Ah, the internet; where anything you write can and will be misinterpreted by the most reactionary minds ever honed to the purpose of anonymous argumentation...
I never said that people shouldn't control their own sexual impulses. I said that people should not control their spouse's desire to explore their own sexuality on their own. Do you want your fiancee to dictate when you can and cannot touch yourself down there? I mean, other than in some D/s relationship, in which I suppose the kink is the domination, in which case it's voluntary submission anyway...
The objectification of women happens completely outside of porn. By objectification, feminists mean that the woman is the object of sexual desire while the man is the subject. As in "subject-verb-object".
In exact terms, that means that a man - according to this culture - has desire for a woman; not the other way around. Women are not supposed to show desire for a man - it's part of the passivity implied by objectification.
Pornography is a symptom of the objectification of women and also a cause; this is because it facilitates the "meme" of the active masciline and the passive feminine. Take the "lucky pizza boy" scenario. The pizza boy arrives. The woman is in a bathrobe. She offers to play with his tip. He succumbs to the desire. The pizza boy is a subject of desire for the object (woman). But it can also be used to portray women as subjects of desire and men as objects (the pizza boy scenario reversed), or a more balanced distribution (everyone is an active, agentic subject).
Such pornography exists, and is often called "fem positive" and other things. Oftentimes you'll find it under [real] amateur [as opposed to just "novice"] porn. It's designed for women or couples, and usually shows women being positive, active agents (and usually men too). Or it's not designed professionally at all, and it's made by women who've got an exhibitionist streak and want to show off their sex lives. Some of their motives are best described as "desire me" but some are honestly similar to the men [obviously with no intention of running for public office] who video tape their one-night stands and post the tapes on the internet (occasionally turning their randy sex life into a profit-seeking venture).
A lot of mainstream porn that portrays women badly also shows women as subjects of desire, but what it actually does is objectify the desire because the men (and women) consuming it actively seek fantasies of a woman's desire for a man.
I like the idea of women being subjects of desire, not objects. A lot of men do - that is, a lot of men are subjects of a desire for women (objects again) to be subjects of desire.
That's possibly one reason why porn is taboo; it often displays situations counter to the culture's norms ("slutty" women).
Sex positive feminists will tell you that the word "slut" could be a compliment, just like "player" is for men, if we didn't have a double standard that expected women not to be subjects of desire.
Sorry if I misinterpreted anything you said. Sarcasm comes across very poorly in text, and it seemed you were being sarcastic in many parts of that comment.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: I disagree with a point..or two
Date: 2006-08-15 01:24 am (UTC)I never said that people shouldn't control their own sexual impulses. I said that people should not control their spouse's desire to explore their own sexuality on their own. Do you want your fiancee to dictate when you can and cannot touch yourself down there? I mean, other than in some D/s relationship, in which I suppose the kink is the domination, in which case it's voluntary submission anyway...
The objectification of women happens completely outside of porn. By objectification, feminists mean that the woman is the object of sexual desire while the man is the subject. As in "subject-verb-object".
In exact terms, that means that a man - according to this culture - has desire for a woman; not the other way around. Women are not supposed to show desire for a man - it's part of the passivity implied by objectification.
Pornography is a symptom of the objectification of women and also a cause; this is because it facilitates the "meme" of the active masciline and the passive feminine. Take the "lucky pizza boy" scenario. The pizza boy arrives. The woman is in a bathrobe. She offers to play with his tip. He succumbs to the desire. The pizza boy is a subject of desire for the object (woman). But it can also be used to portray women as subjects of desire and men as objects (the pizza boy scenario reversed), or a more balanced distribution (everyone is an active, agentic subject).
Such pornography exists, and is often called "fem positive" and other things. Oftentimes you'll find it under [real] amateur [as opposed to just "novice"] porn. It's designed for women or couples, and usually shows women being positive, active agents (and usually men too). Or it's not designed professionally at all, and it's made by women who've got an exhibitionist streak and want to show off their sex lives. Some of their motives are best described as "desire me" but some are honestly similar to the men [obviously with no intention of running for public office] who video tape their one-night stands and post the tapes on the internet (occasionally turning their randy sex life into a profit-seeking venture).
A lot of mainstream porn that portrays women badly also shows women as subjects of desire, but what it actually does is objectify the desire because the men (and women) consuming it actively seek fantasies of a woman's desire for a man.
I like the idea of women being subjects of desire, not objects. A lot of men do - that is, a lot of men are subjects of a desire for women (objects again) to be subjects of desire.
That's possibly one reason why porn is taboo; it often displays situations counter to the culture's norms ("slutty" women).
Sex positive feminists will tell you that the word "slut" could be a compliment, just like "player" is for men, if we didn't have a double standard that expected women not to be subjects of desire.
Sorry if I misinterpreted anything you said. Sarcasm comes across very poorly in text, and it seemed you were being sarcastic in many parts of that comment.