09:30 – 11:00: Session 4: Gender, Sexuality and Culture
Vaginal Practices Across Cultures: Expressions of Gender Inequalities?
Els Leye
ICRH – International Centre for Reproductive Health
Ghent University, Belgium
This paper explores the parallels between 3 vaginal practices, i.e. female genital mutilation, cosmetic vaginal surgeries and hymen reconstructions.
When considering the World Health Organisation’s definition of female genital mutilation, all procedures on female genitalia for non-medical reasons qualify as “female genital mutilation.” The World Health Organisation classifies these procedures into four types, including clitoridectomy (Type I), excision (Type II) and infibulation (Type III). Type IV includes “all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical reasons” including pricking, piercing, incising, stretching, introduction of harmful substances and cauterization.
This paper explores labia reduction for cosmetic reasons and hymen reconstructions, as well as female genital mutilation, from a health and human rights perspective, and argues that these procedures are performed to conform to certain norms regarding the female body and sexuality, and can all be considered as harmful cultural practices, i.e. Type 4 of female genital mutilation. In many (European) countries, specific criminal laws have been put in place to deal with female genital mutilation. Hymen reconstructions and cosmetic vaginal surgeries are legally accepted and are considered as normal medical practice. Based on qualitative research on the implementation of Belgian criminal law on female genital mutilation and the knowledge, attitudes and practices of Belgian gynecologists on female genital mutilation & vaginal surgeries, this paper will demonstrate that due to the lack of clarity regarding Type IV, health professionals struggle with vaginal practices performed for cultural and religious reason, such as hymen reconstructions and cosmetic vaginal surgeries.
Honour, Shame and Women’s Capabilities
Sophie Withaeckx
Department of Philosophy and Moral Sciences
Centre for Gender and Diversity – RHEA
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
The concept of honour-related violence refers to a variety of violent practices, aimed to protect family honour and to purify violated honour. The central notions of ‘honour’ and ‘shame’, which prescribe gendered codes of conduct for men and women, are often linked to a vision on women as male property, disposing of no autonomy and functioning as the embodiment of ‘male honour’ and reputation. Literature on honour-related violence is indeed rife with descriptions of girls and women who are, in the name of family honour, forced to take on a traditional female role and to forsake their individual sexual freedom.
Based on empirical research among migrant women in Belgium and inspired by Martha Nussbaum’s capability approach, this paper wants to explore how we can assess migrant women’s choice and agency in their uses and interpretations of the notions of ‘honour’ and ‘shame.’ While at first glance, the honour/shame-complex seems indeed to imply a threat to women’s capabilities, the women’s narratives show a plurality of sometimes contradictory interpretations of ‘honour.’ The notions of ‘honour’ and ‘shame’ appear to be used by some women as guidelines within their own system of morality, which does impose restrictions on their sexual behaviour, but cannot straightforwardly be reduced to male coercion. The occurrence of violence appears then to be contingent on political and socio-economic factors rather than on the pre-eminence of the notion of ‘honour.’ It is suggested therefore that rather than taking cultural notions of ‘honour’ as sole focus, analyses of violence against migrant women should take into account the context wherein unequal gendered power relations and misogynist interpretations of culture are formed and sustained. This context should not only include migrant families, but also the state as actors which bear responsibility in enhancing or undermining women’s capabilities.
