I don't feel comfortable with current male-directed pornography because it has established what I see as an artificial norm of masculine desire, based on the submission of woman. It has normalised humiliating and violent fantasies, which have nothing to do with real sexuality.
Fair point. But then she starts getting nutty.
On the other hand, I don't feel fully comfortable with the idea of "feminine" pornography, because it implies that there are "masculine" fantasies as opposed to "feminine" fantasies. But not all women share the same fantasies.
So what if not ALL women share the same fanatisies? Not all men are into feet or midgets. I'm not sure why there can't be porn that appeals to most of the women who would be into porn, even if it's not for all of them. I find the abhorrence of categories one of the main weaknesses of feminism. She continues.
A small minority of scholars, such as Andrea Dworkin, actually claim that all heterosexual sex is by nature a form of oppression of woman, but they are marginalised today.
It's shocking that they are marginalized. Obviously, unjustly marginalized. They wouldn't be marginalized justly for arguing that society's means of continuance oppresses women. No. Never. I mean who would argue against or marginalize a stance that society has two choices -- oppress women or cease to exist?
By contrast, younger, Anglo-Saxon feminists have placed a lot of emphasis on sexual experimentation (sex toys, bisexual relationships or even sex work) as a form of empowerment for women."
Sex work? I'm sorry. When did being a whore become empowerment?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment