"I think that women seldom appreciate the pervasive power of the male sex drive, so are constantly caught unaware. They choose to think that men look at pinups, sexy movies, and women in general just to annoy women."
- Piers Anthony, from the Author's Note to Firefly
I hate to make generalizations based on sex, but this is a heavily gendered issue. I feel this quote gets to the heart of a matter that is often brought up in certain types of popular feminist discourse. Women of this persuasion tend to see all the myriad ways that men are obsessed with sex (and, since the majority of men are straight, this is mainly directed towards women's bodies), and, for some reason, this makes them uncomfortable, so they choose to consider it an attack by one sex on the other.
But the truth is, in most cases, men are not "sexualizing" and sexually "objectifying" women because they are misogynists, because they hate women and enjoy humiliating them, or because they think women are weak, and ought to be submissive, or that the only thing they are good for is sex (pick your reason). The simple fact is that men are obsessed with sex, so if they drag it out of proportion to everything else in life, it's not because they don't think the other things (like who the woman is he's lusting after, and what her feelings are) are important, it's simply because he's really just that into sex.
Some men do treat women poorly, and this is a concerning issue that deserves attention. But too easily the difference between abuse and mere titillation is confused, and too frequently the former is used to demonize the latter, so that every time an attractive woman appears in skimpy clothing on the cover of a magazine, it's propped up as evidence of the institutionalized oppression of women by the male patriarchy (think about it, have you ever felt that way, or read about someone's opinions who did?). And every man with a social conscience - the ones who actually care about women, mind you - is encouraged to feel like a villain just because he gets excited when a woman takes her clothes off.
Which is complete, utter bullshit, and demonstrates how out of touch with the reality of male existence (and objective reality in general) this particular (and alarmingly popular) strain of feminism really is. I know that feminism is about recognizing and prioritizing the female perspective, but I do not support a feminism that promotes war between the sexes, much less a war on sex itself. I support a feminism that pursues amnesty between the sexes, and that, in true equalist fashion, values both male and female perspectives, and thus does not attempt to suppress or demonize the very normal, completely natural, and in most cases harmless, expression of the male sex drive.
Friday, February 20, 2015
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Collegiate Privilege and Censorship
Plymouth student photographer's nude shots challenge gender stereotypes
This is an interesting idea, and I actually think it's really well-done (although I'd like to see it developed in more depth). Of course, I've been challenging gender stereotypes in my photography for years, and I have yet to be the subject of even an internet news article (which, admittedly, doesn't carry much weight). This girl gets recognition because she's a college student? Her work is part of an accepted tradition of art study, and I'm just an independent loner? Undoubtedly, my work challenges a lot more than gender stereotypes - enough that most normal people would be intimidated by it, but you could certainly select a cross-section of my photography that shows the gender aspects without getting too freaky on the sex end of the spectrum.
The other comment I have about this article is the censorship of the images. I think it's terrible. Censorship is not healthy to anyone - by catering to gymnophobic sentimentalities, we're actually encouraging people's mental illness (gymnophobia), while robbing everyone else of the healthy opportunity to see a person's nude body in a non-fetishized manner (the censor bars fetishize specific parts of the body). But the absolute bottom line is that, even if it were justified to censor the images to preserve certain people's sensibilities, you should provide a link to the uncensored images for the benefit of non-neurotic readers.
The only semi-justifiable use of censorship is to keep people from inadvertently stumbling onto something they'd prefer not to see (indeed, that's the reasoning behind safety filters). That would explain using the censored image(s) in the article proper. It's by not providing an alternate source for the uncensored images that you've gone beyond merely protecting people's sensibilities, and have risen to the level of actually deleting information from an artist's work, and preventing the public from accessing certain kinds of information because you've decided what someone else is or isn't allowed to see. And that's the worst aspect of censorship - one that can't simply be explained away by claiming, "oh, we just don't want to offend anyone".
This is an interesting idea, and I actually think it's really well-done (although I'd like to see it developed in more depth). Of course, I've been challenging gender stereotypes in my photography for years, and I have yet to be the subject of even an internet news article (which, admittedly, doesn't carry much weight). This girl gets recognition because she's a college student? Her work is part of an accepted tradition of art study, and I'm just an independent loner? Undoubtedly, my work challenges a lot more than gender stereotypes - enough that most normal people would be intimidated by it, but you could certainly select a cross-section of my photography that shows the gender aspects without getting too freaky on the sex end of the spectrum.
