Greetings! I wanted to share some thoughts, observations, and short summaries of some of the debates with everyone from Subtopic 4, as we conclude this e-forum on “Sexual Pleasure, Sexuality, and Rights.” 

Subtopic 4: Pleasure and Practice – A Summary

How can public health and safety be reconciled with talking about sexual pleasure? Moral absolutes, behavioral absolutes, and character absolutes are impossible to uphold and standardize – even under risk, fear, and danger. The problem is that programs try to make it so extreme that they fail to take into account the variability, flexibility, and ever-changing nature of how people negotiate their sexuality and experience pleasure- they also fail to take into account the variety of factors that tend to influence those things – and that those factors are also changing and different at any given point in someone’s life. Of course with public health programs, we have to have some guidance and standards, as well as generalizations, but when talking about something so individual and subjective, not to mention as uncomfortable, as sexual pleasure, we have far to go in creating spaces and practices that allow for this debate alongside the one for risk and danger.

Can public health and human rights frameworks work together? The public health framework and approach is easy and more applicable without reservations when talking about infectious diseases such as polio or malaria, or even initiatives such as blood safety. The public health model provides useful tools and solutions for these issues. However, it becomes more difficult to apply when talking about extending the public health approach to more contentious issues, such as sexual pleasure. Conservatives use the public health framework to equate health with morality. For example, conservatives promote abstinence-only education as the only available source of information on sexuality, in an effort to effect ‘behavior change’ among adolescents. The message being, you abstain from sex, you remain HIV-free, therefore, you are ‘healthy.’ Thus, morality is equated to health and we have a public health framework that is inevitably rendered useless because it is value-laden and uses the concept of a collective and public morality – of course, with conservatives as the ‘moral safeguards.’ 

Where do you draw the line between individual and public health rights? There are real consequences to adopting a public health framework without recognizing the limitations of it. If there is to be a right to sexual pleasure in the public health framework, then it becomes the responsibility of the state to provide it. So then, does that mean that government programs that fund HIV prevention work would have to make sure that people are sexually satisfied as a result of the prevention programs that they participate in? Does it mean that the government then becomes responsible for setting standards as to how sexual pleasure can be measured and defined? Can the state issue ID cards to sex workers as people who now work as a part of a ‘pleasure industry?’ Making the state the guardians of sexuality could have catastrophic results. As one participant noted, ‘Human activity and safety are at odds.’ If sexuality were to be considered as one of those things in which we have to engage in some risk management, just like in anything else we do, it might be easier to address the issue of sexual pleasure and integrate its principles in a more holistic (and realistic) manner.

Who legitimizes sexual pleasure? As one participant pointed out, pleasure is legitimate and is often promoted by restaurant promoters, beverage industries, and medical sciences. In fact, in many cases, ‘indulgence’ is seen as a good thing, where advertisers play off people’s desire to want to ‘indulge’ in something (whether it be in eating lots of ‘sinful foods’ or ‘indulging in drinks’ that will ultimately result in pleasure for the individual (whether that be a beautiful woman, money, status, or respect). The participant also pointed out how, similarly, the pleasure industry was criticized for playing off something so ‘private’ as someone’s sexual pleasure to turn a profit. Along the same lines, pleasure activists are given a lesser status in activist circles because the advocacy of spaces, ideas, policies, programs, etc., that promote consensual, pleasure-seeking behavior is considered to be an ‘illegitimate’ form of activism, if not paired with one of the more ‘legitimate’ issues. Why are we so quick to legitimize spaces for media and medicine, but when those same issues are represented in things such as sexuality education, we tend to use censorship? This requires a deeper study into our own inhibitions around discussing sexual pleasure and what influences us to think that pleasure is appropriate only in certain places. 

What kinds of examples exist on integrating principles of pleasure in practice? There have been several examples brought out by participants in the forum on some of the spaces that already integrate principles of pleasure in an affirmative manner into programs and policies. One participant commented on how their helpline approached pleasure from the perspective, “that the real pleasure is not in how to do it, how many times, or even how to find that magic button which turns her on; but more that if the above mentioned, (consensual, between adults, negotiated and respectful) are valued, that is what is truly pleasurable.” Another helpline example from the context in India highlighted how credibility for information on enhancing sexual pleasure is given to medical science; and since the introduction of a variety of drugs to enhance sexual pleasure have increased in the Indian market, one of the challenges in providing information that incorporated pleasure-affirming principles was to move away from the scientific, medical approach and provide information from a counselor’s point of view. In yet another example, one forum participant recounted the experience of facilitating a body mapping session with college girls in New Delhi, where they did not know what a ‘clitoris’ was in relation to their bodies. Facilitating spaces where women could learn more about their bodies is critical in developing health-seeking, pleasure-seeking, and risk management behavior. 

At the same time, we have to get more creative about how we address pleasure in our work. Again, how can we talk of ‘behavior change’ as an absolute? You may have all the information and understand all the risks; you may even use condoms the first 50 times. But there is nothing that says you will use it the 51st time. There are too many factors involved. Public health advocates get so concerned with scaring people and highlighting all the risks (as if the things you can do to remove the risks and dangers automatically mean you will experience pleasure), that we invalidate that pleasure –seeking behavior is acceptable. On the other hand, sexual rights advocates get so wrapped up in promoting sexual rights, they fail to see that it might open up public debate on what is under the state and provide for further regulation, rather than freedom. Where is the line? Is there a common ground? Are public rights always at the expense of individual rights? And are individual rights always at the expense of public ones? These are complicated questions – and the debates will never unanimously go one way or the other – nor should they. We can continue the dialogue and hope that as we implement solutions, we can modify them as we go along to make sure rights are being protected, promoted, and fulfilled to the best of the state and civil society’s abilities.

What Next? It has been an amazing two months of ideas, concepts, thoughts, discussions, questions, answers, communication, and engaging with the topic of sexual pleasure, sexuality, and rights. We will be taking the summaries of these discussions and producing a brief publication for wider dissemination in the South and Southeast Asia region in an effort to increase the dialogue around issues of sexual pleasure. It is our hope it will add to the body of literature on sexual pleasure and inform debates that will enhance the study and discussions around pleasure further. 

The second forum topic will be on "Sexuality and Censorship," scheduled to begin on Monday, January 16, 2006 and run through March 16, 2006. 

After this email, you will automatically be removed from the Sexual Pleasure, Sexuality, and Rights e-group. If you wish to join the "Sexuality and Censorship" e-forum, please send an email to neha@tarshi.net to confirm your participation with "subscribe censorship" in the subject line and you will automatically be added to the second e-forum discussion on January 16. 

Thank you for your participation in this forum and we hope that it has been a useful one for you. We appreciate and welcome feedback that will help improve the forums as a space for discussion and learning. If you have any comments, please email them to resourcecentre@tarshi.net. We look forward to being a part of even more discussions around issues of sexuality in the future. 

Regards,
Neha Patel (Moderator)
The South and Southeast Asia Resource Centre on Sexuality