Tom Ford comments on the lack of male nudity

I stumbled on this New York Magazine article via Ms. Naughty's blog, and I am truly intrigued. Not because I think that one (or even 100) pictorials of nude men will change the way male and female bodies are/not produced as 'sexual.' As with many many gender and sexuality issues, the problem is not (only) with correcting misrepresentations by merely adding to the ones we have, just like more women as corporate CEO's is not all that is needed to change the way business and economics are centered around the worker as male. It's a start, but it's not the whole story, not even close.

I'm more interested in what Ford said.

[...] the male nude is one of our last taboos. There's a double standard at play here: magazines that are happy to fund ads featuring an artfully lit female nude will balk at an image of her male counterpart.

Bodies themselves may be, for the most part, natural raw material. But the value societies gives to bodies, what we see those bodies as useful for, what uses are appropriate for which bodies, how bodily qualities (i.e. beauty, strength) are defined, are all socio-cultural and ideological, thus also political.

To Ford's point, women's bodies have been constructed as inherently sexual, beautiful, and visually appealing. The sexualization of women's bodies in advertising, "erotic art," and a slew of forms of entertainment are symptoms of gender hierarchies that objectify women, and they also reproduce and reiterate their objectification in defining the 'inherent' sexuality of the female body. In our culture, women's bodies are for being looked at; they are for someone other than themselves. While these representations are a symptom of inequality and don't directly cause it, the system of representation is circular and feeds itself.

Men's bodies presented as sexual is considered an anomaly, and often is scandalous. Men's bodies are constructed as useful, instrumental things-- men's bodies do. They do work, (they 'do' women! or men!), they perform feats of strength, athleticism, agility; for most men they are means to an end-- they are incidental. The only real eroticization of male bodies is in the sex act itself, only in front of lovers. Their bodies are typically not something to be looked at and criticized publicly, causing a self-policing among men about their own physical appearance. Ford asks,

Why, he asks, is it "gay" for another man to comment on another man's figure, when women can freely tell other women their boobs look great?

The beauty of male bodies, in our culture, is supposed to be limited to sexual intimacy, whereas the beauty of female bodies is for public consumption and commentary. The femininity (sex appeal) of the female body is tied to women's identities, and complementing a woman's body (in the appropriate context) has the effect of reinforcing and praising her feminine identity. Further, when women's bodies are posited as the inherently sexual ones, we are used to women's bodies being desired by both sexes: they are the ones men desire to have and women desire to be. In our cultural context, for what purpose would a het man comment on a man's body? Visually possessing women through the gaze is part of the production of masculinity and is a privilege of it; looking at bodies is tied to sexual desire. Under such a limiting construction of sexuality and "the look", what other explanation can we provide to men looking at men's bodies but an assumption of gayness?

Alanis Morisette said, " I like to think of my body as an instrument, rather than an ornament." I don't think the idea of body-as-ornament is close to the top of the list of things men are concerned with regarding their masculinity.

Because these ideas are reinforced throughout various arenas (sport, film, art, fashion, 'sexuality' as represented in pornography, etc.), and are linked to ideological power structures (gender dominance, or patriarchy), this isn't just a matter of representation. Sexual asymmetry is one of the last acceptable gendered power differentials in western society. And it's also not a matter of prudishness. My critique sexualized images of women objects to the fact that the only valued social space available for women in the realm of sexuality is being the object on display. Thus simply adding some naked men here and there does not change the structure of how sexuality is produced through particularly gendered bodies and the resulting sexual assumptions and sexual possibilities. It's lip service and a way to say, "see, they do it to men too." But in the presence of social norms and expectations that define sexual gender roles in a way that reproduces patriarchal power hierarchies, images of nude men and women are not equivalent in meaning. This is oh so apparent in comments I've heard from guys saying:

"girls [sic] are so lucky they can get paid so much to take their clothes off," or
"if I was a girl [sic] I'd love it that everyone would want to see me naked," or my favorite,
"I don't get the big deal about rape-I wish girls would force themselves on me."

Sexualization of bodies does not mean the same thing for women as for men. And since what 'sexy' looks like is also something we learn, and since we are not taught how to see men's bodies as sexual nor is it easy to find representations of eroticized male bodies (it's no surprise that lots of het women watch gay porn!), for the most part, viewing men's and women's bodies is also a different process, signifying differently to different genders.

Representations of the body as sexual are not plopped into an otherwise neutral social context, and therefore are loaded with meaning from the get-go. This quote of Ford's is rather indicative of contextual difference I have been trying to elaborate:

Imagine … if our suits were entirely designed to show off our penises. Imagine if contemporary fashion demanded that you left your cock hanging outside your trousers, with perhaps just the head trussed up in a tiny pouch like a dick bra. Everyone would see our cocks all the time, in the same way that fashion features women's breasts.

