News Flash: iSex, denied.

As of February 22^nd, 2010 the Apple Application store went from a place of free expression of intellectual creativity to a regulated location confined to social norms. In response to customer’s complaints and in preparation for a new target group for the iPad, Apple decided to remove some of its applications with “objectionable” and explicitly sexual content. Check out an article about it here. At first this censorship seems progressive because it limits the sexualization of women’s bodies and the exposure of children to objectified sexual images. However, it also denies a freedom of sexual expression, specifically of exploration for the Apple’s new target market. Addressing the sexual nature of App store is a step towards an open conversation, but is not the solution.

Particular developers are upset by this change while others are excited about it. Fred Clarke, co-president of On the Go Girls, said that all 50 of his company’s applications are no longer available and is concerned about his possibility to profit. However, Wally Chang, founder of Donoma Games, is looking forward to increased revenue because he felt that all of the racy applications were “cluttering up the App store” and feels his non-sexual applications will now have a better chance of being seen. However, applications like the Sports Illustrated app and one by Playboy were allowed to remain. When questioned about the seemingly arbitrary censorship, Philip W. Schiller, head of worldwide product marketing at Apple, said, “Apple took the source and intent of an app into consideration. The difference is this is a well-known company with previously published material available broadly in a well-accepted format.”

The Apple App store was a place of intellectual developer’s freedom that turned into a haven for Raunch Culture. In order to reclaim the space from a total raunch identity, Apple took control of the merchandise sold in the virtual store. Ariel Levy in Female Chauvinist Pigs discusses the evolution of a Raunch Culture where popular culture has become the sexualization of women’s bodies as a form of so-called empowerment. Women are supposed to feel powerful when they can assert their sexuality, but often times this expression of sexuality is fueled mainly by social patriarchal forces. The women in the objectionable applications were not empowered by the applications, only by the money that came with displaying their bodies. This new censorship denies raunch in the App Store and stops the exploitation of these women. However, the censorship itself created a situation where both the developers and the women in the raunch applications were exploited. The developers were cheated by Apple because the worked hard to develop their programs, only to have them banned from the site. The women in the applications were cheated first by the developers who used images of their bodies for money and second by Apple who took away this exploitation but also the funding that came with it. The women are again in Kenji Yoshino’s double bind.

Last summer, Apple began a parental control and ratings system to keep sex-themed applications away from children. Unfortunately for the developers, Gene Munster, an analyst who watches Apple, said that the sex-themed applications still reached a point beyond where the company was comfortable. Some of the sex-themed application developers are intending to continue developing for Google’s Android and other similar market places that do not censor their applications. Some wonder if the Android will now become a place mainly for sex-based applications. If the sexual applications will still exist in the world, we should address them and their possible uses, not just deny them one particular space. We should also examine why we want to deny children and teens access to highly sexualized virtual applications.

The censorship of the App store brings up a discussion of the necessity of censoring sexuality from children. Apple is hoping that the iPad will appeal to children and teens and will be used for educational purposes. Because of this new target population, they began to monitor sexual expressions through the App store. But why does our society deem sexuality something that needs to be monitored? Every person has some sexual identity and when we block sexuality from society, we loose ownership of this sexual drive. It becomes hidden not only from the outside world but also from ourselves. In a popular activist performance called The Vagina Monologues, produced by Eve Ensler, many of the women discuss never being comfortable with their sexuality. The purpose of this show is to raise awareness about women’s issues and give women an opportunity to explore their sexual inquiries. One monologue in particular asks a 5-year-old girl about her vagina. The questions are simple and include: what your vagina would wear or what does it smell like, but they expose the girl to idea that her vagina is part of her body and that she can take ownership of it. Apple on the other hand, is working to exclude the notion of sexuality from its new educational tool. The Apps Store may not be the safest place to learn about sexuality but excluding it from the conversation overall will not deny the children and teens an understanding of their sexuality.

While the banning of “objectionable” material from the App Store will stop the exploitation of some women’s bodies and deny raunch culture a place to flourish, it will also deny users an opportunity to explore their sexuality. A compromise would be to develop a sexual education application that can be downloaded. The application would have accurate information and a forum for the users to ask questions they might not feel comfortable asking their peers or guardians. Another possible solution would be to create an adult section within the App store that requires a certain age minimum or password. Both of these options would help the developers of the programs and consumers continue to explore their sexual intentions through software. It would also be a progressive move by including sexuality in an open way in our everyday lives. Instead of forgoing a conversation about sexuality, it would be the first of hopefully many steps in creating a sexual revolution, a revolution to promote openness, consent and an understanding of power politics.