Resource: Sexuality in the Margins: Creating a Space for Conversations

The Graduate Journal of Social Science published an issue entitled ‘Sexuality in the Margins:  Creating a Space for Conversations’.  It’s well worth checking out.  You can see the full contents below:

Editorial: Sexualities in the Margins: Creating a Space for ConversationsArpita Das, Annelies Kleinherenbrink and Ebtihal Mahadeen
GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 7-12. [PDF]

---

Establishing Asexual Identity: The Essential, the Imaginary, and the CollectiveAgata Pacho

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 13-35. [PDF]

Abstract

Pansexual Identification in Online Communities: Employing a Collaborative Queer Method to Study PansexualityAyisigi Hale Gonel

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 36-60. [PDF]

Abstract

From the ‘Polymorphous Perverse’ to Intersexualization: Intersections in Cross-Cultural EthnographiesLena Eckert

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 60-84. [PDF]

Abstract

R v Peacock: Landmark Trial Redefines Obscenity LawAlex Antoniou

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 85-103. [PDF]

Abstract

Are We Nearly There Yet? Struggling to Understand Young People as Sexual SubjectsFreya Johnson Ross

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 104-123. [PDF]

Abstract

The Experimental Neuro-Framing of SexualityIsabelle Dussauge

GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 124-151. [PDF]

Abstract

---

Book Reviews

Michelle Hutchinson Grondin
Technologies of Sexuality, Identity and Sexual Health edited by Lenore Manderson
GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 152-155. [PDF]

Ellen Zitani
Il Gioco Delle Parti: Travestimenti e Paure Sociali Tra Otto e Novecento by Laura Schettini
GJSS 2013 10:1, pp. 156-160. [PDF]

Roles: A Gender and Sexuality Forum

Roles: A Gender and Sexuality Forum

Third Annual Gender and Sexuality Conference
University of Birmingham,
10th May 2013

Key Note Speaker: Dr. Nadine Muller

This one-day interdisciplinary conference offers postgraduates the opportunity to present their research in a friendly and supportive environment. We invite applications for twenty-minute papers from researchers working within the fields of gender and sexuality studies.

Suggestions for presentations may address, but are not limited to, the following topics:

– social policy, government legislation, and matters of the law
– cultural products: film / music / art / TV / literature
– media, representation, and social images
– sexuality, otherness, erotic practice
– the body: subject, object, identity
– theory, methodology, practice
– feminism and postfeminism: representation and invisibility
– queer and trans*: changing images of femininity and masculinity

Please send an abstract, including a short bio, of no more than 300 words to g.roles@hotmail.com by 10th March 2013.

Roles is an interdisciplinary research forum hosted by researchers at the University of Birmingham for the purpose of fostering discussion and debate. We hold regular seminars as well as our annual conference, and can be followed online: T: @groles, F:
/roles-a-gender-and-sexuality-forum, W: groles.wordpress.com, E:
g.roles@hotmail.com.

A Double Life

Interesting piece in the Guardian Magazine today by Marco Roth who will shortly publish a book entitled ‘Two Scientists:  A Family Romance’ (priced at £9.59 on Amazon).  The book is autobiographical, and the Guardian piece is an edited extract from the book.

When Roth’s father – a scientist – died of AIDS, the story that he had become infected in the course of his scientific work (a lab accident) began to be questioned.  So too, did his fathers sexuality.  This book chronicles Roth’s journey of exploration as to his fathers ‘double life’.   The extract makes for interesting reading, although I’m not sure it entices the reader to go beyond what is published in the Guardian.

Check out the extract here.

Paedophilia as Sexuality?

Updated 15.28 on 3 January

Many thanks to @katesheill for alerting me to this story.  The Guardian carries a very interesting comment piece by Jon Henley in which he explores the disagreements amongst ‘experts’ about what causes paedophilia and whether it amounts to a ‘sexuality’.  I’m not an expert on this aspect of sexuality but I confess to being open minded, and can see value in the arguments in favour and against it being a ‘sexuality’.  The difficulty, is that this debate is so emotive and politicised that the arguments for/against become proxies for other sexual agendas rather than addressing the actual subject of inter-generational sex.

Henley himself makes a number of interesting observations about these debates from various experts, but he doesn’t fully take account of the external forces at work upon these same experts.  A charity dealing with children has its own limitations, whilst academics – supposedly the most free of thinkers – are limited by institutional and Academy politics which condemn to silence whole rafts of opinion and thought.   That is perhaps the biggest change in recent decades, and perhaps explains the dramatic shift in ‘attitudes’ that Henley notes, and the contemporary challenges of viewing paedophilia through the lens of sexual liberation.

Henley does offer a definition of paedophilia, via the Sex offenders Act 1997, although an understanding of the complexities of this area might be better gleaned from the Sexual Offences Act 2003 – which also highlights the discrepancies in age when it comes to images rather than acts (you can consent to an act at 16, but an image only at 18).