Part of the problem is that women want to look...and have little to look at. Meanwhile, women's bodies are exponentially increasing in availability at the click of a mouse. And the cultural policing of women's bodies as properly sexual is undeniably inescapable. This isn't an issue of adding more naked men to the mix. I'm not sure even having an equal number of visually sexually available men and women on the internet and in film and advertising would necessarily "fix" things is the values and meanings attached to sexed bodies remains static.

Lastly, how unfortunate that this is in Britain's GQ, and not the U.S.'s.

**also, I understand that I am speaking of these issues in terms of heterosexuality, as sexuality is constructed through heteronormative culture.

Keep Reading...

On Becoming a Sexual Female, via Miley Cyrus

I tend to agree* with this analysis of the photos of Miley Cyrus in Vanity Fair that we've seen so far from Vanity Fair, that they're not "that bad."

*sidenote: Except that the bare skin and sultry looks are for your prom friends, not the American Celebritocrical Gaze. And typically you go to the prom at 17-18, not the age of 15. Mir Kamin makes the distinction quite well between these images and simply wearing a backless dress:

For me, my problem lies with the fact that she's underage and I find the picture intentionally sexual. It's not her naked back -- it's her tousled hair, her come-hither look, and the bed-sheet-esque cover; all of those things together combine to portray a post-coital vixen.

(end of side-note)

But the whole thing still troubles me for a few reasons I know, and probably some I can't articulate yet. And I think the question of whether the images themselves are "that bad" isn't the real issue here.

And I've really become disappointed in Annie Leibovitz who, back in the day, took this amazing image of Yoko Ono and John Lennon that surprised our gender expectations. She has recently become more known for replicating racist images of the recent past, and now this. And while, as I said "they're not that bad" (isn't is sad we have a world of sexualized teen girls to compare this image to that we can make the judgment, 'it's not that bad'? Ugh)

This comment on Female Impersonators is quite striking and right-on, and I think it sums up what was really giving me anxiety:

a fifteen year old girl should be beginning to discover her sexuality. She should understand how her body works and why. She should appreciate her body's feelings and responses, but she should not be doing it in front of the world. To sell magazine covers.

That's exactly it. In a world where women's desirability matters more than her desire or that she desires at all, this is sad yet unsurprising. This 15 year-old girl is learning the very real and 'truth' of our modern culture that posing and being socially stamped as 'sexy' is an important (if not the important) part of women's 'sexuality'. That her being sexy is defined through, well, this. I'm not denying that a 15 year-old can be a sexual being. But the problem is that our culture perpetually defines sexuality and sexiness in terms of public validation of public sexual display. And hers being a sexuality-in-process...sigh. And what were you saying about 'The Sexual Revolution'?

And Gawker's provocative take on the photos is pretty interesting: grooming for pedophilia. I would never argue that's what is consciously and absolutely going on, but it's a compelling suggestion.

And it also makes me think about how our culture "grooms" women to become public sex objects, to desire the validation it provides, to justify it to themselves until it's "no big deal." We don't live in a vacuum, and women (or girls) don't one day jump out of bed and say "I think I'd like to show my tits to strangers while I'm drunk next spring break."

I think I'm just going to leave this here for right now. Thoughts?

Keep Reading...

Fighting Against Breast Cancer...and Also Against Breast Cancer Campaigns

I don't remember exactly what brought this issue to my attention-- it may have been this blog post I read, which prompted me to do some additional research. But I'm pretty irritated. And frustrated.

It's the Breast Cancer awareness campaigns and anti-breast cancer t-shirts that are being manufactured, bought and worn. Disclaimer: I am 100% in favor of fund-raising, awareness, education, what have you, about breast cancer.* That's not what this is about. However, the way advocacy is framed is just as important as the advocacy, for the "way you say it" speaks just as much as "what you say."

Why am I annoyed? The message of recent campaigns, advertising, and t-shirts are centered around the idea that we need to catch breast cancer early and research for a cure in order to save breasts. Silly me, I thought we fight against cancer to save lives. And if that weren't bad enough, the reason "the breasts" must be saved will make you puke a little in your mouth. Because men love 'em. Or in sexuality-neutral terms of some of the tees, your sex partner enjoys them, or needs them to attain a sexual conquest status:

This tee is also interesting in how it appropriates a "sport" theme, used as a metaphor for sex that is wholly centered on what the male "gets" the female to do, especially considering the objectification of women in sport. Compare to this tee, also on a sport theme:
So to recap, not only are saving the breast not the woman, the focus of the campaigns, but the reason for doing to isn't even about preserving the sexual pleasure that the woman's breasts give her, but is instead about their benefit to others, predominately to men--not only your (presumed male) partner, but to the community of men at large. "We men" love 'boobies' so we'll work real hard so you don't have to have them surgically removed. And we women should be "responsible" and look after them because the dudez love 'em. And we all know women should do things about their body because it's what men love. Not because, well, women might die!



I prefer this one:

Of course, the end message "look after your body" is correct but the reason to do so is 100% absolutely wrong. It is an unfortunately and troubling result of how women's bodies are seen: as first and foremost for someone else's pleasure, as something to be looked at and not something that works, that does things, that has a functional purpose, and that gives the woman herself pleasure.

