As an aesthetic and ideological sociosexual interpretation, gender serves regulatory and oppressive functions such as shaping what is sexually acceptable, pushing towards hegemony, punishing subversion of the sexual and/or affective scripts, or regulating access to acts of self-love and self-affirmation – insofar as such practices could make room for new forms of understanding and/or spiritually connected pleasure outside of the boundaries of the system. We live in a time where flirting rituals have become more diverse, yet arguably simplistic. However, eternal questions remain unanswered. What is sexual subjectivity? What is needed to have (satisfactory) sex, both in terms of material objects and bodily artefacts/configurations? Which role is sex supposed to play in human lives and relationships?
Discursive studies and activism have placed sexuality and other areas of intimacy in a central position in debates around (dis)ability and (dys)function in ways that sometime end up in cynical positions eventually legitimating mainstream views on sexuality under masculinist, ableist, or ageist patterns of what constitutes normal or desirable sexual intercourse. Such views canonise genitality over other bodily dimensions, physicality over psychoemotional connectedness and spirituality, penetration over other kinds of physical intimacy, and traditional couple intercourse over other kinds of physical intimacy contexts, such as hugging or touching as signs of friendship or familial affection. A broader, more inclusive framework is required as it does potentially allow for new, revolutionary research questions on intersectional experiences of sexuality to emerge.
Feminist psychiatrist and psychologist Elisabet Tasa-Vinyals tackles some of the contemporary problematic points in the views on bodies, sexualities, and pleasures from an intersectional perspective considering key bodily prediscoursive facticities such as sex/gender, ethnicity, and (dis)ability, along with their links with processes that our cultures tend to problematise, such as aging or sickening. As the text brilliantly stretches the complexity of the conceptualisation of (dys)functionality within the medical mapping of healthiness and sickness, it carefully points out the potentialities and limitations of such interpretations of corporeality as tools intended to disentangle pleasure, particularly in non-normative bodies.
Table of Contents
1. Body image
2. Sex spectrum
3. Functional spectrum
4. Antropomorphological spectrum
5. Medical and commercial narratives of body, sex, and pleasure
6. Conclusion: Legitimacy and subversion of the sexual/affective script
Objectives & Topics
This essay aims to critically analyze the intersectional construction of bodies, sexualities, and pleasures within Western medical and sociocultural frameworks. Using an intersectional perspective, the author examines how gender, ethnicity, and disability are problematized by societal norms and market forces, ultimately questioning the legitimacy of normative sexual scripts.
- Critique of medicalization and pathologization of bodies
- Intersectional perspectives on gender and (dis)ability
- Capitalist and commercial influences on sexual norms
- Body image and sociocultural categorizations
- Subversion of traditional sexual/affective scripts
Excerpt from the book
Sex spectrum
While it is important not to corrupt this discursive line into simplistic constructionism, the binary categorisation of sex/gender in terms of male/female (masculinity/femininity) can scientifically be read as a simplistic and inaccurate interpretation of the bodily reality concerning sexual difference (Ainsworth 2015). Some argue that sex itself is in fact a construct rising from the need to classify the population variability in terms of chromosomes, tissues, internal and external organs (anatomy), hormones, and sexual expression/gender identity.
In this scenario, rather than two separate categories, the expression of sex in the population is seen as a spectrum characterised by a variety of genetic configurations (XX, XY, XO, and various trisomies and mosaicisms), anatomies (clitoris, penis, vaginas, uteruses, gonads), endocrine functions, and expressions of sexually dysmorphic characteristics (body shape, muscularity/adiposity, breasts). The concept of intersexuality does not currently have a consensual medical definition, which means that the concepts of male and female do neither (Intersex Society of North America, ISNA).
As a result, we cannot currently estimate the prevalence of intersex (“third sex”) conditions in the population, and as a result we cannot estimate the real proportion of male and female individuals either. However, if we consider sexual difference as a spectrum, it does in fact no longer make sense to talk about prevalence, since a population would then distribute along the continuum between what we would call “extreme femaleness” and “extreme maleness”. The assignment of sex at birth – again, please note that I use this expression here as merely descriptive – is one of the greatest performative acts and yet it could arguably be limiting in itself, since corpomaterially real as sex is, newborns’ sex/gender is supposed to be assigned in a categorical and not in a dimensional way, despite current biological understanding admitting the consideration of sex as a spectrum.
Summary of Chapters
Body image: Explains the construct of body image as a gap between physical reality and sociocultural representation, influenced by various identity factors.
Sex spectrum: Challenges the binary male/female classification by highlighting intersexuality and arguing for a dimensional model of biological sex.
Functional spectrum: Discusses the social construction of (dis)ability and how medical discourse labels individual bodies as normal or impaired based on societal norms.
Antropomorphological spectrum: Analyzes the use of BMI as a statistical and normative tool for categorization, questioning its health implications.
Medical and commercial narratives of body, sex, and pleasure: Examines how heteronormative frameworks and commercial interests shape public and private experiences of sexuality.
Conclusion: Legitimacy and subversion of the sexual/affective script: Synthesizes the critique of institutionalized knowledge and calls for a more inclusive, intersectional framework for sexuality research.
Keywords
Medicalization, Intersexuality, Intersectionality, Disability, Heteropatriarchy, Body Image, Sexuality, Sexual scripts, Corpomaterialism, Social model of disability, Capitalism, Gender, Pleasure, Normativity, Embodiment.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this academic paper?
The paper examines how Western society, through medical and sociocultural frameworks, constructs and regulates body image, sexuality, and pleasure, particularly focusing on how these concepts are problematized in non-normative bodies.
What are the primary thematic areas covered in the text?
The central themes include the medicalization of the body, the construction of sexual and functional spectra, the influence of capitalist market forces on identity, and the limitations of binary models regarding sex and disability.
What is the main research objective of this work?
The primary goal is to identify problematic points in how society views bodies and sexualities, urging for a more inclusive, intersectional perspective that moves beyond Western-centric, heteronormative, and ableist standards.
Which scientific approach does the author employ?
The author adopts an intersectional feminist and corpomaterialist approach, integrating critical disability studies and sociology to deconstruct the dominant medical discourses.
What key aspects are discussed in the main body of the work?
The main sections address the classification of physical and cognitive functionalities, the role of media in defining "normal" sexual behavior, and the commodification of intimacy in contemporary society.
Which keywords characterize the work's theoretical foundation?
Key terms include Medicalization, Intersectionality, Heteropatriarchy, Corpomaterialism, and the Social Model of Disability.
How does the author define the "Sex spectrum"?
The author argues against binary male/female categorizations, suggesting that biological sex should be understood as a spectrum characterized by genetic, anatomical, and endocrine variance.
What role does the "commercial framework" play in the author's analysis?
The author contends that commercial frameworks and capitalist ideologies dictate what is considered "satisfactory" or "normal" sex, often pressuring individuals to modify their bodies to fit artificial aesthetic and medical standards.
How does the text critique the "social model of disability"?
The author argues that while the social model of disability provided important insights, it often mirrored the very white, male, heterosexual norms it initially sought to challenge, thereby failing to capture the full scope of intersectional experiences.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Elisabet Tasa-Vinyals (Autor:in), 2017, Sex and Sensitivity. Body, Function, and Ability in the (Wonder)land of Medicalization, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/1440789