The other comment I have about this article is the censorship of the images. I think it's terrible. Censorship is not healthy to anyone - by catering to gymnophobic sentimentalities, we're actually encouraging people's mental illness (gymnophobia), while robbing everyone else of the healthy opportunity to see a person's nude body in a non-fetishized manner (the censor bars fetishize specific parts of the body). But the absolute bottom line is that, even if it were justified to censor the images to preserve certain people's sensibilities, you should provide a link to the uncensored images for the benefit of non-neurotic readers.
The only semi-justifiable use of censorship is to keep people from inadvertently stumbling onto something they'd prefer not to see (indeed, that's the reasoning behind safety filters). That would explain using the censored image(s) in the article proper. It's by not providing an alternate source for the uncensored images that you've gone beyond merely protecting people's sensibilities, and have risen to the level of actually deleting information from an artist's work, and preventing the public from accessing certain kinds of information because you've decided what someone else is or isn't allowed to see. And that's the worst aspect of censorship - one that can't simply be explained away by claiming, "oh, we just don't want to offend anyone".
Try A Little Tenderness
My last post got me thinking about the issue of "revenge porn". In light of recent publicized incidents, some people are calling for the criminalization of "revenge porn". Now, when any kind of porn is categorically considered for criminalization, I sit up and take notice. These people's hearts may be in the right place, but I'm concerned that we criticize and criminalize the right thing, and not end up chipping away at the freedom of speech (especially sexual speech, which so rarely gets the defense it needs) in the zealous pursuit of condemning abusive and antisocial behavior. I mean, isn't that kind of behavior already dealt with in the law, without having to make a special category for what's being called a type of porn? You can bet the anti-porn crusaders are going to latch onto this opportunity to associate pornography with harm, in an issue so morally-centered that to oppose it is to come off, at best, looking like an insensitive jerk. (I, like so few citizens and politicians alike, am willing to take that risk in the pursuit of liberty and justice).
The first problem comes up with regard to the very term "revenge porn", and what we mean when we use it. I think the term is a little bit misleading, because although it may involve sexually explicit (or, in other cases, merely suggestive, or just nude, or only implied nude) images, the phenomenon that (I think) we refer to as an instance of "revenge porn" is really not about people getting off, sexually. The images, when they were produced, may have been about that, but when they become "revenge porn", it is - to my understanding - all about the revenge part. A scorned lover (or, perhaps more accurately, ex-lover) distributes these intimate and sexually-compromising pictures that were meant to remain private in an effort to hurt and humiliate the woman who scorned him.
In this case, I think it's dangerous to lean too heavily on the sex part, although it is a crucial part of the activity - these pictures wouldn't be humiliating if they didn't involve sex or nudity (the same thing in most people's eyes). But the sex part is a means to an end, it's not the goal in and of itself, and therefore "revenge porn" wouldn't exist if society had a more appropriately healthy approach to people's bodies and sex lives (you can't blackmail someone with a nude picture at a nudist resort, for example). (But try suggesting that as the solution, and you'll find that people are far more interested in treating the symptoms than preventing the disease in the first place). So the violation here (whether or not the law considers it a crime, and whether or not it should) is not the result of a pervert seeking sexual stimulation through an act of non-consent, but rather a psychological attack that involves a violation of the victim's confidences, as well as her privacy.
This is not to downplay the unacceptable nature of this behavior, but merely to put it into a reasonable context. If somebody takes pictures of you (or you show them pictures that have already been taken) that you stress are to be kept private, and that person subsequently takes those pictures and publishes them publicly (which is what happens when you post them on the internet), then that is absolutely a violation of confidence, and what I would consider to be a form of theft, not all that different from a stranger hacking into your wired device and leaking data (such as private images of an intimate nature) to the world. This is generally not considered acceptable behavior, but it should be dealt with as an invasion of privacy, and not equated to a form of sexual assault, as some would have it.