Rethink's "Booby Wall" starts off saying about it's call to upload images of your breasts: "this isn't Maxim...this is beautiful" only to be followed by "this is worth living for." Excuse me? Um, no, my breasts are not worth living for, my life is worth living for! Yeah, let's display all sort of breasts as examples of the beauty in the variety of breasts to prove that your breasts are important, valuable and worth living for. Gee, that sure sounds like an awesome initiative!

And no, this is not a case of Aw, just lighten up!-Whatever will get people to fight breast cancer-What's the Big Deal? No, sorry. This is the message women get ev-ry-where. And now when the issue is supposed to be about women's lives, we're appealing to save women's bodies?! Women's bodies are valuable regardless of what they mean to men and the male gaze, and women's lives are important regardless of their bodies. End of story.

Reasons why we fight breast cancer?
Because it kills women.
Because it takes a chunk of your life away.
Because a woman losing her breasts can make her lose out on sexual pleasure.

The "because a woman's partner may lose our on sexual pleasure" is at the bottom of the list.

That "men like looking at as many breasts as possible and anything that makes them go away should be fought against" is not on the list.

In addition to my disclaimer above, an ending disclaimer. I am not criticizing men that are involved in breast cancer organizations whatsoever. Please keep it up! I am criticizing the way that action against breast cancer is framed, and I am not saying men involved are doing so with the motivations presumed by the campaigns. Instead, I think this tee better describes these men:

The campaigns rely on a sexist framework regarding the female body and what/who it is for, and they perpetuate such sexism in the design of their campaigns.



*Even though the way breast cancer has been produced in medicalization has a very gendered element to it, in the way that the comparative silence around prostate cancer and prevention is also quite gendered. I'll write on this in the future. But for now, ponder on why it might be that we encourage women to do self-breast examinations monthly--and this is a common-knowledge thing--and we don't advocate men doing self-testicle exams. Even though considering the various tissue obstructions in the breast, it would be much easier to discover lumps in the testicles than in the breast.

(Cross-posted to The Reaction)

Keep Reading...

Sexualized Ads Become "Obscene" When Guys are the Objects

So this video and news issue is a wee bit old, but the idea it raises isn't at all.

Apparently an in-store Abercrombie ad campaign (see video below) received complaints for being too sexual/obscene. Abercrombie has been doing this for years, for example, depicting cartoons of topless girls (yeah, they looked awful young) in pools and having threesomes in their catalog back when I worked in the mall 10 years ago. And in this day and age of hypersexualization of women's bodies and the general pornification of everyday life, you would think these ads must be awfully revealing to be so scandalous.

The thing is, the ads aren't that revealing. Not by far, and especially not compared to most ads we see everywhere. we. look.

Except that most sexualized ads we see are of women's bodies (I said most-I am well aware of the sexual and homoerotic tones of several cologne ads). However, the Abercrombie campaign includes some sexy images...of guys. And the marketing target is upper-middle class, heterosexual teens, both female and male.

via msnbc.com:

This is the part that struck me most:

"there's half naked guys running around--it's obscenity--is Playboy able to hang naked pictures in their store?"

Um, sorry dude, but the half naked men shown in Abercrombie ads is not the same as fully naked Playboy pictures. Like, at all. It's more like Victoria's Secret ads (and even then not quite the same there either)...and oh yeah, they are able to show those, and not only in their stores, but on billboards, the sides of buses, every f*cking magazine you pick up, not to mention, the goddamn TV!!

The ads are only 'scandalous' because guys are being (mildly) depicted as erotic objects of heterosexual desire. And this just doesn't happen. Even when there's male (frontal) nudity in movies, it's typically either goofy or is not eroticized. Women as sexual objects, as seen as serving a sexual function for men (being sexually desirable rather than having sexual desire) have functioned in a particular way in western patriarchy, along with wife/mother, to produce female ideals whose value relies on seeing women in terms of how they function for men's benefit. This is the very definition of objectification--defining (a person) in terms of how you already see them to be, in how they're useful for you, rather than seeing them on their own terms. Men are really only able to objectify women in this way because such narrow and all-defining judgment is never returned to them; they are rarely, if ever, made the objects of female-centered desire. It's awfully hard to objectify someone when you recognize they have their own desire--and that you might not be up to their standard.

I'm getting a bit off track, and I'll continue to blog about that in the future, but getting back to the anxious guy...his comments are screaming male privilege. The fact that these images bother him so much can be attributed to him rarely having to be faced with the eroticization of his own body, even in the mild Abercrombie images of guys in jeans showing a little buttcrack. What's fascinating is that he is so bothered by it. I'd like to say that he's finally getting a small taste of what women go through, but that's not even close to the truth: he has the luxury of being able to avoid dealing with the images by walking out of the store. These kinds of images (and so much more) are simply unavoidable for women--we can never just walk away, because they're there whenever we turn around.

