Rubin's article on pornography has kept me thinking about other issues which are fought on the basis of moral grounds, but often turn out to be a question of taste, aesthetic. She emphasizes in the article that she does not believe women are 'more' exploited in the sex industry than they are in general in the work force. Yet, the 'body' makes it obscene, makes it degrading [because sex isnt inherently degrading?].. I want to be perfectly clear that I am not dismissing this exploitation and its realities, but there does appear to be an unfair and curious imbalance of attention...
I see parallels with the 'sex scandals' of politicians. Almost never is the scandal about the potential exploitation of the women involved, or an abuse of power on the part of the man-- rather an infidelity, or the fact that sleeping with a prostitute is 'sleazy'.. (who is that more 'degrading' to?)
Gallop comes to mind, with her call to 'think through the body'... how prudish are we? In how many ways are we constantly disembodying women in the name of a higher ideal?
I am very interested to hear your own experiences/thoughts on the matter. I find as an 'intellectual woman' I am constantly being disembodied by those around me-- in another sense it is a refuge-- arguably a masculine one....?
I think that of course the body makes the exploitation involved in pornography "obscene" versus other forms of exploitation of women, but I focused in on Rubin's point about embarrassment. She mentions that additionally pornography embarrassed us, shows us something about our own bodies performing an action better kept if not under cover of darkness, not filmed and recorded as a memory or an evidence of the awkwardness something we all desire. Then, it's erotic-it can't help but be, although it's also ridiculous, awkward, embarrassing to imagine one's self performing these actions...
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think this translates as much to her points about S&M, her focus on which is worth noting. S&M isn't embarrassing because it's not daily, it's not the action your average heterosexual male pornography viewer imagines performing. For these feminists S&M is the example por excelencia of the exploitative "nature" of pornography, physical harm done to the body, a body which appears in these moments most exposed, most vulnerable, and most feminine. That's it really, that the feminine is vulnerable, that it needs protecting, and most of all that a female body cannot enjoy pain (nor can it enjoy causing pain.)
This topic of disembodiment and the intellectual: I think to a certain degree this varies between women perceived as heterosexual intellectuals and women perceived as homosexual intellectuals, no? Although the forces of lesbian invisibility are undoubtably strong, the "obvious lesbian" or the lesbian who doesn't pass will not be disembodied in the same way a straight intellectual woman (or a woman who passes as straight) will be. Her appearance serves as a constant reminder of her sexual preferences, her inaccessibility to men negates the possibility of her disembodiment due to her intellectuality, no?
Okay, I realize now I have too much to say and I can't go on in the comments like this! If we're interested (and I sure am!) in this more, maybe we each do a whole post about it!