As a subgenre a sexological “atlas” is situated within a larger genre of “geographies of sexuality” which itself is nested in what can be called the “spatial sexualities” or perhaps “local sexualities” tradition. A landmark effort in this recent “spatial turn” in sexology here is of course David Bell and Gill Valentine’s Mapping Desire: Geographies of Sexuality, amidst a range of writings addressing sites, places, spaces, spatialities, spheres, scenes, arenas, areas, territories, locales, landscapes, (‘Third’?) worlds, neighbourhoods, districts, and so on, as containing, constitutive of, or implicated and articulated in sexual identities/performances. Works thus informed variably examine “spatial dynamics”, “spatial organizations”, and instances of “spatialisation”. The work in these writings (which significantly tends to be viewed as to mirror practices studied) is variably “geography”, “topography”, “cartography”, “social ecology”, or “mapping”. The literature has produced gendered spaces, queer spaces, non-spaces, and so forth. Instances of social spatialization of gender/sexuality are examined in their private and public contingency (including performances in “intermediate” spaces); global, local as well as hybrid species of “glocal” articulations; metropolitan, urban and rural configurations; central and (semi-)peripheral positionality. Conversely, sexualities impact, design and elaborate environmental ethics, for instance as studied by ecofeminism. More interesting still is the influx in social/cultural theory of spatial tropes to conceptualise issues of sexual performativity and trajectory: ‘closets’ exited or re-entered, bodies/anatomies ‘mapped’, mind/bodyscapes navigated, counterhegemonic sexologies ‘marginalized’, ‘boundaries’ between sexual discourses and silences.
Some of these tropes have been employed ‘paragraphically’ in Volume 2 of this corpus (notably §6.2.7, §17.1-6, §4.7, §16.1.5, §IV.5; Appendix 3), and very much in unselfreflective ways. From these passages, very abstractly, it emerged that (1) sexual / sexological spaces could be curricular (curricularised, curricularising), and that (2) sexual curricula (curricularizations) could be spatial, spatialised, spatialising. Collaterally, both dimensional processes have been proposed as a near-paradigmatic (but perhaps also counter-paradigmatic) binary in generic poststructuralist theory. So in a sense microspatialities and macrospatialities have been offered in GUS, but implications of scale were left unanalysed (in fact unmentioned).
Examples of ‘sex atlases’, then, include the present effort, and the International Encyclopaedia of Sexuality (rather an atlas than an encyclopaedia). The ‘geographies of sexuality’ genre beside featuring more or less regimented regionalist approaches (of which an atlas I contend is the most regimenting), also features thematic exposés that draw upon the full literature body of local sex customs (e.g., Gregersen) to establish human variance: thematically ordered, and on “world” scale.
Some remarks should be addressed, some of which have been hinted at briefly at a number of previous occasions (2002 Guidelines, 2003 PostScript, 2004 Preface). In the following post hoc ramification of this initially pre-academic effort, I would like to deconstruct earlier efforts to arrive at more nuanced appreciation of ‘atlas’ data. Then I conclude to propose not an alternative to spatiality, but an optional focus within sexuality studies in general, and a worthy focus within (if necessary) spatial sexologies more specifically.
Summing up, space is a rewarding grid for overviewing human sexualities, though an arbitrary one, in fact an infinitely plural one. While geography as a master grid is contestable, more productively contestable grids include the ontological (body, mind, institution, author) and the paradigmatic (welfare, therapy, trajectory) apparatus, because it is here where ethnocentrism is played out most elaborately. An alternative rendering of this cross-cultural overview, as initial supervisory input suggested, is according to life phase, but that won’t do in a project that deconstructs curricula as such. So how about curricula?