Another fascinating thing about his comment was his analogy of these images to Playboy images. On an obvious level, he's so wrong, because, um, come on, they're nowhere near close: they're not the same degree of nudity, not the same degree of sexualization (there's little about the Abercrombie poses that are seductive or vulnerable), and not the same intent. On another level, they are similar, because sexualized women's bodies are so commonplace these days, that we wouldn't even blink an eye if we were to replace the guy in the Abercrombie ad with a woman. We probably wouldn't even think it was racy, or even that sexual. So his analogy, in a way, speaks very much to the ubiquitous sexualized female body and the rarely eroticized male body.

Finally, what I'm also quite interested in regarding this video news story, is that the campaign included images of girls, depicted in much the same way as the guys are...yet he never mentioned being bothered by the "obscenity" of those! When we take this reaction, and think about the male anxiety around male nudity in general, and especially gay male sexuality (but of course, not lesbian sexuality), it it very clear that, in popular culture, sexuality becomes 'obscene' when it does not reinforce heteronormative masculinity. Images are only seen as improperly sexualized when it's the male body on display for a (presumed) het female audience.

(Cross-posted to The Reaction)

Keep Reading...

Real Women Have Bodies...Politicians Even

This article from last week on Salon's Broadsheet just cracked me up. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the leader of the German nation is...a woman!!! And not just that...she has breasts! OMG!

Apparently her appearance at the German Opera in an evening gown with a plunging neckline cause quite a furor. Just more proof that:

1. Women can be sexual or politically powerful, but not both.
2. Women can be politically powerful, as long as they "act like men."
3. #2 means they must pretend like they don't have a body. Wait, that they don't have a female body, which is of course redundant in our culture where men have the luxury to be people first and bodies second (or never).
4. Female sexuality is unable to be tolerated when it's not for someone else. (I can't hook up with her/masturbate to her/marry her so why does she think she can demonstrate that she has breasts?)
   
5. Women cannot be "taken seriously while sexy."

And it's not even sexual!! It's just some cleavage!! Evidence of having a female body!! Sheesh!

(cross-posted to The Reaction)

Keep Reading...

McCain defends masculinity by resorting to sex-based insults

OK, so this has been mentioned everywhere, but in The Real McCain by Cliff Schecter, he claims that McCain responded to his wife's comment about his hair thinning by calling her a 'cunt.'

From the book, via Feministing:

At one point, Cindy playfully twirled McCain's hair and said, "You're getting a little thin up there." McCain's face reddened, and he responded, "At least I don't plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt." McCain's excuse was that it had been a long day.

For the record, trollop means "prostitute" or "promiscuous woman."

(Interestingly, dictionary.com phrases this to imply that a prostitute is a particularly promiscuous woman, as if prostitution as sex work and individual promiscuity for one's own pleasure -not work- are in fact conceptually related).

See my previous posts on sexed bodies and gendered insults, and on gendered language more generally.

No further comment required.

Keep Reading...

The More Things Change...

The more they stay the same...

Check out these advice nuggets from 1950's mags. Sound familiar? Via F-Word.org: Food, Fat, Feminism.

And here's a snippet from Jean Kilbourne's Killing Me Softly 3 that I found on Youtube. She's been doing research about media imagery and women's sexuality and identity for 30 years. And it's pathetic how much things don't change. I recommend checking out her film (in lots of libraries!) and her book, Can't Buy My Love (in my Amazon book picks).

(NOTE: nothing more after the jump)

Keep Reading...

Some comment-worthy articles about sexuality and body image

The British Daily Mail reported that men--especially single men--who read "lad mags" (the mags for (hetero) Men that equally objectify the newest babe in lingerie alongside the latest in electronic gear) are more obsessed with their own body image.

"The message in typical lads' magazines is that you need to develop a muscular physique in order to attract a quality mate," said Dr Giles.

"Readers internalise this message, which creates anxieties about their actual bodies and leads to increasingly desperate attempts to modify them.

"Some of the most worrying findings were that heavy consumers of lads' mags think about taking anabolic steroids or use protein or energy supplements as part of their diet and exercise regimes to improve the way they look."

Forgive me if I'm slightly amused by this, but, um, DUH! These magazines have the same kind of effect on women (not to mention on men's expectation of what a particularly beautiful woman is). At least the men who read these mags don't have the have the message that body=worth thrown at them from every which way like women do. While body image can be one aspect of success, men have many more valued ways to be successful than women do.

I also find it interesting that the researchers thought the men were internalizing the ideal images of men found in the mags--maybe the British versions are significantly different than the U.S. ones, but I don't recall any real emphasis on male bodies; the male physique seemed to be just one aspect of men's lives they covered (as opposed to the portrayal of the women which are presented as eye-candy first--ya know, the important function of women in a man's life--then maybe the reader gets to see others aspects of her life). My guess? Men who consistently objectify women, and see their worth first in terms of their value to the guy as an object of sexual desire, tend to start to see themselves in the same light, despite that women's mags don't tend to portray guys in that way.

