Page 83 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 83
the pleasure to forbid pleasure
ure. A real place of sexual pleasure, defined as the male pleasure, and conse-
quently tolerated, has been the brothel. From this we can jump to the con-
clusion that a “problem of excessive sexuality”, represented by phantasms
of conservatives, is a “problem” since it concerns the female sexual pleas-
ure. All rhetoric concerning the “responsible attitude to sex” (this includes
of course an unconditional acceptance of the monogamy and a set of val-
ues attached to it) aims at “owners” of the particular reproductive organs,
“owners” of the uterus. As much as the feminist movements may be right
in their criticism of many aspects of inequality of women in a society, one
can, nevertheless, assert that the breaking point of the conservative fears is
the changed (and hopefully still changing) social role and status of wom-
en. Their fear was even aggravated by the appearance of the feminist move-
ments, which in the 1960s brought about also some radical demands in
an attempt to speed up the process of women’s emancipation. In the area
of (sexual) pleasure, therefore, appears to emerge a displacement of pre-
vious relations – instead of patriarchal legitimacy of sexual pleasure as a
male category. This displacement is furthermore illustrated by the fact that
the feminist discourse enters open pluralist concepts of society, which em-
brace the rights of all kinds of minorities and marginal social groups. This
explains why the feminist discourse is apprehended as a discourse of a so-
cial minority although women cannot be in real terms considered as a mi-
nority. The implementation of women’s rights, hence, clearly indicates and
instigates at the same time, a structural social change. Of course, this does
not involve an immediate collapse of the institution of family, the break-
down of morale and who knows what, which the conservatives claim. How-
ever, it implies shifts within these institutions, as well as a changing of their
position in the complete institutional environment. Consequentially, this
structural social change anticipates a change in the political organisation
of a society, thus complementing the changes in the sphere of economy. The
fact that in such a setting women may freely decide on the use of their re-
productive organs gains a huge threatening symbolic meaning in the eyes
of conservatives. From the very definition of conservatism follows an artic-
ulation of arguments that are projected into a never existing “stable times”
of an order, which has been founded on the interdiction of the female sex-
ual pleasure.
The conservative contrariety to sexual pleasure is therefore aimed
against the female sexual pleasure and not against pleasure in general, espe-
cially not against the kind of organisation of pleasure, as it supposedly ex-
81
ure. A real place of sexual pleasure, defined as the male pleasure, and conse-
quently tolerated, has been the brothel. From this we can jump to the con-
clusion that a “problem of excessive sexuality”, represented by phantasms
of conservatives, is a “problem” since it concerns the female sexual pleas-
ure. All rhetoric concerning the “responsible attitude to sex” (this includes
of course an unconditional acceptance of the monogamy and a set of val-
ues attached to it) aims at “owners” of the particular reproductive organs,
“owners” of the uterus. As much as the feminist movements may be right
in their criticism of many aspects of inequality of women in a society, one
can, nevertheless, assert that the breaking point of the conservative fears is
the changed (and hopefully still changing) social role and status of wom-
en. Their fear was even aggravated by the appearance of the feminist move-
ments, which in the 1960s brought about also some radical demands in
an attempt to speed up the process of women’s emancipation. In the area
of (sexual) pleasure, therefore, appears to emerge a displacement of pre-
vious relations – instead of patriarchal legitimacy of sexual pleasure as a
male category. This displacement is furthermore illustrated by the fact that
the feminist discourse enters open pluralist concepts of society, which em-
brace the rights of all kinds of minorities and marginal social groups. This
explains why the feminist discourse is apprehended as a discourse of a so-
cial minority although women cannot be in real terms considered as a mi-
nority. The implementation of women’s rights, hence, clearly indicates and
instigates at the same time, a structural social change. Of course, this does
not involve an immediate collapse of the institution of family, the break-
down of morale and who knows what, which the conservatives claim. How-
ever, it implies shifts within these institutions, as well as a changing of their
position in the complete institutional environment. Consequentially, this
structural social change anticipates a change in the political organisation
of a society, thus complementing the changes in the sphere of economy. The
fact that in such a setting women may freely decide on the use of their re-
productive organs gains a huge threatening symbolic meaning in the eyes
of conservatives. From the very definition of conservatism follows an artic-
ulation of arguments that are projected into a never existing “stable times”
of an order, which has been founded on the interdiction of the female sex-
ual pleasure.
The conservative contrariety to sexual pleasure is therefore aimed
against the female sexual pleasure and not against pleasure in general, espe-
cially not against the kind of organisation of pleasure, as it supposedly ex-
81
