Invisible Genitalia: A Look Beneath the Suit and Skirt

The mainstream porn industry relies on a rigid set of constraints. In “Calling the Shots” Tristan Taormino identifies these as “men and women as one-dimensional objects—where men are sexual robots and women are vehicles for their pleasure” (261). The arrangement takes advantage of presupposed social constructions such as: men are dominant and women are submissive; men receive the gratification while women give it; and finally—men have a penis and women have a vagina. This can be referred to as the dyadic imaginary of genitalia. In the “Dyadic Imaginary” by Danielle Hidalgo et al, the dyadic imaginary is “an ideology or hegemonic concept that renders non-dyadic intimate and sexual relationship forms invisible and unnatural” (173). In the same way “non-dyadic” sexual relationships are considered “unnatural” so too are non-dyadic genitalia in that the dyadic imaginary of genitalia renders the possibility of a man having a vagina or a women having a penis invisible. Therefore, when society views both men and women clothed, they are projected with dyadic genitalia regardless of his or her true genitalia.

If a person with non-dyadic genitalia is viewed in the nude, the individual is labeled as “unnatural.” In Sherilyn Connelly’s piece “The Big Reveal” Connelly details a scene from a 1984 “straight” porn entitled L’Amour in which two straight males (Harry and Jaime) are engaging in the mainstream porn template by receiving sexual gratification from two women—Ivory and Racheal. As the scene unfolds, “Jaime and Racheal fuck as Ivory continues to blow Harry… [then] Ivory stands in front of Harry, lifts her skirt to reveal a Dirk Diggler-esque penis” (76). Up until the actual reveal of Ivory’s genitalia, the viewer of the porno as well as the male actors attach a vagina to Ivory. Even through the textual representation of the pornography, Ivory’s genitalia is projected as dyadic because she is referred to as a “she”; thus, the reader automatically applies the dyad to her genitalia establishing her non-dyadic genitalia as invisible. However, as stated above, once the non-dyadic genitalia is actually exposed, the individual is met with revulsion and treated as unnatural. Connelly reveals this reaction after Ivory shows her penis to Harry when “He and Jaime then rush out of the room, their pants literally around their ankles but their heteromasculinity intact” (76). The two men’s reaction occurs when the dyadic imaginary of genitalia is suddenly reversed. Surprisingly, as Connelly points out, Harry’s heteromasculinity stays “intact.” But how can this be true?

Upon identifying Ivory’s true genitalia, the dyadic imaginary of genitalia applies the male identity to Ivory to keep the dyad itself intact; therefore, Ivory is no longer a woman but a man because his genitalia says so. However, at the time of Harry’s oral sex with Ivory, the dyad had clearly identified Ivory as having a vagina, and thus, Harry’s heteromasculinity is safe because his sex act functioned with a woman and her dyadic imaginary of genitals. Conversely, if Harry engages in sex acts with Ivory once the dyad has assigned her with the male gender, Harry’s heterosexuality would then become homosexuality.

Pornography that operates outside of the mainstream constraints can become an effective tool for deconstructing the dyadic imaginary of genitalia; however, to accomplish this task, individuals with non-dyadic genitalia would have to display their genitalia from the very first scene. At the same time, the individual must maintain a strong genderqueer image. For example, if a women—who has a penis—displays her non-dyadic genitalia, but still advertises male physical features, the dyad will attach a male gender to the woman. However, a man who has a vagina and displays a strong representation of the male gender, while exposing his non-dyadic genitalia from the very beginning, will shatter the dyad through queered gender and queered genitalia. The combined queered image leaves no room for the dyadic imaginary of genitalia to operate within; thus, the dyad is deconstructed.

Social Identities

“When I think about how much of my life has revolved around men I can hardly imagine the great silence” (73). Katha Pollitt cannot escape the magnitude that males have on her. They obsess her time; they occupy her thoughts; they create her identity. Katha’s dilemma is not a biological construct; it is a social construct—the patriarchal society. In this case, the dominant male forces the subjugated female to identify herself only through him. His strengths are all her weaknesses, and all her strengths are merely compliments to his awesomeness. Katha’s identities are filtered through man’s socially constructed identity.

Now, Katha’s identity relies solely on another. Is this because “people are always telling women they can’t live without a man? Maybe they say this so often because something so visible untrue needs to be constantly reinforced” (79). I would argue yes. The unfortunate side effect of social constructions is their constant subtle reinforcement. Katha finds herself quite capable of self-reliance. She pays her bills; she feeds and clothes herself; she is a published author. However, her Driver’s Ed instructor, Ben, is her “boyfriend.”

