It's hard to find girls expressing their sexuality, because girls are conditioned to repress their sexuality, lest they be labeled as sluts. You get gay men who are happy to revel in their sexuality, and straight men who are happy to direct willing women to play the part men fantasize, but where are the girls who are confident in their sexuality and unashamed to express it on their own terms? I see a whole lot of male-centered sexuality, and while I don't have any problem with that, it tends to leave a gap, and I'm curious to see what ought to be filling that gap.
I do hear people complaining about how porn degrades women, and that it's all about how men use women for their sexual purposes. I think that view is short-sighted, but to the extent that it might be true, the solution is not to silence men, but rather to empower women to speak up. We ought to encourage women to express their sexuality, and appreciate them for it, rather than telling them (directly, or through indirect behaviors) that they're being 'loose' with their sexuality when they do - effectively shaming them into silence.
I see it a lot - girls who appear to be discreetly exploring their sexuality, but in a restrained way that makes it easy for them to deny that that's what they're doing, and to maintain a stance of disgust and reproach when others respond to their expression in a way that reveals their hidden intent. It's the only way they can do it without being subjected to ridicule by their peers and the public at large. And while this may not always be their intent, this behavior nevertheless reinforces the sexual gender stereotypes - that men are horn dogs and women at best merely tolerate sex. And for these girls, it teaches them to be hypocritical about their feelings and desires.
Maybe it's true that women don't like sex, and that girls aren't interested in expressing themselves in these ways, and that's why I don't see it more often. But let's let them decide that, and on a case by case basis. To do that, we have to enable them to express themselves that way. We have to allow it to be an option, so that we can be confident that their decision reflects their true desires. And the only way to do that is to stop complaining or being insulted whenever a girl expresses herself in a sexual manner.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Pleasure and Procreation
Sex seems to have two main purposes. The first is immediate, and that is pleasure. The second is procreation, which seems to be the overarching goal of sex, at least from an evolutionary perspective. The argument could be made that sex is pleasurable because that acts as an incentive for us to have it, which then results in a propagation of the species. In other words, we are driven to procreate (on account of sex feeling good) whether we are concerned about propagating the species or not. In a sense, we have been duped by evolution - except that, generally speaking, propagation of the species is also within our interest (although in most cases it's not as pressing a concern as wanting to feel good).
However, as an intelligent species, I believe it is within our natural rights to exercise some control over when and whether we procreate. Evolution may want us to procreate as often as possible, in the hope that an abundance of offspring will guarantee that some of it survives, and that the resulting diversity will improve the species' adaptability to changing environmental conditions. But evolution doesn't give a damn about the relative quality of life we each have, or even if any particular one of us survives (after all, it is in evolution's interest that the unfit be eliminated), and it doesn't care if it's convenient or not for us to have a dozen or more children to raise and take care of at any given time.
Yet, because of the way we're designed, we possess an extremely powerful desire to mate with individuals who are attractive to us. So, assuming that having as much sex as possible, and just letting the babies come as they will, is unacceptable, there are only two solutions. One is to abstain from having sex except in those cases where procreation is the goal. And the other is to use our intelligence to manipulate nature in order to have sex while preventing (or greatly reducing) the possibility of procreation. In essence, thwarting evolution.
Now, I don't agree that the first solution is tenable. There might be some, who have a low enough interest in sex, that it would work. And for them, that's fine. But it's not going to work for everyone. And this is where people with certain religious opinions sometimes get on my nerve. They say that the presence or absence of pregnancy after any given session of intercourse is god's will, and that to interfere with that is unacceptable. Well, fie on them. This is one case where I have absolutely no problem 'playing God' (or even just mucking with his already fucked up plan).
