Sexuality and Censorship
Subtopic 2: The 'Censors' ' - How Does Sexuality Fit In? – A Summary

Greetings! It is exciting to have been a part of the debates and questions posed on the forum over the past few weeks. I wanted to share some thoughts, observations, and short summaries of some of the debates with everyone from Subtopic 2.

What are the “appropriate” levels of boundaries for sexual pleasure? When talking about the acceptability of fantasies, (as one participant defined them, “the thoughts and ideas unrestricted by reality”), there was a question raised about the transgression of fantasies – that although we may fantasize about many things, we are not going to do them; however, is there a line that we cross that we should be censoring? One participant noted that fantasies should not be regulated at all – and highlighted the relationship between fantasies, self-censorship, and guilt by stating that “pleasure seeking behavior should not be guided by regulations.” Is it even possible to set boundaries on individual fantasies? It is almost humorous to think about how that would be policed! A further exploration into what we fear about unrestricted fantasies and what drives self-censorship of these fantasies might yield a deeper understanding as to what drives the need for censorship in the public sphere as well. 

One of the participants highlighted that society associates the relationship between love and sex as inseparable, but only in the context of marriage, and that love was the precursor that
legitimized sexual pleasure as an acceptable consequence of sex. This then points to the idea that pleasure seeking behavior is also regulated – as with the example one participant raised- if a marriage or relationship did not offer sexual satisfaction, it is not acceptable to seek it outside that boundary. 

What does it mean to talk of a “healthy” sexuality? In trying to move towards a more “healthy sexuality,” are we, as one participant pointed out, automatically creating a space for the “unhealthy” and further typing certain behaviors as “abnormal?” An important question was raised about the use of a health framework without recognizing its limitations. One participant pointed out it was useful to use the health framework to talk only of things like STIs and not in the context of morals and values. How can we make sure that when we are using various frameworks, we understand what we are trying to communicate to each other? 

Again, taking from the questions posed last week, when one participant's posting talked about how the ‘immorality’ of pleasure is directly related to how pleasurable something is. We can link this to the language we use around pleasure - when we do too much of any one thing (eating chocolates, drinking alcohol, having sex often, etc.), there is always a sense that we have to have some self-restraint, otherwise, it is indulgent and we now have a "vice." Not only is that linked to the language around pleasure, but it is also linked to the idea that there is a concept of “abnormal.” For example, how much sex during the week is too much – there are those that are quick to define a line between experiencing a “healthy” amount of sex during one week and an “obsession” or “addiction.” As one participant pointed out, there is a need for certain people to “type” behaviors and identities, without asserting their own, which inevitably ends up harming people. 

What is the relationship between pleasure and power? This is one of the most complicated debates in sexuality to breakdown. One of the forum participant's emails talked about the "regulated exchange of power in S&M." This raised the question about whether in this case, the power exchange was more of a regulation or a negotiated exchange. Using examples from power exchanges within the S&M scene in the UK, there are explicit power discussions and negotiated consent that do not take place in other kinds of sexual interactions. There were also points made about how pleasure and pain can be experienced simultaneously. Again, highlighting that there continue to be boundaries – but are those boundaries for the public or for private? There are many people that would seek to regulate the exchange of power – to define only one kind of imbalance and that there is no space for consent in these kinds of interaction. However, for those who have negotiated consent and power in private, should those boundaries be for them to decide and execute? It brings to light the public versus private debate from a different perspective, which we can look to further understand as we move towards the next discussion.

How do society and its gender norms influence the construction of desire? There was some discussion around how gender roles and society influence the construction of desire. In general, women are not expected to fulfill their sexual desire, unless it is in relation to a man. Simultaneously, in an example given by one forum participant highlighted power plays that challenge traditional concepts of pleasure and power by asking whether or not gender roles construct desire that is contradictory. We could expand this debate by examining how those who are gender non-conforming participate in power exchanges and analyze how gender constructed roles play a part in how pleasure and power play out.

What next? Issues raised about the responsibilities that came with the right to sexual pleasure include fairness and responsiveness. To take this concept further, we could examine what becomes the responsibility of the state and what is the responsibility of individual citizens? How do we hold citizens accountable for what the state defines as acceptable levels of boundaries concerning sexual pleasure? 

What then becomes a ‘right?’ Knowing that there are boundaries and regulations that move fluidly in private and public spheres, which ones are for the state and which ones are for individuals? Does the state decide what is ‘acceptable’ first, and then ask individuals to implement accordingly? Or do individuals decide what those rights are for themselves and ask the state to protect and fulfill those rights? 

We have already begun to have a discussion on sexual pleasure and rights this week. We can look at the previous week’s discussion and take it a step further by trying to understand sexual pleasure and rights, as we are doing in Subtopic 3. I hope you have been able to gain something valuable from the second discussion. Again, looking forward to a lively dialogue around the issues. 


Thank you,
Neha Patel (Moderator)
The South and Southeast Asia Resource Centre on Sexuality