Trajectories as Postmodern Absence
Action research has produced theoretical work on ethnicity/‘race’, gender (and gender orientation), and class, as evermore “intersecting axes of oppression”. Contemporarily these axes should ideally be “re-conceptualised without reducing one to the other”. While such reciprocal reductionism is one concern addressed routinely in current research, significantly and increasingly also from spatial perspectives, few authors point out, except in general terms (usually suggestive of a regimental political imperative for inclusivity and generic utility), that the axiality in question obfuscates much of the cultural potentiality of drop-out candidate axes. The exclusion of trajectory within this canonical postmodern triad seems obvious for a number of reasons. First, the concept of pedagogy seems rooted, embodied and institutionalised in a necessity of generational power differentials. This means that pedagogues can not go beyond what might be imagined to be anti-authoritarian, critical, and postmodern formulations of “peer” led, “participatory”, “dialogical” and “exchange” based routes of education. We remain e-ducated, led (out). Even in these solutions, one does not escape modern horrors routinely escaped elsewhere: doctrine, essentialism, developmentalism, power dichotomy, unilateralism, alignment, internalization, graded accreditation and graduation based on alternativeless consensus, and so on. Thus the child represents a case at best of defect or inconsequential postmodernism (cf. Janssen, 2004).
Culture and Curricular Fit
I propose a definition to approach ethnotheories of sexual trajectories, as generated by previous literature reviewing, then proceed with some hypotheses to be addressed in future research.
· Curricula contain and imply eventuality. Through curricula individuals reduce, precede and perform events on account of their alleged “fit” (events are reduced to ‘fitting in’). For instance, sequentiality disciplines the step, to the steps; whereas chronology disciplines the time, to the timeline.
· One might argue that curricular containment is twofold control: in one sense by enabling extirpation and silencing the unfitting and ill-fitting (in terms of repair and punishment, vis-à-vis the Precocious / untimely / ‘hurried’, the delayed, the dyscurricular, the ‘trans’curricular), in the other by enabling the rendering of the fit (in terms of enrolment, rite de passage, internalized careerism). These vectors are mutually constitutive, mutually implicated and mutually exhaustive.
· Curricula work out properly only in anomalous contexts. Contestation however is discursively to occur merely in exteriority, the timeless, the deprived, not something that mocks salient time, but that subverts clocks, imagine bending the pointer, the pointer-holding plate, the plate-holding wall. Discurricular categories are “curricularised” if not made the focal site of curriculum; it infects, makes aware, renders visible.
· Curricular containment is nevertheless by-passed, contested, subverted and (self-)deconstructed.
· Curricula are ethnohistorically contingent, not necessarily internally consistent, and exist/evolve dialectically. Curricula are local, local permutations of master narratives including ‘welfare’, paedotrophy, ‘development’ and other ‘necessities’.
Future research might examine dis/articulations between contemporary ontogenetic notions and genres of sexual (gendered/erotic) persona. It might examine how developing sexual personae discursively mediate between hierarchical textual orders, to contain performative elements of what I would call the body curriculum, through erotological dialogue, and gendered self-instantiation. An important question reads: if gender and gendered bodies can be described in terms of performativity (e.g. Judith Butler) and be deconstructed as such, what then can be said about curricular bodies? Is it necessarily the case that “life phase” figures as a political factor or grid in gender studies, or might curriculum itself be worthy of a paradigmatic approach? A discussion of this problem requires a critical ‘interlogue’ between current academic theorising on the curricular subject on the one hand, and a dialogical approach to ethnotheories and “autographies” of the sexual persona. I am interested here in the social interstitium of auto[bio]graphies as collages featuring behaviours, events, experiences, and states of attraction, as such, and as constitutive “work” in emerging pre/adol/escent social networks.
To meet this (open-ended) objective, this research involves analysis in three parts. First, a comprehensive historical reconstruction of key academic notions of the emergent sexual persona might be forged to provide an understanding of possible tensions between, gaps in, and possibilities for hybridization between diverse lines of ramification. This requires an integrative, inclusive and synthetic reading of ethnographic, sociological, clinical, and other modes of analysis, and a thorough discussion of their methodic viability. My emphasis here would be directed to developments significant in late 20th century ethnographic resources. An organising feature would be the analysis of dialectic friction between “trajectories” on the one hand, and “curricula” (programmatic, discursive, disciplinary and institutional understandings of trajectorality) on the other. Thus, one might deconstruct developmentalist and essentialistnotions of sexual and erotic performativity, and examines current potentiality for post-developmentalist approaches, specifically for ethnographic methods.