______________________________

These men shouldn't worry to much, however, because what consists of "sex" and "good sex" is still measured in terms of PIV sex (aka intercourse). A new study has concluded that how long good sex should last:

1) is measured in terms of time the penis is inside the vagina;
2) doesn't include foreplay (which, for women, is much of what they consider "sex");
3) can relieve most men that their lasting time is "satisfactory."

What's interesting about this is that "how long is optimal intercourse?" gets translated into "how long does it take to satisfy a woman?" For most women I know, these are not the same question. My equating these two ideas, the assumption is reinforced that a woman's satisfaction comes from sex defined as PIV intercourse.

And while it's nice that men get to feel all "normal" and stuff, that women's pleasures actually contradict conventional wisdom and representations in porn (while women still seem to be held to ridiculous standards of what their sexual pleasure should be and should look like), it would be nice for a study to come out (and receive as much press as this one has!) that actually talks bout what women's sexual pleasure consists of. My guess is if one did come out, it's findings would make the findings of this study a lot less relevant. Check out this too on Slow Sex Movement (part of the Slow Movement).

______________________________

I am really delighted that Babeland employee (a women and queer-oriented sex shop) has been hired by Cosmo to dole out sex advice. Maybe her presence can help work against the cult of sexuality that Cosmo espouses that thinks good sex advice is primarily about how to please your man, do a striptease, perform like a porn star, fulfill his ultimate fantasies. Perhaps instead we'll see a little more about experimenting to find your own pleasures, how to communicate what you want and ask him what he wants, how to use sex toys in couple sex. I mean, totally revolutionary stuff!

______________________________

Lastly, in late March an 18-year-old high school senior died after elective breast surgery from an albeit rare surgical complication. Two things from the MSNBC story stand out to me:

Stephanie Kuleba’s friends called her “Sunshine” because that was the perfect nickname for the outgoing and bubbly girl who was everybody’s friend, the cheerleader with the near-perfect grade-point average who was too nice and too perfect for anybody to resent.

This is all too typical--that women can be accomplished in all sorts of ways, but they are never "good enough" unless our bodies "match up" (according to cultural expectations) with the beautiful person we truly are. She wasn't getting implants, but rather "corrective surgery," which many feminists who loathe implants might be willing to overlook. But in reality, breasts come in all shapes and sizes, and they're all normal. The image we see in film, magazines, and porn is a result of some intense photoshopping (not to mention all the implants), even when they purport a "natural" look. Check out this great site that shows what actual breasts, in all their variety, look like. (site isn't porn, but it's also NSFW)

The death has focused attention on elective breast augmentation surgery, a procedure that 347,500 women of all ages chose to have in 2007 alone. That number is 6 percent higher than in 2006 and 64 percent higher than in 2000.
...
D’Amico repeated the FDA recommendation that no one under 18 undergo breast augmentation surgery. Despite its popularity, the procedure does have a high rate of complications and often requires additional surgery within five to 10 years of the original surgery.

The point is, that women are getting elective breast surgeries, which, like all surgeries, have significant risks (not to mention the risks related to the material in implants) in droves. It isn't that these women are stupid and don't understand the risks. It's that they overwhelmingly do, and the potential complications of the surgery outweigh the social risk of a "failed"' feminine body and the risk of not being deemed appropriately sexually worthy. Of course, the health risks to women in surgery is coupled with the risks to a woman's sexual pleasure through decreased nipple sensitivity from the augmentation.

Do think that men would submit themselves in significant numbers to a surgery meant primarily to please actual and potential sexual partners, while risking decreasing their own sexual pleasure? Do men submit themselves in huge numbers to penis enlargement surgery and other procedures that could increase staying power? Then answer is, no, they don't. But they don't need to, because we've already squashed the "size matters" and "lasting longer is better" myths about female sexual pleasure. When will start acknowledging our unhealthy obsession with bigger or "perfect" (whatever that means) breasts, and show that an awful lot of guys are happy with many kinds of breasts, and those who aren't need some reeducation, and there are a lot of ways they can be pleasurable to a partner. But ultimately, we need to remember that the primary sexual function of breasts (or we could be talking about vaginas, for that matter) is for the person they belong to--the woman. And you can't enjoy them if you have few nerves left, or worse, if you're dead.

Keep Reading...

Did those crazy rad-fems really burn their bras? Telling women's history right

So I hear in passing all the time people mentioning "bra-burning feminists" in the '60's. If I'm in any way involved in the conversation, I try to correct or at least clarify the story where that (in)famous image of second-wave feminists comes from.

Huff-Po has a good "let's get the story straight" article just in time for Women's History Month to be...over. Read it. If nothing else than then you can allude to the historical event without sounding like an idiot. The Cliff's notes version is below:

Women's underthings used to be ridiculously uncomfortable. In fact, the concept of comfort is a pretty new idea. So when feminism came along and suggested going au natural over being in pain to achieve the perfect hourglass figure, it was a pretty strong argument. And what better place to state your distaste for sexist undergarments than the Miss. America. Beauty. Pageant.
...

