From: falcao@felix.metaphor.COM (Ronnie Falcao)
Subject: Media as antagonist to healthy sexuality (Used to be: clearing something up)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Organization: Metaphor Computer Systems, Mountain View, CA
Date: 21 Dec 92 23:46:25 GMT

Russell Turpin (turpin@cs.utexas.edu) writes:

> In article <1gbltfINNo8u@agate.berkeley.edu> cortese@skid.ps.uci.edu (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
> > When young boys learn about sexuality for the first time, they
> > do it through these damned magazines. ...
>
> Speaking as a former young boy, let me add a note of optimism
> here.  The messages young boys receive about sex and
> relationships come from a broad variety of sources: observing
> adults, observing older juveniles, novels, peer behavior, TV,
> computer nets, etc. . . .

I'm having a hard time finding the optimism promised above.
I don't think any of our mainstream culture offers models of
healthy relationships where people actually connect and relate
to each other as individuals rather than as generic placeholders
in a particular role.

I also see Playboy and Hustler as more dangerous than mainstream
culture because their mystique as being off-limits and difficult
(for young boys) to obtain gives them a false mantle of being
closer to the forbidden secret of true adult sexuality.

> . . .   It is hard for me to imagine an environment
> so barren that skin mags are the major source of a young boy's
> information about sex and relationships.  (They may have been, at
> one time, the major source of a young boy's visual images of
> women's naked bodies, but even that is not so much true any
> more.)  In any case, young boys are quick to pick up on all these
> sources and to recognize that each has been packaged for
> different purposes.

I don't know many adults who have a firm grasp on the why's
and wherefore's of the media.  I find it hard to believe
that young boys give a moment's thought to the economics
or sociology of skin mags. or to why they find infantile
images sexually exciting and accept this as healthy adult
sexuality.


> > I may also be defining porn differently from how people think
> > I'm defining it.  Porn connotes non-mutuality, the attitude
> > that one or more persons is there for the delectation of the
> > viewer or another person; note that this definition of mutu-
> > ality includes the observer. ...
>
> There is a problem with this definition: virtually *all* media
> involves this kind of non-mutuality.  Newscasters, football
> players, soap stars, movie stars, rock stars, fictional
> detectives, characters in (your favorite!) novel, comic villains
> and heroes, rodeo cowboys, party clowns, etc., etc., etc., are
> all "there for the delectation of the viewer."  Are they all,
> therefore, porn?

I have a slightly different take from both Janis and Russell.
I think that media professionals recognize that their product
will be more successful as they're better able to make the
consumer feel involved.  In the case of porn, the consumer is
assumed to be male, so the producers attempt to make the male
consumer identify with the male as subject.  Our society's not
really comfortable with sexuality between equals, so to balance
the male as subject, the female must then be portrayed as object.


> The popular feminist criticism of pornography as an act of
> objectification overlooks the fact that objectification is a
> necessary aspect of *any* media portrayal or act of
> entertainment.  Entertainers depend on this fact.  The obvious
> refinement of the criticism is thus: sex is not an appropriate
> subject for such objectification.  But this is a harder row to
> hoe.  If murder, disease, war, crime, religion, professional
> behavior, and personal relationships are appropriate subjects for
> entertainment, why *not* sex?

Sometime during the past week, some star actor (either Mel Gibson
or Jeremy Irons) was interviewed about his soon-to-be-released
movie.  He went on at length about the importance of playing
sex scenes with great delicacy specifically so that viewers
would not feel like voyeurs.  Rather the actor should strive
to lure the viewer into an identification with the actor.  No
mention was made of female viewers or the problem of playing
a scene so that *all* viewers could feel equally involved.
With few exceptions, media sex is packaged for males.


> I have yet to read a criticism of porn stemming from this aspect
> -- i.e., the objectification of the subjects portrayed and the
> "non-mutuality" between viewer and perceived -- that has much
> depth.  Most such criticisms totally ignore that this is
> precisely what porn has in common with other media and, because
> of this, they totally fail to draw any important distinctions
> between porn and other media in this regard.

