A long post about sex, feminism, and silencing the audience

This will be long.  Hugo has had lots and lots of Dayquil to get through the day, and the drugs may be affecting what I write...

In my women's history class, we talked at length last week about the idea of the "internalized audience."  The conversation evolved out of a discussion we were having about Lynn Phillips' Flirting with Danger, which I am using in class for the first time this semester.

Phillips talks about the problem so many young women struggle with: separating their own desires from those of their families, friends, and the broader culture.  For many of the women Phillips interviewed, the internalized audience is omnipresent, but never more so than when engaging in sexual activity.   The make-up of the audience varies little from young woman to young woman: mothers and fathers, friends and family members, teachers and pastors and peers.  Each member of the audience has his or her own set of expectations for how the girl ought to behave, and gradually, those expectations have crawled deep into the psyche.  Raised to be acutely sensitive to the wishes and values of others, most young women "internalize the audience" by adolescence if not before.  (Mom really can be everywhere!) And of course, once young women begin to interact sexually with others, the "audiences" begin to make conflicting demands. Writing of the college-aged subjects of her study, Phillips notes:

Often women became so consumed with the conflicting expectations of various outside audiences (families versus boyfriends, college friends versus neighborhood friends) about gender-appropriate and developmentally appropriate behavior, that the notion of their own needs and sexual desires was all but erased from consideration.

As I suggested to my students, while Phillips discusses the notion of the internalized audience primarily in sexual terms, it's possible to see the problem of the audience in other areas as well.  For example, it's clear that many women subordinate their own needs and desires around food in order to be pleasing to those around them. A "good girl" has a muted appetite for both sex and food; a carefully cultivated thinness and an absence of sexual subjectivity are both ways to "please the audience."

Some of my more conservative students argue that the internalized audience serves a healthy social function for young women.   Those  "all-seeing eyes" and those "voices in the head" help hold girls and young women back from making poor decisions (lie pre-marital sex, the big "no-no" for my traditionalists).  But of course, waiting for marriage doesn't guarantee a woman will be free from that sense of the internalized audience!  Many married women who did "wait" have reported that they too struggle with sexual guilt, even as they make love with their own husbands.  And some married women may still find it difficult to think clearly about their own desires, having been raised and conditioned that their sexuality exists to provide joy and delight for another.  "Waiting" is not the panacea its proponents crack it up to be.

Thus I'm convinced that one of the most important feminist tasks is helping young -- and not so young -- women to quiet that internalized audience.  Quieting, mind you, is not the same as dismissing.  All of us, at times, can be comforted and strengthened by the memory of what some loved one or respected person has told us.  On occasion, it's appropriate to ask:  "What would so-and-so say if they could see me now?  What advice would they give?"  We ought on occasion to consider the wishes and beliefs of our culture, our faith (if we have one) and our parents.  But though these ought to be factors in our decision-making about food, sex,and pleasure, they ought not to be the decisive ones.  Helping young women listen to their own desires, separate from those of the large and loud audience, is a key feminist goal.

To put it another way, I often argue that feminism is about helping young women to find both their authentic "yes" and their authentic "no".  By authentic, I mean that it is congruent with their deepest desires.   And wherever they may ultimately lie, we know this: these "deepest desires" lie beneath the surface longing to please parents and partners.   To put it crudely: many young women will encounter many young men who very much want them to say "yes."  Many of these young women will come from backgrounds where their cultural obligation is to say "no".   So whether she says "yes" or "no", her own desires may well have already been silenced by the overwhelming pressure to please one faction or another in the audience.  She will find it very difficult, it not impossible, to please everyone.

I've been reflecting about what I wrote in April about sex education at All Saints.  I was asked then, by one of the kids: "What do you really think about us having sex at our age?"  And I replied:

"You guys, when I look at you, it isn't possible for me to see you as a group of generic teenagers.   When I look at this room, I don't just see fifteen, sixteen, and seventeen year-olds.  I see people whose individual stories I know.  Some of you I've known just a little while.  Some of you I've known since you were bratty little sixth-graders five or six years ago.  When I look at you (pointing around the room), I see (names changed) Michael, not a sophomore boy.  I see Marie, not a senior girl; I see Janae and Brent and Alexa and Rick, not just four random kids sitting on a couch.  And though you are all alike in so many countless ways, you're also fundamentally different people with different needs and different histories.  Honestly, the more I work with you, the less I feel comfortable handing out a one-size-fits-all moral agenda with any confidence.  In truth, while I think in general it is better to wait before taking on the enormous responsibilities and consequences of sex, I know full well that some of you are simply "readier" than others.  I'm not going to name names, of course!  But I can't help but see you as individuals with different desires and different levels of maturity, faith, and emotional preparedness."

