Flutterby™! : Sex & politics

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

Sex & politics

2003-11-06 16:57:31.541858+00 by Dan Lyke 4 comments

I had ignored Naomi Wolf's article The Porn Myth, subtitled "In the end, porn doesn't whet men's appetites—it turns them off the real thing", because I didn't see the need for more "waaaah! we're still victims!" whining. In the past few days everybody (Eros, Doc, and many others) has been linking to Eric Raymond's rebuttal, the gist of which is:

There is one truth buried, oblique and nearly invisible, in Ms. Wolf's informants' reports. Sex with a real woman trumps porn, but porn trumps women who dangle sex in front of men and don't deliver.

Which I think is an overly simplistic answer. Debra Hyde, however, comes through with responses to the real issues. Go read it, if only for the pointing out of the obvious when she says:

Last, I'm annoyed by Wolf's repeated mention of porn interfering with a woman's ability to "hold a guy." Why, I ask, are we still focusing on holding onto a guy? If a man's too shallow to let go of his ignorance and self-interest to admire a woman's natural body, maybe he should hear repeated and from many women, "Sorry, if you can't appreciate me as I am, get lost."

Somewhat relatedly, a bunch of folks have sent me Mark Morford's rant on The Whitehouse "Protection From Pornography" week proclamation. Worth reading, as are Columbine's take and Debra's take.

But both of these provocations simply show us that there are people out there who are far more interested in control than coexistence, who want to drag others back with false accusations rather than solving real problems, and who want to do that by pandering to existing prejudices rather than enlightening. That Wolf does it on one side and Bush does it on the other shows that in most cases for people like me alliances with or voting for those along the the "left/right" affiliations can only be matters of political expediency.

[ related topics: Politics Sexual Culture History moron Current Events Mark Morford ]

comments in ascending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: Sex & politics made: 2003-11-06 21:34:51.461146+00 by: Mark A. Hershberger

Isn't esr always overly simplistic?

#Comment Re: Sex & politics made: 2003-11-06 21:35:02.407211+00 by: Mark A. Hershberger

Isn't esr always overly simplistic?

#Comment Re: Sex & politics made: 2003-11-07 00:01:56.17319+00 by: Dan Lyke

Yep. It's just that sometimes his writing evokes this "wow, that's so dead on" emotion that it takes digging a little deeper to realize that he's either overly simplistic or just plain wrong. This essay in particular is that way, the more I think about it the more holes I see in his argument. I can show him any number of guys who have the opportunity for sex with a real live woman and don't take it, you can see that particular game played out in any neighborhood bar.

#Comment Re: Sex & politics made: 2003-11-07 20:59:47.165174+00 by: dws [edit history]

esr ignores the "what's this really going to cost me?" estimation process that goes on in guy's heads. Other than that, he makes a lot of sense.