I agree that much media is packaged with the same intent - to
stroke male egos.  That which is packaged specifically for females tends
not to be of interest to males.  Gee, is it such a surprise then that
many women feel alienated by material packaged for men, including
mainstream pornography?


> > WE ARE REARING OURSELVES ON FANTASY AND KNOW NOTHING ABOUT EACH OTHER.
> > It's far easier for a man to believe that his girlfriend is frigid
> > that to realize that the multibillion dollar industry that supposedly
> > taught him "all about women" is a crock.  It's easier for a woman to
> > believe that her husband/boyfriend is a fool than it is to realize that
> > the female fantasy about Superman the Perfect Meal Ticket is trash.
>
> I think things are a little messier than this let's on.  What
> about the man who realizes that his girlfriend is *not* frigid,
> who realizes that she falls well within societal norms, but who
> would prefer a woman who is more sexually adventurous?  Who
> consciously realizes that what he wants is *more* than normal?
> Is this want wrong?  Can it totally be blamed on porn?  (What if
> he wants has little to do with centerfold images?)  What about a
> woman who realizes that she wants to date a man who is
> *unusually* successful?  Is this only because of "Bride"
> magazine, or is there also *real* (as opposed to fantasized)
> advantage to this?

I agree with your earlier statements that porn is not exclusively
responsible for the development of young people's sexuality.

Has anyone else seen the PBS series about talking with pre-teens
about sex?  It's wonderfully refreshing in its emphasis on *self*
expression, including an unusual acceptance of homosexuality.
When you show me a man who would be comfortable with the realization
that he's gay, then I'll believe he might be capable of consciously
realizing that he wants "*more*" than normal.  Otherwise he's still
a prisoner of our unhealthy socialization.

My guess is that a woman who wants to date a man who is *unusually*
successful has been brainwashed into thinking that the material
advantages will be sufficient recompense for his exaggerated
sense of power and emotional and temporal inaccessibility.
Show me a "successful" man and I see someone whose set of
values probably doesn't intersect with mine.


> The notion that media (especially media that appeals to the least
> common denominator) determines what people want strikes me as
> much too facile.  There are some reasons for these desires that
> go beyond media influence.  Do away with every skin mag and every
> piece of porn in the world, and men will still seek out women on
> the measure of sexual attraction.  This measure may change, it
> may accord less with Barbie doll beauty and more with other
> things, but it will still be there.

> Russell

How many discussions of "The Beauty Myth" do we have to have
here before people understand the general concept?  The economics
of the media are to create a demand (sometimes for more of the
same media) and to sell products (sometimes the media).  What
more effective technique than to say "Healthy sexuality is found
only in in our fantasy magazines.  Your sexual needs can not be
met by mere mortals."  If these magazines actually helped to
develop a healthy sexuality that could be satisfied by actual
relationships with other real human beings, they would be
putting themselves out of business.

[Here I'm climbing up on my soapbox, made in California.]

In our culture, unexamined values are very likely to be values
that are corrupted by the media.  Many people are more concerned
with attaining happiness as portrayed as the possession of
material goods and the domination of other humans than they
are concerned with paying attention to what makes them happy,
even if it's free and not glamorous.  Remember the song,
"Sometimes, all I need is the air that I breathe, and to love you."
Well, I think the part about ". . . and to love you." is a symptom
of our culture's belief that an unattached person is an unhappy
person.  But if you've never felt so supported by the earth
in your existence that all you need is the air that you
breathe, then I'll find it hard to believe that you have
an authentic sense of your own sexuality.

[End of soapbox.]

Although I have known one teenager who had a sense of her
true self, most teens I've known are at the mercy of the
media.  I think we're doing them a great disservice to
support businesses that cheat them of the wonder of
self-realization, especially regarding their blossoming
sexuality.

To authentic sexuality,
Ronnie

falcao@metaphor.com

--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.