Marval .A. Rex

header photo



Godé Tech is a visual rendering of understandings I have regarding gender and sex technologies vis-à-vis ​the theorizing of ​Paul Preciado. This collection of light particles both moving and not act as signposts for dildotectonics— or the science surrounding gender and sex technologies with the dildo as a semiological locus for understanding this emerging science.



"Within the heteronormative regime, the term dildotectonics describes deviant and non-normal uses of the individual body, or a practice where several bodies make gender or have sex with dildos. Practiced by subaltern subjects, and working against the medical and psychological discourses that ~naturalize~ the body, sex and sexuality (and according to which the dildo is a “fetish”), dildotectonics is not an easy science.


Dildotectonics locates gender and sexual technologies of resistance. It studies their functioning, the ways in which they interrupt the flow of production of body-pleasure-capital not only within heterosexual but also within queer cultures.


The notion of “dildo” can be generalized to reinterpret the history of philosophy and of art production. Thus, within Jacques Derrida’s grammatology, “writing” is the dildo of the metaphysics of presence. Likewise, following Walter Benjamin, within the era of mechanical reproduction, a museum is always a collection of dildos. Finally, all philosophy can be traced back to a more or less complex dildology."


(C) Paul Preciado, The Contrasexual Manifesto, 2002



I find myself currently possessed by and obsessed with the notion of the dildo as a semiotic force that can and will rip open archaic spaces of sex and gender technologies. With my dildotectonics photo series, where​in​  a slightly transparent  pink dildo performs as a thirdspace being, there is a possibility for new perspectives on the phenomena that most captivate me: ​contra​ sex​uality​ , gender​ fuckery​ , ​advancing ​​ technology, and​ queered​  spatial experience— and the infinite intermingling of these phenomena.


What effects does the imagery of the dildo hold, if it ​is ​ the main actor, the sole performer? What does the injection of the dildo hold within aesthetics of resistance or disruption?


For myself the dildo often symbolizes my ​own ​ complex hybridity— how I ​could be both ​machine and beast — changed by synthetic hormones and surgeries​ and yet still perpetually perceived as "natural" or human . ​The dildo​  is itself a false simulacrum of something​ deemed "natural" and proper​​; it is a quasi-object that is not quite false but also not considered "natural".  (The dildo is inherently queer.) ​By grappling with this conceived opposition of synthetic versus natural, I in fact challenge or welcome the disintegrating of the idea that there is any opposition at all: what I mean to indicate here is that there is no such thing as "natural" or human, and advancing technologies transform once "stable" notions of sexes and genders and are thus manifestations of our collective's own advancing or changing experience (manifestations that are perceived as outside of us). If the notion of "natural" and/or real begins to disintegrate and new notions of experiential phenomena arise, I believe it is because of the dildo.  It replaces an idea of the "natural" body as the primary and deified form of true experience. The dildo both acknowledges and replaces the penis. And with the subordination of the penis, everyone begins to win... For the dildo is versatile and open ended in the way that queer strangeness is and in the way that patriarchal imprisonment is not. The dildo is not an answer, it is an actor of potential. ​​It is a refusal of ideas of naturalized sexes and genders, and yet it holds space for the formation of all identities, known and unknown. The dildo is a sexy expanse, it stretches itself like the pink horizons of a Los Angeles sunrise|sunset.




What this cyborgaeon knows is this: my body is a dildo. The dildo, my body, is one potent symbol of contra-sexuality. I am not natural, I am not false. Nothing is as it seems. All is becoming, becoming something strange.





And a finalizing thought|emotion from Paul Preciado:



"Described as a refusal of sexual norms, contrasexuality prohibits any articulation of sexuality as naturalized. Indeed, speaking the word forces one to say “against sexuality”—that is, against an understanding of sexuality as constituted by dominating and hegemonic powers. The body and sexuality are sites of struggle for power and politics. To enact contrasexuality, then, is to performatively and perversely produce contra-pleasures in the body, which in turn evokes a utopian horizon of political transformation. Contrasexuality is at once a refusal, and the constitution of an alternative.​"