My response to readers on matters regarding sex and sexuality
In a moment of vanity, I googled my name and found out that Grace Lee, education manager of the Family Planning Association of Hong Kong, has written to the China Daily in response to my mockery on the Hong Kong Sex Cultural Festival in “Congratulations: Another core value has been discovered in Hong Kong” (Oct 26, 2013). In essence, what she was trying to say is that I “missed the point” and should not have taken the whole thing too seriously.
“The festival aims to … foster a more inclusive society ... by providing a platform for open discussion on sexuality issues in a casual atmosphere,” she reminded us. The Survey on Sexual Activities and City Space, publicized as part of the festival, “did not aim for a scientific sociological study, but a light-hearted approach to inspire public discussion and attract public participation in the festival.” As if to justify the association’s strategy, she concluded (somewhat in a selfcongratulatory manner) that “this publicity approach proved successful”.
I am disappointed by Grace’s attempt to stifle the discussion that I was trying to start by the pretense of her so-called “casual” and “light-hearted” approach. If all who disagree with the mighty Family Planning Association are dismissed as “missing the point”, I am not sure how any “open discussion” is possible.
When I wrote that piece, I took the time to read through the association’s press release. It fails to explain why people have sex, or fantasize about having sex, in places like toilets, public swimming pools, beaches and the like. All these interesting behaviors are attributed to the empty catch-all phrase of “better enjoyment”, and worse, the “crowded living environment”.
What prompted me to write about the survey was Professor Ng Man-lun’s remark, quoted in the press release, about how “social taboos still restrict many people’s personal sexual psychological space, denying their rights to their own natural sexual desires, such as sexual fantasies and sexual activities for pleasure.”
It strikes me as odd that Professor Ng, founder of the Sex Cultural Festival and a renowned psychologist specializing in sexuality, would have failed to appreciate the simple fact that taboos not only restrict desires, but also create and enable them. When we are told that we can’t have something, we want it even more. The failure to acknowledge this mystifies the phenomenon of people wanting to have sex in public places: they do it not for “confidentiality”, not because their homes are too small, but because they find pleasure in the excitement created by the fear of exposure (or actual exposure).
I hope Grace gets my point this time and I await her response. Now let’s move on to the more interesting topic of homosexuality.
After reading my piece on our city’s ideological disconnect (“Parallel Universes”, published on Dec 13), some readers expressed their inability to comprehend why actress Sire Ma had to apologize for having a homosexual relationship with mainland businesswoman Wang Ziqi after the two were seen kissing in Shanghai.
To a certain extent, the incomprehension stems from the limitation of the human rights-based approach, which is often embraced uncritically by progressives and activists.
In theory, human rights are omnipresent; in the real world, they are anchored in concrete social relationships. In the industrial age, employment was by and large a matter between employers and employees. Today, in the age of service, work is shaped at the same time by employers, employees and the customers (some sociologists call this the “service triangle”), and is thus more nuanced.
If potential customers rejected an insurance broker because of sex, disability, family status or race, is there recourse from the anti-discrimination ordinances? The answer seems to be no.
More importantly, service work involves the commoditization of our bodies, dispositions and sensibilities in a much deeper level. To sell cosmetics, one must be pretty.
Sire Ma, Miss Hong Kong second runnerup 2008, markets herself not as a genderneutral object, but as an object of sexual fantasy for heterosexual men. Google her name and photos of her in bikinis top the results. It turns out that she is not what she markets herself to be. That’s why she owes an apology to her heterosexual male fans.