That wasn't my point, no. My point was illustrated by Janice Radway's study, Reading the Romance. Surely, romance novels at the time of her study reproduced sexist gender ideologies. What Radway showed is not so much that they subjectively interpreted the message. Rather, their enjoyment of them was so great that they resisted traditional gender ideologies so they could do something pleasurable _only_ for themselves. They could have gone to the gym, demanding the same free time for themselves. They could have volunteered. They could have taken a part-time job. But, those things could be interpreted as less frivolous and _also_ _for_ their families or community.
The fellah's reading of pr0n is deeply imbricated in our dominant gender ideologies--no differently than are Radway's romance reading SAHMs.
Here's why: He illustrated his reading of women's sexual power with his experience seeing Deep Throat. The opening scene is of Linda Lovelace spying her roommate having a go on the kitchen counter. She's obviously not getting much out of it. The scene sets up the rest of the flick since Lovelace finally observes that another woman isn't getting any pleasure from vaginal sex. Aha! I'm not the only one, Linda thinks. But, it all turns out that, ahem, as George Trail, esteemed professor of Rhetoric, put it:
"So, what (Deep Throat) is "about" is how this woman finds fulfillment by having her clitoris stimulated. It just had an odd location."
The fellah was still identifying with the male gaze: he saw his role of being a 'real man' was to pleasure a woman while pleasuring himself. But, the film suggests that this is no easy task, that women's pleasure didn't come easily--that it was somehow a mystery that was being kept from him.
Now, think back to my point that women may admit they can't get a date but they do so by reference to the lack of suitable sex partners. I've often heard a man say, "*guffaw* women are lucky. they can be ugly as sin but if they want to get laid, all they have to do is walk into a bar. men can't do this. it's a tragedy!"
Women complain about not being able to get a date--i.e., find a suitable _partner_ with whom they'd like to have sex and more--and hetmen hear, "i can't get laid."
it's not just a miscommunication problem. i don't think it's by nature that women feel impelled to have sex in the context of some form of quasi- or fully committed relationship. there are reasons we are socialized to want to do this. Which is why the survey on Sex and the City came to mind.
While hetmen say, "women are lucky, they can always get laid," -- a statement that makes it seem as if hetmen desire a situation in which women are all like Samantha -- hetwomen also get the message that, while Samantha is judged sexy, she's not worthy of being the most desirable fuck, let alone the number one date choice.
Who is? Charlotte. The one who is most insistent on having a relationship. The one who acts virginally prim, who doesn't give hummers, who is *shocked, just shocked* by even the things Carrie finds acceptable. Charlotte is the most desirable fuck and the most desirable relationship material. (After all, she may be prim and proper in bed, but with the right guy--and a guy who isn't conventionally attractive and who, in fact, is a bit of a loud mouth--she become a sex-crazed animal in bed. Madonna/Whore complex)
Not surprisingly, in 2004, hetmen feel that hetwomen have all the power when it comes to sex. *smirk*
Kelley
(who can hear Dwayne groaning about feminazis)