A Feminist Anthropological Perspective on Harmful Cultural Practices and Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Rights
Chia Longman
Centre for Intercultural Communication and Interaction
Research Unit Culture, Gender, Diversity
Ghent University, Belgium
‘Harmful cultural (sometimes ‘traditional’) practices’ is a term increasingly employed in the last three decades by organizations working within a human rights framework to refer to certain discriminatory practices against women in the South, especially in Africa and Asia. In UN policy documents such practices are presumed to reflect shared values and beliefs that span generations and are tied to ‘cultural traditions’ of gender inequality which imply a violation of women’s rights to ‘health, life, dignity and personal integrity.’ A wide range of practices has been labeled as harmful cultural practices, many of which relate to the control over women’s reproduction and sexuality, including female genital ‘mutilation’, traditional birth practices; son preference, prenatal sex selection and female infanticide, etc. On the international agenda, growing attention to HCPs has evolved from a limited health perspective to a human rights perspective in which ‘personal’ issues have become politicized, relating violence, embodiment, and women’s sexuality to structural gender inequality. Yet Third-world feminist and postcolonial scholars are increasingly critical of the way these politics (re)produce an ‘average oppressed third world woman’ devoid of agency and subjectivity. From a radical feminist perspective, then again, Sheila Jeffreys in Beauty and Misogyny (2006), provokingly argues that western beauty practices such as make-up, high heels and cosmetic surgery should similarly be seen as damaging to women and clearly fit the UN definition of HCPs. In this paper, I question the viability of the notion of harmful cultural practices from the perspective of (feminist) anthropology. Can ‘western’ beauty practices be analyzed or understood as HCPs, and/or are cross-cultural comparisons possible? Through which theoretical lenses on gender, equality, freedom, embodiment, subjectivity, agency and power can HCPs be understood and assessed?
11:00 – 11:30: Coffee break
11:30 – 13:00: Session 5: Sexuality, Citizenship and Pathology
Criminalisation of Clients and the New Moralism
Nina Persak
Institute for Criminal-Law Ethics and Criminology (CrimInstitute)
Ljubljana, Slovenia
In order to reduce the demand for prostitution and in turn the prostitution itself, the Swedish model of regulation of prostitution focuses on the criminalisation of clients of. In Belgium, similar ideas have been recently voiced by a political party, proponents of which consider, inter alia, prostitution as such to be violence towards women. The paper will reflect upon this conception of prostitution and the proposed solution to the “prostitution problem”, and examine its underlying legal philosophical and criminological issues. It shall take a closer look at the discourse of the advocates of such criminalisation and unpack their arguments. Are they really harm-based, as they purport to be? Which value or legal good are they protecting? What lies behind the caring language, the language of protection and threat? Who are we protecting anyway? Do such ideas really automatically lead to the reduction of violence or rather add to it? Do they reinstate legal moralism as a legitimate ground for criminal-law prohibition? Moreover, can all “socially undesirable” conduct be legitimately criminalised in a modern criminal legal system and, in particular, are questions of sexual morality between consenting adults legitimately in the realm of state or public intervention through criminal law? The paper shall tackle these questions, as well as address some important principled, legal and ethical objections and limitations to such a criminalisation, which should be considered prior to any legislative undertaking.
The Client Laid … (Bare): Legal and Medical Professions and the Regulation of Sexual Relationships with the Patient/Client
Mark Thomas
School of Law
Queensland University of Technology, Australia
‘Dream case. Isn’t it? High profile. Splashy. Big closing.
Get the not guilty. Have sex with the client. It’s all there.’
Denny Crane: Boston Legal
For the fictional US attorney, Denny Crane, sex with the client is, it seems, a routine (and highly desirable) experience.
In terms of the regulation and discipline of medical practitioners, it is assumed by the relevant tribunals that the maintenance of a sexual relationship with a patient is prima facie a breach of the professional standards. Although the courts and tribunals which discipline medical practitioners no longer apply the rigid morality of the oft-cited De Gregory, accepting that sexual mores have undergone considerable change since that case, suspension or striking off remain the most frequent disciplinary responses to medical practitioners (and other health professionals) who have affairs with patients, with the gravamen of the impugned conduct deriving not so much from any presumed intimacy inherent in the doctor patient relationship, but in the abuse of trust, and the exploitation of the (presumed) asymmetric power inherent in the doctor-patient relationship, against which mere consensuality finds no traction.
The contention that the relationship was relevantly consensual ignores the feature that it arose out of the inherently unequal professional relationship between doctor and patient, and was in this case additionally characterized by the aspect of exploitation found by the Tribunal.
