Neil:
Pseudo-lesbian porn, made by men for a male audience, exists to do more than merely titillate. It serves to distort, corrupt, contain,
ridicule
and ultimately deny the reality of the single biggest challenge to
patriarchal
hegemony. Lesbianism threatens a fundamental axiom of patriarchal
ideology,
the dependence of women on men, and the pornographic depiction of lesbianism deliberately seeks to subvert that threat by reconstructing it within ideologically permissible limits. Homophobic? Not as such. Heterosexist? Yes, very. Oppressive? Definitely.
This all sounds very nice, but... A woman doesn't have to be lesbian not to depend on men. Surely dependence has a lot more to do with bank balances than sexual choices. Moreover, pornographic distorted depictions of lesbianism do nothing to contain the threat to patriarchy of real independent women, whether lesbian, bi or straight. (Always assuming one considers that western society constitutes a patriarchy.)
This is nothing less than subversive. Slash is political dynamite, and my single biggest reservation about it is the cavalier way in which its afficionados tend to handle explosives.
This particular violence-averse slash aficionado would prefer to see it in terms of fluffy kittens...
But just as m-o porn seizes control of female sexuality (straight or otherwise) for re-representation in the ideological interests of its consumers, so slash does likewise with male sexuality. Both are exercises in the creation of sexual myths with the end purpose of obscuring rather than revealing sexual truths.
One could say both are exercises pure and simple in, shall we say, giving the reader/viewer a good time.
Tavia
From: Tavia tavia@btinternet.com
Lesbianism threatens a fundamental axiom of patriarchal ideology,
the dependence of women on men, and the pornographic depiction of lesbianism deliberately seeks to subvert that threat by reconstructing it within ideologically permissible limits.
This all sounds very nice, but... A woman doesn't have to be lesbian not
to
depend on men. Surely dependence has a lot more to do with bank balances than sexual choices.
Very true, and until recently the two were almost inextricably interconnected, women offering their unpaid domestic labour (which largely still goes unpaid) as well as their bodies in return for material security.
Moreover, pornographic distorted depictions of lesbianism do nothing to contain the threat to patriarchy of real independent women, whether lesbian, bi or straight. (Always assuming one considers that western society constitutes a patriarchy.)
Patriarchal hegemony has been on the wane for barely a century and its decline might yet prove to be no more than a blip. The reactionary backlash has hardly disappeared - see http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/newsid_1245000/1245345.stm for its latest manifestation and the enthusiastic reception it's getting from some quarters.
Male-oriented pornography perpetuates the myth that women exist for male sexual satisfaction. Pseudo-lesbian imagery connives in this by turning female sexual independence into nothing more than a peepshow for male voyeurs.
The real truth is that patriarchy is actually the dependent one, dependent on women's continued submission to its demands. That is what pornography is intended to conceal.
Another point of difference between m-o porn and slash that I meant to make yesterday: m-o porn exploits its consumers in a way that slash appears not to. I've yet to hear of anyone making big bucks out of slash, certainly not of any slash website that demands your credit card number 'just for identification'. Dana suggested that the magazines are reusable - if one wank mag really delivered the goods, the market would dry up overnight.
This particular violence-averse slash aficionado would prefer to see it in terms of fluffy kittens...
Fluffy kittens don't explode. Well, not very often...
But just as m-o porn seizes control of female sexuality (straight or otherwise) for re-representation in the ideological interests of its consumers, so slash does likewise with male sexuality. Both are exercises in the creation of sexual myths with the end purpose of obscuring rather than revealing sexual truths.
One could say both are exercises pure and simple in, shall we say, giving the reader/viewer a good time.
Tanstaafl.
Neil
Neil said:
Dana suggested that the magazines are reusable - if one wank mag really delivered the goods, the market would dry up overnight.
Well, you might care to rephrase that. But certainly slashfen seem to have a more collectivist ethos and generously share their mags with others. This is less of a treat for the publishers than for the consumers, of course.
-(Y)
NINOTCHKA: Under capitalism, we would just be having a boiled egg in our rooms. But because we are socialists, we are having an omelette!
-
Dana Shilling -
Neil Faulkner -
Tavia