But this situation dovetails uncomfortably with a whole different sort of phenomenon - the fact that there are people out there who do make an effort to steal private images from people (or trick them into handing them over) for a primarily sexual purpose. This is similar to what happens in "revenge porn", but I believe it should be distinguished from "revenge porn" due to the very different motivation involved, and the fact that the emphasis is on sex, and not specifically the humiliation of the individual persons being victimized. This is another tricky issue in the realm of internet sexual behavior, and one that I touched on a bit in my last post, about the high supply and relatively low demand of sexual expression in our sexually neurotic world.
But what I'd like to deal with in the remainder of this post is what I (optimistically) hope is an even rarer phenomenon than people who are simply unconcerned with the ethics of where the pictures they look at on the internet come from. Namely, those who actually enjoy the abusive aspect of what we might call "revenge porn" (via, for example, verbally abusing the woman in the picture in order to get a sexual thrill) - not for a personal, vindictive reason, but due to a sexual fetish involving humiliation, which I shall recognize as a particular form of BDSM. As a sex-positive individual, I will try to be as kind as possible to those who have this fetish, while attempting to navigate the very real ethical concerns that are involved (as with a lot of alternative, BDSM, and fetish-related sexual activities).
I think that when people complain about "revenge porn", they are complaining about a mixture of men (if not also women) who are either: 1) engaging in a personal vendetta; 2) these kind of fetishists; or 3) taking advantage of an opportunity to express their prudish or misogynistic beliefs (much like those who bully and slut-shame teens who sext). They all may overlap to some degree where "revenge porn" occurs, but I think it is useful to distinguish between them. In the first case, we have the theft and invasion of privacy as discussed above. And in the last case, we have cruel opportunists for which I have no sympathy or respect, although I think the criminality of their behavior should solely be a function of the attitude the ruling body (which may be a private company as much as the government) has towards the freedom of speech, as well as the acceptability of verbal abuse and what one might consider hate speech.
The middle case is the interesting one I'd like to consider as an amateur sexologist. And I stress that whatever defense I may make of these fetishists in the course of this discussion, it is not meant to be taken as a defense of these other groups who engage in cruel abuse, slut-shaming, and misogyny. The only justified form of "abuse", as far as I'm concerned, is one that is enacted as a fantasy, with concern for the one being "abused" (if not outright, express consent - this depends entirely to what extent the "abuse" victim is involved; for example, I do not believe anyone needs another person's consent to be featured in their private fantasies, no matter how depraved those fantasies might be). I believe that even those who have problematic sexual desires deserve satisfaction, so long as they can achieve it without hurting anyone. Moreover, considering the difficult position they involuntarily occupy, I believe they deserve a little bit of sympathy, and (whenever reasonable) the benefit of the doubt, as well.
Now, the problem here - to the extent that there is a problem - is that people are engaging in BDSM activity with people who haven't consented to it. Except, it's a little murky, because it's not like they're abducting people and then whipping them against their consent. It's the pictures we're talking about. If you post pictures publicly on the internet, then what anyone else does with themselves in private while viewing those pictures is their own business. Otherwise, we'd have to start considering fantasy a form of rape, if you didn't first ask for the consent of those featured in your fantasy - and that's too much like thoughtcrime. If the pictures were indeed stolen, then that's theft and invasion of privacy, as described above, but the thief is the one primarily responsible.
In any case, once you start making comments about a person featured in a picture posted to a public forum, you're now responsible for those statements. But I think people who have this kind of humiliation fetish deserve an outlet. To be fair, let me imagine for a moment that one of my pictures ended up on a website for people with a predilection for hurling abusive comments toward others as a means of sexual stimulation. If the picture was stolen, I'd be justifiably angry, not just for the theft, but for the questionable behavior it was being used for, unauthorized. A lot of my pictures are public, though. If it were one of those, I suppose I wouldn't have much to say, as long as my copyright wasn't being violated (e.g., by making a profit, or claiming ownership). As long as all that they are doing is a form of sexual fantasy (and are willing to make this clear when confronted), then that's something I understand, and can condone. (If, on the other hand, they're just being mean because they don't like how sexually liberated I am, then they can just fuck right off).