Despite the similarity between the doctor-patient and the lawyer-client relationship insofar as the presence of trust and the distribution of power are concerned, no such presupposition – that embarking on a sexual relationship with a client marks out inappropriate professional conduct on the part of a lawyer – exists for lawyers. In Lamb, the High Court of Australia affirmed the decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which had admitted Lamb as a Barrister in the face of a number of criticisms of his conduct, among which had been that he had had extra-marital intercourse with a client after her decree absolute, but prior to the settlement of the property issues arising from the now-dissolved marriage. Notwithstanding the acting Chief Justice’s use of the term “unprofessional conduct” to describe Lamb’s behaviour (or even Windeyer’s J characterisation of it as “reprehensible”), neither the Full Court nor the High Court had considered the conduct to be disentitling in terms of admission to the Bar.
Conventionally, the distinction between the proscription on sexual relationships between medical practitioners and their patients and the more liberal approach taken to lawyers having sex with their clients lies in the difference in the physical aspects of the relationships: medical practitioners routinely require their patients to undress, and routinely touch patients in the course of diagnosis. It would be extraordinarily rare for the taking of instructions or the provision of legal advice to require such intimacy.
The problem (and it is a problem) is that the professional codes which govern relationships between professionals and clients are not generally developed by way of close ethical analysis, nor do they generally assert specific ethical frameworks against which conduct is assessed. Rather, they reflect a series of undemonstrated and often paternalistic assumptions which are almost certainly no longer reflective of the relationship which they once (might have) described. This paper seeks to deconstruct the relationships between medical treating and diagnosing professions (particularly medical practitioners, psychiatrists and psychologists) and their patients and lawyer and their clients as they are mapped by the respective medical and legal disciplinary frameworks.
The Scope and Limitations of Sexual Citizenship in Theorising the Cultural Worlds of Non-heteronormative Communities
Allison Moore
Department of Social and Psychological Sciences
Edge Hill University, UK
Theories of sexual citizenship not only expose the exclusivity of traditional definitions of citizenship, they also problematise the public / private dichotomy and the relationship between notions of citizenship constructed in the public sphere and their impact – or otherwise – on people’s experiences in the private sphere. However, this paper will argue that, whilst there is much that is attractive in theories of sexual citizenship, particularly the expansion of citizenship into areas previously excluded because they existed in the private realm, it is not without its limitations. Although discourses of sexual citizenship are useful in exposing the exclusivity of traditional definitions of citizenship and in providing a benchmark against which equality / inequality can be measured, they remain partial and limited in a number of ways. In part, this is due to their concentration on sexuality at the expense of other social divisions that shape experiences of citizenship, as well as a universalising tendency to conflate ‘lesbians’ and ‘gay men’ under the category of sexual citizenship, which fails to recognise that lesbians, as women, will experience their citizenship status differently to gay men and also means that theories of sexual citizenship have little to offer in understanding and making sense of the experiences of other non-heteronormative sexualities. To address some of these limitations, this paper utilises the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Norbert Elias and, in so doing, introduces a cultural dimension to existing social constructionist theories of sexuality. Both theorists, in different ways, transcend the public/private and subjective/objective divides and both provide useful tools for analysing the internalised subjective worlds of individuals, something that existing theories of sexual citizenship fail to do. The key concepts that are utilised in this paper are practice, field, capital (Bourdieu), habitus (Bourdieu & Elias) and figuration (Elias).
