ಠ_ಠ

You know what's funny? Funny as in "HahahaNO." When conservative Christians get all up in arms about porn because it degrades women.

I mean, really?

Really?

I mean, it's not like there aren't valid critiques to be made about the porn industry. There are plenty! A lot of porn reifies sexist or racist tropes, and there isn't as much diversity among actors in terms of body type, age, etc. as I'd like. But when I point out things that would actually help, such as improving sex ed (so people learn earlier on that porn sex is not like everyday sex), destigmatizing sex work so that it's easier to expose and prosecute abuse of workers, and supporting feminist-friendly producers, it gets drowned out in cries of, "OMG! Porn causes divorce! It turns men into addicted, sex-crazed maniacs!"

And then I keep digging, trying to suss out critiques of the industry from critiques of porn as a media, and it turns out it really all boils down to, "The Bible says looking at naked people is bad!"

ಠ_ಠ

I mean, I can understand if someone said, "I feel like I'm betraying my partner when I watch other people have sex, so I don't watch porn." I'd also understand if someone said, "I really feel uncomfortable with my partner looking at porn." That's totally legitimate - sex and body image and everything is complex and highly personal.

But appropriating feminist language to hide your attempts at imposing religious doctrine on everyone - especially when, besides for the porn issue, you don't give a flying fuck about feminism and actively attempt to subjugate women with all that, "Women must be subordinate to their husbands, men are meant to protect women, oh and PS if you get raped you have no say over what happens to your body and you probably deserved it anyway YOU SLUT WHY DID YOU WEAR THAT SHIRT IF YOU DIDN'T WANT IT," FUCKING BULLSHIT -

It pisses me off a little bit.

Doing the math

I recently wondered: all the people who, whether they admit it or not, think that penis size is important in how well a penis-owner performs sexually... do they realize that vagina-owners often masturbate with their fingers? Which are not nearly as long or as girthy as penises? And they get off just fine, thank you?

I wonder if that is related to the "women don't actually masturbate!" thing. (Because trans guys don't exist, amirite. -_-)

Well, I know what I won't be watching this summer

The most recent Gerard Butler "romantic" "comedy" is called The Ugly Truth.

At one point in the trailer, while giving advice to Katherine Heigl's character, Butler's character says, "You have to be two people: the librarian and the stripper."

Hmmm....

Librarian: connotations of primness, propriety, "bookishness," intellectualism, prudishness, etc.

Stripper: connotations of sexiness, promiscuity, sexual experience, etc.

So you have to be... both a virgin... and a whore!

WOW! WHY DOES THIS SOUND SO FAMILIAR?!

...

You know, watching the trailer for this movie, I can honestly say I've never seen a mainstream movie that more explicitly moralizes against feminist ideas. I mean, it literally says that men are nothing but sex-hungry, ravenous beasts (wow... who knew that anti-feminism was also so anti-male) and that any career woman who demands such outlandish things as a man who respects her for her intelligence and success should just shut up because that's not gonna happen anytime soon, amirite? And would it kill them to show more cleavage once in a while? GAWD.

Excuse me for a moment. *grabs a case of dynamite and a bus ticket to Hollywood*

I, Object! or: Why it's okay to use sexy people in advertising

Every once in a while, one of the larger feminist blogs I read will have a "post pictures of hot guys!" post, and many women proceed to drool over all the hot guys in the post. However, inevitably someone will say, "Hey, you guys are using a double standard! You go on about objectifying women, but you're objectifying these men right now!" Sometimes this person is an MRA troll, but other times they're a truly concerned feminist. Hand-wringing and soul-searching commences as all the well-meaning feminists on the site wonder if they're being bad feminists for admiring some well-sculpted muscles.

I think the problem is that most feminists have, in their concern over the widespread sexism that advertising and other media perpetrates, failed to realize one crucial thing: it's not the objectification of women that's the problem, it's the objectification of only (or mostly) women that's the problem.

