Experiential Learning Activity #1: Field Trip to Museum of Sex As a women, gender and sexuality major, I have always pondered the sociological and cultural implications of having labels regarding sexual orientation and gender dynamics. The existence of a sexual orientation dichotomy, which places the heterosexual label in a domain of power, marginalize those who do not associate or identify with heteronormative ideals and markers. Being able to take this course on the psychological perspective on gender and sexuality has allowed me to critique as well as deepen my concerns as to why humans feel the need to label and group themselves. As part of the Human sexuality curriculum for this course, we were asked to seek out and experience an activity
…show more content…
Sullivan’s installation exposes viewers to the concept of exhibitionism, voyeurism, and even sexual fetishes like urolagnia (arousal associated with urine) and coprophilia (arousal and pleasure from feces). In the installation, you can see mini model sized robots sitting in a theater with their hands stimulating their exposed genitals. Outside of the theater, you can see a female robot urinating and defecating on a fire hydrant as other bystander robots watch her. This presence of such an installation in the museum exposes viewers to a side of sexuality that is often defined as outside of the norm. Sullivan’s work of art brings up questions about sexuality that should be asked, but the museum failed to ask them. What are the standards for sexuality? Are their norms that are prescribed to what happens in the bedroom? How do we define them? Who exactly has the power to define them? I am not saying that the museum fails to teach the public about sexuality, but it does limit the definition for sexuality to a certain extent. If I am remembering correctly, the museum had little information about queer sex and the sex lives of those who are placed outside of the heterosexual labels of sexuality. There was almost always a man present in pictures or postcards that portrayed more than one woman in a sexual situation. In this sense, the museum even helps to perpetuate white heteronormative confines of sexuality and the idea that it must be between a man and a woman. In addition, the only time I saw racialized differences was in Bompas & Parr’s Funland boob bouncy house that featured boobs of all different skin
Sullivan’s installation exposes viewers to the concept of exhibitionism, voyeurism, and even sexual fetishes like urolagnia (arousal associated with urine) and coprophilia (arousal and pleasure from feces). In the installation, you can see mini model sized robots sitting in a theater with their hands stimulating their exposed genitals. Outside of the theater, you can see a female robot urinating and defecating on a fire hydrant as other bystander robots watch her. This presence of such an installation in the museum exposes viewers to a side of sexuality that is often defined as outside of the norm. Sullivan’s work of art brings up questions about sexuality that should be asked, but the museum failed to ask them. What are the standards for sexuality? Are their norms that are prescribed to what happens in the bedroom? How do we define them? Who exactly has the power to define them? I am not saying that the museum fails to teach the public about sexuality, but it does limit the definition for sexuality to a certain extent. If I am remembering correctly, the museum had little information about queer sex and the sex lives of those who are placed outside of the heterosexual labels of sexuality. There was almost always a man present in pictures or postcards that portrayed more than one woman in a sexual situation. In this sense, the museum even helps to perpetuate white heteronormative confines of sexuality and the idea that it must be between a man and a woman. In addition, the only time I saw racialized differences was in Bompas & Parr’s Funland boob bouncy house that featured boobs of all different skin