From: jclark@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (John Clark)
Newsgroups: soc.bi
Subject: Re: Sexual Harassment (was Re: Michigan Wom*n's Music Festival)
Date: 30 Aug 92 01:46:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: sdcc12.37455
Organization: University of California, San Diego

In article <iw.715012766@tosser> iw@tosser.Rational.COM (Sults) writes:
+One of the things I value most about womens space, is that I can get
+glammed up as much as I want, as sexily as I want, and I know I won`t
+get harassed.  OK so a few butches may swagger at me ...  but thats the
+general idea anyway.

Here is a 'problem' in that a woman who gets 'glammed up' but for
the benefit of a male audiance is a lacky(lackette) of patriarchy,
but a lesbian who's audiance is other women, is a revolutionary.

I have always sensed a prudishness in the explanations of sexual
evocative behavior which premises that one does this because a)
patriarchy demands women to be 'looked at', i.e. objectified, or b)
woman is exploited via the economic system to be 'available', and by
the elimination of these structures women wouldn't behave this way,
corollary is that men would instantly change as well.

I do not wish to say that this are pointless theories and may well
account for much behavior, what I wish to say is that the result is
any sexual display is then judged exploitive.

Use clothes to highten sexual interest, and low and behold they are
not 'something one could wear while walking 10 miles', hence
limiting and 'binding'. Where no clothes and become a 'slab of meat'.
Wear sexual neutral clothes and not indicate desire or evoke
interest, and hence not have anyone respond. I suppose one could
wear neutral clothes and through protracted and ciruclar
conversation emit interest via inuendo and oblequeness.

There is a similar 'problem' in erotic art, and 'pornography' as
well. The elitist would have one believe that only the low class
'respond' to 'pornography' were as the upper class has erotic art.
Often the 'erotic' is I and O(Inuendo and Obleque), and the
'porno' direct, sexual arouseal of the male obvious, and hence crass.

What would be 'advanced' is a erotism which allowed for aruoused
states of the male, without the dominant position of
initiator/actor that is currently the main stream offerint. Now why
do I seem to emphasise the 'male' aspect? In most of the 'erotism'
that makes it to the 'high' art galleries, it is the female in a
'supine' or at least 'inactive' display. Most of 'high' erotism has
a complete lack of the male arousal, or if depicted it is in a
active/initiator setting, and by an artist who has 'paid HIS dues'
via the standard 'female as 'inanimate' erotic object.

If anyone has made it this far, could you give any examples of
women artists who do 'erotic' art which shows men aroused or at
least depicted as sexual beings and shown in 'high' art galleries.

One of the 'reasons' which has been in the back of my mind for a
while is that women, from the 'male' point of view, can be imagined
to be arouse even while seeming to be sleeping(see number of
examples of this in 19th century art). In fact a number of fairy
tales re-enforce the sleeping i.e totally un-resistant women as
'erotic' object.

The aroused 'male' must have a engorged penis to be 'believable' and
hence the 'problem'. I feel that it is because of fears of
homosexual arousal that the male is never depicted as such. Sometime
ago someone posted something to the effect of 'ever noticed how many
dick-o-centric shots make up heterosexual porn'. Well, yes, and the
'standard' answer is that this allows the 'male' viewer the fantasy
subsitution of his dick for the one in the picture. However, it has
been on my mind for sometime that there is a homosexual content
which has never been explicitly stated. This may be seen by also
noting that alot of the shots need not identify the gender of the
subordinate partner. One has close shots of the mouth and face,
hands, etc, but the vaginal penial shots seem almost 'obligatory' to
remind the viewer that HE is heterosexual.

kkk




What doesn't seem to be 
-- 

John Clark
jclark@ucsd.edu
Newsgroups: soc.bi