After reading chapter four “Zoning out Sex” please first
reflect on your initial thoughts, disagree? agree? What do you think the main point of the
chapter is? Then reflect on how it made you feel, and if you have any
questions.
Next we
would like to focus on a passage within the chapter to further reflect and
hopefully discuss in class. On page 180 Warner is talking about why there is no
opposition to the new zoning laws and says, “ This is why we don’t hear more
opposition to the bill, even though the extraordinary economic success of the
industry shows that the porn trade has a broad popular base. Queers will be
especially apt to understand this phenomenon, since it is so closely related to
the effect that is called the closet. Common mythology understands the closet as
an individual’s lie about him- or her-self. Yet queers understand, at some
level, that the closet was built around them, willy-nilly, by dominant
assumptions about what goes without saying, what can be said without a breach
of decorum, who shares the onus of disclosure, and who will bear the
consequences of speech and silence- by all of what Erving Goffman, in Stigma, calls “the careful work of disattention.”
Speech is everywhere regulated unequally. This is experienced by lesbians and
gay men as a private, individual problem of shame and closeting. But it is produced
by the assumptions of everyday talk.” Reflect on what you think Warner is
trying to say and in general what you think about it?
Koe and Mait
After reading this chapter, I was very shocked about these zoning laws and I was unaware that this happened. However, It makes sense because you normally see sex stores in areas where people don’t live or in underprivileged areas. This reminded me of when Planned Parenthood moved into my neighborhood; a few years back, there was an x-ray company occupying the space and no one was bothered by that. However, when Planned Parenthood moved in there were complains about how this was a residential neighborhood and should be kept that way. When the neighbors tried to fight it, we were told that the medical permit that the building had was almost up and we had to wait it out. I can understand why people are so hesitant of these kind of stores because it brings around people who normally wouldn’t be in the neighborhoods; for example, ever since Planned Parenthood moved in, we get protestors surrounding the streets and they carry posters of unborn fetuses. Even though this is their first amendment rights, we as a neighborhood hate the disruption and the images that they bring. So I can understand why people do not want these stores around their homes but I also don’t fully understand why they cannot be public down town areas.
ReplyDeleteIn his passage on page 180, I think he is trying to state again that our society tries to hide sex. Before this quote, Walter McCaffrey is quoted saying people “will feel much more comfortable going to someplace where they won’t be seen”; this is referring to the stores being moved to the waterfront instead of in the middle of the city. When these stores were moved, they were put into hiding, i.e., the closet. This closet refers to queers who have not come out as queer and are still hiding themselves as heterosexual. Since the closet refers to: hiding, shame, secrets, and isolation, relocating their stores to a more isolated venue is another way of shaming these individuals and keeping them hidden from the rest of society. So when he says that the closet was build around them, I agree; the population that I associate myself with, i.e., heterosexuality, has continued to create this shame involving gender and sexuality.
I did not know that about these zoning laws and I am shocked by it but I really understand why they do that. You would want a sex store in a neighborhood because of children but to put it in underprivileged ares does not make sense to me. I mean it would be easier to put these stores in these areas because people wouldn't fight back. I see them driving down the street to get to my apartment every day (I live of Federal and 70th). It's in an area with not many homes and a really poor part of town but if you go over a couple streets to Lowell I don't see anything like sex stores because in a neighborhood and there is an elementary school. I agree that it should be zoned. People have the right to not want these places in their neighborhoods but I think if that is the case it cannot be in underprivileged neighborhoods either, they have rights as well. I don't think its about zoning out sex because thats not whats really going on. They aren't saying you can't enjoy things. People just don't want these stores in their neighborhoods or around their kids. I don't think sex and sexual desire should be shamed but I also don't think we need to push it in peoples faces, especially if they do not want it in their faces. I don't know if I am making sense but thats what I think.
ReplyDeleteI think the quote points out a very important fact about our society. We do shame people for their sexual desires, as well as their nonsexual desires. I think that in the cases heterosexuality forces homosexuality into a closet because we do hide sex but we also don't. We promote hetero-sex but not homo-sex because it is seen as unnatural. I can see how this zoning out sex would her the homosexuality community. They already have to hide but now they have to go into areas that make them feel even worse, closeted. Its complicated cause I can see it from both sides.
Disclaimer: Sorry if I have phrased anything wrong or offended anybody. It is not my intention.
I’m not 100% sure how I feel about this chapter. After reading only the first few pages, my thoughts revolved around asking if his main argument would be that the queer identity was beginning to conform to society. Is this why the street is boring? No one fights for them anymore? I’m not sure, but as I kept reading I realized he seemed to be arguing that they are being forced to remove themselves from the public eye because of the very infrastructure of the city around them. “Privatization” seemed to be the big idea to me, which is sad when reflecting on queer activism that this neighborhood used to see. But how could they stay strong when the city literally did everything they could to destroy their morale?!!!
