But more-liberal Arabs are deeply divided over the videos' long-term influence. On one end are those who, like Haddad, hope the videos will help erode conservative attitudes toward dress and sex. On the opposite end are those who see yet another culprit that promotes women as physical objects. Beneath these different views lie mixed feelings about the benefits of Western influence on Arab culture.
I really, really passionately hate seeing sexuality presented in a cultural context, because it is such a universal human experience, and so little of it, probably less than any other activity that can be demarked, occurs at the same level in the brain that culture does. Humans are sexual beings. Full stop. Cultures either promote or repress sexual expression. While attitudes vary as you have shown, most of the Arab world is the finest example of complete control of sexuality, both in body and mind, of women in particular, but that suffering on the part of women ends up harming men just as much. The commodification of sex in the western world (and of most of our social interaction) pales in comparison, and if racy videos on that order are a sort of chaotic carpet bomb that will help change attitudes in the Arab world, I am for it. No positive social revolution happens with perfect means or ends.
I also really, really passionately hate the either-or proposition here. Sex is an inherently chaotic activity, and channeling that energy in healthy, non-destructive ways at the individual level is not a matter of which cultural artifacts contain the best approach. It's a matter of discipline, learning, and self-awareness that "the west" has only consciously engaged in for about a century, and the Arab world has hardly touched it for centuries.
you are the media you consume.
It's a matter of discipline, learning, and self-awareness that "the west" has only consciously engaged in for about a century, and the Arab world has hardly touched it for centuries.
I'm not sure 'the west' has really engaged in it at all.
We don't handle anarchy any better than anyone else does. Our usual response is to try to package it and sell it, or repress it. One drains the juice out of it - like porn, which is almost exactly but not quite completely unlike real sexuality. The other easily becomes bizarre, as with the proverbial wardrobe malfunction incident, and any number of Republican 'values' senators with exotic sexual histories.
People are still very confused about sexuality, especially in the media. It's okay for Britney not to wear knickers, and makes for good PR copy. But imagine the outrage if George Clooney flashed his genitals while getting out of a limo.
I'm not sure what that says about feminism, or indeed anything much, except that maybe being explicitly sexual is part of the job description for female singers in a way that it isn't quite for male entertainers.
What happened in the 60s is that the media started discussing sex, starting a revolution (of sorts) which took around twenty years to move from pinched disapproval to orgasms during prime time. And it was only last year that you could go to see a non-porn film with non-simulated sex in it. (Very daring, but a little odd considering how much porn there is around. Maybe people went to see it for the acting.) You still can't expect to put on a theatre production with people having real sex in it. You certainly can't start a religion devoted to sexual expression. (Although god knows some of the Osho people have tried.)
If anything now the media are oversexualised - usually for cynical commercial reasons. And there's still not much chance of a prime-time festival of erotica on mainstream TV - especially not in the US, where there's still confusion about the difference between porn and erotica, and a rabid fundie and authoritarian base which is just plain psychotic about sexuality.
We're really not as open as we think we are. When sex appears on TV, it's hardly ever without mixed messages about transgression and naughtiness and/or a commercial angle.
Media sex is rarely generous in the sense of promoting sexuality as something which can be shared in a relaxed and effortless way. It's either being sold, being used to sell, or framed as something that's being used to shock and titillate because talking about it and showing it is oh-so-very edgy.
In fact we'd rather have a public festival devoted to death than to sex.
I understand it, the big change was "the pill". The big period of "sexual liberation" can be (I thought) measured from its introduction to the re-appearance of drug-resistant sexually transmitted bugs of varying nastiness--I suppose the AIDS iceburg was the end of that period. Hey, there's a quote about that.
Hunter S. Thompson - Wikiquote
There are times, however, and this is one of them, when even being right feels wrong. What do you say, for instance, about a generation that has been taught that rain is poison and sex is death? If making love might be fatal and if a cool spring breeze on any summer afternoon can turn a crystal blue lake into a puddle of black poison right in front of your eyes, there is not much left except TV and relentless masturbation. It's a strange world. Some people get rich and others eat shit and die. Who knows? If there is in fact, a heaven and a hell, all we know for sure is that hell will be a viciously overcrowded version of Phoenix -- a clean well lighted place full of sunshine and bromides and fast cars where almost everybody seems vaguely happy, except those who know in their hearts what is missing... And being driven slowly and quietly into the kind of terminal craziness that comes with finally understanding that the one thing you want is not there. Missing. Back-ordered. No tengo. Vaya con dios. Grow up! Small is better. Take what you can get...
(I know it's not quite on topic, but...such great writing!) Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
Doesn't mean everyone will do this, or that your family or some church or the media won't judge you. Or that there are not a lot of sickos out there. But mostly no one "in the west" can be arrested or blacklisted (let alone killed) for challenging old stereotypes about how men and women should comport themselves. "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
have the ability to talk openly and frankly about the matter and engage freely exploring and figuring out for ourselves what it means or doesn't mean to be a man or a woman,
This comment isn't aimed at you, but I find it impossible to think about this line of conversation without frowning deeply. There are so many hidden assumptions of doubtful validity lurking here.
