To my Anonymous commenter:
There has been some OMGWTF PWNAGE here. But, I expected that and, though you may not believe me, I've been educated. I’ll try to rebut some of your points to the best of my ability. Also, I agree with some of your points despite some of the cheap shots you took at my car and me. Admit it, though.. you like my car! The response is too long to make it a comment so I've made it a new entry.. I've [snipped] out unneeded verbosity, though this does not suggest it’s unimportant. It’s just for brevity. Anonymous' comments are italicized.
[Snip]
First, let’s consider the refreshing possibility that objectifying women does not demean them.Incidentally, I wouldn’t condemn either women or men for objectifying themselves should they do so. Despite the education you claim is available to all and sundry, self-objectification still happens most generally out of ignorance, because, as you point out, the media still bombards us with images that present women, and now men, as sexualized objects. Education is harder to get our heads around than images--and it’s very hard to decode the cultural values embedded in “entertainment” without specific tools.
"...self-objectification still happens most generally out of ignorance..."
Mostly out of ignorance. Really? I have to disagree. I believe they know exactly what they're doing. It's their need for attention. I believe they want to be seen and will do anything to get the attention they crave. After the deed, though, they may feel slightly stupid or foolish for doing whatever it was they did because they realize it was inappropriate. As for advertisements bombarding us with "images that present women, and now men, as sexualized objects." Again, this is simply a mirror of our society. Adverts or no, there will exist in our society men and women who will perpetuate this attitude that they need to be objects.
[snip]
There’s also a very codified power dynamic that goes along with this mechanics of sexuality. I call it mechanized because its rules are so rigid that the expression of sexuality it produces can be likened to a porn loop. Man requests woman passing by to expose her breasts, woman complies, man gets off. Quite a scenario.
Are you suggesting that there is a rule that women don’t or can’t get off in this scenario? There is something called Exhibitionism where people get off on showing their nude bodies to strangers. But women can never be exhibitionists, right? It’s just a male thing. [rhetorical]
Perhaps the power play here is less obvious than what happens with what we can call the“pay-per-sexual arousal” approach. Let’s say a man or woman pays for some degree of access--ranging from mags to porn to prostitution--to a certain set of behavior and body presentations that are commonly regarded as sexy in our culture. The sex worker in the given transaction performs sexuality according to prescribed rules of sexual expression. Gratification or arousal ensues (or doesn’t). Game over until next sexual craving occurs. What is critical to note here is that the power is in the hands of the purchaser, who regulates the transaction. The sexual service rendered is one which unquestioningly conforms to pre-existing standards of what is supposed to arouse and gratify and in any case is subject to the purchaser’s fancy. The power of money defines the service or product. There’s no creativity on the part of the service-provider here. Nor are his or her wishes of any particular interest to the buyer who wants to get off.
There is some debate here where the power may lie. Is it in the hands of the purchaser or is it in the hands of the sex-worker? Some feel as you do and some feel that the person who controls the sex controls the power. If possible, try watching the docu-series "Cathouse" on HBO. It's about a bunch of prostitutes in a brothel. They all claim they hold the power over the people who buy the sex. They're the ones who control what is doled out. They're the ones who give what they want to give and they take the customer's money. It's the power of sexual gratification that defines how much money should be spent.
Now, why would women do this for free, you ask, as when they flash their breasts simply in support of Tom? And isn’t doing this for free a clear indicator that they aren’t in the money/power feedback loop described above? It would certainly seem thus. This is where people like Tom could use a little scrutiny because of their views on women. I’ll quote you on Tom’s belief that women are gold-diggers: “They’re also brought up to take advantage of men.” (And here’s a brief digression on the historical “advantage” of women who marry men. When have men sought the position of housewife, given that through much of history the term meant little more than domestic servant?
Gender roles. Men have ALWAYS been the hunters, gatherers, protectors, breadwinners. Women have ALWAYS been the nurtures, mothers, housewives. Why would that role ever change? And when did the term "domestic servant" come into play? And who coined it? Certainly not men.
