The conservative right often
attributes the excesses of political correctness to the destructive influence
of cultural Marxism which tries to undermine the moral foundations of the
Western way of life.
But if we take a closer look
at these “excesses,” we can see that they are, in fact, signs of the unbridled
reign of what, decades ago, political theorist Fredric Jameson called cultural
capitalism: a new stage of capitalism in which culture no longer functions as a
domain of ideological superstructure elevated above economy but becomes a key
ingredient of the ever-expanding reproduction of capital.
One of the clearest imaginable
examples of cultural capitalism is surely the commodification of our intimate
life. This is a permanent feature of a capitalist society, but in the last
decades it’s reached a new level. Just think about how our search for sexual
partners and for good sexual performance rely on dating agencies or websites,
medical and psychological help, and so on.
House of Yes, in Brooklyn, New
York, adds a new twist to this game: the intricate problem of how to verify
consent in a sexual interplay is resolved by the presence of a hired
controlling agent. The club is a hedonistic playground where “anything
goes”. Time Out voted it as the second
best thing to do in the world and The Sun described as “the
wildest night club on the planet”.
One of its most popular
features is the introduction of “consenticorns”, people whose job it is to
monitor the goings on and ensure no one’s consent is being violated. In the
House of Yes, customers can do anything from naked hot tubs to drag wrestling,
but they have to adhere to a strict consent policy, which is ultimately
enforced by “consenticorns,” the “consent guardians” who wear light-up unicorn
horns.
They observe interactions and
look for signs that someone might feel unsafe. In most cases, making eye
contact is enough to prevent trouble. Sometimes, a more direct intervention is
needed: the consenticorn dances up to the couple and inquires if there are any
problems. If it is necessary, the person responsible for the trouble is asked
to leave.
The ideal that motivates the
House of Yes was formulated by the nightlife impresario Anya Sapozhnikova,
who celebrated there her 32nd birthday with a massive party. In a short
speech, she asserted that the true goal of the House of Yes is to make
consenticorns obsolete: “Imagine a world where sexuality is celebrated.
Pretend that equality and inclusivity are mainstream. Envision a place where
people dance together instead of ripping each other apart…” This seems to have
gone down well in liberal circles. Arwa Mahdawi even wrote
in The Guardian that: “House of Yes’s success is an important
reminder that the stricter we are about consent, the more fun everyone can
have.”
I must confess that I don’t
want even to imagine such a place. Remember we are talking about having
(intimate, sexualised) fun, and the implication of Mahdawi’s claim is that, in
today’s society, the consent required for pure fun can only be enforced through
tight control – the stricter the control over us is, the more fun everyone can
have.
The majority of us still
prefer intimate sexual interplay, while the House of Yes practices something
more akin to group sex. So, to let ourselves go to an evil imagination, will
somebody propose also a consenticorn to observe and control a single couple’s
sexual interactions?
Perhaps the partisans of the
House of Yes imagine a future state where consenticorns will no longer be
needed since individuals will leave behind their egotist aggressivity. However,
if we learned anything from psychoanalysis it is that masochism and sadism,
pleasure and pain in all its diverse forms, is an irreducible ingredient of our
sexual lives, not just a secondary effect of social domination perturbing pure
consensual joy. We would thus need consenticorns able to distinguish consensual
sadomasochism from the exploitative one – an impossible task.
But there is an even greater
complication that emerges here. The lesson of psychoanalysis is that in
exhibitionism – a third witness – can be a condition of one’s pleasure. So what
if one needs a consenticorn to fully enjoy a sexual experience? And what if one
wants to involve a consenticorn into the erotic interplay with a partner,
either as a witness who scolds or as another active participant? The basic
point of psychoanalysis is that a controlling agent who exerts control and
oppression can become itself a source of pleasure. In short, the entire vision
of the House of Yes is based on the total ignorance of what we learned from
Freud.
The idea of consenticorns is
problematic for two interconnected reasons. First, it offers to resolve the
problem of non-consensual sex by way of delegating the responsibility to an
external hired controller: I can remain the way I am, the consenticorn will
take care of me if I go too far. And if I do behave properly, it is because I
fear of being caught by the controlling eye. Second, the idea of a consenticorn
totally ignores the perverse implications of its practice, the unpredictable
way the figure of consenticorn itself may get eroticised.
But, maybe, this is our
perverse future. Maybe, our wish to the readers for the New Year should be:
enjoy happy free sex with consenticorns.
No comments:
Post a Comment