Back on the sidewalk outside Atlantic City Hall, hundreds of women filled a trash can with girdles, high-heeled shoes, false eyelashes, makeup and bras.

And in fairness to the myth, the desire to light a fire was there, but there was just one problem. No one could get permission to do it. Since the boardwalk was wooden, the fire would be unsafe. So, these radical women were left with a trash can full of the cast-aways of womanhood. But instead of a fiery protest, it was just a big trash can full of junk.

...

Let's be clear here. These women in 1968 did burn. They burned with the desire for change, for equal rights, for comfort, for being free from the pressure of making their bodies mold to ridiculous looks that had nothing to do with an actual woman's body. But they did not burn bras.

You know, it irritates me pretty good when I hear the "bra-burning feminists" label because it is usually said with contempt or at least annoyance--as in, "here go those man-hating feminists, complaining about femininity." To be clear, feminists hate the ubiquitous compulsory, restrictive, male-centered expectations of femininity. It doesn't mean a feminist can't want to or enjoy putting on pretty underwear every once in a while, or that she won't even indulge in any "feminine" pleasures. And if you don't think a male-centered idea of femininity (and sexuality) is compulsory and not wholly "chosen"--which is really a topic for a post of its own--at least chew on this.

If you ask me, would could use a little more public trashings of high-heeled shoes, bras, makeup, and fake eyelashes...not to mention hot wax, anal bleach, dresses that only look good if you don't move, a bunch of mainstream porn, diet pills, laxatives, and all that silicone we inject in our breasts, lips, butt, and what not...

But that's just me.

Keep Reading...

Prostitution: After the Sensationalism

Well, it's been a few weeks since the whole Spitzer-prostitute thing, and it would be an understatement to say the whole event created an online "buzz." Some has been very good--as I wrote about previously, there has been much discussion about the criminality of prostitution, the differences between decriminalization and legalization, about the theoretical and "ethical" (?) distinctions between buying sex and selling it, and about how the prostitutes themselves (rather than their "pimps" or the "johns") suffer the worst penalties and take the greatest risks. Some has been not so good, with the slut-shaming, and the objectification and dehumanizing critique of her body ("that's worth $4,000?!), and the looking for any sexualized images of her that people might have, despite her lack of consent to the publishing context (yeah I'm taking about you, Girls Gone Wild and The New York Post).

While this story brought into relief the connection between male privilege and cheating via prostitution, indeed reminded us that paying for sexual services is often (not always) bound up in male privilege, I found myself frustrated, however, that this particular example of prostitution was the centerpiece of the discussion. For while Dupree's "life story" (at 22 years old) is quite typical of sex workers generally--moved away from home at a young age, was homeless, drugs, no college education, possible abuse--her working conditions were not at all typical. It is easy to see why prostitution is "no big deal" and is just like any other physically exploitative labor-intensive work when you can hand-pick your clients and have to work very little to get a handsome paycheck.

This isn't the truth of most prostitution work. And I think it's important that we don't forget that in all the glitz and glamor and sex-money-politics juiciness of this particular story that sound more like a made-for-TV movie. And not all of prostitution's problems can be solved by legalizing and regulating it. Some of the violence and abuse on the job comes from how masculinity and sexual dominance and ownership is linked in out society. And sexual abuse and violence is a strong common denominator among those who get into sex work of all kinds, prostitution, stripping, porn, etc. When these things are so connected, it's imporantant to not only talk about the legal issues but the social ones as well.

When becoming a sex worker is a way for women to cope, but not deal with, past sexual abuse, is it really beneficial to simply legalize it, call it their choice, and wash our hands of the damaging social factors that perpetuate both the "supply" and "demand"?: the social inequality of men and women, sexual violence against women, the objectification of women, the way men feel emasculates in a society where women have become more independent and in control but we have yet to produce a positive egalitarian idea of masculinity. Many of these women need emotional and physical counseling and support, they need help coming into a healthy relationship with their bodies; they don't need to be alienating their bodies as a response to previous abuse. And we need a serious revolution in the ways we value women's work. What does the instant fame, glamor, and big dollar sex contracts thrown at Ms. Dupree say to our young women working hard in school? When Lindsay Lohan is a train wreck and is throwing her life away, but stop the presses, because we may have found a video of her giving a blow job? When being called the Unsexiest Woman Alive can shake Sarah Jessica Parker, who on TV represented a self-reliant, successful, self-defined woman for so many woman my age? Whose post-TV work has been about women's fashion and mothering, and not about bodily alterations or posing for men?** Just saying.

