Darn work, keeping me so busy I don't even have time to post intelligent commentary. What on earth do they think they pay me for, to actually work?!? :)
Anyway, John left another well-thought out comment, and I wanted to respond to it, because I think he raises some excellent points.
As a rich white male representative of the phallocracy, my view is inherently pretty biased. ;) I think you can argue that rather than a perceived inequality between men and women, one of the things adult clubs and porn demonstrate is an inherent difference between the base interests of (most) men and women. I'm an economist by training, so I tend to see most things in a monetary sense... if there were more of a demand for male porn, I have no doubt there would be more of it. There's certainly no lack of it now, and contrary to common perception, it's not ALL aimed at gay men. I don't think it's all about the power struggle... men are just more into anonymous sexual encounters than women are. (Is that itself indicative of the power struggle? Biological? Who knows. Different discussion.) Men's Revues tend to be successful in limited runs. Are they different from women's strip shows? I can't meaningfully comment on either, but there is a non-zero demand for porn and strip clubs aimed at women.
Yes, I agree with you somewhat, but I think that these "base interests" of men and women that are so different stem directly from these inequalities between the sexes that have been perpetuated throughout, well, forever. Men have been taught it's ok to objectify women; women have been taught to respect men, and therefore do not (usually) have the desire to partake in what many of us feel is a degrading act (watching men strip, pose nude in porn magazines, etc.). Personally, I believe this is a huge contributing factor to the difference in our interests. And who knows; if these inequalities have never existed between the sexes, if women weren't valued solely for their beauty and sexuality while men were valued for the intelligence and ambition, maybe the "base interests" wouldn't be so different. Then again, maybe they would. It's the whole "chicken and the egg thing;" which came first, the inequalities between the sexes that led to the objectification of women, or the objectification of women which led to the inequalities (and difference in interests) between the sexes? It's a tough call.
However, just because there is a supply and demand for something does not mean what's being supplied is right or good. With slavery, child pornography, cocaine, etc., there is a huge supply/demand. That doesn't mean that these things SHOULD be supplied, even though it's in the "base interest" of those who desire it.
That's not meant to disprove your point re: power imbalances and gender inequity with a counter-example, but I personally see a more pragmatic than philosophical view to the issue. If enough women were into it, the flesh peddlers would make just as much porn aimed at women as is aimed at men. Probably more, since men work cheaper in the skin industry.
I do think it's a shame that people view the world through a distorted lens that favors either gender in the workplace. That's the kind of thing that takes a generation or more to affect, and my fellow "sensitive caring men of the 90s" and I are doing our best to help that along. But changing those attitudes towards porn is tough, and you enter into some odd territory when you talk about implementing any changes. It's not really possible to kill people's desire for a vicarious, non-personal approach to relationships and the opposite sex. (If the specter of AIDS didn't do it, what will?) How do you demonize porn without demonizing sex? Do you just push the porn underground? Isn't it just more dangerous there? The same question applies to most hotbed issues... abortion, drug legalization, prostitution, prohibition, etc. Push them underground, they get more dangerous.
Oh, I agree totally that this shouldn't be pushed underground. I just prefer to educate people regarding the implications of porn and prostitution, with the hopes that they will come to their own (i.e., my ;) ) conclusions and change their behavior accordingly. But you're right; this isn't something that should be outlawed, because if I'm going to stand for ALL people's right to choose--and I do--that means I have to stand for their right to choose something I don't agree with.
Long and short of it, I agree with you... if we could change people's attitudes on the relationship between gender and sexuality, that would be a good thing all around. I just don't see how that happens on anything other than an individual level. Enough individuals = everybody, but that takes a while. Without something akin to the civil right's movement, there's just not the momentum, and ironically the rise of the feminist movement coincided almost exactly with the mainstreaming of porn. It's all a weird tangled mess. Reading back at this comment, I'm not sure we're arguing the same thing, and we're mostly on the same side anyway. So even if the points are tangential, I hope they're interesting. :) Oh, and I forgot to add, shut up, you lesbian bitch. ;)
Haha; thank you ;)
Thursday, January 31, 2008
I'm back!
Posted by Amanda at 2:27 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
I have nothing to ad other than a hearty agreement to everything you so eloquently said--as usual!
Post a Comment