Let’s not forget that the feminist revolution of the 60s and 70s was a direct product of the disgruntlement experienced by the perfect housewives of the 40s and 50s--thank God for them--who found that they weren’t quite getting such a good deal by marrying “providers”! Sorry, friend, but despite your claims to the contrary, your words show that you’ve absorbed enough of what we can affectionately call Tom-speak to be able to regurgitate it without recognizing its source).
First and foremost, I've held the notion that some women are gold-diggers long before I listened to Tom, as gold-digging women have existed long before Tom ever hit the airwaves. His radio show simply validates my opinion, though you may disagree that he validates anything. I bring up the example I've told you before where a woman I know was taught since childhood that she should find a rich man so that she can be taken care of. I don't think this is an isolated case. It's been hypothesized that both men and women are programmed (not brought up to, mind you) to look for and pursue certain characteristics in either sex. Men look for specific facial features, "child-bearing" hips, etc. We look for women that can propagate the species and are physically attractive. Women look for men who can protect and provide for them. They look for security. And the feminist revolution of the 60's and 70's was about women empowering themselves to become the best they could be. It was a movement that gave women a voice and power in a male-dominated society. I don't believe it had anything to do with disgruntled housewives. And, to let you know, I have no problems with this. I applaud it. Women should have more power and control in society. They are equal to men in my eyes. As for the feminist movement today, it simply perpetuates the notion that women are still victims, when they are no longer that. The feminist movement, much like affirmative action, which forces equality in the workplace, continues to send a message that women still need help in this society when they really don't. Like I had pointed out previously, more women are attending school than men. There are more female doctors, lawyers, governors, CEOs, etc than there ever has been. And they can still come home and choose to be housewives, too, if they want (and they do, because women are inclined ("programmed") to be nurturers).
Back to the point. Without having listened to his show frequently enough to say this for certain, I’d still be willing to wager a tidy sum that getting women to do things like bare their breasts to random strangers for free is one of Tom’s personal goals. He gets off on the idea that he’s encouraging men to screw women over, quite literally. Why? Maybe because he feels he’s been burned by money-grubbing women. Bad pre-nups, perhaps. Who knows and who cares? But there’s a cultural phenomenon attached to the concept of goading, taunting, baiting and/or otherwise signaling women to sexualize themselves for the viewing pleasure of men.
I couldn't say for certain if it's one of his personal goals so you shouldn't either. Speculation. Moot point. And how does one bait women to show their breasts off to men, especially by a radio personality? There is no reward for them to do so. Apart from a caller or two who brags on the air they are doing the ‘flashing,’ there is no reward other than maybe self-gratification (which leads back to the Exhibitionist theory). Certainly they aren't doing it for Tom, personally, because he cannot see the action.
It’s not unique to Tom--he surely didn’t come up with the idea. His reductionist belief that women want men for status and money while men want women for sex leads him to say, hey, let’s give men a heads-up on this so that we can manipulate women into sex without offering status in return before women can manipulate us into offering money and status--which, presumably, they’ll take, and then promptly cheat on us with our buddies. Or some such paranoid line of reasoning. I’m not going to bother dissecting Tom’s embittered paranoia here. Simply put, the act of getting women to perform sexual acts or be otherwise sexually provocative for nothing in return involves power, or makes certain men feel that they have attained a kind of power. From the other perspective, simply getting someone to perform sexual rituals can also be seen as a power play that can produce erotic pleasure, regardless of whether or not we return the sexual favor by offering gifts, money, marriage, or whatever else. The link between power plays and erotic pleasure is fairly well established in our culture, as Abu Ghraib brought home to us so vibrantly.
We don't know if those pictures from Abu Ghraib showed erotic pleasure, though they were definitely exposing power-hungry men AND women who enjoyed their positions of authority. But I don’t understand how a woman who performs sexual acts for nothing involves power. If you mean she is coerced into having sex, yes I’ll agree with that. If she does it on her own volition, there is no power. There is equality. She wants to perform and the man wants to be gratified. I admit, though, that I may be missing the point here.