But the point of this is that there is nothing wrong with pursuing sex for pleasure, absent (or detached) of any interest in procreation. We are intelligent and advanced enough as a species that we can afford to do this. Admitting, acknowledging, and pursuing our biological interest in sex while simultaneously doffing the incentive to procreate is neither immoral, irresponsible, nor unconscionable. And I would like to see less shaming of people with a decidedly 'prurient' interest in sex. There is nothing criminal or antisocial about enjoying a good lay, and it is not degenerative to explore or celebrate the virtues of sexual discovery and exploration in discussion or entertainment or the arts.
However, as an intelligent species, I believe it is within our natural rights to exercise some control over when and whether we procreate. Evolution may want us to procreate as often as possible, in the hope that an abundance of offspring will guarantee that some of it survives, and that the resulting diversity will improve the species' adaptability to changing environmental conditions. But evolution doesn't give a damn about the relative quality of life we each have, or even if any particular one of us survives (after all, it is in evolution's interest that the unfit be eliminated), and it doesn't care if it's convenient or not for us to have a dozen or more children to raise and take care of at any given time.
Yet, because of the way we're designed, we possess an extremely powerful desire to mate with individuals who are attractive to us. So, assuming that having as much sex as possible, and just letting the babies come as they will, is unacceptable, there are only two solutions. One is to abstain from having sex except in those cases where procreation is the goal. And the other is to use our intelligence to manipulate nature in order to have sex while preventing (or greatly reducing) the possibility of procreation. In essence, thwarting evolution.
Now, I don't agree that the first solution is tenable. There might be some, who have a low enough interest in sex, that it would work. And for them, that's fine. But it's not going to work for everyone. And this is where people with certain religious opinions sometimes get on my nerve. They say that the presence or absence of pregnancy after any given session of intercourse is god's will, and that to interfere with that is unacceptable. Well, fie on them. This is one case where I have absolutely no problem 'playing God' (or even just mucking with his already fucked up plan).
But the point of this is that there is nothing wrong with pursuing sex for pleasure, absent (or detached) of any interest in procreation. We are intelligent and advanced enough as a species that we can afford to do this. Admitting, acknowledging, and pursuing our biological interest in sex while simultaneously doffing the incentive to procreate is neither immoral, irresponsible, nor unconscionable. And I would like to see less shaming of people with a decidedly 'prurient' interest in sex. There is nothing criminal or antisocial about enjoying a good lay, and it is not degenerative to explore or celebrate the virtues of sexual discovery and exploration in discussion or entertainment or the arts.
The Whole World's Gone Mad, But The Solution's Not The Obvious Choice
"Public nudity is a crime, and yet pornography and hypersexual advertising is everywhere."
The pull of this statement relies on the assumption that nudity is benign, and that pornography and hypersexual advertising are bad things. Nudity can be benign, but it depends on context. The only thing wrong with hypersexual advertising is the fact that it's advertising, and advertising is inherently evil. But pornography - there is nothing wrong with pornography. Does pornography degrade one's ability to appreciate 'pure', nonsexual nudity? No.
My interest in pornography and sexuality hasn't eliminated my 'pure' and spiritual approach to nudity. As I said, the interpretation of nudity depends on context - but while sometimes it is erotic (and this is a good thing), there are other times when it is something wholly different. The point is, my appreciation of the erotic context has not eroded my appreciation of the other contexts. So no, you can't argue that pornography and hypersexual advertising is eroding our ability to contextualize nudity apart from sexuality. If anything, it is providing us with only one side of the issue. It is only giving us that one context. The solution (for restoring the 'pure' context) is not to eliminate the opposing (erotic) context, but to add more exposure to that missing context. In other words, make public nudity legal, without getting rid of pornography and hypersexual advertising. Who ever said we can only handle one context? We need education. We need to show people that nudity can be both erotic and pure (not necessarily at the same time, although maybe that too). That way, people can get nude unselfconsciously in the locker room (and hopefully elsewhere) without conjuring up their sexual shame (which itself needs to be worked on). Yet it does not rid them of their ability to view nudity in an erotic context, either, which would be an inhumane thing to deny a person of.
