No Room for Naughty in NYC
Posted on December 20, 2010 | posted by:
‘Sex and Design’, as a topic, will generate vivid images quite quickly. ‘Sex and Guilt’ will, undoubtedly, provide the cold shower effect. Over the course of the Fall semester, Minuette Le and myself attempted to develop a deeper understanding towards the role of guilt in sexuality. Through the visualization of the infrastructure which represents these two unhappily married forces, Minuette and I explored possible points of leverage onto this highly complex and controversial subject. Our goal was to develop an intervention into the current system, creating a supportive and healthy alternative to the climate of oppression imposed by city officials on public representations of sexuality.
In 1995, the hot blooded sexuality of New York was shackled by, then mayor, Rudolph Giuliani. A series of zoning laws effectively shut down the majority of sex establishments in and around NYC. A plan to ‘Disnefy’ Times Square, turned into a citywide cleansing of peepshows, strip clubs, adult book stores and video shops. No longer would these types of establishments be permitted to be within 500 feet of a long list of religious and educational institutions. It can be difficult to imagine the possible effects on public space and what types of cultural shifts on the landscape will occur when laws are passed. It could be challenging to object passing laws protecting nuns, priests and children from the harmful ways of those who enjoy sex. But, in reality, those laws may have done more harm than good. ‘Good’ if you’re a developer looking to buy up vast amounts of now-vacant retail space or promote a family theme-park-like image of your city. ‘Bad’ if you’re once-safe gay cruising area is now wedged between heteronormative and/or homophobic neighbors. These establishments, which Giuliani hoped to virtually abolish, did more than act as purveyors of adult services and products. These tax paying businesses also served as landmarks for a variety of communities. Cruising areas for gay men had placeholders in gay bookstores. A lesbian dance strip club marked a community of acceptance. These landmarks, and the respective spaces in between, helped to keep these marginalized groups safe and provide a sense of location in an overwhelmingly dominant heterosexual culture. Forcing these groups to all squeeze into a secluded area on the Lower West Side removed the breathing space between them. The potential for conflict between heteronormative and the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) communities increased dramatically. Signifiers of sexuality and deviance from the norm were pushed to the outskirts of town, left to resolve their differences on their own under a shadow of guilt and shame.
As Minuette and I considered the outcome of the 1995 laws, we began the lengthy process of geo mapping the data. One by one, we located then marked each of the ‘protected’ spots around Manhattan – hundreds of parks, elementary and high schools, daycares, and places of worship. A scaled 1000 foot diameter circle was placed around each individual location to delineate the protective zone which prevents sex-based businesses from operating. As a point of interest, we also marked the locations of over 1500 closed circuit security cameras; information provided by a community watchdog group in NYC. The results provided a surprising perspective of Manhattan and thought provoking conversation around issues of privacy, regulation, and a culture of oppression around sexuality.
The larger comment of the project was reflective of the need for a stronger and healthier sex-positive culture in NYC, created through community based programs and a more relaxed attitude around sexuality in general. The guilt we infuse with sexuality through restrictions and laws generates a society which is afraid, embarrassed or too ashamed to speak openly about critical issues plaguing our communities and our schools, including teen pregnancies, STDs, violence against women and children, and life threatening illnesses such as HIV and AIDS. Though the project presented in its entirety makes the argument clear, in no way are we suggesting that simply adding sex shops and erotic dance clubs will make for an improved social landscape. Our goal was to show that an over regulated system and oppressive attitudes towards sexuality will lead to problems of a much more complex and hurtful nature down the road.