What kinds of power are exerted to get girls to “go wild,” for instance? Does the power of celebrity turn on the girls? Do the boys who watch the girls obeying orders to perform sexual acts feel vicariously as though they’d exerted this power? What kind of a turn on is this? For the girls, is it the lure of obtaining merchandise or momentary celebrity? Heck, let’s not forget the mere pleasure of the act itself, though interviewers of girls who have gone wild have discovered that the girls don’t necessarily enjoy the shows they put on for their avid fans--see Arielle Levy again on this in her book _Female Chauvinists: The Rise of Raunch Culture_.
I'm sure that I could find enough interviewees to validate the idea that women LOVE to exhibit themselves in such a way and that they get a sense of pleasure out of it. And the only power exerted on these women is the power of attention, because those women are usually low in self-esteem and crave attention.
So what kinds of pleasure do observers feel when they see women agree to requests to “go wild”? And why don’t men “go wild” at the behest of women so very often? Would they perhaps feel humiliated or less “manly” were they to accede to requests to display their sexual availability, receptivity, etc.?
Men do "go wild" at the behest of women. Chippendale's, various Vegas acts for women, male strippers, etc. We may not see it in clubs as much where individual men are doing it, but it's out there.
And since we’re on the subject, let’s be more specific. Why would many straight men over thirty feel uncomfortable at the thought of being a sex-worker of some kind, be it a boy gone wild, a stripper, or a porn star, even if they had the body for the job? Here’s a wild speculation--I’d say it may well be because they’d feel vulnerable and disempowered, at the mercy of those who would objectify them.
Do they? Yes, you are speculating.. WILDLY. I even told you -- if I had the physique, I wouldn't have a problem doing porn. And if I feel that way, I know there are plenty of men out there that would feel the same. If there is fear, I'd chalk it up to the fact that we're afraid someone else's penis is bigger than our own. That is a genuine insecurity. Such is because we're told that 'bigger is better.'
I qualify with the words, “over thirty,” for the obvious reason--men and boys are indeed being drawn into the sex industry alongside women. It’s becoming a hell of a lot easier for them to do to their bodies precisely what women do to theirs, and for very similar reasons. However, it’s still a lot easier for a woman who’s already grown up accustomed to the notion that she’s supposed to show off her body (which she’s also worked at to make sexy-looking)..
Just to interject - it is a well-known fact that men are attracted to women's LOOKS. Wouldn't it make sense that, because of this, women need to make themselves up and be SEXIER to get a mate?
..to get into the sex-work industry than it is for a man, who, if he were going to do sex-work of any kind (for free or not), would, in any case, have to struggle against standards of masculinity that demand that he be “in control,” emotionally unexpressive (let’s not forget that most sexual expression captured in porn-like settings demands that women and sometimes gay men be very expressive. Men may need to come, but women are called upon to demonstrate their pleasure, their loss of self-control, etc., etc.), as well as tough and able to take pain without flinching. Heads-up to enterprising women: this last criterion makes men ideal candidates for humili-porn. Exploit this niche market now…
Porn isn't about watching the man perform, as most viewers are male. It's about watching the woman perform. It is also fantasy. So no one's paying attention to any of the man's emotional or sexual expressions he may have. He is simply a tool to get the woman off so that men can watch her (traditional, non fetish porn that is). And, just to let you know, women are paid more than men in the porn industry. Also, women consumers have become "surprisingly comfortable with adult films and now account for approximately 40% of all porn rentals" (Source: ASKMEN.COM).