As a savvy internet resident, I understand that not everybody always means everything they say. And with my experience in the erotic underbelly of the internet, I understand that that's even more true when people are involved in their own form of sexual foreplay. I get messages, sometimes, from people who are turned on by my pics who tell me they want to fuck me in the ass (for example). I don't take this as a threat. I don't even take it as an invitation - because although sometimes it is, most of the time it's not. These people are pretty much just jerking themselves off, and by posting my pictures for that purpose, I've included myself to at least a minimum level in that. Doesn't mean I'm obligated to cyber with them or even reply at all. It's just that I understand the context in which those comments come.
So if it seems as if I'm coming down in defense of "revenge porn" here, you have to understand the caveats that I've raised. My primary concern is that everybody gets to seek sexual satisfaction as long as they don't hurt anyone, no matter what tastes they have. "Revenge porn" (in the truest pornographic sense, which might more accurately be called "abuse roleplay porn", so as to distinguish from the other reasons people post "revenge porn") would seem to be intrinsically harmful, and thus impermissible, but that conclusion rules out sexual satisfaction for anyone who has the particular fetish I've described, and I don't think that's right or fair. People with rape fetishes are allowed to roleplay with consenting partners without (ideally) being considered monsters and maniacs (and, especially, actual rapists and sexual abusers). And, above all, a person can fantasize about anything they want, no matter how depraved. Even if they do it while looking at somebody's picture, and even if that somebody has no idea, or didn't consent to be part of their sexual fantasy.
So, with something like "revenge porn" that involves considerable ethical issues, I'm not going to rule out people's ability to satisfy themselves, but merely say that, people with this fetish have the responsibility to engage in it in ethical ways. And when they don't, they deserve whatever criticism they receive, provided it's limited to the ethical violations they've committed and not in the form of discrimination against them because of the unpopular sexual tastes they have. And meanwhile, the rest of us should at least have a little compassion about people who have problematic sexual desires, and struggle with dealing with how to achieve satisfaction without turning into a bad person (try to imagine what that's like). But none of this condones any activity committed in the pursuit of personal vendettas, misogyny, or any form of slut-shaming.
The first problem comes up with regard to the very term "revenge porn", and what we mean when we use it. I think the term is a little bit misleading, because although it may involve sexually explicit (or, in other cases, merely suggestive, or just nude, or only implied nude) images, the phenomenon that (I think) we refer to as an instance of "revenge porn" is really not about people getting off, sexually. The images, when they were produced, may have been about that, but when they become "revenge porn", it is - to my understanding - all about the revenge part. A scorned lover (or, perhaps more accurately, ex-lover) distributes these intimate and sexually-compromising pictures that were meant to remain private in an effort to hurt and humiliate the woman who scorned him.
In this case, I think it's dangerous to lean too heavily on the sex part, although it is a crucial part of the activity - these pictures wouldn't be humiliating if they didn't involve sex or nudity (the same thing in most people's eyes). But the sex part is a means to an end, it's not the goal in and of itself, and therefore "revenge porn" wouldn't exist if society had a more appropriately healthy approach to people's bodies and sex lives (you can't blackmail someone with a nude picture at a nudist resort, for example). (But try suggesting that as the solution, and you'll find that people are far more interested in treating the symptoms than preventing the disease in the first place). So the violation here (whether or not the law considers it a crime, and whether or not it should) is not the result of a pervert seeking sexual stimulation through an act of non-consent, but rather a psychological attack that involves a violation of the victim's confidences, as well as her privacy.
This is not to downplay the unacceptable nature of this behavior, but merely to put it into a reasonable context. If somebody takes pictures of you (or you show them pictures that have already been taken) that you stress are to be kept private, and that person subsequently takes those pictures and publishes them publicly (which is what happens when you post them on the internet), then that is absolutely a violation of confidence, and what I would consider to be a form of theft, not all that different from a stranger hacking into your wired device and leaking data (such as private images of an intimate nature) to the world. This is generally not considered acceptable behavior, but it should be dealt with as an invasion of privacy, and not equated to a form of sexual assault, as some would have it.
But this situation dovetails uncomfortably with a whole different sort of phenomenon - the fact that there are people out there who do make an effort to steal private images from people (or trick them into handing them over) for a primarily sexual purpose. This is similar to what happens in "revenge porn", but I believe it should be distinguished from "revenge porn" due to the very different motivation involved, and the fact that the emphasis is on sex, and not specifically the humiliation of the individual persons being victimized. This is another tricky issue in the realm of internet sexual behavior, and one that I touched on a bit in my last post, about the high supply and relatively low demand of sexual expression in our sexually neurotic world.
