Write a long post about the NYT Magazine’s cover story yesterday by Daniel Bernger—which argues, in a nutshell, that women have sexual desire too (!)but science hasn’t really figured out what it’s about yet—but I see that Amanda at Pandagon already said everything I wanted to say, and then some. A sample:
The main thing is that Bergner shies away from cultural explanations, as do his researchers, even though the research could easily point to cultural reasons more than biological ones for women’s differences. No one asks the most relevant question, which is, “If women were raised in a less oppressive environment, and given the same sexual cues and permissions as men, would it change their sexual responses significantly?” Part of the reason that the question isn’t being asked is that Bergner and his subjects know that being a feminist is somehow anti-sex, and therefore they go out of their way to denounce it. The word is only brought up in order to falsely imply that feminists are anti-sex, even if we’re still tediously morally superior.
She pronounced, as well, “I consider myself a feminist.” Then she added, “But political correctness isn’t sexy at all.” For women, “being desired is the orgasm,” Meana said somewhat metaphorically — it is, in her vision, at once the thing craved and the spark of craving.
Unfortunately, if she didn’t strain herself to avoid feminist explanations for women’s so-called narcissism, she would have a better chance of stumbling on the truth. She has all these theories about why women like to look at the female form, tend to see “sex” in women’s bodies more than men’s (just like straight men do), and respond so strongly to being desired. Many of them have the strong whiff of bullshit, like this:
“The female body,” she said, “looks the same whether aroused or not. The male, without an erection, is announcing a lack of arousal. The female body always holds the promise, the suggestion of sex” — a suggestion that sends a charge through both men and women.
Men’s bodies can be sexual without an erection—-look at the statue of David for a classic example. There is nothing inevitable about the sexualizing of the female body and not the male one. I suppose it’s “politically correct” to say so, but I think women’s bodies represent sex, and therefore cause arousal responses, in both sexes because we live in a male-dominated society where men who control our media-saturated culture put forward women’s bodies as sex objects while often avidly downplaying the sexual representation of male bodies, because they think it’s demeaning to be looked at as a sex object. (And it is). […]
Much of a female life is spent squashing emotions and desires that men are permitted to indulge—-for food, for anger, for lust, even for shout-from-the-top-of-your-lungs joy. It’s no wonder to me that the habit becomes so ingrained you can’t turn it off even if it’s suddenly socially necessary that you do. The problem with the virgin/whore dichotomy has always been that you can’t make someone be the perfect virgin her whole life and then expect her to be a lusty whore the second she’s in a bedroom with a man. And if I’m right, a pill won’t fix the problem. The only thing that will fix the problem is extending the privileges we give men from their babyhood on to women.
Amanda doesn’t address one of the most startling statistics in the whole article—that as many as 30 percent of women suffer from “insufficient desire”—a number I think is both improbable (almost a third of women can’t get turned on?) and basically meaningless (insufficient desire for what? Sex with a selfish, sexually lazy partner? And what are the cultural factors that determine “sufficient” desire?”) But her post is well worth reading in its entirety; another smart take over here.
Look, typos.
My personal favorite is “underling assumption.”
Oh Judah, where do I start?
First you said “most women” are “basically incapable” of hearing you (there’s your insulting and sexist generalization), and now you’ve backpedaled to say that “Many”–perhaps even “a vast silent majority”–don’t mind or even enjoy being objectified. So what does that mean to you, beyond the very uninformative dictionary definition?
If you know as much about feminist critical theory as you seem to imply, then you know that the word needs to be defined in terms of its historical context and its social and political implications. As I pointed out (you know, me, the ideologue who by definition doesn’t understand nuance): “I don’t agree that being objectified is always demeaning, or at least that that’s necessarily a bad thing — it can be very sexy in bed. But in the public sphere, and one-sided as you admit it is, it’s hugely problematic”.
Since you know so much about feminism and issues that affect women–pardon me, SOME women–you understand why it’s problematic. But in case you’d like a refresher, try googling “sexual objectification”. Ignore the bloggers; pay attention to what writers, academics, and researchers have to say. Here’s a nugget:
“Research has suggested that the psychological effects of objectification on men are similar to those of women, leading to negative body image among men, as well as fears of inadequate sexual performance, leading to increased use of drugs like Viagra”
Hmm. Seems as though my definition of the term isn’t based on my “own narrow experience” after all. Or is it possible that you were making assumptions about me?
One final thing. I never once assumed that you “couldn’t possibly have an informed opinion about sexual objectification because [you’re] a man”. Plenty of men have informed opinions about it. It is just obviously clear that you don’t.
Which is a shame.