From: turpin@cs.utexas.edu (Russell Turpin)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: clearing something up
Date: 13 Dec 1992 03:20:10 GMT
Organization: CS Dept, University of Texas at Austin
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: remarque.berkeley.edu
Originator: muffy@remarque.berkeley.edu

-*----
I agree with much of what Janis Maria Cortese wrote in her previous 
post.  But some I would like to add to and some I would like to 
disagree with.

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.  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 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?

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?

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.

> ...  Mutual sharing of sexuality and enjoyment of the human
> body I find no fault with, and I'm afraid that some people
> -- especially men -- on the net think that I'm saying that
> erections are un-PC. ...

If it helps any, I have not read you in this fashion.

> 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?

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







-- 
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
newsgroup is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.