13:00 – 14:00: Lunch break
14:00 – 15:30: Discussion Session 6: Subjectivity, Agency and Sexuality
Considerations for the Ethical Possibilities of Queer and Feminist Activist Spaces
Kate O’Halloran
Department of Gender and Cultural Studies – SOPHI
The University of Sidney, Australia
This paper deals with one of the key concerns of the ‘Whither Sexual Ethics and Politics?’ conference, namely, it explores the possibility of finding new philosophical and ethical ways for thinking about sexuality. To first define ethics, this paper draws on Daniel Smith’s (2003) definition. Smith argues that the ‘fundamental question of ethics is ‘What can I do?’ Given my degree of power, what are my capabilities and capacities? How can I come into active possession of my power?’ (Smith 2003, 62, emphasis in the original)
Taking Smith’s definition, I question the possibility for there to be a specifically ‘feminist’ or ‘queer’ ethics. I suggest, for example, that ‘queer’ activist cultures are often represented in misleading and/or homogenising ways. To formulate a sufficiently complex idea of what a ‘queer’ (activist) ethics might mean, there must be an acknowledgement of the different types of tensions and debates that currently cloud these communities. These tensions include ongoing debates around the deployment of identity categories, the ‘sex wars’ (including discussions around the decriminilisation of sex work), and continuing withdrawal from some members of the community due to perceptions of exclusion or political inadequacy.
My discussion will centre on recent examples of controversy around activist events or spaces such as the recent global wave of ‘SlutWalks’ (focusing Sydney and Berlin events in particular) and 2011’s ‘Feminist Futures’ conferences in Melbourne, Australia. I discuss the identificatory pull of activist-run spaces and the possibility that they induce a politics of victimisation that the queer community has recently tried to move away from.
Ethical Sex and Young People as Active Sexual Citizens
Moira Carmody
Centre for Educational Research
University of Western Sydney, Australia
Young people are often constructed in cultural and policy discourses as a potential threat to citizenship, in need of training and discipline by adults and the state or ethical reconstruction before they can be accepted into the citizenship fold. This is particularly so in relation to issues of sexual desire and the expression of an active sexuality or sexual assault. A cultural approach to citizenship or a difference centred approach (Moosa – Mitha 2005) is concerned with a need to develop an inclusive citizenship that respects ‘difference.’ This approach focuses on the lived experiences of citizenship and the practices of exclusion and discrimination that mediate citizen’s membership and political voice (Hart 2009). These theoretical approaches are useful in considering how young people can be recognised as subjects in their own right and how they can be recognised as different citizens with their own voices and decision making abilities.
In this paper, I will discuss the research and educational practice I have been conducting since 1999 with young women and men aged 16-25 on building ethical and respectful relationships in casual and ongoing sexual relationships. The Sex + Ethics Violence Prevention Program I have developed is underpinned by Foucault’s ideas about ethical sexual subjectivity. The program has to date been run with 200 culturally, socio-economically and sexually diverse young people in Australia and New Zealand. Pre, post and 5 month follow up evaluations reveal that young people embrace the notions of ethical subjectivity and are applying them frequently in their intimate relationships, friendship groups and communities. Their sense of belonging and of relationships of mutuality and respect are evident in their narratives. These findings suggest that recognising and engaging with young people on a basis of respect and recognising difference
SlutWalks: Talking the Talk, and Walking the Walk?
Johanna Wagner
English Studies
Ghent University, Belgium
This spring North America and the UK saw “SlutWalks” pop up in various cities in response to comments by a police officer (Michael Sanguinetti) in Toronto, Canada, who, while giving a lecture on safety at Osgoode Hall Law School, stated that one way women could avoid being victimized or raped is by not dressing “like sluts.” Feminists and women’s activists on campus began an immediate response, and with the help of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media, spread the word around the globe. Walks were staged in Toronto and other Canadian cities, the US (Boston for one), Europe, the UK, and Australia thus far.
SlutWalks are intended to protest the unspoken assumption that rape victims are responsible for their own rapes (as implicitly stated by officer Sanguinetti); however, the verbiage and visual images many have seen during the walks have made them quite controversial. For example, although the women were asked to dress like “regular women” in the Toronto walk, many of them took on the garb of what they visualize as “sluts” for shock value, to demonstrate their freedom of dress, etc. Other feminists/activists have a problem with both visual and verbal in the walks, finding nothing of merit to come about by embracing the term “slut.”
