Hello Argus,
First, not all chalkings are obscenities and there are many different reasons why people want to chalk. Moreover, one may find certain chalkings obscene and still support free expression through the medium of chalking. However, what I would like to respond to is Evan Carp and others’ attitude towards certain sexually explicit chalkings, deeming them obscene. Carp writes that it is “OK to talk about sex in the bluntest manner,” but not, as he says, through a medium that “EVERYONE” uses (and certainly, as he explains, not how it is being talked about—like the “crude” chalkings on anal sex). Therefore, that means that we should not be talking about sex in the bluntest manner.
Also, what is so obscene about these particular chalkings? If obscenity is something morally depraved that should be censored in certain mediums, why do we not want to censor chalkings about the genocide in Darfur or poverty-stricken areas (for a beautiful speech about this, watch the movie “Bulworth”)? When we examine certain gut reactions to explicit sexual depictions, it seems that what is behind these strong feelings is a conditioned reflex from Victorian-esque and Puritan-esque values.
Why is it that fucking happens in real life—but there is a line drawn somewhere between talking about fucking, writing about fucking, chalking about fucking, and then drawing fucking? Moreover, why is there a distinction between a private dialogue on fucking and a public dialogue? Why are certain sexual body parts censored, but not, for example, a hand? For me, my penis gives me a fantastic range of pleasure, can produce beautiful life through its cum (“cum” or “semen,” which is more obscene? They mean the same thing—why not reclaim the former?), and can relieve me of urine. Penises can do horrible things too, such as rape, but a hand can murder, too.
Carp even admits that there is sexual stifling. However, he explains that “chalking should be fun and beautiful (which I do believe sexual body parts are), and should be an outlet for creative expression, not for sexual repression.” Why is it that chalking may be used to expose and confront other issues, but cannot be used to expose and confront sexual repression by questioning terms of obscenity and the desire to shun explicit sexual depictions from public spaces? Why can it not be used for sexual expression, creative or not? Yes, indeed, sexual chalkings can be used for shock value, and for the same reason why a chalking about the military-industrial complex is used for shock value—to then maybe provoke thoughts, questions, and change.
Carp explains that “adults talk about sex because it is important to them, because it is significant and meaningful, and they do it maturely” compared to the children, who crudely chalk about sexuality, “writing infantile potty humor.” Maybe Carp means that the chalking medium through which sexual matters can be expressed makes them “puerile filth.” However, how can chalking significant, meaningful issues, instead of talking about them, make them crude?
Probably, though, Carp means that the explicit chalkings of “pre-cum is sexy” or “anal sex happens” are crude because they don’t talk about sex how it should be talked about. Then how should sex be chalked about? With euphemisms or generalities? Without chalking about the lust and masturbation and intense sexual attraction people have for each other? Without chalking about the deep fantasies many people have? Without asking why we consider certain sexual depictions obscene and worthy of censorship? Without, in fact, a full and comprehensive and true discourse on sex?
I believe this stigmatization of sexual matters into a tight controlled private sphere is a huge issue. This sexual repression has powerful manifest results, for example, like the issues brought up in the vagina monologues.
Through the medium of chalking, I hope to effectively expose and confront the repressive norms on sexual matter. That might mean writing “pre-cum is sexy” because it brings with it the above important, significant, and meaningful issues, and is being done maturely: in the dictionary, two definitions of mature are: “fully developed” and “intended for and restricted to adults especially for explicit sexual, obscene, or violent reasons.” It seems then, that the restriction of explicit sexual depictions from chalking is what is immature, as it does not allow a fully developed dialogue and outlook on sexual issues and admits that we are not old enough for such chalkings.
Leave a Reply