The Sexual Revolution of the 1960s, with all it’s wonderful orgy goodness, not only revolutionized the role of sex between men, men, women, women, womyn, and myn and the role of sex in the public arena, but also created an essentialist understanding of sexuality which has perforated beyond its north american borders. The revolution challenged the levels of sexual expressiveness which were permissible prior to the era. Positive sexuality manifested itself in acceptance of first, sexuality as something for both men and women; secondly as something which belonged in the public/political realms and thirdly open expression of one’s sexuality without the fear of being marginalized and morally cast aside. That’s a really simple explanation of a social revolution which emphatically changed the interactionist dynamics of our north american society. While the aforementioned points of acceptance are ones with which I have little argument, it is the essentialist manifestation of this positive sexuality which is concerning.
Today we tend to think of expression of sexuality primarily in terms of LGBT issues, sexual activity, breaking sexual norms, and the pussycat dolls present Girlicious. If it’s not how we think of expression of sexuality, just turn on the radio or the TV. Sexuality has become a part of the public life and a part of our day-to-day subsistance; Katy Perry’s god-awful but catchy “I Kissed a Girl” on repeat currently on my laptop is one example of this. It being in the top 100 of the billboard charts is another. Sexuality, it seems, has come at exploitation of women and homosexuality. Women and LGBT’rs have had to adapt their expression to a certain specific mode of sexual thinking, popularly speaking. The prehistoric role of men as virile sexual beings has remained unchanged; the role of the real Man has remained rather stagnant throughout this revolution. Women and people of the LGBT persuasion have come to symbolize the open expression of sexuality in very specific lights. I’m not here to provide some stick-up-the-bum analysis of the exploitation of LGBTrs and women during and “after” the sexual revolution – that’s thesis material, fools. Instead, what concerns me, as I’ve already mentioned, is the light in which this idea of sexual expression takes. Essentially what I’m asking is: do I really need to shake my ass to assert my sexual liberation?
Why does excessiveness in sex, vulgarity, clothing (well, severe diminishment of clothing …not excessiveness), beauty pageants, and the general image equate to sexual liberation? I’m not here to argue whether it does or not – that’s Women Studies 101 material fools. The important question here is why is there only one way to be sexually liberated? If sexual liberation and expression are to represent the inner sexuality and the sexual thought of a person – why does that expression seem to manifest itself in a specific light? Short skirts, one night stands, stillettos, bump n grind …etc etc etc. It’s a pretty sexy light.
Sexuality, it seems, is visibility. We have gone from being a culture of both implicitness and explicitness, in regards to sex, to one completely about explicitness. Take for instance the comparison of Beethoven and Soulja Boy. Beethoven today is often yawned off by many youth, additionally when we listen to the Maestro we don’t think of sexuality. But that’s precisely what his audience thought about when listening to DJ B. Beethoven’s music was in stark contrast to the shrill and cheerful sounds of child star Mozart. Beethoven weeved emotion into his compositions – music which would send his audience, women especially, into fits of lust and orgasms. No lies! His music was controversial but still loved – it was considered raw in its implicitness. Today we are graced with geniuses such as SouljaBoy, Katy Perry, Pussycat Dolls, etc etc who represent the explicitness of sexuality we have come to embrace today. Play a video of someone playing Beethoven’s Fifth and a 15 year old average kid wouldn’t be too affected. Play Beautiful by Snoop Dogg ft. Pharrell ..and well, you’ll probably get a rise out of him. The art we produce is not only reflective of our mindset as a society but also a catalyst in our way of thinking – there’s a mutual relationship between the two.
Pussycat Dolls' assertion of their sexual liberation vis a vis male fantasies. Super cool.