What about body image? People complain that attractive models make them feel inadequate. Should we not then seek to use attractive models? Should we use ugly models instead? This goes against the whole point of aesthetics. We choose models because they're attractive. I've argued this before, but the solution is not to ignore aesthetics, and pretend that some people don't look better than others.
I'm more attractive than some people, and less attractive than others. I value the fact that I am moderately attractive, yet I am frequently disappointed that I am not more attractive than I am. None of this ruins my life. Personally, I think I have a healthy body image. I don't trick myself into thinking that I'm the Elephant Man, nor do I trick myself into thinking that I'm Adonis. (Nor do I trick myself into thinking there isn't a difference between the two). The important thing is that I'm honest about my appearance, how others respond to it, and how I tend to react to it. And I don't use my feelings of inadequacy to attack people who are more attractive than I am.
Is there a solution for preventing people (especially women) from having a poor body image? Yes. The solution is obviously not bombarding them with images of nothing but impossibly gorgeous models. But neither is the solution to encourage their convictions that impossibly gorgeous models ought not to be appreciated for their beauty. Telling people that beauty is meaningless does not help their body image, because it's a lie. The goal is to come to terms with the fact that some people are prettier than others, and that you're not the prettiest girl in the world. And that's okay. How do we do this? We be honest about modeling. We tell girls that models are chosen for their aesthetic qualities, but that this is not the only thing that matters in life.
I don't know why this all seems so simple to me, because so many people seem to have trouble with it. Would the world really be a better place if beautiful people did not exist, and nobody ever had sex? Get real.
The pull of this statement relies on the assumption that nudity is benign, and that pornography and hypersexual advertising are bad things. Nudity can be benign, but it depends on context. The only thing wrong with hypersexual advertising is the fact that it's advertising, and advertising is inherently evil. But pornography - there is nothing wrong with pornography. Does pornography degrade one's ability to appreciate 'pure', nonsexual nudity? No.
My interest in pornography and sexuality hasn't eliminated my 'pure' and spiritual approach to nudity. As I said, the interpretation of nudity depends on context - but while sometimes it is erotic (and this is a good thing), there are other times when it is something wholly different. The point is, my appreciation of the erotic context has not eroded my appreciation of the other contexts. So no, you can't argue that pornography and hypersexual advertising is eroding our ability to contextualize nudity apart from sexuality. If anything, it is providing us with only one side of the issue. It is only giving us that one context. The solution (for restoring the 'pure' context) is not to eliminate the opposing (erotic) context, but to add more exposure to that missing context. In other words, make public nudity legal, without getting rid of pornography and hypersexual advertising. Who ever said we can only handle one context? We need education. We need to show people that nudity can be both erotic and pure (not necessarily at the same time, although maybe that too). That way, people can get nude unselfconsciously in the locker room (and hopefully elsewhere) without conjuring up their sexual shame (which itself needs to be worked on). Yet it does not rid them of their ability to view nudity in an erotic context, either, which would be an inhumane thing to deny a person of.
What about body image? People complain that attractive models make them feel inadequate. Should we not then seek to use attractive models? Should we use ugly models instead? This goes against the whole point of aesthetics. We choose models because they're attractive. I've argued this before, but the solution is not to ignore aesthetics, and pretend that some people don't look better than others.
I'm more attractive than some people, and less attractive than others. I value the fact that I am moderately attractive, yet I am frequently disappointed that I am not more attractive than I am. None of this ruins my life. Personally, I think I have a healthy body image. I don't trick myself into thinking that I'm the Elephant Man, nor do I trick myself into thinking that I'm Adonis. (Nor do I trick myself into thinking there isn't a difference between the two). The important thing is that I'm honest about my appearance, how others respond to it, and how I tend to react to it. And I don't use my feelings of inadequacy to attack people who are more attractive than I am.