Second, fieldwork could map local ethnotheoretical notions of the sexual persona. This fieldwork could include dialogical work with young adolescents and adults, and focus on “reconstructive” and “acconstructive” features of autobiography and auto-ethnography, dialectic emergence of “trajectory” and “curriculum”, aspects of agency and “development”, and perspectives of deconstruction. With “acconstruction” I propose to address techniques of forward construction of the inaugurational, aspired, and propaedeutic persona (“agenda”), that is to say, the constituency of the envisioned agentic Self. With “dialogical” I imagine experimental, open forms of exchange, employed to centralise eventual intertextuality, performativity, and hierarchical containment. Thematically, I would in particular be interested in performative forms of Not-doing (e.g., virginities), of preliminalities, and anticipations within allegedly/potentially developmentalist regimens and logics.
Third, one could examine possibilities for integration, cross-breeding and cross-fertilisation of insights from both dialogical realms of theorising. It is here that bottom-up and top-down webs of signification might feed into, deconstruct and/or overlap the other’s proceedings. Specific attention is reserved for issues of privileging of voice, subject and development, author-text-reader constellations, truth and theory, and representation. In this concluding part one may examine ways of reformulating existing genres of theoretical endeavour in “sexual development studies”, to be reinterpreted and revaluated as a newly emerging field of expertise, a new subdiscipline. Trajectory, hence, could well emerge as an underrecognised/underappreciated/underprivileged parallel paradigm in sexology. In vogue is a child-centred, dialogical, intertextual and open-ended mode of approaching a large and multi-facetted field of theorising, unduly disintegrated and disaggregated as yet.
D. F., Growing Up Sexually.
Last revised: Jan 2005
 Laurie, N., Dwyer, C., Holloway, S.
& Smith, F. (1999) Geographies of New
 Porteous, J. (1990). ‘Bodyscape’, in J. Porteous, Landscapes of the Mind.
 The Derridian notion of “différance”, for
instance, captured two simultaneous operations: espacement (“devenir-espace du temps”) and temporisation (“devenir-temps de l’espace”). Both the “différence”
(“altérité de dissemblance”) and the “différend” (“altérité de polémique”)
produced by the operation of “espacement” would have to be connected with the
operation of “temporisation”; “Differer in this sense [temporization] is to
temporize, to take recourse consciously or unconsciously, in the temporal and
temporizing mediation of a detour that suspends the accomplishment nor
fulfilment of "desire" or "will," and equally effects this
suspension in a mode that annuls or tempers its own effect” While the appropriation
of what may seem obscenely abstract ideas to practical (ethnographic) utility
most probably will impress different people differently in terms of these
concepts of arch-writing being generic for the microbiographical scale, I think
may be worthwhile. Derrida, Jacques (transl. Alan Bass) Margins of Philosophy,
 Gregersen, Edgar. (1992). The World of Human Sexuality: Behaviours,
Customs and Beliefs.
 A significant event Concepts of Regionalism - Approaches and Theories was organised by the University Center for International Studies (UNC-CH) in cooperation with the Nordamerikaprogramm (University of Bonn, Germany), March, 22-26, 2000 [http://www.ucis.unc.edu/programs/regionalism2000.html]
 E.g., Kornelia
Hahn, Regionalism in global societies:
How is a contradiction analyzed? Workshop at
 See non-coverage (exclusion?) of
sexuality and sexual identity in the otherwise contributing Mark Moritz, Honor psychology and pastoral personality:
An ecocultural analysis of herding routines and socialization into the culture
of honor among nomadic FulBe in
 Consider this bibliography, derived
 I thank Dr. W. van Binsbergen for hammering this home to me.
 Janssen, D. F. (2004). Postdevelopmental Sexualities: Don’t Bring
the Kids. Paper delivered at the XVIth Deutsche Gesellschaft für
Sozialwissenschaftliche Sexualforschung (DGSS) Conference on Social Scientific
Sexuality Research “Sexualities and Social Change”,