ReplyDeleteAs for the quote on 180, this section is called “What’s Public About Sex?”, and it begins by discussing the benefits of just making sex an okay thing in our culture. But how do we do that when it has been the source for so many people of offense and disgust? That’s something I’ll never understand. I think we need to move into a culture that doesn't give a damn about who has sex with who, one with more openness, wouldn't that make all of our lives so much easier?? However, as Warner points out, “The dominant culture of privacy wants you to lie about the corporeal publicness”. Our culture needs to throw out the idea that public sex is a “gay problem”, we are all equal in this and we cannot oppress the queer community for being sexually active, because the straight community is too and they cant pretend like they aren’t.
When it was mentioned by multiple business owners on Christopher Street that they were shocked by the lack of reaction they assumed would be a consequence of the zoning, I finally connected to the idea of newer, younger generations coming in and those who grow older taking their history with them. The movement changes and evolves, but while it grows in another direction (wherever the fuck it’s going) it seems to cut out the old to make room for the new, skin-tight clothing that, fortunately, isn’t neon.
ReplyDeleteI’ve never been to New York, and I don’t know how much of this information is still relevant after over a decade, but with my experience in Denver, the gay scene is still lascivious and sexualized. We have sex clubs, we have buckets of condoms on the counter, and where I work, we act very, very gay.
I think the point of the chapter is to stir the next generation to fight for the culture that was falling out from under the very feet of the gay community, and to vocalize the stand that the state was taking against the “adult” businesses with its “new politics of privatization,” that a few gay people ended up supporting in one way or another. It had everyone waiting and worried that their establishment would be next; sex sells, but it was officially inappropriate—again—and was pulled back under the covers. In a way, this feels synonymous to eminent domain abuse in order to create a more comfortable or pleasant walk down Christopher Street for those who are shocked and unsettled by the non-normal.
While reading the pages around the quote mentioned above, I found a lot of parallels with the way bigger corporations keep people who are working oppressive, low-paying jobs from creating unions and making change; tactics of shame, isolation, and silence.
Even if it is socially acceptable to be homosexual, promiscuous, or find yourself standing outside the conservative sexual norms, Warner’s banging pots and pans to keep the city awake and aware of the changes happening while everyone else is keeping quiet out of fear of being shut down (or out of feelings of indifference to what is being lost). There’s a difference between being comforted by the closet and being forced into it.
At first reading I honestly didn’t really have strong feelings with the chapter. I guess that meant I was sort of apathetic to the issue of the zoning laws, which I had never heard of in this context. Upon reflection I suppose this could go along with the issues of sex shaming that Warner has previously discussed. I didn’t criticize the zoning, because it didn’t affect me or is part of the acceptance of the norm of the morality policing sexuality. The shaming of pornography seems to be in the realm of shaming of sex workers, as he says in a previous chapter about what is normal or right is correlated with properness and health (p57). Warner helps to see how it is focused at certain individuals and groups i.e. queer community. The other point I found intriguing with this chapter goes back to the development of queer culture and how it is influenced or confronted by hetero normative culture. That those in the community have not had the chance to develop their own norms or culture, because it is often interfered with by hetero norms, like the zoning laws and pornography regulations. This made me really think about how this affects the younger generations and how he brought up the issue that they became complacent to an extent at the acceptance of gay marriage being a goal, without maybe analyzing it from all sides. He discusses the notions of public space and private space in queer culture, which is a topic that is also discussed by feminist theorists when analyzing the marginalization of women and other minority groups. This is an important aspect, because it brings to light the issue that public space (govt., jobs, politics, etc.) is only for hetero white males, and all others fall into private space, or further to the “others” realm, which is still regulated by those in charge of public space.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the quote for discussion, I can see how it connects to the idea of public and private space, and how the lack of speaking out in opposition limits the progress, but keeps queer culture in the closet (private). If it is not the norm to speak in favor and defend pornography it would be hard to speak up to fight, even though from an economic sense it was an industry that helped the area and was thriving. I agree with Warner or the quote, our nation shames anything associated with sex, but even further demonizes specific sexual acts and desire. The quote says “disattention” which to me means that, the zoning focus seemed to be about pornography, it was drawing attention away from the people that the zoning was affecting, and could really have been about them, to zone those groups out of the area. I believe this to be a very unfair and discriminating tactic, it’s funny that though the industry was prosperous the lack of concern how it helped the economy seemed to not be a concern.
While I wasn't surprised to find out that there are zoning laws for sex shops, public sex clubs, and things classified as "adult" shops, I do understand Warner's concern that the government is trying to sanitize queer culture in the public view. It makes complete sense to me that there would be a law that says sex shops cannot be within 500 feet of a school, day care, or church. Although, I feel like it should be people within the community that make those requests and not the government who decides these things. Because, as in the case of Christopher street, it was the mayor, not the nearby schools or churches that had a problem with the shops on the street.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the quote, I found the notion of "the closet being built around" queer people and people wanting to buy goods from the sex industry to be very compelling. One of the consequences of moving this industry out of plain sight is that it reinforces shame about sex. I don't think that is the goal of zoning, but that is certainly one of its outcomes. For example, someone could feel no shame at going into a sex toy shop in New York because they don't care about any stigma that might be attached to doing so, but when they have to go out of their way or go to a place where no one will see them, the sense that what they are doing is shameful is bound to crop up. In this sense, it makes complete sense that a lot of shame and closeting of people's sex lives is built around them by the structures of government regulating.