But what I'd like to deal with in the remainder of this post is what I (optimistically) hope is an even rarer phenomenon than people who are simply unconcerned with the ethics of where the pictures they look at on the internet come from. Namely, those who actually enjoy the abusive aspect of what we might call "revenge porn" (via, for example, verbally abusing the woman in the picture in order to get a sexual thrill) - not for a personal, vindictive reason, but due to a sexual fetish involving humiliation, which I shall recognize as a particular form of BDSM. As a sex-positive individual, I will try to be as kind as possible to those who have this fetish, while attempting to navigate the very real ethical concerns that are involved (as with a lot of alternative, BDSM, and fetish-related sexual activities).
I think that when people complain about "revenge porn", they are complaining about a mixture of men (if not also women) who are either: 1) engaging in a personal vendetta; 2) these kind of fetishists; or 3) taking advantage of an opportunity to express their prudish or misogynistic beliefs (much like those who bully and slut-shame teens who sext). They all may overlap to some degree where "revenge porn" occurs, but I think it is useful to distinguish between them. In the first case, we have the theft and invasion of privacy as discussed above. And in the last case, we have cruel opportunists for which I have no sympathy or respect, although I think the criminality of their behavior should solely be a function of the attitude the ruling body (which may be a private company as much as the government) has towards the freedom of speech, as well as the acceptability of verbal abuse and what one might consider hate speech.
The middle case is the interesting one I'd like to consider as an amateur sexologist. And I stress that whatever defense I may make of these fetishists in the course of this discussion, it is not meant to be taken as a defense of these other groups who engage in cruel abuse, slut-shaming, and misogyny. The only justified form of "abuse", as far as I'm concerned, is one that is enacted as a fantasy, with concern for the one being "abused" (if not outright, express consent - this depends entirely to what extent the "abuse" victim is involved; for example, I do not believe anyone needs another person's consent to be featured in their private fantasies, no matter how depraved those fantasies might be). I believe that even those who have problematic sexual desires deserve satisfaction, so long as they can achieve it without hurting anyone. Moreover, considering the difficult position they involuntarily occupy, I believe they deserve a little bit of sympathy, and (whenever reasonable) the benefit of the doubt, as well.
Now, the problem here - to the extent that there is a problem - is that people are engaging in BDSM activity with people who haven't consented to it. Except, it's a little murky, because it's not like they're abducting people and then whipping them against their consent. It's the pictures we're talking about. If you post pictures publicly on the internet, then what anyone else does with themselves in private while viewing those pictures is their own business. Otherwise, we'd have to start considering fantasy a form of rape, if you didn't first ask for the consent of those featured in your fantasy - and that's too much like thoughtcrime. If the pictures were indeed stolen, then that's theft and invasion of privacy, as described above, but the thief is the one primarily responsible.
In any case, once you start making comments about a person featured in a picture posted to a public forum, you're now responsible for those statements. But I think people who have this kind of humiliation fetish deserve an outlet. To be fair, let me imagine for a moment that one of my pictures ended up on a website for people with a predilection for hurling abusive comments toward others as a means of sexual stimulation. If the picture was stolen, I'd be justifiably angry, not just for the theft, but for the questionable behavior it was being used for, unauthorized. A lot of my pictures are public, though. If it were one of those, I suppose I wouldn't have much to say, as long as my copyright wasn't being violated (e.g., by making a profit, or claiming ownership). As long as all that they are doing is a form of sexual fantasy (and are willing to make this clear when confronted), then that's something I understand, and can condone. (If, on the other hand, they're just being mean because they don't like how sexually liberated I am, then they can just fuck right off).
As a savvy internet resident, I understand that not everybody always means everything they say. And with my experience in the erotic underbelly of the internet, I understand that that's even more true when people are involved in their own form of sexual foreplay. I get messages, sometimes, from people who are turned on by my pics who tell me they want to fuck me in the ass (for example). I don't take this as a threat. I don't even take it as an invitation - because although sometimes it is, most of the time it's not. These people are pretty much just jerking themselves off, and by posting my pictures for that purpose, I've included myself to at least a minimum level in that. Doesn't mean I'm obligated to cyber with them or even reply at all. It's just that I understand the context in which those comments come.