The questions posed in this roundtable will be of the like: How best can we fight against rape? What are the ethical risks we take in mixing messages about rape for media attention? In calling women “sluts” voluntarily? How can our voices be heard politically? Should we be even more graphic or shocking? Do marches such as these, which are seen as “women’s issues” and attended by mostly or almost all women, have any affect on the general public? In what ways? What is the fine line between attempting to prevent, and taking responsibility for a crime like rape? How do we show the difference? Are we already working on dangerous ground when we suggest women can “prevent” rape? Should prevention workshops and seminars about rape (such as the one on the Toronto campus) be aimed only at women? At men? How do we interpret these marches in the West while rape is being used as a weapon of war even as we speak in other parts of the world?
With various feminisms acting disparately and simultaneously in the twenty-first century, there should be a lively discussion from various feminist camps on this issue.
15:30 – 16:00: Coffee break
16:00 – 17:00: Session 7: Sexual Politics
Socialism and Homophobia, Two Sides of the Same Coin? A Cuban Case Study
Jasper Rommel
Center for Ethics and Value Inquiry – CEVI
Ghent University, Belgium
Marx and Engels, founding fathers of the socialist theory, have hardly written on homosexuality. However, the few references they made on the subject were quite homophobic. Countries referring to Marxism as for their state ideology, like the Soviet Union or China, were certainly no homosexual paradises. There was a short period of liberation for gays in the Soviet Union during the 20’s, but together with other sexual progressive measures this was turned back in the Stalin era during the 30’s. Homosexuality became illegal again, which would not change until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
But the socialist country that had the worst image on dealing with homosexuality was Cuba. The books of Reinaldo Arenas and documentaries such as Improper Conduct gained lots of attention abroad and gave Cuba an image in the West of a homophobic inferno for homosexuals. Although these examples were not objective or historically correct, there’s no doubt that homophobia and discrimination against homosexuals was institutionalized in the 60’s until mid 70’s.
In this paper I search the historical roots of homophobia in socialist Cuba. As the historical and cultural frame makes clear, it’s not (only) socialism that is to blame. The next chapters deal with the evolution of government policy on homosexuality: from institutionalized homophobia and repression against homosexuals until the mid 70’s, over armed peace and tolerance until the 90’s and finally towards an emancipation discourse with the movie Fresa y Chocolate (1993) as a symbolic turning point.
The Sexual Norm (1944-1989)
Rumyana Taneva Georgieva
Sofia University
Sofia, Bulgaria
Our aim was to investigate the existing discourse on sexuality in the years of the former Communist regime in Bulgaria (1944-1989). We analyzed articles in popular journals in order to reconstruct the attitudes towards the topic in question
The focus of the communist regime on the woman in the 50’s followed the notion that women are most oppressed since they – as housewives – lacked access to the labor market. In order to make the woman more visible in the workplace were created numerous posters showing women in factories, schools, laboratories, etc. All articles at that time presented stories of successful working women. Soon after followed a significant decrease in the number of live births and the party leaders had to turn their heads to promoting motherhood and child raising among women of labor. This opened the door to shy discussions of female sexuality in order to explain infertility, strictly bound to the female body solely. When love was discussed, sexuality was excluded from the horizon and the ideal of comradeship indulged the couple to be more passionate towards the society instead of each other. In the 60’s and 70’s the topics begin to change – sexology was slowly introduced to the audience and several articles were published on male impotence. Still, love remained partially desexualized. In the whole investigated period we found only one article, devoted to the sexual desire of the woman, called “The cold woman” and needless to say the article presented the story of a “frigid” wife who would not share intimate moments with her husband. The tone of article was not compassionate but instead accusatory and blaming the woman for worsening the family climate.
In the years before the crash of the regime in 1989 the dynamics changed dramatically and the discourses on sexuality began to multiply.