I took a huge amount of criticism for this.  Six months later, I stand firmly by what I said, and I think it bears on what I've been writing about in this post.  Where good feminist work and progressive sexual education intersect is around this issue of "yes", "no", and quieting the "peanut gallery" of the internalized audience.  My goal is not to get all of my kids in youth group, or my students at Pasadena City College, to say "yes" or "no" to sex!  My goal is to help them arrive at an authentic, heartfelt, unambiguous "yes" -- or an equally authentic, heartfelt, and unambiguous "no" -- when it comes to the opportunity for sexual connection with another human being or with themselves.   Encouraging young people of either sex, but particularly young women, to discover their own desires is not easy; and frankly, it isn't an easy thing for young people to do, either. 

One thing I have my students in women's studies class do -- and I've had my youth group kids do as well -- is write and reflect about their "internalized audiences."  I ask them "Who is in your audience?  What do they want for you?  What do they want from you?  Why do you think they want it?"  What I find is that most kids, once they start thinking seriously, find that they need a good-sized auditorium to seat their audiences!  I ask them to reflect on whether or not they find it easy to please the audience, and whether or not trying to please different factions has led either to conflict or to the muting of their own wants and needs.

The paradox in this is obvious: by emphatically insisting that the internalized audience ought to be quieted (if not muted), I'm not-so-subtly placing myself among the crowd of voices offering suggestions as to what "my young people" should do.   Like all teachers, I risk imposing myself, becoming an "inner Hugo" that my students and teens carry around with them.  Sometimes, I imagine that I am inside of some of them,  haranguing them about the importance of ignoring me and everyone else!  Talk about your contradictions! (And talk about your hubris... sheesh.)

Yet I'm convinced I'm on the right track in, at the least, encouraging young people to think critically about who the "audience" is. Furthermore, I think those of us who do feminist work are also right to encourage young women to do the difficult work of distinguishing their own wants and needs (sexual or otherwise) from the expectations of their families, their culture, their partners and their peers.  This does not mean advocating for a radical selfishness where one doesn't think at all about others.  It does mean helping young women to develop the confidence to say "yes" when that "yes" reflects their reality and empowering them to say "no" when that "no" comes from their true core.

My faith tells me that at its best, sex has more than one purpose: while it unites two people together in joy and delight, it also provides us, as individuals, with the exquisite opportunity to rejoice in ourselves as created, corporeal beings. It is for us, it is for the other, and, for those of us who are people of faith, ultimately for God.  The specifics of what we, at our deepest cores, want to say "yes" and "no" to will, I do believe, vary from person to person.   But we all do better, I am convinced, when we can ask that great internal Greek chorus to take an extended break and leave us alone to listen to that voice inside that is uniquely ours.

Comments

[sparklegirl]

Hugo, you rock.

[Antigone]

Dang, hook up with Interactive Video Networking so I can take your classes here in the fridgid north. (UND's Women's Studies classes are pathetic). Then again, there's a very good chance I would never shut up. :D

[bmmg39]

"To put it crudely: many young women will encounter many young men who very much want them to say 'yes.' Many of these young women will come from backgrounds where their cultural obligation is to say 'no'."

As a guy, my cultural obligation is to say "yes." I think it's most noticed when boys are in their high-school and (yikes) middle-school years, but that perception doesn't go away when the college years (and beyond) begin. In fact, because of the advanced age, it's considered even more bizarre if a male says "no"/wants to wait/isn't interested/etc...Notice that THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN is a man. That's the joke. A forty-year-old female virgin might raise a few eyebrows, but a man in that situation is a one-liner in and of itself.

For another example, here's something called to my attention today, from the UK: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2005520697,00.html

It seems it's considered "surprising" that two thirds of men surveyed would say "no" to sex ON THE FIRST DATE. Not even "period" or "in the first few months of the relationship," but rather just the first date. In fact, one spokesman for the survey said, "We wonder whether some men forgot to consult their hormones before being interviewed."

So I understand the position these young women are in, and I sympathize. I'm also tired of guys who want to sow their oats and then marry a virgin. "Playtime for me, but not for thee." But I want to point out, again, the other side of the coin is no picnic for guys who don't "put out."

boy genteel
www.safe4all.org

[BritGirlSF]

bmmg, you just ran smack into what is known in the UK as "Lad culture". It's a pretty pathetic phenomenon, and The Sun is one of the major cheerleaders for it. There's a female version too ("ladettes"), and the main idea seems to be that stupidity and shallowness are virtues. Picture thousands of Paris Hiltons both male and female, but without any money. I see your point, but honestly, one can pretty much expect crassness and lack of depth from The Sun. It's journalism for dummies - makes News Of The World look like Proust.

