Feminism & sex
Nov. 24th, 2006 03:04 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I do consider myself a feminist, and I have a lot of the same beliefs and the average "feminist on the street" as well as agreeing with much of the cultural analysis in academic/intellectual feminism. However, one area that I rarely ever agree with other feminists on is the area of sexuality, especially the public depiction of sexuality, from porn to stripping to prostitution, to how sexuality is used in advertising. Any topic on which the Christian Right and radical feminists agree, such as "porn is bad and degrading to women" is one which I tend to find myself clashing with other feminists.
It just seems to me that there can be no depiction of sexuality involving women, either in words, pictures, or video, that some feminists won't have a problem with. There's buzz-words like "objectification" and "the male gaze" and on and on. It can never be as simple as, "People like sex and are curious about depictions of sexuality." If you take this kind of criticism to an extreme, it seems like certain feminists are saying that sexuality and sexual desire are not appropriate topics for movies/photos/stories, or that there's no way to show women's sexuality in certain media that isn't degrading or demeaning to the women that do it.
With the Christian Right, there's this sense of paternalism and condescension, that women need to be saved from themselves, even if they don't feel degraded or demeaned by the sex work they do or the sexuality they are portraying.
Feminist theory uses different terminology, but there often feels like there's an ugly subtext that any woman who feels empowered by doing any kind of sex work is deluded, naive, or not very evolved. There's also the subtext that women who do sex work or who feel empowered by expressing their sexuality are somehow abetting the patriarchy or are letting the whole of the Sisterhood down. I also find myself offended by some of the assumptions about what men think and want as portrayed in many feminist critiques of sex work and sexual imagery.
I feel like I have more to say about this, and more examples and specifics I could detail, but I think I need to let this percolate a bit longer...
It just seems to me that there can be no depiction of sexuality involving women, either in words, pictures, or video, that some feminists won't have a problem with. There's buzz-words like "objectification" and "the male gaze" and on and on. It can never be as simple as, "People like sex and are curious about depictions of sexuality." If you take this kind of criticism to an extreme, it seems like certain feminists are saying that sexuality and sexual desire are not appropriate topics for movies/photos/stories, or that there's no way to show women's sexuality in certain media that isn't degrading or demeaning to the women that do it.
With the Christian Right, there's this sense of paternalism and condescension, that women need to be saved from themselves, even if they don't feel degraded or demeaned by the sex work they do or the sexuality they are portraying.
Feminist theory uses different terminology, but there often feels like there's an ugly subtext that any woman who feels empowered by doing any kind of sex work is deluded, naive, or not very evolved. There's also the subtext that women who do sex work or who feel empowered by expressing their sexuality are somehow abetting the patriarchy or are letting the whole of the Sisterhood down. I also find myself offended by some of the assumptions about what men think and want as portrayed in many feminist critiques of sex work and sexual imagery.
I feel like I have more to say about this, and more examples and specifics I could detail, but I think I need to let this percolate a bit longer...
no subject
Date: 2006-11-24 08:20 pm (UTC)You may find individual people who feel otherwise about sexuality (particularly the vibe that sexual expressiveness in all forms is wrong and degrading to its object), and I wouldn't want to gloss over their perfectly valid opinions that I happen to disagree with, but I don't think that's a majority opinion.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-25 12:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-25 04:02 am (UTC)With the addition that yeah I would like to see more men-as-sex-objects in the media too, not just women.
Incidently I have a friend that stripped for a while, and she loved it. She doesn't have much shyness about such things, and found it a really fun and easy way to make some money and I think rather liked the attention. And oh yeah she's an honors grad student, one of the smartest people I know. She started off doing it as "research" for a paper or some such.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-25 06:10 am (UTC)if it is ever possible, you should engage my lover,
no subject
Date: 2006-11-25 08:28 pm (UTC)And i am sorry but stripping is a damn good low level entry profession. Most girls strip becausetehey have it, and they like the money - and it is good money. WAY better than giving blow jobs for crack in a parkinglot. I have a great deal of respect for strippers, and if i had the body and the strength in my thigh muscles heh i would definately concider it. And if anything stripping is objectifying men, because they quite litterally buy into a fantasy that they know will not be fufilled.
Sex and sexual desires will always exist. No antiporn feminist or christian group is going to end that which is human nature.
And the fact of the matter is, we all prostitute ourselves. Laying a person after they take you out ofor dinner is food for sex. Because they brought you a ring, jewelery for sex. Because they let you cry on thier shoulder, emotional support for sex. The only people not prosituting themselves are those people that randomly have sex with strangers, but anti-porn femisitis probably have a problem with that too. Oh well, if they want to bitch at something, they may as well bitch at that, because it willnever make a difference and it is easy enough to tune them out.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-26 09:12 am (UTC)I dislike saying that I am a feminist, I prefer the term egalitarian. when I do say feminist, its "sex positive feminist." I enjoy sex in all its myriad of forms and expressions, and as long as it is between consensual adults, I dont care what they do. (I also think teenagers should be more free to explore their sexual desires, but in age appropriate ways.)