Is there a solution for preventing people (especially women) from having a poor body image? Yes. The solution is obviously not bombarding them with images of nothing but impossibly gorgeous models. But neither is the solution to encourage their convictions that impossibly gorgeous models ought not to be appreciated for their beauty. Telling people that beauty is meaningless does not help their body image, because it's a lie. The goal is to come to terms with the fact that some people are prettier than others, and that you're not the prettiest girl in the world. And that's okay. How do we do this? We be honest about modeling. We tell girls that models are chosen for their aesthetic qualities, but that this is not the only thing that matters in life.
I don't know why this all seems so simple to me, because so many people seem to have trouble with it. Would the world really be a better place if beautiful people did not exist, and nobody ever had sex? Get real.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Porn Is Not Evil
[description: a man posing nude on a bed on all fours, brightly lit, genitals on display]
The decline of modern society, or harmless fun?
The decline of modern society, or harmless fun?
I was researching the controversy over the alleged ubiquity of genital shaving in porn (something the above photo could certainly benefit from), in anticipation of some photos I intend to post in the near future, and I came across this really positive little article [broken link]. It only briefly touches on some of the heavy topics regarding the porn industry, but I was very pleased with the insights and advice given by the legendary porn star, Nina Hartley, who was interviewed. The overall impression I get from reading the article is one that I stand firmly behind. Specifically, that a lot of the brouhaha about the evils of the porn industry is based on inaccurate stereotypes that are a result of moral assumptions made in the absence of actual consultation with those involved in the industry.
Now, I'm not so naive as to think that nobody in porn has ever been genuinely abused, or that porn hasn't been genuinely exploited for negative purposes, but the point is that, like in everything else, there is variety. There are people who are involved with porn who love it, who do not regret it, and do not have the lifetime of bad experiences they are assumed to have had. Now, unless you actually know someone personally who dabbles in the production side of pornography, I personally don't think you're in any position to make any informed (and thus meaningful) complaints about porn and what it does to people. And even if you do, and your experience bears out your concerns, that's still no reason to attack the people whose lives are not destroyed but brightened by being involved in the exciting and pleasurable realm of pornography.
I mean, just think about it. If porn does bad things to people, why not focus on those bad things? Why target porn indiscriminately? It might be easier that way, but it's not the right thing to do, and it just causes more pain and suffering in the long run, because in the process of trying to help people who are being hurt, you're hurting a bunch of people who were just fine before you began interfering in their lives.
And I'd wager that far more people are harmed by the social stigma surrounding porn than by the "sin" of engaging in carnal pleasures. Especially considering that the 'natural' harms of sex - which might include transmission of disease and unwanted pregnancies - are not reduced by prudist preaching, but are rather exacerbated by imposed ignorance and systematic shaming.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
Sexaggeration
Have you seen (or heard about) that viral video featuring the couple having sex on a subway train [broken link] in Vienna? I only just recently found out about it myself. I wouldn't normally bring it up, since talking about it puts me in a tight spot: if I decried it I would be lying, but if I were to be honest and say that I support public sex, a lot of people would probably think bad things about me. (Oops :p)
Honestly, I don't see the big deal. Public sex is like everything else - you can do it in a way that's rude and clearly bothers other people, or you can do it in a way that's courteous and mindful of the public space you're in. Assuming, of course, that the act of seeing two people having sex isn't going to kill anyone. And I don't care how appalled you might be, nobody's going to get hurt beyond a little minor offense - nothing you can't turn your head from. And speaking of minors, there's no reason why viewing sex should traumatize a kid any more than watching somebody go to the bathroom or anything else - it might be something better left unseen, but it's a fact of life and witnessing it isn't going to kill anyone.
Anyhow, I read this other article [broken link] that so badly exaggerated the 'shock effect' of the video, that I had to make a comment. The author describes it as "very graphic" when, after viewing it myself, my first thought was, "geez, you can't see a thing." In all seriousness, a professional wrestling match is more graphic than this video. You see more skin at a public swimming pool than you see in this video - and that's assuming that all the girls wear one piece swimsuits and all the guys wear board shorts.