So if it seems as if I'm coming down in defense of "revenge porn" here, you have to understand the caveats that I've raised. My primary concern is that everybody gets to seek sexual satisfaction as long as they don't hurt anyone, no matter what tastes they have. "Revenge porn" (in the truest pornographic sense, which might more accurately be called "abuse roleplay porn", so as to distinguish from the other reasons people post "revenge porn") would seem to be intrinsically harmful, and thus impermissible, but that conclusion rules out sexual satisfaction for anyone who has the particular fetish I've described, and I don't think that's right or fair. People with rape fetishes are allowed to roleplay with consenting partners without (ideally) being considered monsters and maniacs (and, especially, actual rapists and sexual abusers). And, above all, a person can fantasize about anything they want, no matter how depraved. Even if they do it while looking at somebody's picture, and even if that somebody has no idea, or didn't consent to be part of their sexual fantasy.
So, with something like "revenge porn" that involves considerable ethical issues, I'm not going to rule out people's ability to satisfy themselves, but merely say that, people with this fetish have the responsibility to engage in it in ethical ways. And when they don't, they deserve whatever criticism they receive, provided it's limited to the ethical violations they've committed and not in the form of discrimination against them because of the unpopular sexual tastes they have. And meanwhile, the rest of us should at least have a little compassion about people who have problematic sexual desires, and struggle with dealing with how to achieve satisfaction without turning into a bad person (try to imagine what that's like). But none of this condones any activity committed in the pursuit of personal vendettas, misogyny, or any form of slut-shaming.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Getting Revenge on Revenge Porn
This is a reply to the following news article:
Danish Activist Emma Holten Is Sharing Nude Photos To Combat Revenge Porn
I actually think this is a great idea, and I'm really surprised to find someone willing to make the distinction between bad "sex" and good "sex" (by "sex" here I mean any erotic or sexually motivated activity or behavior). So many people are willing to use any evidence of bad sex in the world to criticize all sex, as if to demonstrate that sex is inherently evil, instead of pointing out the fact that some people use sex for good purposes, and others for bad. Like radfems who prop up anecdotal evidence of women being mistreated in porn or prostitution, and use it to paint entire professions as exploitative and abusive.
I can just imagine a woman being the unfortunate victim of "revenge porn", and using that evidence of the way men treat her and her images and her body as proof that men are pigs and their sexual desires predispose them to be abusive towards women (basically, your typical sex-negative feminist's point of view). But this woman recognizes that there are good and positive ways for one to display their body to others (namely, those ways that involve consent), and for men to relate sexually to women, and is willing to go to lengths to point that out instead of publicly demonizing sex because she had a bad experience with it.
Obviously, I don't want women to feel compelled to have to post naked pictures on their own terms just to combat having unscrupulous men stealing or tricking them into revealing parts of themselves they'd rather keep private. But on the other hand, there is a great demand for naked and sexy pictures of women - there's nothing wrong with that, it's just how men (if not humans in general) function. So the more women there are who are willing to put these pictures out there on their own terms, the less I think the women who'd prefer not to will have to endure the pressure to give in.
That, I think, is one of the big sex-related problems in our society. Obviously, sex is popular, and gets a lot of attention. But we're also neurotic about it, and are taught to be ashamed of it. Anyone who does "act out" sexually is going to receive negative attention (think about how the press treats Miley Cyrus). This is proportionately more true for women than it is for men. As a result, there's actually less supply of sexual expression in the world (in spite of anyone who lectures you about the "pornification" of society) than there is demand for it. The result is lots of sexual frustration, and, since people are only human (and men are statistically more aggressive than women), more men pressuring women than there should be.
Yet women who give in are shamed as sluts (by both women and men alike). For women, it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Many of them err on the side of "don't", which is reinforced by the fact that I imagine in a lot of cases women's ability to enjoy sex is sabotaged by all these negative attitudes, and the fact that when they do it, more often than not they're doing it because a man is pressuring them, and not because they're the ones who are interested and have initiated it (and nobody's really making female pleasure a priority). So it's this huge spiral that feeds into itself and leaves us all worse off. The solution is not more pressure on unwilling women but rather less condemnation of the women who choose to participate in the game of sex on their own terms. Which, you might notice, is also a true feminist goal.