</semi-snarky stereotype>
I really, really passionately hate seeing sexuality presented in a cultural context, because it is such a universal human experience
I'm really not sure what that means. Many things that we consider universal experiences, like birth and death, are experienced differently and approached differently in different cultures. The physical act of being born (or giving birth) and of dying (or seeing someone die) may be the same, but the way it is experienced is not necessarily so. I don't think there's "one right way" to interact with those experiences.
suffering on the part of women ends up harming men just as much.
I agree with that.
if racy videos on that order are a sort of chaotic carpet bomb that will help change attitudes in the Arab world, I am for it.
But it's not at all clear whether they're doing that. I remember someone -- I don't remember who -- saying around the time of the invasion of Afghanistan that a better solution would be to carpet-bomb the Taleban with miniskirts, which (while obviously tongue-in-cheek) expresses the same basic sentiment. But there were miniskirts in Cairo just a generation ago, and the current conservatism and religiosity here emerged partly as a reaction against these "Western" influences.
I'm not sure you're grasping something that's kind of fundamental, which is that the kind of "sexual expression" we see in these video clips is not new here. What's new is that it's so public.
MillMan:
I also really, really passionately hate the either-or proposition here.
Well precisely, which is what the last video is there for. I think what a lot of people would like here would be a middle ground, between the munaqaba and the pop tart, where whatever you are would be OK. But those are the competing pressures right now.
I think you may not realize how that sounds? As if there's one path to salvation, and "we" are on it and "they" are way "behind" and need to "work harder" to "catch up." But sexuality is frankly discussed here; healthy sexuality is encouraged within marriage and always has been. Is failure or refusal to put that on display necessarily unhealthy? Because frankly, I remain unconvinced that stage shows and video clips of half-naked women miming sexual acts is something to aspire to. It's different, but is different enough?
But the larger point is not even about sexuality, it's about personal expression on all levels, and about challenging and changing many other norms and standards that are no less significant or life-shaping for an individual or society for their lack of "universality."
Many things that we consider universal experiences, like birth and death, are experienced differently and approached differently in different cultures.
Sure, but I won't take cultural relativism to the extreme because it allows any cultural limitation or failing to be normalized as proper. In this case the argument can be "suppressing women's rights and sexual freedom is what works for culture x." No, it is what works for the elites of that culture.
What's new is that it's so public.
Which means the potential for it to act as a taboo buster is there. Discussion about sex need to be possible in the public and policy spheres (again I know they are in some places - but overall, very limited in comparison to most of the rest of the world).
I think you may not realize how that sounds?
It sounds politically incorrect. I won't back down from the statement - the cultures that suppress women in this manner are as bizarre of an excursion away from what makes happy, healthy people as capitalism is. Well, bizarre isn't the right word - I can see why cultures might evolve down that path.
As if there's one path to salvation
Putting words in my mouth. What goes on in the US and Europe is by no means perfect, but I have to describe the sexual environment as healthier. The media presentation is rightfully maligned, but beyond that, sexual freedom allowed to members of this culture and the learning and mistakes that come with it in our younger years is what makes for sexually well adjusted adults.
healthy sexuality is encouraged within marriage and always has been
That's not good enough. I existed in a somewhat similar environment growing up, where you are taught to suppress sexual energy until marriage. The origins of this approach have nothing to do with making happy, healthy people.
In this case the argument can be "suppressing women's rights and sexual freedom is what works for culture x."
Now who's putting words in whose mouth? Come on.
the cultures that suppress women in this manner are as bizarre of an excursion away from what makes happy, healthy people as capitalism is.
Huh? Is capitalism the opposite of "the cultures" you're talking about? I'm not sure I get the point of the reference.
Second, there are many, many, many ways that many cultures, including our own, suppress (or oppress) women. Nobody has a monopoly on it. So it's only the ones who suppress women in a particular manner who're moving us away from total Zen bliss?
What goes on in the US and Europe is by no means perfect, but I have to describe the sexual environment as healthier.
Yes, we are so healthy. So very healthy.
Please.
That's not good enough.
Of course it's not. But a great big hulking chunk of "our" society is even more repressed than that. Trust me, I'm related to some of them. "We" really are not in a position to be throwing any stones, because "our" society isn't really in the business of making happy, healthy, well-adjusted adults either. If we were, we wouldn't have the Republican Party.
"We" really are not in a position to be throwing any stones, because "our" society isn't really in the business of making happy, healthy, well-adjusted adults either
You just threw all the social movements of the 20th century under the bus. Please don't use the "not holy enough" argument.
For me, this sort of statement sums up the friction between cultural relativism and personal rights. Women in Arab countries have fewer freedoms than women in the west. I say that with what I think is a decent idea of what the Arab world does better.