There's no need to exaggerate, why not tell the truth? It's a video of two people having sex. But it's not graphic. I would rate it PG-13 at the most - and not because of what you can see, but merely because the motion is 'suggestive' of sexual intercourse. You unfortunately can't see any more of the girl than her knees. If I was having sex on a subway, in front of an audience, I'd at least make a good show of it, and we'd both be naked from head to toe.
But I'll admit I did feel slightly uncomfortable about all the people crowding around with their video phones. It's not that I have anything against the act being recorded - in fact I support that sort of thing, and hey, that's one of the risks of doing it in public. It's just, they acted like paparazzi or something. Can you not maintain some shred of decency, even in your excitement to record a live public sex session? I was, however, impressed at how 'professional' the couple was, who barely reacted to the presence of the videographers. Perhaps we could all learn a thing or two from them. ;-)
Honestly, I don't see the big deal. Public sex is like everything else - you can do it in a way that's rude and clearly bothers other people, or you can do it in a way that's courteous and mindful of the public space you're in. Assuming, of course, that the act of seeing two people having sex isn't going to kill anyone. And I don't care how appalled you might be, nobody's going to get hurt beyond a little minor offense - nothing you can't turn your head from. And speaking of minors, there's no reason why viewing sex should traumatize a kid any more than watching somebody go to the bathroom or anything else - it might be something better left unseen, but it's a fact of life and witnessing it isn't going to kill anyone.
Anyhow, I read this other article [broken link] that so badly exaggerated the 'shock effect' of the video, that I had to make a comment. The author describes it as "very graphic" when, after viewing it myself, my first thought was, "geez, you can't see a thing." In all seriousness, a professional wrestling match is more graphic than this video. You see more skin at a public swimming pool than you see in this video - and that's assuming that all the girls wear one piece swimsuits and all the guys wear board shorts.
There's no need to exaggerate, why not tell the truth? It's a video of two people having sex. But it's not graphic. I would rate it PG-13 at the most - and not because of what you can see, but merely because the motion is 'suggestive' of sexual intercourse. You unfortunately can't see any more of the girl than her knees. If I was having sex on a subway, in front of an audience, I'd at least make a good show of it, and we'd both be naked from head to toe.
But I'll admit I did feel slightly uncomfortable about all the people crowding around with their video phones. It's not that I have anything against the act being recorded - in fact I support that sort of thing, and hey, that's one of the risks of doing it in public. It's just, they acted like paparazzi or something. Can you not maintain some shred of decency, even in your excitement to record a live public sex session? I was, however, impressed at how 'professional' the couple was, who barely reacted to the presence of the videographers. Perhaps we could all learn a thing or two from them. ;-)
Friday, March 25, 2011
More on Objectification (Sex vs. Romance)
In my lexicon, 'objectification' is a dirty word. Not because of what it implies, but because of how it's used. The concept of objectification is frequently used by people to denounce and discredit the male sex drive. The truth is, objectification is a healthy aspect of male sexuality, and it does not preclude the possibility of, nor indicate a lack of interest in, romance. And even in those cases where romance is not present, one simply cannot jump to the conclusion that some kind of slight is being perpetrated against the "sexual object" involved. This is another case of using the example of rude men, blaming their sexual desires, and then criticizing all men for expressing those desires, instead of singling out the rude behavior, and recognizing that nice men can 'objectify' without hurting anyone (including their pride or respect, provided they are properly educated about the process of 'objectification').