I am not saying some women who hasn't been abused or is not in such economic dire straits that no other options are viable should not be able to choose prostitution or other sex work as an informed choice. But I think that sex work is a social and legal and cultural issue and needs to be addressed on both levels. We need to talk about how male privilege to (own) women's bodies is part of the cultural breath we breathe. We need to talk about women's connections to their bodies and sexualities and how social objectification, self-objectification, and sexual violence all disrupt that connection. And women's bodies and desirability need to stop being the measure of a woman's worth. Period. There need to be better economic options for women who are in desperate situations or who are single mothers (or both) so that prostitution and other sex work is not "choice" via coercion. Addressing these issues will help sex work being a truly informed choice. And further, we need to be aware of the realities of prostitution and other sex work when we are discussing and debating solutions, and not just what is glamorized by the media and films.

Here's a visible look at some of the daily realities, lest we get too comfy with the pretty-young-choosy-expensive-glamorous prostitute image we have been inundated with lately. (image via Mentrual Poetry):

visit Prostitution Research and Education for more info.

**(and as an actress, her target audience was for women's entertainment and inspiration, not at all for men. And she's the "unsexiest woman"? She also hasn't caved in to "fix" her "Jewish" nose. Either one coincidence? Prolly not).

Keep Reading...

The Best Music Video I've Seen, like,..EVER

Wow, looks like this song isn't at all new, but it's new to me, and all I can say is...WOW. Very moving and very right-on. The only thing I would change is...the name. Because I would never say the girls who buy into the message that women are only as valuable and worthwhile as they are "sexy" and are sexually available are "stupid" (or the guys, as the vid is a critique on their significant participation in it too-after all, whose expectations is this all for?)...but somehow "stupid patriarchy" or "stupid culture" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. So WORD! to Pink. Smart is sexy, and I'd say she's right up there. So, eat this up!



(NOTE: nothing after the jump)

Keep Reading...

Texas: where strip clubs with under-age dancers don't get shut down, but you can't buy a damn vibrator

First, some old-ish news: Texas' law (check out this Youtube vid) against the sale or "promotion" of sex toys was ruled unconstitutional in February, but in March the State Attorney General Greg Abbott (whose views do not necessarily reflect those of the Texas population) has requested that the circuit court of appeals to rehear the case.

Under Texas law it is illegal to sell, advertise, give or lend obscene devices, defined as a device used primarily for sexual stimulation. Anyone in possession of six or more sexual devices is considered to be promoting them. (via Austin-American Statesman).

Um...six devices? Considering the wide variety of sex toys and their uses for women, men, and couples, this turns an awful lot of people who enjoy sex and sexual variety into criminals. But isn't this really the point? When an exploration of sexuality beyond procreative purposes and methods is called "obscene" and those who practice become "criminals," the effort is to return sex back to it's "real" purpose-procreation. Oh yeah, and male-centered, both in who should receive pleasure and how a woman "ought to" achieves pleasure: the good ole penis-in-vagina way. It's pretty clear that this primarily impacts women, who probably benefit the greatest from sex toys-from being able to understand their own bodies and pleasures, to being able to experience those pleasures with a partner (23% of couples use 'em). Think I'm stretching it? Check this out, again from the Statesman:

The state also argued in a brief that Texas has legitimate "morality based" reasons for the laws, which include "discouraging prurient interests in autonomous sex and the pursuit of sexual gratification unrelated to procreation."

Of course Texas isn't the only state in the union to have these bans. In October, the state court of appeals refused to hear a challenge to Alabama's 10-year-old law. One community activist supports the law by associating sex toy sales to "sexual-oriented crime". Not sure what he means by that...unless he's referring to the laws againsts procreative sex still on the books (which were made illegal by the Supreme Court in 2003). Mississippi and Virginia also have similar laws banning sex toy sales.

But jump to the last few days: A Dallas strip club was found to have a 12 year-old (yes, that's not a typo) stripping there. She was a runaway, and likely had been sexually abuse, and was aided by a female club employee and an adult man. In January, the same club was found to have a 17 year-old stripping. But their license is not being revoked.

The 23-page city ordinance does allow revocation of a club's license if, for example, the club knowingly allows prostitution, the sale or use of drugs at the club, or if there are two convictions for sex-related crimes at the club within a 12-month period.

I know I don't have to connect the dots for you. Selling sex toys that have greatly aided individual's pleasure, especially for women (40% of women say they use vibrators), was illegal up until recently, and is under review, but a club that is irresponsible enough to have allowed 2 underage girls to perform for male sexual pleasure and profit cannot have it's license revoked. (And this is to say nothing about the kind of culture that produces 12-year-olds as desirable sex objects and encourages their desire to be a sex object.)

And this isn't the only example of Texas law shielding businesses that exploit young women:

Earlier this week, we also told you about Club Metroplois, where Dallas police found 13-year-old prostitutes. That nightspot operates as a bar, so the city says it has to treat it like any other business and has to prove a pattern of crime before it can be closed — unless they find a loophole.

The great state of Texas my ass.

cross-posted at The Reaction

Keep Reading...