I'm not going add anything more - at this point it would require x-thousand words to add any nuance to this as our opinions differ in a very basic manner.
Women in Arab countries have fewer freedoms than women in the west.
And 99.9 percent of those things have nothing to do with sex or sexuality. It's just as complicated a thing here as anywhere, but on the list of things I'd like to change about the society I live in (and it's a long list) what you're talking about would be way down at the bottom. "Freedom" is a helluva lot more than freedom to wear next to nothing.
"Freedom" is a helluva lot more than freedom to wear next to nothing.
Are you talking to me, or music video producers?
I really, really passionately hate seeing sexuality presented in a cultural context,
Here's me:
Here's you again:
It sounds politically incorrect. I won't back down from the statement
I gave you the opportunity to clarify, and you did. You made it really, really passionately clear.
the cultures that suppress women in this manner are as bizarre of an excursion away from what makes happy, healthy people as capitalism is. Huh? Is capitalism the opposite of "the cultures" you're talking about? I'm not sure I get the point of the reference.
Not the "opposite." But just as harmful.
What goes on in the US and Europe is by no means perfect, but I have to describe the sexual environment as healthier. Yes, we are so healthy. So very healthy.
We're talking about degrees here. It's possible for one culture to be more humane than another and still inhumane in many ways. We're all far from ideal, but some are further than others.
"We" really are not in a position to be throwing any stones, because "our" society isn't really in the business of making happy, healthy, well-adjusted adults either. If we were, we wouldn't have the Republican Party.
Do you truly feel that way? Because that pretty much rules out anyone defending or advocating for the rights of anyone outside their culture. Whatever that is. Because there are sickos in the US, many of them in power, Americans cannot speak out about the ill treatment of others? Do you believe in universal human rights? Do you believe that equal rights are universal human rights? Do you believe that since no one lives in a society where all human rights are upheld without fail that therefore no one is in a position to comment on the plight of others? Do you think inequality occurs to the same degree everywhere and that we cannot learn from the accomplishments and failures of other cultures? I understand your defensiveness. Look at how I go off on critical press about Russia (how dare we judge them?) But at the end of the day, curbing free speech, women's rights, torture, etc. etc. is wrong - regardless where it happens, and I feel it is a fundamental human right to be able to speak out when you suspect injustice. I think we can debate if there is or is not injustice, but I don't think we can say, "You have no right to speak on the matter." Don't you agree? "Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.
What we can't do is act as if our own house is in order, which it's certainly not, or as if we are the model to which all others should aspire, because we're not.
We're talking about degrees here.
No, we're not. He said "the sexual environment is healthier," and I don't think that what I linked to is even remotely healthy. It's disturbing, as is much of the oversexualized environment within which nine-year-olds wear fishnet tights and corsets for Halloween.
And, uh, finally, I don't think I'm being terribly defensive. I have not for a single second said that folks in this part of the world are doing things the "right way" and everybody else needs to listen up and start behaving. But that's essentially what's been said to me. If you want defensive, I can hook you up, because there is a much stronger reaction to that kind of attitude than the one I've taken, and it would be not-uncalled-for at this point.
Woah! I think there is a common position here:
"X society is not perfect and we already have information that could make it better."
But then we get, "So country Y could learn from country X"
Or is it "Country X could learn from country Y"?
Or is it "They could both learn from each other"?
Or is there even, maybe, a mythical country that at least one of the people arguing is also implying exits, the one the other two are supposed to become--in the ideal world; then one of the arguers says, "The place that I think [insert their country of choice here] is closer to, in some respects--"
"But further from in other respects--" says the other arguer.
My preferred option in these kinds of arguments would be for each side to admit their own weaknesses and applaud the strengths of the other side.
I know that becomes impossible because of politics, but a rule could be applied: "You are not allowed to say anything good about your preferred country, only bad things."
(Heh! I can imagine it. "In our country, we're just too nice! We take criticism too well! We're just too damned wonderful, it pisses everyone off!" Well, okay, not that. More likely: "We have been slacking in introducing genuine organic healthy meals free to all children under the age of sixteen; they have made a step forward by no longer torturing four year olds--they have now raised the lower limit to five")
(I imagine the "religious cartoons" argument had a similar trajectory--it'd be interesting (for me) and maybe useful to go one step "meta" and deconstruct the arguments to see what's underneath--I know, I know, I've wandered into an argument....I'll go to the bar. Anyone want a drink?)
(Saw a woman in her fifties in the pub last night. She'd asked, probably, for "a bottle of sparkling water." This is a drinkers' pub, so they had to search in the basement, but they found a bottle--not chilled, of course. The barman handed it to her. She held it up, turned it, pulled a face like it was mouldy, then said, "Okay, well, I suppose it's water." So yeah! Or I can recommend the...er...it's a pub....hmmmm....maybe--okay I'll risk the idea of "a cup of tea"--I have tea bags! All we need is a kettle and some cups!)
</strange interlude> Don't fight forces, use them R. Buckminster Fuller.