Honestly, I sometimes feel guilty about my sex drive, because it is one aspect about me that seems to be decidedly masculine (probably because of my hormones). I don't feel guilty because I think there's anything wrong with it, though, I feel guilty because it seems to undermine my attempts to identify with my feminine side. But even so, my sex drive is not exactly typical, as the goal seems less to be satisfaction (i.e., sexual intercourse), and more the experience of the desire itself, and how it makes me feel. I guess you could say I prefer the pursuit to the capture. Further, the 'stimulation' I seek is far more often of an intellectual nature than a physical one. On the one hand, I feel as if I were almost sexually attracted to romance, because I am far more intoxicated by the concept of love than sex alone, yet, I cannot deny that I have a fundamental interest in sex, and that my interest in love carries something of an underlying sexual fervor to it. An eroticism that strides the valley between romantic love and pure sexual lust.
Another thing that I find curious is that I am highly attracted to visual stimuli. Which is something that, in my experience, I have noted is a far more masculine than feminine trait. But getting back to the concept of objectification, I can look at a girl, either in person or at an image, and be stimulated (quite strongly) without requiring any sort of personal involvement, or having to "know" the girl. And I fail to see how this ought to be construed as an inherently negative thing. The stimulation enriches my experience, and it doesn't in any way cause me to harm the trigger of that stimulation (the girl). Yes, I think that sex within the context of love is (much) better than "impersonal sex", and it is an ideal to strive for, but I don't see that that means that "impersonal sex" (or something as simple as impersonal stimulation) should be outright avoided.
After all, if that were the case, I would hardly get any satisfaction in life, and I think many other men (if not women, too) would be in that same boat. I've been looking for years for the right girl to 'give' myself to, and even when I thought I had found her, it turned out she had absolutely no reciprocal interest in me. Furthermore, even if I do find her someday, I don't believe that 'saving' myself for her will naturally make it a better experience. I fell for that trick many years ago. If anything, I should be getting more practice so that when the big day comes, I'll be a seasoned pro. 'Learning the ropes' with your life partner may be a great experience, but it works much better for the couple who meets in high school (or earlier), than for the person who doesn't find his match until much much later (or not at all); we're not all that lucky in love - and why should we waste half or all of our lives not experiencing pleasure just because we haven't found the "perfect" person to share it with yet?
But there is another thing that makes me cringe when the topic of 'objectification' comes up. And it's the implication that only someone who takes the time to get to know a person then earns the privilege to think sexual thoughts about them. This is all nice and romantic, but it's not practical. We can't control who we have sexual thoughts about, nor is it humane to expect people not to indulge their sexual desires unless they've found a soulmate, or only within the context of committed relationships. It's a conservative sexual idea that stems from the belief that the only "pure" sexual thoughts are those that are directed towards your married partner (if that).
The fact is, I'm not a social butterfly, and I'm not the most skilled at interpersonal communication. For me, getting to know a person is extremely difficult, and even more so when you add the intimidation factor of talking to someone I am actually attracted to. Should I then be subjected to sexual frustration as a result of my lack of interpersonal skills, or should it not be acceptable that I indulge in harmless "objectification" from time to time? I derive great pleasure from (ethical) voyeurism, and I see no reason why that should be taken away from me. And then we come to the question of diversity. It'd be nice if everyone had an easy enough time finding someone they really like (and who really likes them back), and had an easy enough time getting to know them, but not all of us are on a level playing field. We all have different abilities and different desires, and we live in different ways. What the moral stance on 'objectification' suggests is that there is something wrong with somebody who indulges their sexual desires without getting to know somebody intimately first. It is a subjective value judgment, and it is discriminatory.
A lot of people would like to say that because I have a strong interest in erotic photography (and you can easily substitute 'pornography' here, though it makes your defense harder - pun intended), it means that I don't respect women. Well, that's ridiculous. And saying that demeans the value of that photography, and everything it means to me. And just because they can make comparisons to 'objects' that are used and discarded doesn't mean it's immoral for me to go on 'vainly' glorifying the visually aesthetic beauty of feminine sexuality.
See, I have a guilt complex about the fact that I'm more comfortable looking at girls than talking to them (and it's not because I don't care about them as people). I'd prefer it to be the other way around, but I still don't think I should be made to feel guilty about being this way. Which is what happens every time somebody cries "objectification!"