As I was reading the chapter, I was shocked. First of all, why does the government care so much who we have sex with? The fact that there are laws saying how you can have sex and who you can have sex with is mind blowing. I still can't comprehend why anyone should care what other human beings are doing. Also, I never knew about these zoning laws directed towards adult stores. My thoughts on this are if this business isn't causing anyone any harm and the business has the proper permits, it should not matter what they are selling. Sex toys don't harm people I think. However, I can see the negative stigma that comes from porn. We view porn as something vile or something that women are forced to do. Because of this, I think adult stores will always be viewed with a negative connotation. In regards to the quote, I think Warner is making the statement about shame again. Sex is shameful. We can't discuss our sexual lives with anyone. Sex is private. Because of this, America has a problem with anything that brings sex out in the open. The queer community is forced to "air their dirty underwear". The queer community has had to make their sex lives in order to make the rest of society understand that heterosexual is not the only option. This could be another reason why society has had such a difficult time accepting homosexuals, they have purposely made sex public and unfortunately this makes people uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Warner’s arguments and contentions regarding the criminalization of public (queer) sex, I partially found myself empathizing with him. For instance, I agreed with many of his points regarding sexual shame and the plight of Harmony Video. I have witnessed the gentrification of predominantly—and historically—black and brown neighborhoods be justified by the capitalistic rhetoric of (white) expansion at the expense of “undesirable coloreds;” consequently, I was able to connect the pain I felt from the forced deterioration of black/brown spaces to the pain that many other queer and trans people felt upon realizing that the historically LGBT areas of New York would soon be demolished. Furthermore, Warner’s passionate rantings resonated with me as a prison abolitionist and an individual who is both anti-police and familiar with the criminalization/stigmatization of sex work. The respectability politics that many gay and lesbian individuals have ironically adopted from heteronormativity and incorporated into their own views of queer liberation/justice serves as its own conceptual, immaterial prison (which is referred to on page 180 as “the closet”); therefore, this barrier should not become material and literal in the form of criminalizing the emergence of safe queer and trans sex (which is protected by both sex clubs/shops and thus LGBT sex workers).
ReplyDeleteAlthough the childhood sexual abuse survivor within sometimes wishes for the obliteration of all physical manifestations of sexual passion, I—in all my trauma—do not want to see such destruction be mandated by the State (which is an institution that upholds and even legalizes heteronormativity) and by oppressive notions regarding the type of queer that LGBT people should aspire to be (which, as stated by Warner, is a “sexless homebody”) (163).
I still must note, however, that when I am not existing in a state of hypervulnerabilty that would allow myself to easily be triggered by things of a sexual nature, I enjoy going to sex shops with my gay friends. In fact, the merchandise displayed in these businesses help validate my sexual identity and help me process my homosexual attractions. My high school did not provide sufficient sexual education courses; therefore, I learned nothing about queer/trans sex during the very few lessons on sexual activity that I had received in my Advanced Biology class. Since my own mother and many of my friends were heterosexual, cisgender, and painfully Puritan towards their approaches towards human sexuality, I could not seek advice from any of them. As a result, I gravitated towards queer pornography and sex stores—the two things that, according to Warner, have been ruthlessly criminalized. Outlets for queer/trans sex have served as platforms for my own sexual education (even as a victim of sexual trauma); Warner and I are quite certain that they have done so for many other individuals.
With that being said, if one does not wish to have queer sex culture “pushed” on them, they can simply resist it by refusing to enter a sex store/club/space. Moreover, if stores providing deadly commodities such as alcohol, tobacco, and weaponry—hence a culture of violence and unnecessary death—can freely exist in the open, why can’t spaces reserved for safe and consensual sex exist (after all, having safe and consensual sex and/or consuming pornography in an area designated for adults has never killed anyone)?
Even though Warner gives me a headache and exhausts me to no end with most of his arguments, I surprisingly found this particular chapter agreeable in several aspects.
This chapter had me thinking a lot about my life, specifically because it talks about more public access to sex as an aspect of queer culture. Before reading this book, while I might have considered the intersection of queer life and public sexual spaces, I never would have thought of something like a bathhouse or a porn store as a queer space.
ReplyDeleteAbout the new zoning laws, Warner writes "it isn't just cruisers who lose. It's everyone who belongs to the queer worlds that get more and more opaque to the normalized public view" (180). I think this is particularly relevant given what is said a few pages earlier: "the naive belief that sex is simply an inborn instinct still exerts its power, but most gay men and lesbians know that the sex they have was not innate nor entirely of their own making, but learned" (177).
To me this chapter is really frightening, because the zoning laws extend far beyond real estate and community space. The reduction of public sexual spaces means a reduction of queer spaces, which means even less opportunity for queer and questioning individuals to learn more about themselves, their bodies, the bodies they are attracted to, and the ways those bodies can interact. This means less education, less resources. This means more danger, more risk, more invisibility.
I wonder how it is that my life as a queer person could have been different had the town I was in during my formative years been host to more public sexual spaces, more queer spaces.