His role dictates her identity. She is a woman who cannot drive; she has to rely on men. Thus, Ben must fill the dominant slot in Katha’s identity equation. He evaluates Katha, and every time she fails, he tells her what to do. She follows his commands, but still does it incorrectly. Katha’s constructed relationship with Ben is ultimately supposed to result in a payoff, a certificate, a license. Just like her marriage, Katha is being tested by a man to be deemed worthy. Her acceptance by a man leads to her social constructed identity—needing a man’s approval—to be neatly slotted in a feminine identity. (3-4)

Katha’s predicament reveals an insight into all social constructed identities. The identity is not created from the self; however, social identities are created by another’s projection of what our identity should be. Even Katha’s feminist identity, which we would assume severs her ties from the patriarchal society, is dependent on a demonized male figure. Katha can survive by herself, but her male created identity cannot.

The Masculemininity Narrative: Redefining Gender Fluidity's Voice

In Barbara Ann Cole’s “Gender, Narrative and Intersectionality” the problem is presented on how narrative can challenge gender normativity and binaries. Cole writes about the fragility of the marginalized narratives: “narratives, as well as having the potential to bring about change, can reaffirm existing conceptions and marginalizations and keep in place ‘existing structures of domination’” (570). These “structures of domination,” in this case gender normativity, can hijack genderqueer narratives and assert an identity that fits within the gender binary of masculine (male) or feminine (female). This theory is discussed in Leila Rupp et al’s “Drag Queens and Drag Kings: The Difference Gender Makes” when they write, “Some scholars view drag queens as primarily reinforcing dominant assumptions about… gender presentation and sexual desire because they appropriate gender displays associated with traditional femininity and institutionalized heterosexuality” (277). In this case, the scholars referenced are the “structure of domination” that is hijacking non-normative gender narratives and re-ordering them to fit into the normative sexual power structure of masculine and feminine. This does not remain the case through Rupp’s case study in that the narrative of the kings and queens is accurately represented through their live shows. Cole discusses this process as the “relationship between the researcher and researched is claimed to be one of the strengths of narrative in that it represents, in part, the ‘voice’ of the ‘other’ person” (Cole 570). Furthermore, the king and queens enact this process during the live shows with their audience; their performances (conducting in front of a live crowd) place them in a researchable/dissectible position for the audience, who can choose to either hijack the narrative, or they can choose to “voice” the non-normative narrative of the “other” (genderqueer). Although the existing sexual structure of power attempts to restrict non-normative gender into binaries of masculine or feminine, genderqueer narratives can redirect power and challenge binaries through gender fluidity and repurposing.

 The genderqueer performances employ a variety of tactics to create the gender fluidity narrative. In one such performance “R.V. changed out of drag on stage… transforming himself from woman to man. And… Kylie stripping entirely to ‘Queen of the Night’, leaving the audience with a contrast between her blond wig, makeup, high heels, and well-hung body” (Rupp 286). These physical narratives redefine gender binaries by displaying different stages of gender transitions; this process creates the gender fluidity that challenges the normative system. The effects of genderqueer performances were evident on the audience when “one gay man concluded that the labels of ‘gay’ and ‘straight’, like ‘man’ and ‘woman’, just do not fit,” and another said, “it all kind of blends together a lot more so than maybe what we want to live in our normal daily lives” (289). In each case, the individuals had the gender binary narrative hijacked, and through a power reversal, had a rewritten sense of the overall gender narrative. The performances thus adopt a Foulcaudian sense of power by utilizing it as a process to restructure gender.

The gender binary exerts a power structure over sexuality through many hierarchies and narrative repurposing. However, power can always be viewed as a constantly changing process that can be redirected (in the case of gender) against the heteronormativity narrative. The use of gender fluidity is key to this process. Non-normative genders can blur the definitions that the binary system reinforces, and the narrative displayed by genderqueer performances does just that. However, the existing structure of power is constantly forcing non-normative narratives into compliance. The continued the success of gender fluidity relies on the genderqueer narrative to remain their narrative.

Critical Photo Essay

Want to find out about D2L's usability? Click the hyperlink! Desire 2 Learn
(You WILL have to download the presentation to hear the audio, and it has to be on a Mac (I don't know why (Sorry))). After you have download the presentation (you need PowerPoint), click "slideshow" and then "view from start" to experience the presentation properly.

The Female Stereotype and Oprah!!!