Honestly, I sometimes feel guilty about my sex drive, because it is one aspect about me that seems to be decidedly masculine (probably because of my hormones). I don't feel guilty because I think there's anything wrong with it, though, I feel guilty because it seems to undermine my attempts to identify with my feminine side. But even so, my sex drive is not exactly typical, as the goal seems less to be satisfaction (i.e., sexual intercourse), and more the experience of the desire itself, and how it makes me feel. I guess you could say I prefer the pursuit to the capture. Further, the 'stimulation' I seek is far more often of an intellectual nature than a physical one. On the one hand, I feel as if I were almost sexually attracted to romance, because I am far more intoxicated by the concept of love than sex alone, yet, I cannot deny that I have a fundamental interest in sex, and that my interest in love carries something of an underlying sexual fervor to it. An eroticism that strides the valley between romantic love and pure sexual lust.
Another thing that I find curious is that I am highly attracted to visual stimuli. Which is something that, in my experience, I have noted is a far more masculine than feminine trait. But getting back to the concept of objectification, I can look at a girl, either in person or at an image, and be stimulated (quite strongly) without requiring any sort of personal involvement, or having to "know" the girl. And I fail to see how this ought to be construed as an inherently negative thing. The stimulation enriches my experience, and it doesn't in any way cause me to harm the trigger of that stimulation (the girl). Yes, I think that sex within the context of love is (much) better than "impersonal sex", and it is an ideal to strive for, but I don't see that that means that "impersonal sex" (or something as simple as impersonal stimulation) should be outright avoided.
After all, if that were the case, I would hardly get any satisfaction in life, and I think many other men (if not women, too) would be in that same boat. I've been looking for years for the right girl to 'give' myself to, and even when I thought I had found her, it turned out she had absolutely no reciprocal interest in me. Furthermore, even if I do find her someday, I don't believe that 'saving' myself for her will naturally make it a better experience. I fell for that trick many years ago. If anything, I should be getting more practice so that when the big day comes, I'll be a seasoned pro. 'Learning the ropes' with your life partner may be a great experience, but it works much better for the couple who meets in high school (or earlier), than for the person who doesn't find his match until much much later (or not at all); we're not all that lucky in love - and why should we waste half or all of our lives not experiencing pleasure just because we haven't found the "perfect" person to share it with yet?
But there is another thing that makes me cringe when the topic of 'objectification' comes up. And it's the implication that only someone who takes the time to get to know a person then earns the privilege to think sexual thoughts about them. This is all nice and romantic, but it's not practical. We can't control who we have sexual thoughts about, nor is it humane to expect people not to indulge their sexual desires unless they've found a soulmate, or only within the context of committed relationships. It's a conservative sexual idea that stems from the belief that the only "pure" sexual thoughts are those that are directed towards your married partner (if that).
The fact is, I'm not a social butterfly, and I'm not the most skilled at interpersonal communication. For me, getting to know a person is extremely difficult, and even more so when you add the intimidation factor of talking to someone I am actually attracted to. Should I then be subjected to sexual frustration as a result of my lack of interpersonal skills, or should it not be acceptable that I indulge in harmless "objectification" from time to time? I derive great pleasure from (ethical) voyeurism, and I see no reason why that should be taken away from me. And then we come to the question of diversity. It'd be nice if everyone had an easy enough time finding someone they really like (and who really likes them back), and had an easy enough time getting to know them, but not all of us are on a level playing field. We all have different abilities and different desires, and we live in different ways. What the moral stance on 'objectification' suggests is that there is something wrong with somebody who indulges their sexual desires without getting to know somebody intimately first. It is a subjective value judgment, and it is discriminatory.
