Abiertos shows hidden aspects of sexuality between women. Actions and attitudes which question the validity of gender categories and sexual orientation… Or on the other hand, those which question the sexual status of women due to their actions when in so-called liberal environment spaces.
Marisol Salanova* believes that more and more people are challenging normative discourse regarding sexuality since light is being shed on the socio-political interests which underpin such discourse. In the same way, the traditional family involves closed identities which foster a strong sense of heterocentrism. Foucault realised the connection between the forms that social organisation and our pleasures can take, explaining how regulating sexuality does not successfully repress sexual desire, but instead produces multiple sexualities, some of which constitute the norm and others which are subject to exclusion or marginalisation. The very categories of sexual orientation and gender identity which are created foster this control; practices such as homosexuality, anal or oral sex, sadomasochism…these end up being branded as “peripheral sexualities”, as Foucault referred to them.
Since Freud, sexuality has been defined as the processes through which the human subject is established in relation to others. We have begun breaking down notions whereby sexuality is defined according to genitalia, fuelled by the powerful pornographic industry where the major stars are the sexual organs, to the detriment of the rest of the body.
Toxic Lesbian has collaborated since 2005 with “liberal environment” spaces; with erotic stories, with people who define themselves as “swingers” or who merely frequent such places; with researchers who are developing a formal discourse in the academic field which seeks to help us understand these “deconstructive?” facts. It is this unique experience which, without claiming to know the full story or state anything with certainty, has allowed Toxic Lesbian to present Abiertos.
In “swinger” establishments, although consensual acts are not restricted, what is apparently clear is that female bisexuality is very common, but that “male bisexuality” has different boundaries which may lead to rejection both among men and women, as described in these contexts. In practice, some swinger women don’t appear to give much thought to their sexual orientation if their desire generally tends towards other women, and neither do they elaborate on their gender identity based on the way they interact with others; their pleasure and the many ways they achieve it is what governs the interlinked actions of the involved parties.
This attitude is in stark contrast with existing taboos and prejudices, which are both specific to lesbians and to society as a whole, and subject thousands of women to great tension and suffering, blaming them for their unacceptable orientation or gender identity.
What in this context do the concepts of “repression”, “perversion” or simply “blame” entail, and where do these leave lesbians who decide to include the term “homosexual” when defining their identity?
How can we explain these divergent paths?
*Cf. SALANOVA, M. Y CABAÑES E., De las tecnologías del yo al yo tecnológico: sobre la creatividad artística en la era de la cibercultura. Communication presented at the IV Academic Philosophical Society (SAF – Sociedad Académica de Filosofía) Congress, Universidad Complutense de Madrid. 4-6 February 2009