I have to say that I am a little confused about the reading choices for this week. I would expect to find these two pieces of writing in a class about women and gender studies (a minor I will be officially pursuing next semester). I feel that Jamieson was talking about 19^th and 20^th century women; I feel that her analysis falls short for the 21^st century reinvention of the “new woman.” I have met many women that not only engaged in open debate but they did so with much more competition than men. Her description reminded me of the quiet housewife who only whispered her stance as to not be bothersome. I did not understand much of this with the overarching theme of our class; however, I did enjoy the line that housewives were invariably the “storytellers” of the household. This skill effectively locked in their indispensable use in television.

The womanly role in television is a fascinating subject that has helped continue the stereotype. However, this role of the storyteller has evolved into just that: the woman’s story being told. Paradoxically, this has helped to reverse the stereotypes in certain ways and was likely an integral step in boosting women towards equality. In a strange way, the role of women in television has split into multiple uses. On the one hand, women are still exploited through television (via ads or shows/movies that use stereotypical roles). The scantily clad woman slowly reaches into a cooler full of beer; her voluptuous breasts are nearly popping out of her bikini as she firmly grasps the shaft/neck of a bottle of beer. She pulls it out of the ice bent over at an exact 90 degree angle as sweat glistens off of her perfectly smooth skin. I believe you are getting the picture; the Sexualization of the female body draws the attention of a male audience. Wysocki talks about the sexualzation of women in ads, but only a printed one out of a magazine. In this context, we lose the action that the woman enacts in a picture; however, we are allowed to “fill in” the situation (pursuant to McCloud’s ideas about comic book frames involving faces and situations being filled in by the individual). So it seems that watching the action unfold is purely physical stimulation; inversely, seeing an individual picture staged in the middle of a scene requests that the observer fills in the rest of the scenario using themselves.

Women have also used television to positively influence their outlook and reinforced their capabilities within our culture. Oprah is a great representation of the positive female movement on television. Not only is she extremely successful and rich, she has placed herself in an infallible position for women to emulate (power, success, and strength). This link will show a little parody about Oprah that admits her strength while exposing a male invented weakness. Warning! There is nudity and swearing, so enjoy!

The Writer | Reader | Writer Cycle of Fluidity

As I read Christian Kohl et al, I could not help but to start connecting the discussion of authors/readers (who can also be authors to the same text) to our very own blogger hierarchical writings. My blog, for example, is merely an extension of my analytical readings of theory for the week and I post at the top of writer/reader/writer chain. After my post has been submitted, the other students (reader/writers) analyze my analysis and make their own analysis on the subject. Their comments then become a further extension of what I had originally wrote. Thus, they have placed themselves in a position within the hierarchical writer/reader/writer formation. If a good discussion were to occur and each further submission to the chain were also extensions of previous comments, we will see a somewhat similar formation to that of Wiki documents (I will later introduce an experiment to see how this process works on Blogger under certain constraints); Kohl explains that “in principle all users have the same right to write to read” (Kohl 169).

As we progress further down the chain of literary events (in our class blogger assignments), the original content is absorbed and then transformed by each subsequent reader/writer. Kohl says, “[the] collaborative process of writing dissolve[s] the central intention of the author” (174)  Generally, these submissions transformations are not the intent of the original author, but the writing merits new directions and ways of thinking. In The Database and the Essay, Johndan Johnson talks about these transformations of ideas; he says, “like language… people can attempt to forge new connections in certain situations; they can connect objects together in various ways to shift meanings” (202).

The strange thing about this process is that it has a “cycle of literary life” when used in our Blogger assignments; the original writer becomes the reader (when reading other people’s comments) and can eventually become the writer again, but only under the pretense of a lower position of the literary hierarchy that was originally held by the original author. In other words, the original writer’s concepts have been repurposed (retaining some fragments of the original) by a new writer (the reader turned writer). The original author has to succumb to the new writer’s direction if he/she wishes to continue off of the new writer’s ideas. This process leaves traces of each writer’s contribution to the discussion as an author and as a reader. Kohl says that “the writing must function in absence of author and reader. The text as a unit carries the traces of all authors” (174). With this in mind, the hierarchy constantly renews itself as long as there are continued contributions to the ideas through writing comments.

I would like to take this idea and apply it to the comments to this post. The experiment will require multiple comments and would require each comment to feed off the previous one. In other words, there should be only one original comment and the subsequent comments should be replies to the previous one. In this experiment, I will comment more than once through the chain, but I am required (as I hope everyone else will abide by) to only repurpose the comment I have just read by rethinking and re-contributing to the chain. Think of it as a literary game of “telephone” and enjoy the comment string!

Infographic

Looking for a NRA handgun course? Click here!
The Infographic is up!