[snip]
To reiterate the point made initially, then, regardless of the object-making process that dominators try to enact for their own sense of pleasure/power, the people involved are not demeaned, unless, of course, they feel that they are. This is not to say that they aren’t oppressed in one form or another. Here’s where the question of free choice comes in. With slavery and colonization, it’s easy to spot the oppressors because they’re the ones cracking the whip. Oppression gets a bit more subtle when it morphs from the whip into ideology, in this case, the ideology of doing what it takes to please men, whether it be dressing, sculpting one’s body, and behaving in certain codified, tiresomely familiar ways, or not. Much has been written on how we adopt ideologies into our lives, how we are interpellated [sic] into them, and how we may subvert them. What you allude to in your discussion of changes in global culture in the twentieth century and earlier are the changes in the way power is exerted. As our constitutions have been amended to include more rights for all people, regardless of color, gender, corporate status, etc., we’ve moved more or less away from the position where it was okay to abuse certain groups of people simply because of their status as other. Also, the American brand of capitalism combined with a federalist republican form of democracy allowed for the emergence of a middle class with enough purchasing power to educate far more of its kids than ever before in history--girls and boys--and well enough so they could all (or many of them) jump on the capitalist treadmill. I’m simplifying because I don’t want to get the Marxist lineup of scholars out now and start quoting, but here’s how ideology interpellates [sic] us under capitalism today. We grow up surrounded by cultural standard-bearers--from books to television, movies, religion (disseminated often via parental indoctrination) and most obviously, advertising--which explain to us what it means to be successful as a human being. Some of these models are more subtly propagated than through bald-faced advertising, where the product is clearly labeled, though we’ve all noticed how advertising has cottoned on to the notion that the best way to sell product is to sell values and emotional packages. The product is now tucking itself coyly behind tropical fantasies of ecstasy and power. There’s not a single standard--not even the one that calls for “rugged individualism”--which hasn’t been co-opted by one industry or another to sell a product, be it a jeep or shaving cream.
The end-goal? Because these standards are attached to products and services that purport to deliver success to us, what happens in capitalism is that we put our noses to the grindstone so that we can give ourselves access to the products that will deliver our values to us. Beauty is something we need to work for, quite literally, since makeup and implants cost money. So does the gym we go to to maintain the figure deemed appropriately sexy, and so does the cute car with the fancy paint job--the one that we’re told attracts sexy women and arouses the competitive spirit of men. Oh, wait, we’re not just told this--it actually does this, and the pleasure we get from showing up guys who can’t quite race us and from women who might be sufficiently impressed by our sportiness as to show us their breasts is a real one. Worth the cost, no doubt. So what if business owners naturally chuckle at this on their way to the bank? Where’s the problem, you ask? This is simply capitalism at work, no? We have the choice whether or not to buy a fancy car or fancy implants. Capitalism offers us nothing if not choices. Turn on the television and there are hundreds of options. Go to a market and there are thousands of products, each with its own unique brand, offering its own microcosm of value--Tony the Tiger, let’s say, if you’re a little kid who wants a fantasy along with yourbreakfast cereal. Tiger Woods-sponsored timepieces if you’re a bit older and want a watch endorsed by a major sports figure. Purchasing power itself is branded with an aura which hints to us that every time we make a purchase we are actually buying our way to greater freedom. What gets shunted to the side in the glory of the transaction and the afterglow of its side-effects (e.g., flaunting the watch or the cereal-box toy or the body parts or the car to awed friends and strangers) is that much of what we buy is controlled by a relatively small number of companies with “diversified” product lines, and that each industry follows a rigid set of standards. Sure, there are evils such as price-fixing (anyone notice the recent Supreme Court ruling that knocked out an early twentieth ruling barring price floors?) but worse yet, these same companies are at great pains to influence government, from environmental regulations to media regulations, allowing, in the latter case, for an alarming rate of consolidation, so that most major media outlets are owned by a small number of companies who (and I say “who” because we all know that companies are people too, and certainly have more rights) cater to their advertisers who sell products remarkably similar to the entertainment provided by the advertising. Boundaries between advertising and entertainment continue to blur.
I have no argument there. None. So you can say I agree with you, except the sly barbs about me and my car. Which, again, you said you liked. :-)
[snip]
“Working on the prejudices of the people” is a condensed, pithy remark. Again, you suggest this in your discussion of advertising.