For lawyers, the subject of consent is readily debated in other sensitive fields – notably the right the life (think abortion for example), and the recent right to life cases (for example Nicklinson and Pretty) and even in the context of age – the famous Gillick case of course.  Yet, consent in the context of sexual age is perhaps a taboo subject, touching as it so clearly does on the toxic subject of paedophilia.

The dominant rights-based discourse of the twenty first century is navigated by ascribing rights to ‘children’ (contrast with the nineteenth century) and those who are defined by sexualities – but not ‘perversions’ which remain taboo, and sometimes legally controlled and/or limited.  To define paedophilia as a sexuality would therefore shift the subject into a rights-based narrative, and thus one must face the liberal challenge of balancing rights, rather seeking to merely assert the rights of one group over another ‘perverse’ group.  Toxic stuff indeed.

Researching this area is surely a maze of funding difficulties, institutional politics and additional barriers  which one faces in the name of safeguards.  For example, a number of records of the now defunct Paedophile Information Exchange group (mentioned by Henley) can be viewed at the London School of Economics, but you must (or at least you did when I was using their archive for research on public sex a year or so ago) provide reasons for why you want to access those files which are then put on record.  My idle curiosity at looking at the files as someone who teaches law and sexuality was stopped dead in their tracks.  That’s not a database I’d like my name anywhere near – especially when you consider the bungled Police operation that was Operation Ore, and the history of data becoming misconstrued.

Please don’t misunderstand me, I am not suggesting that the current collective (if there is one) view of paedophilia (as variously understood) is wrong.  I am however, questioning the absence of a debate when we debate so clearly every other aspect of our existence.

The Henley article is therefore a really interesting insight into some of the arguments in this area, but those seeking a deep and open debate in this area must continue to wait.

UPDATE:

Thanks to @PauldeMello_jnr who alerts me to the Telegraph piece by Damian Thompson responding to the Guardian article.  It does rather underline my comments.

Sexuality and English Law

Jonathan Freedland wrote an excellent must read for all students of law and sexuality, for Saturday’s Guardian.  On the back of the British Government’s proposals for same-sex marriage, he explores the evolving status of homosexuality.  Check it out here.

We Need to talk about your accidental paedophilia…

Thank heavens I’m not a parent.  The world seems an increasingly dangerous place and like those packets of peanuts with the notice: ‘Warning, May Contain Nuts’, parents perhaps feel increasingly obliged to warn their children of the perils they might face.  We live, or so it seems, in the age of warnings.

Technology is probably on that list, but what of mobile devices and their cameras?  This little story reports on a recent incident in the US suggests that despite the permeation of warnings about the use of technology, young people act in such a way as to seemingly ignore such caution.

A 21 year old male is accused of distributing paedophile images via Facebook.  The photos were taken at a rave and feature a 16 year old girl having sex with a ‘young’ man.  According to the story, ‘the young man and young women were having sex in a field in open view of the crowd at the rave. Multiple bystanders, upon seeing them in flagrante delicto, rushed over to take pictures, as one witness testified, with such frequency that camera flashes were popping “like lightning.”

The images were arguably not intended to sexually arouse, but rather were part of a joke, but the ease with which child pornography can today be produced is astonishing, and transforms young people – and unwitting viewers (such as this guys friends on Facebook) into paedophiles as far as the law is concerned.

In doing so, this also serves to deconstruct our collective concept of what a paedophile is – and should legally, culturally, politically – be.  Instead, this seems to feed into what seems to be a growing moral panic surrounding the sexting phenomenon (although, see some interesting socio-legal news coming out of Australia today on this).

Inherently Brief

The ever-excellent Inherently Human blog produced a really helpful ’round up’ of recent stories relating to gender and sexuality from around the world.   Check it out here.

America Decides

Excitement is building as we count down the final hours to America deciding the next President of the United States.  Like many liberals, my preference for Obama is perhaps to be expected.  I have however – as I’ve often noted on this blog – found him to be something of a disappointment.  On national issues, he has been far too slow in taking the lead on key issues.  He used his political capital on healthcare reform but could have implemented better, clearer, more thought-through proposals than those he did.  LGBT campaigners are now rallying to his cause, but I’ve not forgotten the number of American LGBT lawyers and activists who  have repeatedly grumbled about his inaction over the last four years.  Yes, DADT has gone (and that took long enough), but there the Defense of Marriage still sits, and Obama has done little to stick his neck out on LGBT issues.

Of course, this view is not shared by all.  The Human Rights Campaign describes him as ‘the most pro-LGBT President in American history’ which is probably true, but he wasn’t up against much competition.

Anyway, the late polls suggest he will squeak on in, and I suspect they’re right, although it’s been a while since I was over there to get a sense of the mood.   I would expect the Senate and House to end up more or less as they are now, with no change in control.  All of which means ‘more of the same’ for the next four years.

