Kelley wrote:
> 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.
I have never read romance novels, but I think that would be true. The interpretation seems feasible, but is there some kind of social science Richter scale that measures the pressure exerted by "traditional gender ideologies?" In my own experience, I saw my mother watch The Newlywed Game in the afternoon and have a piece of candy or fruit. Now, was she consciously resisting "traditional gender ideologies" or just doing what she wanted to do. Just as she wanted to raise children and before that she wanted and had a career.
> 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.
Why is reading considered frivolous? Both my parents promoted reading as one of the best things for people. Television was banned -- if we wanted wanted to watch a particular program it had to be shown to have educational value or artistic merit. But we did make weekly trips to the library which somehow my parents were able to make into adventures.
> The fellah's reading of pr0n is deeply imbricated in our dominant gender ideologies--no differently than are Radway's romance reading SAHMs.
Isn't this reading his mind? (if I am understanding what the word imbricated means). How do we know how or why he reads it?
> 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."
Okay, you really lost me now. I have never seen Deep Throat, so forgive me. How does the film show what she is thinking? Certainly from going to sex clubs and dungeons I have witnessed scenes that I thought I would like to try with my partner. Things look fun and I want to try them.
> 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.
Well, I see one of the aspects of my relationship with my lover is to give him sexual plesure. In fact it gives me pleasure to do so. I view my own orgasm not as some supreme pleasure pursued in isolation, but as a byproduct of giving plesure to my mate (Buddhist sex if you will). This feeling has nothing to do with a male gaze, but everything to do with compassion, mindfulness (in the Buddhist sense) and an understanding of the falsity of the self/other distinction.
> In fact, when 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.
How does the film suggest this? To give pleasure to your partner IS difficult. It takes communication and patience. And this is true not only of women's pleasure, but men's pleasure as well. What I would say is that society teaches us to go after own pleasure at all times without any regard for the well-being of others (and pleasures not just in the sexual sense).
> 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!"
Okay. Again, this is something I do not know about. I will take your word about it.
> 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.
Well, obviously it is if one party is saying one thing and the other party is hearing something else, it is a miscommunication problem. Communication (along with lack of compassion) is one of the major problems in society today. A further problem is people thinking that they can use others for the pursuit of their own desires/pleasure. People are ends not means.
> 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.
I am not sure about this. Now, I can only write from a queer perspective, but I know men who are just naturally monogamous, those who are not, and those who switch with the wind. From my experiences, I have found that monogamy works best at this point in my life. This perception might change next week or next year, but for right now it works.
I do not feel impelled. I know many gays and lesbians who feel the same way. And from my interactions/conversations with them I do not detect any coercion.
> I know i there are reasons we are socialized to want to do this.
Agreed. But the desire for monogamy/relationships does not necessarily spring from socialization factors.
> 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.
Since I only watched the show twice (too heterosexist for me to find palatable), again I have to take your word for it. But I guess I have to ask: who is looking at this show/Samantha for guidance? I mean it's television -- it's fantasy!!! Who takes it seriously? We are not talking Fassbinder and his television work here.
> Not surprisingly, in 2004, hetmen feel that hetwomen have all the power when it comes to sex. *smirk*
Again, I have no idea if this is true. But of course my partner has power since he has to decide if he is going to share his body with me and under what terms this will happen. I have the same power. Part of our relationship is negotiating these terms so we can have a healthy, positive relationship.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister