Morality, Sexuality and Politics

What an ambiguous title, eh? I thought so. After viewing "A Home at the End of the World" and "The Dreamers" with some friends we got into an interesting discussion on morality/sexuality and politics. I'm including what we talked about here because I think sexuality and the power of enforcable "morality" (coerced/legislated) DOES relate to human rights. So, some of the questions we asked each other were: 1. What is the danger of having your morality defined for you by the State? Meaning, when marriage can only be defined as "one man and one woman" does that not mark those who are excluded from that category as "Other"? This just sounds too much like considering homosexuality and bisexuality a 'sin' but not being able to call it such legally anymore. So instead the State is trying to define non-heterosexual relationships in opposition to heterosexual marriage despite and in the face of countless same-sex couples marrying. What is the power of that one little word anyway, if not legitimacy? Personally, I have never liked the word marriage nor the "institution" of it as I feel that both seem to suggest ownership and possession. I don't want to own or possess anyone. So that word really irks me. I actually prefer the term 'partnership' as to me this suggests an equality, a relationship of equals. The difficulty though isn't in the definition of marriage but the legal protection afforded those who are allowed to marry and denied to to those who aren't. Same-sex couples are still at risk for losing their children in custody cases, being discriminated against monetarily, occupationally, socially and even medically. This, to me, is the heart of the issue and the problem with the State being able to legislate/legitimate 'marriage.' I thought wow, you know we might actually see things change when the Supreme Court ruled archaic anti-sodomy laws as unconstitutional. Now I wonder though if it isn't one step forward, two steps back in this little dance of legal morality.
Can the law legislate morals? Can it? I mean can you legislate physical attraction or love? Can or should it be able to define what is perversity and sexual deviance between consenting adults?
Well...next question.
2. Could you and other consenting adults truly create a 'home at the end of the world' free of all of its social constraints so heavily embedded in your psyche? Most of those I am closest to are friends who are recovering Catholics (recovering from the post traumatic stress disorder of having been raised catholic) and so we talk about how the ideas of sin and sexuality still shape and dictate your relationships with others long after the ritual of going to church is gone. I was raised in the south around people who were very very very homophobic. When I was a teen I watched several guys try to run over the one openly gay man in our town. When they missed him, they threw a whiskey bottle at him and hit him in the back, then they drove off. I suppose much of my rebelliousness tends to stem from what I saw all around me but it certainly wasn't based in religion. I never cared for religion, especially not that practiced by people who didn't even adhere to their own damn rules. In the movie, the three main characters try to raise a family consisting of two men, one woman and a baby. They try to retain a level of intimacy but it always seems to leave someone out. So the woman eventually leaves with the baby and the men are left alone together. One of my friends talked about the potential of an already married couple inviting a third party in and how that might work. I don't know about that. I argued that you can't put your body in a place your mind won't allow you to go. There is a possessive tendancy in people to try to hold what they consider "theirs" whether that be a home, a partner or whatever. How do you or can you just seperate that from a very intimate act? I liked the idea of the three created their own family with their own rules and their own little world but it didn't work. One apparently ends up with A.I.D.S. and one leaves with the baby presumably to become a single mommy and then that leaves the main guy alone, which is apparently what he fears most. We don't get that from the movie though. It leaves you with the idea that that is how their little story will end. I really do like the idea of being able to love who you love and how you want to love them but I wonder what the movie is trying to suggest: a. such love is impossible to maintain? or b. you can't escape the social morality or expectations of others or maybe c. there are consequences to every act and no matter how loving or idealistic the act is, it can still hurt you. Think about it. Every character in the film is looking for love, pardon the horrid cliche, in all the wrong places. Why are these places wrong? Well it seems to be the inheirent theme because all of their relationships crumble. As I said, one character finds out he has AIDS, the woman leaves, the mother who envies the love they seem to have seems to feel lost because she didn't have that kind of love, and then the main character can't seem to function with or without anyone else. He seems lost in a sea of people, finding himself only in the reflection of others.
What's funny is my most self described conservative friend said he felt their morals were 'disgusting.' I don't see any of it as morality though. I see it as people trying to figure out how to relate to one another. The politics and morality get in the way of what might otherwise be a perfect relationship. If only, of course, they could get over what they expect from one another and what society appears to expect from them. It worried me that the openly gay man is the one who gets AIDS until I remembered the time the film spans: the 60's, 70's and 80's.
I wonder how a different representation might change the dynamic. What if the film was set in the late 90's with, as one of my friends suggested, a married couple and some third person they bring in. What if the couple is infected unknowingly from a blood transfusion one of them had as a child or from a sexual encounter one of them had as a teen. Would that change the dynamic any? I just felt like the film was almost suggesting that because the gay man who was having multiple partners being the one to end with AIDS seems to prop up the argument by some who still think that AIDS is "God's punishment for the sin of homosexuality." That's why that particular representation bothered me, especially coming from the same man who wrote "The Hours" which offers a very different representation of AIDS. Peel back the layers of hate, when will we be able to see one another without a mind unclouded by fear and hate? I don't know.
"The Dreamers" is really quite different as it depicts a seemingly incestuous relationship between a brother and sister and their sexual relationship with a foreigner (American) before and during the students riots in France in the late 60's. This film is very interesting in its admittedly voyeuristic style. However, the camera depicts the deflowering of the sister by the American but only hints at attraction between the two men. It does though detail in depth what we would consider today a very dysfunctional relationship between the sister and brother, in scenes such as where she dares/forces him to masterbate in front of her and the American and her in turn, dares/forces(?) her to have sex with the American in front of him.
She cries when she hears her brother having sex with another woman and seems to try and kill herself at the end of the film when she thinks her parents have found them all out but is stopped by the chaos of the student riots that shatters their bedroom window. Interesting and odd. The film has many layers worth unraveling such as why the American is represented as the naieve idealist who tries to stop them from participating in the riots. Why is sex the focal point in a film which is not just about their 'relationship' but also the changing political and social consciousness of the times in which they lived? Why is it considered 'liberating' to show so much of the female (and yeah they DO show ALL of the men as well) but sex between the two male characters (unlike in "home") is not shown. It is implied but never shown, while the sister losing her virginity to the American is rather grossly graphic. See them for yourself and draw your own conclusions I suppose. This film left us a little less talkative. I did like though the way that politics and ideological changes (and revolutions in other countries) and technological advances in the film industry created the group of 'dreamers' who felt they could change the world. That to me, was quite cool, especially in a time where people seem more content to watch reality t.v. than to try and change anything or to even try to relate to one another in any meaningful way. I feel that possessiveness is at the heart of domestic violence, abuse and rape. The idea that someone else feels somehow entitled to take by force that which does not belong to them and is not offered willingly. Maybe instead of pointing happily judging fingers at those who are simply trying to live in a society that does not deem them equals, we should look at the greater pathological afflictions within this society. What is the real threat to the social/society as a whole? Same-sex marriage and abortion or patriarchy and as Jackson Katz has said, 'violent masculinity'?

I always hope whenever I see unique and honest representations of consenting adults enjoying themselves sexually, that there will be a world wide recognition of 'alternative sexuality' and that those who have been marked as others for so long can finally be seen as human beings with the same wants loves and hopes and RIGHTS as everyone else. That's what it boils down to for me. I like this film alot and it allowed for some fascinating discussion but I'm not quite sure what the function of such representation serves in the eyes of those it needs to reach. I agree with Kerry when he said that he could not let his religion dictate the laws he passed. I would like to add though that it would be nice if we could include fear, hatred, ignorance, prejudice and general stupidity from that long list of personal biases legislators and presidents must remove before passing laws. We'll see.

peace!