Beyond the Presidency

Whilst it is this national race which attracts most of the attention outside of the US, we should also consider a number of other races and votes that are taking place.  The first openly LGBT member of the Senate could be elected on Tuesday night with Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin.  The Democrat candidate has served in the House since 1999 so fingers crossed she has the profile to make the move to the Senate.

Questions of marriage equality will be on the ballot in Maryland, Maine and Washington and a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is up for the vote in Minnesota.

These ballot measures (kind of like several referenda at once) are an alien concept to Brits, but they involve significant amounts of money.  Take the State of California where the subject of ending the death penalty is up (Proposition 34).   $7,635,861 (around £4,700,000) has been raised by supporters of the repeal and $416,555 by opponents (we can therefore perhaps guess which way the vote will go).    To put that in some perspective, the Labour Party spent a total of just over £8 million at the last General election (and the Conservatives double that).

Another measure on the ballot in California (at least for those in LA County) is an additional measure (Measure B).  This measure will require that porn performers have to wear condoms in LA County during a shoot (and inevitably lead to the creation of ‘condom Police’ to inspect sets to make sure the law is being adhered to).  Here’s the full wording:

‘Shall an ordinance be adopted requiring producers of adult films to obtain a County public health permit, to require adult film performers to use condoms while engaged in sex acts, to provide proof of blood borne pathogen training course, to post permit and notices to performers, and making violations of the ordinance subject to civil fines and criminal charges?’

You can read more about the measure here.  The LA Times has been giving a lot of publicity to this measure, and seemingly seems to support the law-reform, at least based on their coverage and commentaries.  However, they’ve also recommended that people vote ‘no’ – suggesting that the reform is well meaning but ultimately un-enforcable (read their full explanation here).

The National Record:  Obama

Nonetheless, it’s the national record that remains the focus.  As much as I might find Obama’s record disappointing, his campaign website details a pretty comprehensive list of achievements during his four years:

STANDING UP FOR ALL FAMILIES

Affirmed his personal support for same-sex marriage
Opposed the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act and endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act, a legislative effort to repeal DOMA

EDUCATION AND YOUTH

Hosted the first-ever White House conference on bullying in schools to provide information from various government agencies on how kids, teens, young adults, parents, educators, and others in the community can prevent or stop bullying
Created the Inter-Agency Task Force on Bullying to tackle bullying in our schools, including bullying of LGBT youth
Recorded an “It Gets Better” video in support of LGBT youth facing bullying at school

HEALTH CARE

Signed the Affordable Care Act into law, expanding access to health care and critical preventive services
Extended hospital visitation and medical decision-making rights to LGBT patients and their partners Awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal to Janice Langbehn, a lesbian mother and activist whose story paved the way for the extending hospital visitation rights
Affirmed the administration’s commitment to creating an AIDS-free generation Included specific data on health needs of lesbian and bisexual women in the Health Resources and Services Administration’s “Women’s Health USA 2011” report for the first time Promoted equal access to quality health care by enabling searches for health plans with same-sex partner benefits on Healthcare.gov
Included proposals to improve LGBT Americans’ access to health care and provisions to continue the fight against HIV/AIDS in the administration’s 2013 federal budget proposal
Created a National Resource Center for LGBT seniors and awarded a grant to SAGE (Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual & Transgender Elders), supporting the first community center for LGBT seniors

JOBS AND THE ECONOMY

The administration worked to protect federal LGBT employees from workplace discrimination by adopting an equal-opportunity employment policy that includes both sexual orientation and gender identity
Ordered the federal government to extend key benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees Clarified the Family and Medical Leave Act to ensure family leave for LGBT employees who need to care for their children.
Set a precedent in hiring LGBT employees by appointing more openly LGBT administration officials than any other president in U.S. history Continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act

TRANS EQUALITY

Ended the Social Security Administration’s gender “no-match” letters and ensured that transgender Americans can receive passports that accurately reflect their gender identity
Established guidelines to help protect transgender federal employees from discrimination in the workplace
Established policy regarding the respectful delivery of health care to transgender veterans

HOUSING

Announced HUD’s new rule protecting against housing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity
Released America’s first comprehensive plan to prevent homelessness, including homelessness among LGBT youth Awarded a grant to the Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Community Center to work with LGBT foster youth

NATIONAL SECURITY

Ended “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” so gay and lesbian Americans can serve the country they love without hiding who they are Permitted military chaplains to officiate same-sex marriages where legal