A lot of people would like to say that because I have a strong interest in erotic photography (and you can easily substitute 'pornography' here, though it makes your defense harder - pun intended), it means that I don't respect women. Well, that's ridiculous. And saying that demeans the value of that photography, and everything it means to me. And just because they can make comparisons to 'objects' that are used and discarded doesn't mean it's immoral for me to go on 'vainly' glorifying the visually aesthetic beauty of feminine sexuality.
See, I have a guilt complex about the fact that I'm more comfortable looking at girls than talking to them (and it's not because I don't care about them as people). I'd prefer it to be the other way around, but I still don't think I should be made to feel guilty about being this way. Which is what happens every time somebody cries "objectification!"
I Kiss Girls
It's a testament to the enduring strength of the misconstrued marriage between gender and sexuality that if someone identifies as "homosexual", they are typically characterized as identifying with their opposing gender. Hence, gay men are expected to be effeminate "fairies" and lesbians are assumed to be butch "dykes". Perhaps we're making headway in changing that conception, but what of individuals who conform to their opposite gender - that is, guys who act girly and girls who act manly? Do we not tend to assume that their sexuality is characterized by the heterosexual match to the gender they identify with (and thus the homosexual match to their physical "gender")? Thus effeminate men are gay (they portray themselves as girls because they like guys) and butch women are lesbians (they portray themselves as guys because they like girls). But this isn't necessarily the case, either.
As for my personal experience, I am, at least according to my sex organs, male. Yet I identify more as a female, psychologically. But in my case, my desire to be a girl (leading to dressing like a girl and acting like a girl) is merely an extension of my multi-faceted interest in girls (which includes a romantic/sexual interest). I want to be a girl because I like girls, not because I like guys and I want to conform to the heterosexual attraction dynamic (which is ironic, because insofar as I consider myself, practically, to be male, I do identify as heterosexual). But since I have male plumbing and I like girls, it's far simpler for me to identify as male, even though that kind of ignores the way I feel, about being a girl.
Really it's a matter of conflating one's sex and gender, and using terms (heterosexual, homosexual) that refer to both one's sex/gender identification and target of attraction simultaneously. Those terms say something about both the person being attracted and the object of their attraction at the same time. But it gets further complicated when we bring that confusion between sex and gender into play. We assume that most people's sex and gender match (if they have male plumbing, they're male; if they have female plumbing, they're female). Consider me - if I identify with my physical sex, then I could be considered heterosexual, but if I identify with my preferred gender then I would be homosexual (a lesbian). So which do I choose? The easiest thing for me is to avoid both terms (and the associated stereotypes), and just tell people the simple truth - that I kiss girls. It says nothing about what I am (which is a very complicated matter), and only about what I like (which is honestly quite simple).
As for my personal experience, I am, at least according to my sex organs, male. Yet I identify more as a female, psychologically. But in my case, my desire to be a girl (leading to dressing like a girl and acting like a girl) is merely an extension of my multi-faceted interest in girls (which includes a romantic/sexual interest). I want to be a girl because I like girls, not because I like guys and I want to conform to the heterosexual attraction dynamic (which is ironic, because insofar as I consider myself, practically, to be male, I do identify as heterosexual). But since I have male plumbing and I like girls, it's far simpler for me to identify as male, even though that kind of ignores the way I feel, about being a girl.
Really it's a matter of conflating one's sex and gender, and using terms (heterosexual, homosexual) that refer to both one's sex/gender identification and target of attraction simultaneously. Those terms say something about both the person being attracted and the object of their attraction at the same time. But it gets further complicated when we bring that confusion between sex and gender into play. We assume that most people's sex and gender match (if they have male plumbing, they're male; if they have female plumbing, they're female). Consider me - if I identify with my physical sex, then I could be considered heterosexual, but if I identify with my preferred gender then I would be homosexual (a lesbian). So which do I choose? The easiest thing for me is to avoid both terms (and the associated stereotypes), and just tell people the simple truth - that I kiss girls. It says nothing about what I am (which is a very complicated matter), and only about what I like (which is honestly quite simple).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)