That said, there are women being exploited in sexual industries. But, I dont see how a stripper making an honest wage is more exploited than an administrative assistant or a mcdonalds worker.
Plus, porn, online or video, has a very low entry cost, it is an area in which women can make good money without exploiting their workers :-)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-27 04:43 pm (UTC)There are a few angles to this issue, and i think people mix them up.
First off, i think the core issue of feminism is insuring that women are equally empowered. In this context, this means enjoying their sex when they want to, and not being sexual when they don't want to. As others said, i think propagating the idea that women can be sexual, and enjoy it is empowering -- so long as it's made clear that these on done on their terms, not as some subservient role to men (well, unless it's willfully-granted subservience... but you know what i mean). If anything, i think to help established balanced empowerment in our society women need to be more sexualized -- but as the "do-er", so to speak, not the "done-to". Porn is no exception, and people forget that there can be very good porn and very bad porn -- a female character who aggressively decides to go out and seek pleasure via some sort of maniacal sexual spree is very much empowered, while another who clearly looks like a made-up desperate drug addict barely propped into place as a prop is not (and, IMHO, also grosses me out).
Second, there's the issue of objectification. This is a tricky one, because it's hard to draw clear lines as to what is a neutral portrayal of a person, what is fair artistic license for aethetics' sake, and what is having a harmful social effect. I honestly think the only key here is awareness. For example, i once heard a slightly more militant feminist friend tell another friend that he was "part of the problem" because he found unshaved legs unattractive on a woman. Discussion ensued, and what we really concluded was that my friend has every right to his opinion and tastes, regardless of how influenced they may have been by society, and that he's not a bad person for having them. However, he should be aware that propagating his opinion in certain contexts could be reinforcing stereotypes and/or disempowering ideas that just so happen to be prevalant in our society. It's a compassion thing, really, and i think it's the only sensible solution i've seen. Note, too, that the more "voice" you have, the more "aware" you need to be about your work -- if you're an advertising exec or famous musical artist, you need to know that your work/art will reach millions, and you need to be aware of what effect that may have -- and that makes it also a responsibility thing.
The last thing i'll mention is that i have a semi-humorous (but also semi-serious) philosophy about the purity of the female form vs. that of the male form. The short version is that i believe there may be some real basis for a disbalance in the aesthetic (and related sexual) appreciation of women over men, but that it can be thought of in a healthy context. This concept, true or not, is clearly something that some women might resent, and rightly so: because any inherent value that they have merely by being women could potentially mask or understate the far more important traits of who they are as a person. Again, i think the key here is awareness. On men's part, that awareness is to insure that any such "innate female value" is put in proper context (and in some cases, this may mean ignoring it) and treated with respect. On women's part, that awareness may simply be acceptance of the possibility, and not resenting that value but celebrating it as a positive thing, something that is a "bonus" on top of the far more important value that they have as individuals.
(I hope that last one comes across okay -- it's difficult to articulate, esp in short form. Clarifications upon request, of course.)
Also of note is my "amen" to
Thanks again, all.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-27 06:03 pm (UTC)The feminist point that women's bodies, more than men, are commodified, and thus sex work is bad and degrading, bothers me, though, still. I understand that the personal is political, and yet I don't think individuals should have to pay for societal problems, necessarily, and shouldn't be made to feel bad about a preference they have just because it re-inforces some kind of societal ill.
Take for instance the problem that some in the African-American community have with white women "taking their men." Does that mean if I fall in love with a black man, I shouldn't pursue it, even if we're extremely compatible as a couple, just because I'm re-inforcing a racial stereotype and 'taking a good black man' away from the pool of single black women?
I think it's the same here. Just because there is some exploitative sexual movies and photos out there, and just because we, as a society, disproportionately objectify women's bodies, should I feel guilty for enjoying depictions of women's sexuality and naked bodies? That feels wrong to me.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-27 06:30 pm (UTC)Take for instance the problem that some in the African-American community have with white women "taking their men."
Just out of curiosity, is there some semi-legitimate political argument in here somewhere? In this particular example, it seems like just good old fashioned racism... and it doesn't even sound like the "stereotype" that's being claimed is rooted in anything that makes sense, matematically.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-27 09:11 pm (UTC)Well, if you think of it in terms of preserving culture, rather than as a racial issue, it kinda-sort makes sense. Sort of like the argument some would make about making an effort to place black babies in black homes. I can see the logic in both positions, sort of, though I'm not sure I buy them.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-27 10:06 pm (UTC)Thanks for the info. I hadn't heard about that one.