still stay on. Didn't someone request a little lower? A little more lower, please.
[Hey, it's a whole photo series so patience will eventually be rewarded. (Sorry about the slow pace though.) Thank you, 5o9. --fl]
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2006-06-29 23:05.
I read yesterday's post and todays (twice) and I think I've finally figured out a response - both as concerning sex and philosophy.
I'm going to vote process myself but also state that it's the act it self that is one of liberation - not that the act is liberating.
Let's talk about your blowjob example, shall we? And because personal examples always work best...
I grew up despising the very idea of blow jobs. In college I gave a couple poor ones, even damaging one poor fellow. I felt I had to do it. Like there was some kind of rule that said for me to get the oral I enjoyed so very much, I had to give it. And I imagine the blowjobs I did give were horrible.
But somewhere I got the idea that this could be a joyful, happy thing to do. So, in a decision to actively walk away from the idea that blowjobs were some chore I got stuck with, I tried to find a way to enjoy it - which meant I needed to be damn good. One of Mama's best lessons "We are good at what we enjoy, and enjoy what we are good at." So I started studying - I must have read and reread every single article out there. I asked every girlfriend I trusted for tips and suggestions. For a good few years I still didn't give blowjobs, but I had the know how, and kept gleaning it - I even practiced. Storing the information for the day when it would be a liberating act.
Then, one day, the right man came along. To my knees I dropped and by moving from the place of "I believe" to "It is true": through that action I was liberated from my previous stigmas. I had found the place where I enjoyed - no, LOVED - what I was doing and found the joy that was there to give.
Did my partner at the time know what kind of experience it was for me? No. Did it happen in part happen because I never felt the need to do it as a way to "earn" my own oral? Probably. My partners knowledge of the experience did not effect the way it liberated me; but his veiw of the act certainly allowed me to be in a place where I felt that it was safe, healthy, and would be liberating for me.
I wasn't truely liberated from the old stigma until I followed through, and followed through again. One single act did not liberation make - the continued following acts did. I had found the bliss in what I was doing, was good at it, and continued to seek to improve and love what I was doing.
I do think that if I was back with a partner who felt I "owed" it to them I would feel as trapped as before. Also, I've never really enjoy oral from a man who gave it to me because he felt like he owed it to me so he could get head. Obligation just doesn't get me off like the gift of ones satisfaction and joy at making the other happy.
The act itself is not liberating, but going through the act, when done with the intention to free onesself from old ideas, is liberating to the individual. Intention is 90%, but you've got to have the follow through.
Like the old debate in Philosophy, What makes an action good or bad? The outcome? The effects? Or the intention behind it? Most likely, it's a mix because all the parts feed into the answer. The intention sets the action, but the action is nothing if it isn't done. Once started - or finished - one can begin to reach conclusions on the overall answer. But with no action, all you have is intention - and that doesn't really get us anywhere.
My goodness, I'm wordy tonight. Does that help any? Is that even clear?
[I think it helped when you said "I'm going to vote process myself but also state that it's the act itself that is one of liberation - not that the act is liberating." Also, yeah it's always more enjoyable getting oral from someone who's into it for its own sake compared to someone who feels they're just setting up an exchange. Pro quid pro sex just doesn't cut it and, at least for me, isn't really necessary. Thanks A. --fl]
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Thu, 2006-06-29 23:51.
by saying you're bisexual and never experimenting it... but you're not liberating yourself in respect to the sex act itself
I see the liberation in saying that you're bisexual as to some extent independent of whether you ever have sex with both sexes - you're liberating yourself from the fear that, say, people of your own sex will be appalled when they find out you're attracted to them.
To me, being able to name my desires is in some ways a more important freedom than being able to act on them. Some of them I may not choose to act on, but to be afraid to acknowledge that they exist would be problematic.
[If you're willing to accept my claim that "liberation" has a social basis (as distinct from "freedom" which doesn't depend on social context) then saying it makes a difference the same way saying "I do" at a wedding or "I have a gun in my pocket" in a bank makes a difference that merely doing or having without saying wouldn't make. But I'm still leaning heavily towards A's point that an act can be one of liberation without the act itself being liberating. (And yes, I do wish I'd studied philosophy more formally instead of through a social-theory lens.) Thanks, Lynn. --fl]
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-06-30 10:39.
First of all, fl, there was no pointing and laughing on my part, for I respect those who can question their long-held assumptions. By posing such questions, you give us the opportunity to question our beliefs as well.