[Mr. Bad]

Hugo, your observation about a person's "inner voices" is just as strong and relevant for boys, so there's nothing inherently feminist or female about this. bmmg39 raised exactly the point I was thinking of when reading this missive: The isues re. the 'internal peanut gallery' are no less complicated for boys/men. In fact, as bmmg39 correctly notes, for males the pressure is on to say "yes." Boys are raised to please and serve others, especially women, regardless of how much self-sacrifice is involved; in fact, the more the male sacrifices for others (again, especially women) the greater the 'reward' vis-a-vis attaining 'hero'-type' status.

And so based on my experience and convictions, one of the most important tasks for MRAs is to help educate boys (and other men) to understand how to deal with their inner voices and learn to say "no" to the various voices. Far too much guilt is laid onto men in order to get them to 'serve,' with the resulting excessive burden (i.e., morbidity and mortality) that men bear, to their detriment. We men have to learn at an early age that we have the right to say "no."

Hugo, the dichotomy of women's inner voices telling them to say "no" and men to say "yes" are really just two sides of the same coin, a coin minted by society and the socialization that stems from it.

[Mike]

I was never pressured by anybody to have sex, not from friends, or other peers for that matter. There were times when I felt uncomfortable because I had not yet had sex, but that came from my own perception that everyone else out there was "doing it" but me. No one ever directly compelled me to do anything, though.

In fact, I can recall one instance in high school, where one of my male classmates related a story about how a friend of his had recently turned down a request for sex. This person said he had done so because he did not feel ready. My classmate ended the story by saying, "I respect that." He may have thought his friend was crazy, but he respected his choice. I'm not sure if there are any studies to support this, but I wonder how much peer pressure really plays into male adolescent sexual choices, and how much of it is just biology coupled with perception.

[Hugo]

Mr. Bad, I agree that men have to struggle against the internalized audience as well. Where you and I disagree is over who constitutes the internalized audience; my perception (based on Kimmel et al) is that for most young American men, pleasing other men (fathers, coaches, male peers) is more important than pleasing women (mothers and girlfriends and wives).

[Mr. Bad]

Hugo, as you well-know Kimmel is, to put it mildly and generously, not considered a 'mainstream' thinker vis-a-vis men and masculinity, so outside of some feminist circles I think that the theory of 'homosociality' driving men's decision-making, behavior, etc., is pretty much not accepted. Of course we're all entitled to our opinions, theories, musings, etc., but the preponderance of evidence and experience leads in a direction away from from the theory of 'homosociality.'

[evil_fizz]

Mr. Bad: serious question. What sources would you cite to the contrary? Are there mainstream scholars who argue that homosociality is bunk or who argue for other theories? This isn't my field, so I'm curious.

[Uzzah]

Hugo, as you well-know Kimmel is, to put it mildly and generously, not considered a 'mainstream' thinker vis-a-vis men and masculinity, so outside of some feminist circles I think that the theory of 'homosociality' driving men's decision-making, behavior, etc., is pretty much not accepted.

In the case of "sexual pressure" on men, I think you have to recognize "homosociality" as a driving force. If I understand the concept correctly, then another term for it might be "peer pressure". Certainly when I was a teen, the main social pressure to be sexually active brought to bear on us was from other guys and not the girls in our lives.

Does that mean that all men's "internalized audience" as it relates to non sexual decision making processes driven by male homosociality? I think not. It is much more complex than that.. and many more societal pressures are in play here.

[Hugo]

Uzzah, thank you for a reasoned middle-ground position. And let's see if we can't keep this thread on women's experiences; I've got plenty of other threads (like today's post) up about men.

[jaketk]

I'm not sure if there are any studies to support this, but I wonder how much peer pressure really plays into male adolescent sexual choices, and how much of it is just biology coupled with perception.

i think a lot of pressure, on both sides, comes from what we think others are thinking and projecting what we are feeling into those perceived thoughts.

[Caitriona]

Hugo, I like it when you post about things such as this. We all need to consider these things more.

I've a slightly different approach than yours when this topic comes up with the teens with whom I work (my own and their friends). I tell them that I can't make that decision for them, but then I go through the benefits of waiting and the risks of not waiting. When dealing with my 16yo daughter, it *really* helps that our 15yo exchange daughter is from a culture where waiting is the norm. That seems to help more than relating stories of people we know who didn't wait and the challenges that they have/had in their lives because of it. My goal is to get *them* to think things through and to consider the impact of their personal decisions on the goals they have set for their own lives.

In addition to talking with them about the benefits:risk ratio, I also talk with them about how the people we know who've chosen not to wait have deal with and worked through the challenges that decision brought to their lives. We know some who've not recovered well from that decision, but we know others who've worked hard and made a good life for themselves.

