i sort of worry whenever i talk about this that i'm in fact outing myself as some sort of horrible throwback proto-male because my estimation of the male gender is so critical and hey, who's my number one case study? uh oh.
i think the crux of the jensen article wasn't necessarily that watching teh pornz -> violence against women. i think it was calling for a more general examination of what exactly the dominant pattern of porn consumption says about men's conceptualizations of gender roles and gender interaction, which he argues focuses on a very physically objectifying male gaze which may or may not feed into trends of violence against women.
so the only point i can really address in the first article is the idea about objectification. i suppose it's a fine line but i want to say that there's a difference between appreciating a girl's sense of humor, or her brilliance, to the (highly unlikely) exclusion of her physical attributes, and appreciating a girl's rack to the exclusion of any other non-physical characteristic. it's possibly because i feel there's a greater bias towards "personhood" or "selfhood" as inscribed in qualities of the mind as opposed to those of the body. it's the sheer physicality of it. bodies are meat. delicious steaks have physicality and one can appreciate them but you don't generally love cows for their personalities.
it may be that, as one of the above posters mentioned, we're simply wired that way, men and women. we're machines optimized for maximal dissemination of the physical sort. women, on the other hand, can't just look at a guy's ass and get hot and bothered. they have to appreciate them on an intellectual or social level, strangely enough exempting men from physical objectification. but this leads back to what i hope was jensen's point: we are social creatures and we do possess rational capabilities and just because we're predisposed so doesn't mean we have no choice in the matter.
i think i may have been blathering. getting back to my point, my main objection to pornography is the objectification of women, either directly, through the medium itself, or its tendency to engender/support/reinforce the objectifying male gaze. porn isn't the cause of objectification, of course. but i don't think it helps much.
and yeah, when i say porn i'm mainly thinking about the predominant kind of porn in the industry, male-centric, heteronormative because my objections mainly have to do with the greater social effect it may have and i don't believe feminist/queer/transgender/whathaveyou porn is prevalent enough to have much of an overarching effect.
1) See above reply to post 2) I don't really have a problem with porn that "objectifies" women in this manner, except that it's the dominant one. There's nothing wrong with appreciating the way someone looks, "objectifying" them, as long as this is done in context and more importantly does not extend to every interaction with someone.
For instance, when I am looking at a hot guy I am "objectifying" him. but there is a difference between treating him like an object in this instance, and then treating him like an object in ALL instances.
What I'm saying is: enjoy how people look, but don't treat them like shit, men or women. Then we can keep our porn and be happy, but treat others as human beings, not just visual images to be manipulated.
It's easy to take away all accountability by saying, "guys are exposed to violent images of women, therefore they treat women with violence" but that's saying that guys are stupid and can't control their actions, and taking the accountability away by saying "it's not their fault."
I don't think we give people enough credit: they really can distinguish between images and "reality" (sorry that's a loaded term too, but that's a whole 'nother debate :)) and they should be held accountable for bad behavior, not let off the hook by what allegedly influences said behavior.
again, thanks for the reply - I love it when people comment!
PS - I think the face of porn is successfully changing and that we'll have all types of porn to choose from, and that one day this won't be the dominant type, but only one among many. yay for naive idealism!!! :)
i think one day it won't be, but i think that will be a long way from now hehe.
i honestly think that before there can be a true sexual revolution (that bullshit in the 60s was *not* a sexual revolution... it just meant girls were that much easier) there has to be a proper gender one. i don't even know what i mean when i say that though. i'm totally out of my depth and flailing haha. :p
I agree with the alleged "sexual revolution" thing. Like one of my friends said, girls are free to bare everything and walk around half naked - wait, who wins again? ;)
(people, please don't think I'm advocating going back to oppressive modesty. It's a victory to be able dress "how we want," if in fact this is what we want, it's just a pyrrhic victory.)
i sort of worry whenever i talk about this that i'm in fact outing myself as some sort of horrible throwback proto-male because my estimation of the male gender is so critical and hey, who's my number one case study? uh oh.
i think the crux of the jensen article wasn't necessarily that watching teh pornz -> violence against women. i think it was calling for a more general examination of what exactly the dominant pattern of porn consumption says about men's conceptualizations of gender roles and gender interaction, which he argues focuses on a very physically objectifying male gaze which may or may not feed into trends of violence against women.
so the only point i can really address in the first article is the idea about objectification. i suppose it's a fine line but i want to say that there's a difference between appreciating a girl's sense of humor, or her brilliance, to the (highly unlikely) exclusion of her physical attributes, and appreciating a girl's rack to the exclusion of any other non-physical characteristic. it's possibly because i feel there's a greater bias towards "personhood" or "selfhood" as inscribed in qualities of the mind as opposed to those of the body. it's the sheer physicality of it. bodies are meat. delicious steaks have physicality and one can appreciate them but you don't generally love cows for their personalities.
it may be that, as one of the above posters mentioned, we're simply wired that way, men and women. we're machines optimized for maximal dissemination of the physical sort. women, on the other hand, can't just look at a guy's ass and get hot and bothered. they have to appreciate them on an intellectual or social level, strangely enough exempting men from physical objectification. but this leads back to what i hope was jensen's point: we are social creatures and we do possess rational capabilities and just because we're predisposed so doesn't mean we have no choice in the matter.
i think i may have been blathering. getting back to my point, my main objection to pornography is the objectification of women, either directly, through the medium itself, or its tendency to engender/support/reinforce the objectifying male gaze. porn isn't the cause of objectification, of course. but i don't think it helps much.
and yeah, when i say porn i'm mainly thinking about the predominant kind of porn in the industry, male-centric, heteronormative because my objections mainly have to do with the greater social effect it may have and i don't believe feminist/queer/transgender/whathaveyou porn is prevalent enough to have much of an overarching effect.
i think i'll make this comment a post too :o
Reply
2) I don't really have a problem with porn that "objectifies" women in this manner, except that it's the dominant one. There's nothing wrong with appreciating the way someone looks, "objectifying" them, as long as this is done in context and more importantly does not extend to every interaction with someone.
For instance, when I am looking at a hot guy I am "objectifying" him. but there is a difference between treating him like an object in this instance, and then treating him like an object in ALL instances.
What I'm saying is: enjoy how people look, but don't treat them like shit, men or women. Then we can keep our porn and be happy, but treat others as human beings, not just visual images to be manipulated.
It's easy to take away all accountability by saying, "guys are exposed to violent images of women, therefore they treat women with violence" but that's saying that guys are stupid and can't control their actions, and taking the accountability away by saying "it's not their fault."
I don't think we give people enough credit: they really can distinguish between images and "reality" (sorry that's a loaded term too, but that's a whole 'nother debate :)) and they should be held accountable for bad behavior, not let off the hook by what allegedly influences said behavior.
again, thanks for the reply - I love it when people comment!
Reply
Just research what's out there, it's encouraging.
Reply
i honestly think that before there can be a true sexual revolution (that bullshit in the 60s was *not* a sexual revolution... it just meant girls were that much easier) there has to be a proper gender one. i don't even know what i mean when i say that though. i'm totally out of my depth and flailing haha. :p
Reply
Like one of my friends said, girls are free to bare everything and walk around half naked - wait, who wins again? ;)
(people, please don't think I'm advocating going back to oppressive modesty. It's a victory to be able dress "how we want," if in fact this is what we want, it's just a pyrrhic victory.)
Reply
Leave a comment