With the questions you raised in this post, I still consider liberation a process as I originally stated. However, you have received some valuable clarification from your readers:
A conclusion I have reached is that there is more meaning, more *significance*, when we think about who we are, and who we want to become, and infuse our acts with intention and purpose and will. [swan]
...What makes an action good or bad? The outcome? The effects? Or the intention behind it? Most likely, it's a mix because all the parts feed into the answer. The intention sets the action, but the action is nothing if it isn't done. Once started - or finished - one can begin to reach conclusions on the overall answer. But with no action, all you have is intention - and that doesn't really get us anywhere.[A]
Even if you perceive liberation as a process, not every situation in which you perform the act is liberating. Each act, along with its intention and outcome, is a microcosm, or microprocess, if you will. Autumn's example illustrates this when she says, I do think that if I was back with a partner who felt I "owed" it to them I would feel as trapped as before. This confirms what you have said in your post: how an act on one night took place within a space of liberation, while the same act on the preceding night did not.
This discussion supports your definition of marriage, not as an event, but as a continuous act: we don't *have* marriages, we make *marriages*.. We make them everyday, and everyday they can differ, depending upon the intent, the actions, and the outcome.
Excellent post and commentary, fl and readers.
[Wow, thanks Kochanie. I appreciate this very much. --fl]
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-06-30 11:01.
swan:
Just to share some information with you regarding Ayn Rand.
I studied her philosophy and read most of her works when in my twenties, and considered her view of the individual and society to be quite liberating, at that time. However, my experience in both my personal and professional lives forced me to re-evaluate her view of the individual and the individual's responsibility to society. If you haven't already read it, I recommend The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden, which will provide a valuable examination of Rand's philosophy and its effect upon the people in her own life.
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-06-30 17:15.
Quick personal note: whereas *I* felt like pointing and snickering when I reread my post (something I often feel by the way -- yikes I have lots of typos) I really didn't feel anyone was pointing and snickering at me. This is turning into a wonderful discussion and I want to thank everyone who's participated.
So thanks!
figleaf
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Fri, 2006-06-30 20:13.
ok, as i read your examples this time around i had to tweak my thoughts/ an act is inherently 'liberating' if there is some construct under which it would be squelched.....ex, your bisexual friends. the declaration was liberating because they were able to admit to something that was kind of viewed as shameful/kinky/whatever. the ones who engaged without need of declaration had nothing from which to be liberated. they were going into it free of shame. in the blow job example one needed to be free of obligation or duty, whereas the other already was. but all this is your very basic premise all along, the thread in so many of your posts. no shame, no obligation, for anyone.
but given that people carry shame and duty with them, i still contend an act can be liberating if it is a shedding of that sense of shame or obligation.
also, glad you knew i was not pointing and laughing. i really like the climate you create here. there's no name calling or flaming during disagreement. just a good exchange.
[Well, no shame except me and my "pointing and laughing" remark. :-) Seriously, thanks for being there Lime, I appreciate you and everyone else who takes the time to discuss things. --fl]
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Sun, 2006-07-02 07:15.
Quick comment about Rand. (Yes, I've read - and seen - The Passion of Ayn Rand.) The significant part of her writing for me is her exploration of the individual (in Atlas Shrugged, which is the only thing I've read by her). There is a power in the kind of "selfishness" she portrays. There is also a responsibility to define your ethics, and create your meaning.
My approach to her is personal, and not "societal". I don't think you can build a society with her philosophy, because I don't think it can apply to everyone. Her thinking is not complete enough. She has a lot of blind spots, especially in the way she treated her husband. And then, what about the question of parenting? (A question on which most philosophers fall short! We need more female philosophers who have healthy relationships!)
But at a personal level, she gave me much to think about, and in some ways, she gave me permission to be intelligent - to reject the people who would hold me down. And to meet others (like my husband) as an equal.
For me, this has been an important step on the path to maturity and empowerment. (btw I'm 32 - I feel like I'm coming late to the game!)
Figleaf and the Biker and the Teacher have helped me to see what good sex looks like in practice. They have let me build a mental model of how a person can simultaneously be "animal" and loving, passionate and rational in their life. I really think porn does us a disservice...
To get back to the topic of fl's post, this mental model (in the context of "selfishness") is the basis of my own liberation.
[Thanks for clarifying that, Swan. I agree that the biggest problem with Rand is that her no-compromise universe just doesn't allow for the possibility of childhood, let alone childrearing. (Which makes sense given that until she was sixteen she lived in a culture -- pre-revolution Russia -- where the lives of the serfs and servants who were her caretakers depended, often literally, on the complete fulfillment of their owner's whims.) Thanks, Swan. --fl]
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Sun, 2006-07-02 07:27.
Not a comment, just a heads-up. Your update included a malformed comment tag (I think that's the problem, at least) that has hidden your update, the image, and the firt part of my comment.
[Thanks, Swan. I think it's fixed now. --fl]
Submitted by 816 (not verified) on Sun, 2006-07-02 11:38.
Swan, I have been trying to verbalize what you have said about Ayn Rand recently. I had similar views after reading both her novels. Those books had more of an impact on me as a women, because I thought she expanded the space I could live in.
Thanks