Danish Activist Emma Holten Is Sharing Nude Photos To Combat Revenge Porn
I actually think this is a great idea, and I'm really surprised to find someone willing to make the distinction between bad "sex" and good "sex" (by "sex" here I mean any erotic or sexually motivated activity or behavior). So many people are willing to use any evidence of bad sex in the world to criticize all sex, as if to demonstrate that sex is inherently evil, instead of pointing out the fact that some people use sex for good purposes, and others for bad. Like radfems who prop up anecdotal evidence of women being mistreated in porn or prostitution, and use it to paint entire professions as exploitative and abusive.
I can just imagine a woman being the unfortunate victim of "revenge porn", and using that evidence of the way men treat her and her images and her body as proof that men are pigs and their sexual desires predispose them to be abusive towards women (basically, your typical sex-negative feminist's point of view). But this woman recognizes that there are good and positive ways for one to display their body to others (namely, those ways that involve consent), and for men to relate sexually to women, and is willing to go to lengths to point that out instead of publicly demonizing sex because she had a bad experience with it.
Obviously, I don't want women to feel compelled to have to post naked pictures on their own terms just to combat having unscrupulous men stealing or tricking them into revealing parts of themselves they'd rather keep private. But on the other hand, there is a great demand for naked and sexy pictures of women - there's nothing wrong with that, it's just how men (if not humans in general) function. So the more women there are who are willing to put these pictures out there on their own terms, the less I think the women who'd prefer not to will have to endure the pressure to give in.
That, I think, is one of the big sex-related problems in our society. Obviously, sex is popular, and gets a lot of attention. But we're also neurotic about it, and are taught to be ashamed of it. Anyone who does "act out" sexually is going to receive negative attention (think about how the press treats Miley Cyrus). This is proportionately more true for women than it is for men. As a result, there's actually less supply of sexual expression in the world (in spite of anyone who lectures you about the "pornification" of society) than there is demand for it. The result is lots of sexual frustration, and, since people are only human (and men are statistically more aggressive than women), more men pressuring women than there should be.
Yet women who give in are shamed as sluts (by both women and men alike). For women, it's a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Many of them err on the side of "don't", which is reinforced by the fact that I imagine in a lot of cases women's ability to enjoy sex is sabotaged by all these negative attitudes, and the fact that when they do it, more often than not they're doing it because a man is pressuring them, and not because they're the ones who are interested and have initiated it (and nobody's really making female pleasure a priority). So it's this huge spiral that feeds into itself and leaves us all worse off. The solution is not more pressure on unwilling women but rather less condemnation of the women who choose to participate in the game of sex on their own terms. Which, you might notice, is also a true feminist goal.
Saturday, February 14, 2015
Strings Attached
Happy Valentine's Day!
The advertising and greeting card industries want you to believe that Valentine's Day is for lovers. But don't be fooled. You don't have to be romantically involved to enjoy Valentine's Day. This day is a celebration of all things erotic. And what's more life-affirming than that? So if you can't be with someone you love, love yourself instead. There's a worldwide web of porn out there just waiting to be discovered. -_^
(I'd just like to say, whoever decided that string could be worn as clothing was a genius!)
The advertising and greeting card industries want you to believe that Valentine's Day is for lovers. But don't be fooled. You don't have to be romantically involved to enjoy Valentine's Day. This day is a celebration of all things erotic. And what's more life-affirming than that? So if you can't be with someone you love, love yourself instead. There's a worldwide web of porn out there just waiting to be discovered. -_^
(I'd just like to say, whoever decided that string could be worn as clothing was a genius!)
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
A Brief History of Valentine's Day
Disclaimer: I am an artist, not a historian.
Valentine's Day is often associated with Cupid, the God of Desire, whose Greek name Eros demonstrates his erotic nature. Cupid is the son of Venus (Aphrodite), Goddess of Love and Beauty. He carries a bow with a sling of magical arrows that will cause anyone pricked by one to fall instantly and madly in love with the first person they see. This is an interesting mythical explanation for the common phenomenon that we call "love at first sight".
