Objectification of Women and Role Acceptability

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Sinister History of Gay Conversion Therapy

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. Prior to its declassification as a mental health issue, electroconvulsive therapy was commonly thought to treat and eliminate homosexual behavior. Predominantly in the 1940's and 1950's, insane asylums were filled to the brim with the social deviants of the day. Addicts, masochists, alcoholics, homosexuals, and transvestites were the main occupants of these asylums. Homosexuals would be involuntarily admitted to these psychiatric facilities by their families with the hope that they would be cured of their "sexual illness".Not only could they not leave the asylum, but numerous forms of electrocution and torture were used on these people to "condition their behaviors". For the gay men in these places, the therapy was particularly barbaric.

Male patients would be presented with erotic photo slides in order to evoke a sexual response. Each time the patient reacted positively to the slides, an intense shock would be delivered directly to the patient's genitals. These shock treatments led to virtual castration and induced seizures which caused memory loss and nerve damage. Another major form of therapy for homosexuals was the lobotomy. The "ice pick lobotomy" as it was often called, involved the scraping away of the frontal lobes of the brain through the patients eye sockets. This was thought to diminish homosexual tendencies and cure severe mental health issues.

Dr. Walter Freeman is the man credited with the popularity of lobotomies during the 1940's and part of the 1950's. Of the thousands upon thousands of lobotomies he performed, nearly 40 percent were on homosexuals. Receivers of lobotomies, who were perfectly healthy before their treatments, lived the rest of their lives severely disabled with no hope for normality. By the 1950's, medications were being created that took the grunt work out of conversion therapy. Thorazine was a pill that had virtually the same effect as a lobotomy. The medication made its way through mental institutions and soon took the place of the surgical lobotomy by 1954.

The decision to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness occurred during the tail end of the Civil Rights Movements that took place during the 1950's-1970's. African-American rights movements followed by the women's and gay rights movements allowed cultural shifts to take place like never before. The majority of 21st century society is against the inhumane practice of conversion therapy. However, there are still those who find extreme displeasure with the idea of homosexuality. Organizations and groups across the world work to convert gay men and women to heterosexuality with forms of therapy like those discussed above. 

The Vice President of the United States is a well-known proponent of conversion therapy and has made it a large part of his platform. Many people believe that this will create normalization of the inhumane treatment of gay people. With the support of well-funded organizations and groups, the dark history of conversion therapy is once again coming to light.

Research:
 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-scot/shock-the-gay-away-secrets-of-early-gay-aversion-therapy-revealed_b_3497435.html

Sir Galahad and the Perilous Ladies of Castle Anthrax

I never considered applying sexuality to a Monty Python production before this class - but now that I have, I understand that you can apply a study of sex to literally anything. The Holy Grail is my absolute favorite, and my $12.99 digital copy proves it. When I considered how I might dissect a piece of this movie, I immediately thought of the scene in which Sir Galahad the Chaste is nearly seduced by a convent of “but eight score young blondes and brunettes, all between 16 and 19 and a half.”

Here is (most of) the scene for you to enjoy and reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0A5vzGMQr8

And here is the script for anybody who needs to read anything over: http://www.montypython.net/scripts/HG-castle-anthrax.php

The focus of the scene, and where it gets its hilarity, is on Galahad’s vow of chastity, and the flagrant desire the women of Castle Anthrax have for him, the first man they have seen in a very long time. One of the great boons that this scene bestows is that the women are written as sexual beings. Obviously not staying true to the historical era of the film’s setting, the depiction of women as having sexual needs could not be clearer - after a considerable time of not having a point of physical attraction, these women have grown lusty. I think one of the comical aspects of this scene is that the insatiability of this convent seems role-reversing by today’s standards and norms; one might accuse these women of thinking with their ovaries, so to speak.

However, their presentation does raise the question of whether or not these women, numbering between 150 and 160, have any desire to gratify one another over the course of their isolation. There is no textual hint of female-to-female attraction among these women. Being a movie written and directed by white British men in the 70s, it’s unlikely that it occurred to the production of the film that the women did not have to be heterosexual (although, of course, it does serve the joke to a degree that they are). This kind of heteronormativity is pretty replete throughout the scene (consider Launcelot’s defensive response to Galahad’s childish, accusatory “Bet you’re gay!”). I think it’s difficult to consider the boy-craziness of the women of Castle Anthrax as not stemming from a heteronormative place.

One aspect of the presentation of the ladies of Castle Anthrax that bothers me is that their sexuality is presented wholly as in service to Sir Galahad. It seems almost as though they only seek to gratify him, as they frequently cite “hospitality” and the accommodation of Galahad as their motives. This necessarily deprives them of some level of dignity and autonomy, as they leave up to Galahad what he might do with them when Dingo insists he may deal with them “as [he likes].”

I think that this theme of female lack of autonomy is shared with the heteronormative representation of the women. It seems as though, considering these two examples hand in hand, the women are presented as lacking the authority to initiate sexual encounters among themselves. They require, as they are shown, the active male to direct them in sexual encounters. This ideation does not fall onto the medieval setting of the film, but instead on the heteronormative culture that created this film in the 70s. And certainly we, today, share some of the same ideas that are present in this movie, and they may make themselves apparent in any of the media of our own contemporary culture.