Life is not a static "Do this and that happens." To me, it's important for people to learn that they're going to make mistakes, that they should be careful about *where* they make those mistakes, and that they can recover from the mistakes they've made and go on to have a wonderful and very fulfilling life.

[Hugo]

Caitriona, it sounds as if you do your young people a great service -- your final sentence is one that all of us who do youth work, regardless of perspective, can surely agree with.

[kate.d.]

Furthermore, I think those of us who do feminist work are also right to encourage young women to do the difficult work of distinguishing their own wants and needs (sexual or otherwise) from the expectations of their families, their culture, their partners and their peers.

not to get all grad-school theoretical here, but i wonder if this is even possible. can one's "own" wants and needs be separated from the influences in their lives? or are their wants and needs wholly products of those influences, and thus ultimately inextricable from them?

hugo, you talk about a "yes" and "no" that come from a core, but what if there is no core? maybe we're like onions, and if you keep peeling away layers, you come to nothing at all instead of a hard kernel of truth.

sorry to sound so post-modern, but just thought i'd throw this question in there!

[Mr. Bad]

evil fizz: It's been years - no, decades - since my psych courses (in minored in psych as an undergrad) so it's not my field either, but what I do know is that Kimmel isn't considered to be in the mainstream vis-a-vis theories on normal men and masculinity. (I believe Piaget was the one who worked most closely with childhood and adolescence.) I believe Kimmel's more involved in the homosexual (esp. gay men) aspects of masculinity, which are definitely different than what you'll find elsewhere re. mainstream masculinity theory. I don't pretend to know much more than that about Kimmel because as much as I've tried, I just can't get through his partcularly dopey brand of feminism to read much of what he writes. I go by what my psychologist colleagues say about him.

Uzzah, as for peer-pressure, I agree. However, we need to recognize that much of 'peer pressure' as experienced by teens stems from trying to fit in with the crowd re. relations with the opposite sex. Therefore, again, with boys it's ultimately once again about getting the approval of girls, and in return, getting the recognition and approval of your male friends. Similarly with girls - the one who can snag the captain of football team gets the approval of her pals, and perhaps her parents, etc., depending on where their values lie. Peer-pressure is a big category and I would argue that especially in the teen years, ultimately it's mostly about impressing the opposite sex.

[Hugo]

Kate, of course, the belief in a "core" is an essentially spiritual one, and one that is difficult to defend. I am convinced that we are more than the sum of our biology and our conditioning, more than just heredity mixed with experience -- and that "something", that soul identity, has very specific (and perhaps unique) needs and desires. But can I prove it? Nope.

[Maria]

I was thinking the same thing - don't men have "other voices" who indicate what they "should" be doing?

[djw]

jaketk: I think that's exactly correct, and an important addendum to this way of thinking about the self, with serious implications. Of course, I'm sympathetic to Kate's critique as well, although I can't quite shake a belief in a "core self", regardless of how implausible it is when held up to the bright light of reason. Anyone who's willing and able to handle technical analytical philosophy and interested in this issue should read Reasons and Persons by Derek Parfit, which absolutely shattered a host of assumptions I had about the nature of personal identity.

[yami]

I've always thought of this as a process of discarding some internalized voices, while enshrining others as a vital part of my "core". Which just boots the metaphysical problem back another level, I guess, but unresolved metaphysics doesn't really bother me anyway.

I do tend to discard the voices that are most in conflict with the overall tone of the peanut gallery. Perhaps I'm merely becoming a smoothed average of my influences?

[Caitriona]

Ya know, this is starting to read like a transcript of our Adult Sunday School discussions. lol

[Hugo]

It's starting to sound like some of my undergrad philosophy courses... the kind that always overwhelmed me...

[Caitriona]

Hugo, thanks for the compliment.

I agree that there is some "inner core," whether one believes it is the leading of the "Holy Spirit" (found in more faiths than Christianity) or some other inner prompting. It is something that is felt by anyone whom I've ever discussed this with, no matter their faith. And I agree that we all need to determine the difference between our own inner promptings and those that come from everyone we've ever known/seen/read/heard.

Growing up, I had to learn to balance my own inner promptings with those of my grandparents, my parents, my siblings, my peers, and everything from popular culture and from various subcultures that were a part of my life. It can be very confusing when our minds become filled with all those vastly different promptings.

[Caitriona]

We have a gentleman in our class who's doing his dissertation on Nitchzie (pronounced nee-chee, probably spelled wrong). About half of us grew up Mennonite or Amish, nearly that many grew up Southern Baptist (including the philosopher), and the rest grew up Catholic, Episcopalian, etc. It makes for some interesting discussions.

[djw]

One person mentions overwhelming undergrad philosophy courses, and the next thing you know, as if on cue, we're on to Nietzsche. Man, I'd love a good sit-down with a Mennonite Neitzsche scholar--that's awesome.