now I am the fairest, she said
Jan. 3rd, 2009 03:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lotesseI followed all the conversation a few weeks ago on the female gaze in pornography - link here to Cathexys - with interest, but I couldn't quite figure out how to voice my discomfort with ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
bradhanon's argument.
But now I have thoughts. Jezebel posted an article this afternoon called Exposed: Are Women Better at Controlling Lust? And while I don't appreciate the evo-psych bs title, the thesis is pretty cool: women look in the same way men do, but they get that you don't act on every impulse. Obvious, yes, but the essay throws in one think that I never see brought up in these debates. That is, that women restrain themselves for - at least - two reasons. The first is societal - women aren't supposed to have desire, blah blah blah.
But the other reason is for purposes of pleasure. The article quotes Emily Maguire as saying "[Girls] learn that yearning for male bodies can be expressed only if those bodies belong to smart, funny boys who are kind to puppies and old people." In other words, hot boys can sometimes hurt you. The best way to enjoy your sexuality is to consider the non-physical merits of your sex partners, at least to some degree. Sleeping with jerks is good for nobody and nothing.
I love this explanation for gendered sexual behavior, because it grants women their sexual agency. It's not that we don't notice the pretty boys. It's that we have standards. Even in one-night-standing, there are some guys that, well, no. Indiscriminate promiscuity tends to be bad for you, but promiscuity with thought is a horse of a different color.
This is the thing I've never understood about guyporn. If it's a hot blonde, they're good. But I can think of a kajillion very very pretty boys, both in real life and in media fandom, that I'm just not that into. Erm, sideways example - after I saw Zack and Miri Make a Porno, I went out at got Knocked Up, which I hadn't seen before, because I was so totally into Seth Rogen's character in Z&M. But I was utterly grossed out by his character in Knocked Up, because he was a repulsive manchild fuckerd. Same guy, same appearance, different character types = different levels of arousal. It's possibly really weird that I just used Seth Rogen as an example of a hot guy, but eh.
I think part of the slash aesthetic lies in the recognition that there are different kinds of sexy, and that responses may - and probably should - vary. Every individual, and every couple, works differently. Doesn't mean they can't all be hot.
bradhanon's argument.But now I have thoughts. Jezebel posted an article this afternoon called Exposed: Are Women Better at Controlling Lust? And while I don't appreciate the evo-psych bs title, the thesis is pretty cool: women look in the same way men do, but they get that you don't act on every impulse. Obvious, yes, but the essay throws in one think that I never see brought up in these debates. That is, that women restrain themselves for - at least - two reasons. The first is societal - women aren't supposed to have desire, blah blah blah.
But the other reason is for purposes of pleasure. The article quotes Emily Maguire as saying "[Girls] learn that yearning for male bodies can be expressed only if those bodies belong to smart, funny boys who are kind to puppies and old people." In other words, hot boys can sometimes hurt you. The best way to enjoy your sexuality is to consider the non-physical merits of your sex partners, at least to some degree. Sleeping with jerks is good for nobody and nothing.
I love this explanation for gendered sexual behavior, because it grants women their sexual agency. It's not that we don't notice the pretty boys. It's that we have standards. Even in one-night-standing, there are some guys that, well, no. Indiscriminate promiscuity tends to be bad for you, but promiscuity with thought is a horse of a different color.
This is the thing I've never understood about guyporn. If it's a hot blonde, they're good. But I can think of a kajillion very very pretty boys, both in real life and in media fandom, that I'm just not that into. Erm, sideways example - after I saw Zack and Miri Make a Porno, I went out at got Knocked Up, which I hadn't seen before, because I was so totally into Seth Rogen's character in Z&M. But I was utterly grossed out by his character in Knocked Up, because he was a repulsive manchild fuckerd. Same guy, same appearance, different character types = different levels of arousal. It's possibly really weird that I just used Seth Rogen as an example of a hot guy, but eh.
I think part of the slash aesthetic lies in the recognition that there are different kinds of sexy, and that responses may - and probably should - vary. Every individual, and every couple, works differently. Doesn't mean they can't all be hot.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 10:16 pm (UTC)The other link--interesting, if only because a whole of the evo-psycho (which I find completely without merit and totally ridiculous in most cases) blather is that women are genetically programmed to sleep with the bad boys!
And, well, in my experience (I'm in my fifties) a whole lot of my women friends from about 17 on slept with the jerks (and in our adolescence, without any contraception because nobody taught us anything and it wasn't easily available--I'm trying to remember when they started letting single women have it without a prescription...)
However, I do totally agree, women can be visually turned on by hunky men (however they define hunky). But the fact that the woman invented homemade porn is primarily textual (although photos do inspire) makes me think that there is still.....that difference.
I also doubt that in fact all men are equally aroused by heteronormative guyporn: it's assumed they are, by a patriarchal system, and I doubt most who are not turned on are going to buck that tide, the way men punish other men.
But, well, there's a LOT more complex stuff out there around this topic to think about......so I'm glad you posted!
no subject
Date: 2009-01-03 11:46 pm (UTC)Haven't read the Jezebel post, but I read the original (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/the-truth-on-perving-women-are-better-than-men-at-controllingtheir-lust/2009/01/01/1230681658492.html?page=2) last night- that Maguire quote seemed to me to be firmly embedded in the 'social conditioning' part: eg, it is unseemly for women to desire a man for purely physical reasons, and thus they learn to justify their attraction (even to modulate attraction) on the basis of other traits.
The following sentence:
Girls learn to say they love Zac Efron for his beautiful singing voice rather than his immensely grab-able arse. They learn to think about boys in terms other than physical.
I think your argument (or is it Jezebel's spin on Maguire's argument? Whatever, the version you've argued here) holds water, and you're right about the slash aesthetic privileging different kinds of sexy for different occaisions/readers/fandoms, but that's definitely not the spin Maguire was taking.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-04 05:25 pm (UTC)I guess what it comes down to is that I disagree with a phallocentric idea of sexuality. That is, if I'm perving on Zac Efron - which, omg no, but - I think I'd get as much of a sexual kick from the voice as from the bod. Sex is more than just penetration, and attraction is more than just interchangeable bodies. I think that a more integrative view of sexual attraction gives us better access to genuine, non-phallocentric, woman-friendly sex.