Victorian Gender Inequality and Contemporary Racial Inequality

Although the history of sexuality may appear to be a niche area of historical study, the study of how sex and sexuality have changed throughout time can be applied to a larger framework that describes the history of social movements. Social movements seem to be dominating contemporary western culture, and while many of these social movements seem attempt to establish an individual identity, they are still heavily influence by other contemporary and historical social movements. A social issue that has continually dominated public and political debate is the ongoing controversy of racial tension and inequality within the United States. While the contemporary racial equality movements are usually linked to the influence of the Civil Rights Movement, current arguments to promote racial equality are similar to arguments made during gender equality movements during the Victorian Era.

Gender equality movements throughout history are usually motivated by the similar ideal that men and women should be treated as equals. Inequality typically stems from the idea that groups that are different from the majority, and this difference is what makes outlying groups inferior to the majority. This not only applies to gender inequality, but racial inequality as well. It would seem that the logical argument against inequality, therefore, is to eliminate the perception of difference and to instead highlight similarities between the groups. This is not the reasoning that connects contemporary racial equality movements with Victorian gender equality movements; instead, the argument that equality is achieved through the differences between social groups is what links these movements.

            The push for gender equality during the Victorian Era did not try to focus on the similarities of men and women to invalidate prejudice against women. Instead, it utilized the idea of gendered citizenship to highlight the fundamental differences between men and women. Due to the differences between men and women, it did not make sense for only men to hold positions of authority and political power, as they would not be able to empathize with the needs of women. While highlighting differences between social groups seems to be a counter-intuitive approach to equality, it proved to have success not only in the Victorian gender equality movement, but the contemporary racial equality movements as well. The fight for racial equality initially argued that racial prejudice is invalid due to the fact that race does not fundamentally change one person from another. The need to fight inequality through the highlight of similarities lead to the seemingly progressive mindset of learning “not to see color.” A more recent argument for racial equality, however, is not to eliminate the perception of difference, but instead to embrace and celebrate diversity between racial and ethnic groups. It is in this way that contemporary racial and Victorian gender equality movements are linked: they both strive to use diversity between social groups in order to promote the need for tolerance and equality. Both movements highlight the overall theme that being equal does not mean being similar, but instead means being able to recognize and embrace the differences between social groups and individuals. 

Sexuality/Gender Boundaries Between Antiquity and Modern Eras

                               Sexuality/Gender Boundaries Between Antiquity and Modern Eras

             In modern history, we use categorical terms like homosexual, queer, fag, bisexual, etc. to define someone who does not partake in heterosexual acts.  In ancient texts from Greek and Roman historians, modern historians have determined that homosexuality, with the categories that fall under the term, did not exist and sexuality was based off of activeness and passiveness.  The homosexual and bi categories run rampant in today’s society, defining people in negative and positive fashions based off of religious, cultural, political, personal, etc. interpretations of these categories as a whole.  Yet ancient society saw these acts as normal with the lack of definitions/categories.  The question posed by many historians in the field of sexuality, and by analysts of how modern sexuality plays a role in popular culture, is which way of thinking is better in terms of categories or lack of?  Is modern sexuality truly liberated? Were the ancient thoughts on sexuality by the Greeks and Romans better for certain individuals to express themselves sexually?  Overall, the views of sexuality today are more liberating in the sense of participation in homosexual and bisexual acts as a whole.  However, modern society is more restrictive than the ancient Greek’s and Roman’s society, based off of placing individuals in categories like homosexual and bisexual that define how they are supposed to act in society through gender and sexuality.

An example to summarize the example of restrictive modern categories would be an article from the Huffington Post called The Evolution of Ricky Rebel: From 90’s Boy Band Star to Bisexual Glam Rocker.  In the title alone, the implication of categories placed on the musician Ricky Rebel as bisexual allows the reader to form biased opinions that construe visions on how he acts, dresses, or represents himself in public.  During the interview, Ricky was asked what the most surprising aspect about the 90’s music industry to an outsider.  He replied, “At one point I got chastised by the label for wearing an outfit that got a couple guys (out of thousands of people) in the audience calling me a homophobic slur.” Ricky was punished for being himself, and was defined by slanderous terms that society ties individuals down to, in order define gender and sexuality as a whole.  The ancient Greek’s and Roman’s system was fundamentally different compared to ours in describing gender and sexuality.  In the Histories of Sexuality by Stephen Garton, he describes the one-sex model of male society used by the Greeks and Romans as seen in this quote, “Men could become feminized if they were passive rather than active, or if they were excessively active they could dissipate their energies.” (Garton 38). This shows that the lack of categorization in ancient times allowed for men, and even women, to make their own independent identity without the watchful eyes of the public trying to define them as something that they were not.  Ricky Rebel describes being bisexual in modern times as this, “Socially speaking, it’s a little more difficult to be accepted as bi. You’re not 100% gay or straight. I never felt like I belonged fully to any sexual “team.”  This quote summarizes modern sexuality today because it shows that definitions and categorizations enforces people to try to fit in, and stick to conformity based off of the fear of judgement from the outside world.  The solution to this issue is simple, we should keep adapting our liberated views on sexuality and gender by incorporating basic/productive ideas of sexuality from past societies like the Greeks and Romans. 

Works Cited

Podell, Michael “The Evolution of Ricky Rebel: From 90’s Boy Band Star to Bisexual Glam Rocker.” The Huffington Post 2/15/17: 1