The very nature of photography, especially advertisements, leads to the inevitable objectification of the subject being photographed. When I take a picture of someone, it's impossible for that picture to portray the entirety of that person's complex, multi-layered, infinitely beautiful existence. It can only show how that person looked for one moment in time - it reduces that person to only their image; it inherently objectifies them.

Though objectification is inevitable, it's not always bad.* This may stem from my kinkiness, but I actually like being objectified sometimes. (Indeed, one of my fantasies is to literally be reduced to a piece of furniture (or, more specifically a sushi platter).) I'm actually flattered when someone checks me out at a party or in a bar or whatever - it reaffirms my belief that I'm a reasonably attractive person. Obviously, there are lines that, once crossed, I'm one unhappy lady. If someone starts leering instead of just looking, or making grody comments at me, that's not cool. But there's no harm in just a look once in a while - and god knows I do it often enough to men and women alike.

Now, the problem in advertising isn't that that people are objectified (and paid well for it), but that women are disproportionally objectified. The problem is that when people say "sex sells," they really mean "women's bodies sell" because that's the default image used to convey "sexiness." Having sex=women's bodies is, obviously, problematic because it ingrains the idea in people's minds that women's bodies are primarily there for sexual gratification.

The solution to this isn't to ban nudity in advertising or anything like that; the solution is to have sexy men appear in advertising just as much as sexy women do. That way "sexiness" becomes gender-neutral in the public psyche - and, what's more, it would acknowledge that women like to see pictures of semi-naked men. It'd also acknowledge the existence of gay men, and possibly even make the stereotypical heterosexual man a little less homophobic when he comes to the realization he can look at the picture of a hot man without turning gay. Obviously, there's still some advertising that's unexcusibly sexist, but I think we shouldn't immediately scream "sexism!" every time a hot woman appears in a commercial. Instead, we should demand an equally hot guy to appear in the next one.

*Unless someone is being objectified against their will, e.g. someone is staring at their butt/chest/crotch/whatever and making them uncomfortable. That quickly falls into the realm of harrassment and is definitely Not Cool.

What the FUCK.

Jesus fucking Christ.

I'm watching the Carson Daly Show (first time watching it), and he just played this "game" called "Dude or Not a Dude?"

Basically, this "game" consists of taking mug shots of sex workers and guessing whether they're a ciswoman or a "transvestite" (which in the context he apparently actually meant a transwoman).

That's fucking disgusting on more levels than I can even comprehend.

Firstly, he's ridiculing these people based on their appearance. They're mocked if they don't look "feminine" enough - after all, the last thing any woman would want is to look like a "dude." But I guess it's okay to degrade ugly women, especially if they're sex workers. After all, sex workers aren't real people, amirite?

Fuck.

Secondly, he's got some fucking gall to think he can determine whether someone is male or female. The only person who can determine that is themselves. By calling a transwoman a "dude" just because she doesn't "pass" to his satisfaction, he's denying her identity, her agency - even her very personhood for the sake of a few cheap laughs. Aren't trannies funny? They like to pretend they're real women! Ha ha ha!

Thirdly... jsdfakjl;aldkjdfk. I'm just livid right now. Fucking asshole.

(x-posting to my other blag)

I feel so conflicted

So. That's Jessica Alba, there, all naked and duct-taped and such. This image, along with several others like it, are causing a bit of a stir in the feminist blogosphere, understandably so.

Now, I'm going to be straight up with you for a moment: my first reaction when I saw these was, "Wow, that's hot." Even though I'm not into piercing play, and "torture porn" a la Saw and the like make me retch, these images were really fucking sexy in a dark, gritty way.

But then I looked at them all, and noticed that, surprise surprise, all the women were nude while all the men were fully clothed (save one, interestingly enough). Sigh. Because, really, this image of Alba, in itself, is not necessarily sexist. However, in the context of all the other photographs in the ad campaign, in which the women are consistently sexualized/exposed more so than the men, it becomes sexist.

Which is disappointing. This could have been a really powerful, stylish, sexy-as-hell ad campaign, and they fucked it up by falling back on sexist advertising standbys.