Discrimination , policies , and sexual rights in

This article focuses on a politics arena that has been articulated through the impact of ideals of sexual rights on Brazilian sexual politics, namely the affirmation of “LGBT rights”. These rights have been constructed both through attempts to extend civil and social rights to the LGBT population that were previously restricted to heterosexuals, and by the enactment of provisions directly banning homophobic discrimination and violence. The focus will be on some of the principal social actors in this process, especially those situated in the three branches of government, since the most decisive clashes are now being waged at this level. Without intending to offer an exhaustive description of what has occurred in the Brazilian courts, Congress, and Administration, we point to the complexity of a situation which shows numerous innovations and breaks in its different dimensions, while simultaneously revealing contradictions, gaps, and ambiguities. Prejudice; Homosexuality; Politics The basic ideas addressed in this article are linked to the thinking developed in a broader line of research – Sexual Knowledge and Policies in Brazil – launched in the 1990s, with a survey and analysis of historical data on proposals for social intervention for control or eradication of sexually transmitted diseases in Brazil 1. In keeping with the propositions by Weeks 2, the concept of sexual politics was incorporated into the reflections to define all types of interventions (laws, health campaigns, educational programs, or legal rulings) directly by the state or under its aegis, and with two objectives: (i) to regulate erotic/ sexual practices and expressions of sexuality (ii) to manage certain phenomena pertaining to these practices, like reproduction and sexually transmitted diseases. The idea that to manage, regulate, administer, or control are prime modes of action by state power derives clearly from the work of Michel Foucault 3,4 and runs against the more traditional views that perceive such actions as essentially limiting and unproductive, non-propositional, and uncreative. Expressions like manage or regulate thus reveal a concept of power that is creative or institutive even when it limits or represses. At least in terms of its scope, the concept of sexual politics encompasses multiple dimensions of social management of the erotic and the sexual. On the one hand, revolving around the very definition of sex, sexuality, and eroticism, it relates to a politics of representation, producing FÓRUM FORUM Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 28(1):184-189, jan, 2012 DISCRIMINATION, POLICIES, AND SEXUAL RIGHTS IN BRAZIL 185 Cad. Saúde Pública, Rio de Janeiro, 28(1):184-189, jan, 2012 – in a given social configuration – that which can be known and consequently said, seen, heard, or even fantasized about “sex”. Meanwhile, sexual politics is constituted as a politics of sexual or erotic relations, pertaining, among other things, to the public regulation of marriages, prostitution, sexual crimes, age of consent, etc. Although sexual politics initially developed in socio-political spaces defined according to the borders of national states and were fundamental for nation-building processes, they have been forged increasingly at the international level, implemented through commitments assumed between states, with the mediation of agencies such as those in the United Nations system 5. As the result of confrontation or coalition between different social actors over the course of a given period of time, the nature of such policies is complex, incorporating distinct interests and simultaneously reflecting highly diverse representations and social values: scientific ideas (especially biomedical theories), religious beliefs, moral values, legal principles, political positions etc. Thus, it is not surprising to find inconsistencies and contradictions within the same sexual politics, even when the analysis may identify predominant meanings or lines of force. In general, through the incorporation of the concept of sexual politics, the attempt has been to design what one could call styles of moral regulation, i.e., sets of techniques for production of subjects by which persons are provided with a certain self-concept and encouraged to establish a unique relationship with their own body. In Brazil, various authors, particularly Duarte 6, have focused on the importance of sexuality (or the supposed style of moral regulation in its device) for social and political processes of constitution of modern subjects, with the imperatives of reflexivity, self-control, and political and social engagement (awareness of one’s rights and duties). One can argue that the concept of sexual politics as developed here is none other than the more formalized and visible part of the device of sexuality, as analyzed by Michel Foucault 3; or even that it is the very concept of device of sexuality itself, “operationalized” to be applied in more precise and demarcated social and historical contexts. However, the concept, as explored here, does not assume the incorporation of the entire Foucaultian analytical apparatus; in particular, it does not assume that under or within a given sexual politics there is a single sense that would lead (through discipline) to the production of docile bodies and a manageable population. Thus, it allows exploring the coexistence, in a given social configuration, of distinct and sometimes contradictory styles of moral regulation. At any rate, the important issue is to highlight that styles of moral regulation encompassed in a given sexual politics circumscribe a set of subjects who, given their practices and desires, are systematically discriminated against or marginalized. As in other countries, the sexual politics developed in Brazil since the late 19th century has the following as its problematic “others”: homosexuals, prostitutes, men and women that are considered sexually promiscuous, carriers of sexually transmitted diseases, etc. It is precisely the statute of these “others” that has been challenged with the emergence of the discussion concerning sexual rights. This article focuses on one of the arenas that have been articulated based on the impact of human rights ideals on Brazil’s sexual politics, i.e., that of the struggle for so-called “LGBT right” or rights pertaining to what has come to be called “sexual diversity”. Such “LGBT rights”, which often have nothing to do directly with sexuality (i.e., pension issues, adoption, freedom to come and go in public places, or name and sex changes on birth certificates), have come to be viewed as sexual rights, given that, historically speaking, the social and political processes of stigmatization and discrimination that deprive LGBT persons of such rights have involved certain values pertaining to sexuality. In other words, as currently constructed in Brazil, sexual rights refer to legal provisions pertaining either to sexuality or to social groups whose identities were shaped on specific forms of desires and sexual practices.