"Can There Be Feminist Porn?" A Great Open-Thread Over at Feminism 101

There's a great open thread at Finally, a Feminism 101 Blog, "Can there Be Feminist Porn?" inspired by Good for Her's Feminist Porn Awards. Some good discussion going on-check it out and add your voice to the discussion there!

The blog itself is also really great, so check it out too.

(NOTE: Nothing more after the jump)

Keep Reading...

WTF of the Day

The Feminist Daily News (Feminist Majority) reported this story (via the f-word):

"Oklahoma Man Not Charged for Violating Privacy of 16 Year Old Girl".

Oklahoma's Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that taking pictures up someone's skirt in a public place is not a crime. The court voted 4-1 in favor of 34-year-old Riccardo Ferrante who was arrested for putting his camera up an unsuspecting 16-year-old girl’s skirt in a department store, reports the Associated Press...Ferrante was charged under Oklahoma's "Peeping Tom" statute, which makes such offenses felonies punishable of up to 5 years in prison. Tulsa World reports that the court ruled that the statute only applies in situations where the victims are in a reasonably private place such as their own homes, a restroom, or a locker room.

Quick thoughts:

• Clearly, sexual privacy doesn't seem to apply to when women are in public.
• What can of worms does this open up? Spycams in changing rooms? Can someone pull down your shirt as you're waiting for the bus? The implications of this ruling are absurd!
• She's 16-years old...WTF?!
• And this is all because she dared to wear a skirt in public that was short enough that a camera could be placed under that. Hear that ladies? If you're gonna leave the house, you'd better be wearing full-body armor! Enter the public sphere, and your sexual privacy belongs to everyone. But stay at home (ya know, where women belong), and you're fully protected.
  

I have been thinking a lot about women's right to privacy in public spaces, due to some recent stories and discoveries I've made, and I plan to write about it more extensively soon (keep an eye out!)...but in the meantime, puke on this.

(Cross-posted at The Reaction)

Keep Reading...

I kinda like this "peep" show :-P

Saw this image on the Good Vibrations blog, labeled as "The ULTIMATE peep show". Now strip club politics aside, I'm liking this image.

Reason: pomosexuality.

With the exception of the rabbit with pasties alluding to breasts, the characters aren't clearly sex specific, so you can imagine the roles being played by either (or neither!) sex. ambiguity-check.

While a certain mag has made it such that bunnies are equivalent to women (or "girls"), not necessarily so. after all, the observers are chicks. female spectators-check.

If you want the bunnies and chicks to be female, then we have ourselves a cool, woman-only sexual space. check.

Perhaps the chicks just got finished performing, after all, they're already undressed. Plus, where'd they get all that cash? Sexual performance done by all genders in the same venue-check, check.

What would make this even better? Both chicks and bunnies performing sexuality, and on stage together, de-centering and confounding our assumptions about the process of consolidating sexuality by (women) performing it and (men) consuming it, and offering up sexual pleasure that refuses a heteronormative gaze.

Happy Easter, tweet tweet.

Keep Reading...

A comment on "the best" sex EVER!

In "The 'best' is an enemy of the 'good'" Dr. Charlie Glickman at the Good Vibrations blog writes what I've thought. We should strive for pleasure, not achievement.

It's also important to remember that having good sex is not the same as a) looking "good" having sex, or b) looking like you're having good sex. Said otherwise, what looks good isn't always what is good.

I think a significant aspect of sexual displeasure is in the conjunction of 2 assumptions: that people in porn are having the best sex and that "I don't have sex like that". This is evident in the way we say "fu-k like a porn star" or the periodical Maxim article "How to date a porn star/stripper". The assumption is the actors who are paid to "look like" (whatever that means) they are are having the best sex ever actually are. I'm sure they are sometimes and sometimes they're probably planning the week's dinner menu's while they're continuously and monotonously moaning. The other assumption comes from the first: if they look like they're having the best sex and I don't have sex like that then maybe I'm not having the "best" sex.

And lo and behold, we have magazines that tell us how, in stories recycled on a quarterly basis, to have this "best" sex. And the cycle of culture continues.

What the article doesn't go into are the gender-variations on this theme in magazines. I have been meaning to do research on this by purchasing a year subscription to Maxim and Cosmopolitan (anyone want to fund me?!) and comparing the cover stories and analyzing the ads. Unfortunately, I really need to write my Master's Thesis first. I don't have the statistical proof, so we'll leave it at my observation: women's magazines articles around sex tend to focus on sex that "your man" wants, "your man's" secret desires, how to please "your man"; men's magazines tend to focus on how to get "your girl" (not woman!) to do ---", how to get a hottie to sleep with you, how to convince your girlfriend to let you go to strip clubs. Notice a trend? I'm not saying articles that focus on women's own sexual pleasure don't appear in Cosmo or that Maxim doesn't ever have a story about pleasing your girlfriend, but these are significantly disproportionate to the ones that focus on pleasing men.

Of course, these articles are unproductive besides-they assume everyone's sexual responses are the same and are articulated with heteronormative assumptions about sexual pleasure among heterosexual couples.

Keep Reading...