INTERNATIONAL AND LGBT CITIZENS ABROAD

Ended the ban that prohibited people with HIV/AIDS from entering the United States Created the first-ever U.S. government strategy dedicated to combating human rights abuses against LGBT persons abroad
Made it clear the United States will use all the tools of American diplomacy to promote LGBT rights abroad
Fought for the rights of LGBT persons worldwide by co-sponsoring the first UN resolution focused solely on LGBT rights
Directed agencies working abroad to combat the criminalization of LGBT status
Directed the Departments of State and Homeland Security to ensure LGBT refugees and asylum-seekers have equal access to protection and assistance
Prevented the removal of sexual orientation from a UN resolution condemning extrajudicial killings Implemented a U.S. Agency for International Development policy to encourage contractors to implement and enforce non-discrimination policies for sexual orientation and gender identity 

So, that pretty much puts me in my place – but he’s not holding anything back from this list -recording a  video message, saying overseas agencies should ‘work’ against LGBT criminalisation are not ‘big’ policies (would a British national leader feel the need to record he’d made such a video?), but nor can they be dismissed.

The National Record:  Romney

I also took a look at the Romney campaign website.  He has a grid of all his ‘sub-groups’.  In the interests of fairness, here they are:

AMERICANS OF FAITH FOR ROMNEY
ASIAN AMERICANS & PACIFIC ISLANDERS FOR ROMNEY
BLACK LEADERSHIP COUNCIL
CATHOLICS FOR ROMNEY
EDUCATORS FOR ROMNEY
ENERGY VOTERS FOR ROMNEY
FARMERS & RANCHERS FOR ROMNEY
FORMER OBAMA SUPPORTERS FOR ROMNEY
HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS FOR ROMNEY
JEWISH AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY
JUNTOS CON ROMNEY LAWYERS FOR ROMNEY
POLISH AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY
PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONALS FOR ROMNEY ROMNEY
VOTERS FOR FREE ENTERPRISE SPORTSMEN FOR ROMNEY
VETERANS & MILITARY FAMILIES FOR ROMNEY
WOMEN FOR MITT
YOUNG AMERICANS FOR ROMNEY

Yep, I’m afraid there’s no LGBT group for Romney.  So, I took a look at the sight to make sure there wasn’t a section outlining some specific policies targeted at the LGBT population.  Nope, not one.

I’ll be live tweeting my way through the election results.  If you’re not already following me, you can find me at @lawandsexuality

A Moral Compass

The Times Higher carried an excellent piece this last week from Bruce Macfarlane of the University of Hong Kong.  He considered the rise of UK University campuses in various pasrt of the world – principally the Far East and the Middle East which may not necessarily share Western Academy ‘values’.  He concluded:   ‘Clearly, UK universities are under pressure to be both business-facing and public-spirited. But in taking their brand to emerging markets, they need to be aware that they are trading off the essence of what it means to be a university. This is about more than profit: it is about being trusted as a critic and conscience of society.’

His thoughts very much chime with my own developing thinking in this area.   I was recently told by someone I regard as a reliable source, the story of a senior HE manager (at a different Uni to my own) who was recently sent on a recruitment/development visit to one of these markets.  The individual concerned was somewhat worried by what might be regarded as a ‘culture clash’, and commented that they would be rather unlikely to see people of the same sex walking hand-in-hand in that particular country.  The senior manager concerned walked away from a deal, apparently suggesting that this was not a people they wished to do business with.  Even allowing for some exaggeration, it’s still a remarkable story.

HE managers are increasingly tasked with tapping in to these huge markets.  As a UK academic, I’m also all too aware that it is these international students that increasingly enable my salary to be paid each month.

Nonetheless, it’s not just the overseas campuses that Macfarlane highlights which we should be concerned about.   Distance learning, and bringing international students ‘on campus’ (i.e to the UK) also raises questions about ‘internationalisation’.  This should be a two-way street, but is often about positioning the UK product to be appealing internationally.  Goodbye Jiff, hello Ciff.

For law, this means less emphasis on human rights law (not a great seller in China or large sections of the Middle East), and more about commerce, trade and business law.  A subject like law and sexuality is simply not commercially viable for this audience.

What then for this subject?  Well, it means that it will be difficult for the subject to gain a massive influence amongst masters provision (except those courses which are designed for, and successfully attract home students) and will arguably also increase pressure on undergraduate module space as programmes are rationalised, and overheads trimmed.

Far from British education being sold internationally, there is something of a reverse flow going on when it comes to ‘values’.  It is surely – as Macfarlane suggests – a key aspect of a UK legal education that certain values and debates are also transmitted – be it human rights, legal theory or sexuality, yet this debate about what I would call ‘the soul’ of law programmes is rarely discussed.

The big players of the legal education market -which like to think of themselves as bastions of liberal legal education values – are nowhere in this debate.  Moreover, I wonder how many academics believe that someone in their own institution would similarly walk away from a deal rather than embrace a homophobic or sexist regime?

Given a choice between employment and unemployment, I also know which one I will choose.  Yet, I can’t help wondering whether I’ve been short-changed for my soul.