When I hear Howard Stern ask his female guests in his
>pathetically leering way whether she's "into anal," and then hear the
>replies of uncomfortable silence or demurral, I see mass porn's
>aggressively one-sided approach to pleasure legitimized in the
>mainstream in a more direct way than ever before. I heard the same thing
>when Ron (of Ron and Fez.com, generally a show I find amusing) said
>during an on air conversation with his female producer that he could
>only watch porn that had "anals and facials," a comment that seemed to
>silence the woman (at least for that part of the conversation). How many
>women do you know like to have de rigeur anal sex and end with semen
>landing on their face? I'd guess that the viciousness of contemporary
>mass porn is a sort of compensation for the destabilizing of male social
>privilege in recent years and is related to the weakening of the
>feminist movement.
um, oh my, people--men and women both--actually like anal sex, yes? you know, of course, that women have anal sex, too, yes? and what is bad about semen on the face or any other body part for that matter? does that fact mean that a woman didn't come also?
kelley
>A bit vaguely, I recall an article by Mark Dery in the Village Voice a
>few years ago that noted the increasing pop culture focus on anality
>("Dumb and Dumber" etc). Through a reading of Bataille he suggested that
>this could be a sign of healthy subversion of the social order, but he
>also left open the possibility that this could have regressive
>implications. I opt for the latter. The aggressively one-sided nature of
>the sex I've seen in mass porn alienates people from consensual
>sexuality I think and generally serves, more brutally than ever, to
>marginalize women's pleasure and bolster men's (and it strips the
>asshole of its Bataillean potential!).
>
>Still, I am not for forbidding it. But I am against it.
>
>Uday