Yes. Again, advertising is simply a mirror of what society already is or already wants. It's simply given to them in a stylized manner. It reinforces their desires. So when you point out that adverts carry images of Corona Lights on a sandy Mexican beach or the “Swedish Swim Team” in an Old Milwaukee commercial, it's what we fantasize about. And when we see beautiful women selling a Sprite in their underwear, it's a tool to sell through sexual imagery, which is what is already on the minds of most men anyway (and some women). Plus, people are becoming more and more ADD. It's the TIVO age where the attention span is getting smaller and smaller. Entertaining and provocative advertising campaigns have to push the boundaries as people become less and less interested in those adverts. I might point out that the most watched advertisements are during the Superbowl and I don't recall that many sex-laced ads. So who's at fault? Society or the ad agencies?
[snip]
[my blathering on snipped]
A noteworthy point: you suggest initially that sex “damages” without discussing how it does this or what might be wrong with it--it would be useful if you could clarify your position on that.
Simple. In American society, sex has a negative connotation. Our Puritanical background tells us that sex is wrong. We should be guilty for having sex. It's only to be used for procreation. So what happens when you say it's bad or you say NO to someone? They just want to do it more. Then when they finally do engage in sex, they're wrought with guilt or fear or whatever because they just did something naughty. And what’s bad is that women have it even worse than men because they're labeled 'sluts' or 'whores' when they give it up so easily. Men are thought of as 'studs' and 'players'. I think men can be sluts and whores just as much as women can be stud(ettes?) and players. This, I think constitutes “damage” to women.
But the larger issue here of trends in advertising doesn’t address what, for lack of a better term, we may as well call “advertainment”--the fact that so much of what we see on television and even read in our books and magazines comes packaged with subtle calls for us to purchase products and services, very many of which are designed merely to coat or resurface us. Polishing products. I equate a fancy car with a facial--both offer us polished exteriors designed to make us sexually attractive to others. They may offer us a sense of power as well. I cannot begin to express how disgusted I am by pulp writers today who are willing to put product placements for cars and clothes (among other things) in the trash they try to pass off as readable fiction. But it’s interesting that you suggest that advertisers are backing off from the tactics of the past. Without being particularly well exposed to some of the most expensive advertising around these days, I’d still say that what’s actually happening is that it’s going undercover, hiding behind the language of emotion now offered on shampoo bottles that claim to wash our spirits as well as our hair, while giving us the fantasy of an exotic eco-tour deep into the heart of the Brazilian rainforest, where rare but sustainably harvested plant species are grown not just to replace the moisture in our hair but also to help otherwise poor natives live whole, happy lives as they supply us with product. Imagine. And this is just one example. It’s not particularly suited to the subject at hand but I think it makes the point aptly enough.
I was only talking about print ads. And there have been companies who recognize that sexism is wrong, or at least try to equal it out (again, I mention Coca-Cola with their Diet Coke campaign). But I can agree with your points on this one.
Getting back to it, the subject of how education works for us today and who’s out there knocking at our doors trying to educate us or “women in need” so that they “understand what they’re doing” if they choose porn or prostitution for their careers, I think it’s a little naïve to suggest that education seeks out students. People need to want to learn, and when it comes to making money, that’s usually when people stop studying and start working.
I was probably pulling the education thing out of my ass. Though there are certainly groups such as religious organizations and women's rights groups who do seek out victimized women and help them. Education is probably the wrong word and I shall concede.
Money under capitalism is self-propagating. It seeks to make more of itself and we are its tools. In the market system learning is discouraged unless it involves learning to do what it takes to make more money.
I agree that we are tools to capitalism. But, I disagree about education. Otherwise, we’d see more business related courses in our high schools and more classes geared to teaching our youth how to make it in a capitalist society. Not until we get to college do we have an opportunity to learn about business and ways to make money.
