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 before we move to Subtopic 2. (The responses to these questions were diverse and by no means can we cover all of them in-depth, but what follows is a summary of the all the responses that were put forth on the forum).

Why censorship? Participants shared what they thought were some of the purposes behind censorship - it benefits to society as a whole; a form of government; something that monitors attitudes of the nation-state; a mechanism that regulates society to create an environment of justice, peace, and freedom; prevents violence; a space that helps people become comfortable with a new idea; a method of controlling hate-speech, or for use as a tool for anything that stirs up hostility regarding race, ethnicity, religion, and associated identities.

How do we censor? Censorship can take many forms; implicit and explicit; self-censorship; legislation; censoring materials, identities, spaces, and images; creating new power structures; modifying social values and morality. Then the discussion moved to who gets censored - media; education systems; minorities; those who speak out against the State; those who organize communities for issues that go against the nation-state. Can individuals be trusted to make decisions on what images they want, or don't want to consume? Using censorship implies that in some cases, no (and those cases are almost always linked to sexuality). And as one participant commented, 'We are all products of censorship via socialization'.

Who censors us? Who should be the person responsible for distributing information and deciding who gets to consume this information? Participants had varying views about how censorship rules should change depending on who the audience was. One participant made a point that we often privilege a particular view on what is suitable (usually the one in power) in doing this censoring. This can lead to a violation of rights, according to one participant, and that although the ideals behind censorship may be 'pure', the implementation is seldom that. As another participant noted, censorship has the potential to 'curtail choices' and regulate society to eliminate plurality. There is still some controversy as to whether or not censorship is an inevitable result of being a part of a larger society. Whether those censors (censor boards, policies, external agencies, etc.) should be devoid of morality, remains another controversy.

Censorship in the public also influences how we censor in private. Participants were interested in exploring what drives us to censor. One participant stated that most people were afraid of anything that was different from the 'norm' and that if something couldn't be categorized, then our initial instinct is to deem it 'unnatural' and therefore, something that should go against our sensibilities. What good does it do to have one societal standard of morals and behavior code? By censoring in public, as one participant noted, we inevitably create a social monitoring system, irrespective of whether or not the State can implement the censor effectively. For example, although many countries in South and Southeast Asia have laws that criminalize consensual, same -sex adult sexual behavior, its implementation is somewhat inconsistent; but what it has done is create a sanction for those who appoint themselves the moral and cultural guardians to stigmatize and violate rights of same-sex desiring people.

What are the unintended and intended consequences of censorship? In addition to a violation of rights and elimination of various views, many ideas were given as to the potential and real consequences of censorship. One participant noted that when something gets censored, it inevitably ends up raising curiosity, so maybe what we need to examine is what we are trying to achieve in the process of censoring something. Others raised the point that censorship, because it is a part of several spheres (self, home, community, State, etc.), results in mixed messages to individuals. For example, some States have tried to define 'obscenity', but individually, we are left to interpret and self-censor what we think is obscene, which, in fact, may not be obscene to someone else. One result of censorship that a few participants pointed out is that although one may have to listen to those in the dominant majority try to drive out minority voices, censorship also drives out the right of minorities to participate in democratic processes, organize and dissent against the State, and voice marginalized opinions. However, as one participant noted, those who are marginalized need to be critical of the freedom that is provided by the dominant majority. Divergent interests are all too common; how can we develop a framework that benefits society without infringing on the rights of individuals?

What are some underlying issues and assumptions we need to address when discussing sexuality and censorship? Participants suggested that we needed to examine several basic issues around sexuality and censorship before looking at how the two are related and this dialogue also introduced the need to examine our own assumptions as well. One participant noted that we must examine how we deal with issues of sex and how we are quick to eliminate any and all references to sex in our daily lives-therefore, before we discuss opportunities, choices, and rights surrounding sexuality and censorship, we must discuss the basic discomfort we have talking about sexuality. In one instance, banning pornography could provide us with a basic sense of security 'since pornography reflects something that isn't healthy and sensible'. But as one participant pointed out, there is not one way to quantify groups of people and homogenize their experiences. Moreover, do we expect that all images (explicit or otherwise) are consumed and 'read' in the same way by everyone? Or that they will have the same effect on every group/environment once they are put out for public consumption? We also need to examine the protectionist approach we take as the justification for censorship around sexuality. What about sexuality is so contentious? We will continue to come back to this question throughout the forum.

How do we think about the relationship between sexuality and censorship? When it comes to examining the relationship of sexuality with censorship, it is clear that as one participant noted, 'Censorship becomes all the more strict when talking about sexuality'. Participants commented on how there were several reasons for that - lack of adequate language associated with sexuality in an affirmative manner, ignorance, difficult parameters as to what is a 'standard' code for sexuality (which, do we want anyhow?); and prevalent attitudes around sexuality which involve shame, secrecy, and judgment. These result in conflicting messages, inadequate information, and lack of safe spaces to talk about sexuality. The various aspects of sexuality, whether it is who we prefer as a sexual partner, or how we dress, it is almost always controversial. And for that matter, what kind of sexuality are we talking about? One participant noted that the one we assume we are talking about is in the heteronormative sense - and that there is an implicit censorship of marginalized sexualities.

What next? We will be talking about the State's role in how they associate sexuality with identity and citizenship - and how they use institutional mechanisms to censor 'different' realities from society. Furthermore, we will be looking at how our specific assumptions and misunderstandings around sexuality give rise to censors that infringe upon individual's right. We will also examine in more depth what different forms censors can take with regards to sexuality and why the double standard when it comes to sexuality.

I hope you have been able to gain something valuable from this first discussion. Feel free to use the discussions we have begun already to tie into future topics. Again, looking forward to a lively dialogue around the issues!

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