Sexuality is a part of our lives and a part of our nature. We are sexual creatures. At the same time we are also expressive creatures. However, as individuals we all differ from one another thus our expressions differ. The way you choose to express your sexuality is different than how I choose to do so. I choose to wear the hijab – which is an expression of my sexuality, not a repression of it. Sexuality is not visibility. Sexuality is there whether you see it or not from your perspective. I’m a sexual being just like my 5-minute neighbour upstairs, however I’ve chosen a different route of expressing it. Abstainance, a no-dating policy, clothing which covers me, ix-nay on the lubbing-cay, and the hijab are just some parts of my expression – an expression which refuses to give anyone the opportunity to objectify me. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen – of course it happens, creeps are creeps regardless of who’s in front of them. But I know that when I’m talking during class, no one’s looking at my hair, or what I decided to wear that day. I know this because this is what I’ve been told. My expression of my sexuality has allowed my general expression of myself to outshine any objectifying classfication – there’s a concentration on my inward and not on my outward (in terms of how I treat myself). That’s not to say, by the way, that I have a complete disinterest in fashion, funkified stuff, etc – quite to the contrary! I express every part of myself colourfully. Just because my sexuality is expressed differently than the apparent “norm” why does that expression all of a sudden become an encompassing repression?
This brings me now to one of my greatest current irks – Turkey. Okay, not the country itself; I absolutely love Turkiye, the people (okay, just the men), the food, culture and history. I also love it’s identity crisis. Turkey’s complete white-washing of its Islamic history and roots amazes me. I’m sure it’s like some Freudian shit, but honestly it’s so interesting to read about! What’s not fun however is the hijab ban in Turkish universities. A Liberal democratic state which wants to become a part of the European State? Good lord, Turkey, even France didn’t take it to the universities and everyone knows they’re the most important country in Europe! Or so they like to think so!
Threat to secular establishment. That wench!
The University hijab ban in Turkey is a three-fold violation – it is a violation of a woman’s expression of her sexuality, it is a violation of a woman’s right to education and it is a violation of religious freedom. One should not have to choose one right over the other. Turkish women are being forced to choose between higher education and their sexual expression which is a part of their religious belief. There are times when one right or freedom supercedes another, of course, but someone explain to me the logic in the choice mentioned in the preceding sentence? While I am not a secularist, I do agree with it to a large extent. Secularism becomes problematic however when it becomes ideological – when it goes from a system of governance to one of complete ideology, particular values and morals. The route that secularism seems to be taking is one which seems in the opposite directon that what a liberal democracy should be – or at least once claimed to be. Keep religion out of politics, but make someone’s personal belief an impediment to their right? That’s discrimination pure and simple – and in the case of Turkey it is a sexist stand against women who choose to be sexually expressive in a less visible way. I should clarify that it’s not just a ban in universities – any public offce, i.e the courts. With one law a Turkish woman’s worth, knowledge and character are thrown aside – why? Because of her outward appearance, which is an expression of her sexuality. If we find the firing of a transgendered individual from his/her place of employment disgusting and shocking, then why not this?
If you think my hijab is honestly a threat to your establishment, then that says wonders for your confidence in what you’ve built. Modesty isn’t repression nor oppression. If it’s a threat to anything it’s the objectification you cast upon my sex. Are you shitting your pants yet?
Sexuality is not linear. It’s expression should reflect that. So if you will excuse me, I’m going to stop shakin’ my booty.
- Sana
Sana, this is hilarious but you raise interesting points & it’s refreshing to hear a women who wears hijab be open & not afraid to talk about these issues.
“Today we tend to think of expression of sexuality primarily in terms of LGBT issues, sexual activity, breaking sexual norms, and the pussycat dolls present Girlicious” <- this made me die of laughter! LOL!
And this is genius in itself, “If you think my hijab is honestly a threat to your establishment, then that says wonders for your confidence in what you’ve built. Modesty isn’t repression nor oppression. If it’s a threat to anything it’s the objectification you cast upon my sex. Are you shitting your pants yet?” I couldn’t have said it any better!
Hope to read more & speak to you soon!