Yes, absolutely, no sane person over the age of eighteen is exempt from personal responsibility for their career choices or sexual expression. It’s up to them to decide what to do for their sustenance based on the best of their abilities and in accordance with their desires and creative aspirations. Just as I wouldn’t condemn them for choosing the sex industry, I don’t condemn women or men for exploring and enjoying the tedious pre-set sexual roles endorsed by the sex and “advertainment” industries--with the important exception that if real torture is involved, it’s probably a bad thing. If people get off on having their balls nailed to step-ladders, okay, but I say they need help. If they get off on the tamer stuff of boys and girls gone wild, well, there’s no denying that their pleasure is real. If you get off on getting girls to go wild for you--tucked behind the largely symbolic gesture of headlights turned on in honor of Tom, so be it. I’ve got an issue with it, you could say. I hope I’ve explained it sufficiently, and though I could certainly say more, I’ll stop here.
I don't get off on keeping my headlights on hoping that women will flash me. The chances are slim that it will ever happen and I don’t go out on Fridays with my headlights on hoping it will happen. (I know that you'll ask that, if there were a higher chance of it happening, would I go out on Fridays more? And just to answer that, No, I wouldn't because it's not worth the gas or time involved to find a cheap thrill.) I turn on my lights on Fridays specifically to show that I listen to Tom. And maybe I do keep them on for the potential entertainment value they encite, however unlikely that may be. But, again, as I've told you - I do not follow Tom's "rules" when I engage women. I've proven this time and again each time we've gone out. And if someone gets off on stapling their balls to a ladder, so be it. You say they need help but that's your view. Who's to say they have anything wrong with them? Live and let live. If they're happy stapling their balls to something, it's their business. By you saying there's something wrong with it, you're just judging their lifestyle. I’m sure there are those out there who would object to your lifestyle. But, as long as you’re happy with it, who cares?
But I will address your last two questions briefly: “To say what they do is wrong or that they know not what they do – is that okay? Because once you get into that territory, doesn’t that just become another form of oppression itself, to instill your values over theirs?” Who’s talking about instilling my values over theirs? I just don’t mind spreading the good word. What they do with it is their own business. I’m simply putting it out there, and I’ll be packaging it in palatable form. Where do you get the notion that pressing an opinion, selling it or otherwise presenting it is a form of oppression rather than expression? It would seem by your remarks that you actually support my position on advertising--that it truly can work as a form of oppression because it immerses us in ideology, even if it’s the apparently harmless little old ideology of doing whatever it takes to look good.
My point is this - you say that these people are wrong or act out of ignorance. You’ve even said that even though these people “freely choose” to work in the sex trade, there’s something wrong with them and that they’re wrong. To me, that says you think your opinion or beliefs are better than theirs, that you know what's right and they don't. In my opinion you want to change these people's beliefs to your own. You may perceive your actions as innocent but you are in a position of power. You influence others. You may pass on your beliefs and viewpoints when these people are receptive to it, but they aren't asking for it. That's all I'm saying. 'Oppression' may be a bit harsh, but surely you're trying to influence others to your belief system. As for adverts, we can simply fast-forward or change the channel, as most people do anyway. We can look up the data TIVO has to show what commercials people do watch and, from what I understand, they aren't what one would expect.
We can go on ad nauseam regarding this subject, I'm sure. I am clearly outgunned on this subject, as I have not studied it to the degree you have. But, since your views are in written form, I can understand your point of view more clearly. And despite our clear differences in opinion, I do respect yours. Obviously, I should be more sensitive to this subject because it does matter to you and I will be in the future. I just want you to know, again, that this is not something that defines you or me. We can exist together knowing that we do have differing opinions but in the end come to some of the same conclusions on some matters. I just hope that, because we have differing opinions, it doesn't somehow tarnish me in your eyes. I wouldn't mind discussing this further with you in person over tea, as long as the personal attacks remain at a minimum. :-) Plus, it's tedious through this blog.
Posts
