Workshop on Sexuality. Part II
We’ll continue by trying to figure out how “workshop sexuality” differs from other forms of sexuality. In Part I, we concluded that workshops are structured around a didactic framework, follow a plan, and prescribe certain rules and manners. For this reason, the claim that workshops break social norms is only partially true. As is so often the case, breaking with norms here does not simply mean freedom from norms, but rather goes hand in hand with a new norm. In our society, for example, it is “normal” in the sense of “common” for sex to take place largely nonverbally. And by this we do not mean the absence of dirty talk, but rather an honest and respectful exchange about what one likes and what one does not. In sex-positive workshops, on the other hand, clear communication is the top priority. It is proper, before engaging in intimate interactions (which can include even a greeting hug), not only to seek the other person’s consent but also to communicate with one another throughout the experience in a way that respects everyone’s boundaries and facilitates the best-case scenarios for desired experiences. This norm goes hand in hand with establishing one’s own language codes. A vacation fling will likely be surprised if, in response to their rejection, you say, “Thank you for respecting your boundaries.” In the context of workshop sexuality, this is standard practice.
Standards, standardization, and normalization are double-edged; they can both hinder and enable—moreover, one should actually imagine them not as swords but as twisted pretzels: it is only through restriction that greater freedom can emerge; greater freedom leads to new restrictions. Loopyloop. >> Anna Mense, for example , points out a potential twisted trap inherent in the workshop standard:
“The call to express desires and emotional states could be an opportunity to break through taboo-ridden linguistic cultures and initiate a transparent discourse. However, it could also foster a culture of exposure in which people carelessly share personal information in a way that leaves them vulnerable and at a disadvantage. For example, sharing intimate information with a community could lead to the creation of a dependent reward-and-rescue structure in which people are socially rewarded for revealing their vulnerable selves. […] Baring one’s soul in conversation does not necessarily foster intimacy; rather, it could lead to a lack of distance that brings people into an inappropriate closeness with one another.”
Workshop sexuality thus shares a crucial commonality with the other forms of sexuality mentioned so far, all of which, in turn, differ from forms of radically anarchist sexuality. For whether the argument is that one should talk about sex or not, in any case, something is being prescribed here one way or another, and a “normality” is being established. And that means attempting to remain as “clean” or in control as possible while dealing with something potentially risky, dangerous, dirty, or contaminating. Sex therapist Marty Klein sums it up this way: “‘Normal’ means trying to set boundaries around sex so that it can’t break out, gain too much power, or hurt others. ‘Normal’ means trying to make sex small enough that it doesn’t threaten us or demand that we grow.” ‘Normal’ means recognizing that eroticism is rooted in the unconscious: a cluttered little dumping ground and junk yard.”
Part III will explore further double-edged pretzel-related issues...