Commercially, Cupid has been Christianized, and is usually depicted as a child (in the common interpretation of a "cherub" - an angelic, winged infant - which is actually more accurately a "putto"). The more traditional representation of Cupid is as a male adolescent in the sexual prime of youth. Obviously, the forces of chastity prefer the infanticized representation of love, which de-emphasizes the role of sex in the course of erotic desire, while at the same time acting as a reminder that the end goal of romantic coupling (in their eyes) is the production of children (never mind the details of how you'll produce those children).
In Greek mythology, the fate of Eros is guided by his encounter with Psyche, a mortal girl so beautiful that even Aphrodite herself becomes jealous of her. Eros "accidentally" pricks himself with one of his own arrows while gazing upon Psyche, and instantly falls in love. Following that is a convoluted tale of danger and woe (as is the nature of Greek mythology), but in the end, Psyche is granted immortality by Jupiter (Zeus), and marries Eros. They have a daughter named Hedone (or Voluptas) who is the Goddess of Sensual Pleasures (imagine the trouble she would get into in our erotophobic society!).
The modern conception of Valentine's Day is obviously inspired by the legend of one or more Christian saints, but I'm far more interested in the pagan traditions that may have inspired in part or otherwise been co-opted by the Christians in the service of the holiday. The historical link between Valentine's Day and the Roman fertility festival of Lupercalia may be somewhat stretched, but I nevertheless like to use it as a model for what a newly envisioned, modern Valentine's Day could be.
The festivities of Lupercalia are rather antiquated, but involve naked youths running through the streets, seeking out women who would present themselves to be ritualistically whipped in a blessing of fertility. I would do away with the animal sacrifices, of course, and I'm not one for the strict observance of long-outdated practices (which is one of the prime faults of the Christian church, as with most other religions), but we could certainly use a modern holiday that encourages the public to loosen their chastity belts and have a little naughty fun out in the streets for at least one day out of the year.
I can just imagine it now. All the virile males would gather in the center of town, strip naked, then march down main street while the women lined up and bared their asses for a fly-by spanking. That would be a lot more fun than trading heart-shaped cards with people you don't really care about, wouldn't you say? I wish we still had festivals like this. That's the kind of world I want to live in. One that celebrates eroticism as a part of life to be embraced publicly, not hidden behind locked doors and feared as a destructive impulse.
 |
| Benjamin West - Venus Consoling Cupid Stung by a Bee |
Valentine's Day is often associated with Cupid, the God of Desire, whose Greek name Eros demonstrates his erotic nature. Cupid is the son of Venus (Aphrodite), Goddess of Love and Beauty. He carries a bow with a sling of magical arrows that will cause anyone pricked by one to fall instantly and madly in love with the first person they see. This is an interesting mythical explanation for the common phenomenon that we call "love at first sight".
 |
| William-Adolphe Bouguereau - Cupidon |
Commercially, Cupid has been Christianized, and is usually depicted as a child (in the common interpretation of a "cherub" - an angelic, winged infant - which is actually more accurately a "putto"). The more traditional representation of Cupid is as a male adolescent in the sexual prime of youth. Obviously, the forces of chastity prefer the infanticized representation of love, which de-emphasizes the role of sex in the course of erotic desire, while at the same time acting as a reminder that the end goal of romantic coupling (in their eyes) is the production of children (never mind the details of how you'll produce those children).
 |
| Annie Louisa Swynnerton - Cupid and Psyche |
In Greek mythology, the fate of Eros is guided by his encounter with Psyche, a mortal girl so beautiful that even Aphrodite herself becomes jealous of her. Eros "accidentally" pricks himself with one of his own arrows while gazing upon Psyche, and instantly falls in love. Following that is a convoluted tale of danger and woe (as is the nature of Greek mythology), but in the end, Psyche is granted immortality by Jupiter (Zeus), and marries Eros. They have a daughter named Hedone (or Voluptas) who is the Goddess of Sensual Pleasures (imagine the trouble she would get into in our erotophobic society!).
 |
| Jacques-Louis David - Cupid and Psyche |
The modern conception of Valentine's Day is obviously inspired by the legend of one or more Christian saints, but I'm far more interested in the pagan traditions that may have inspired in part or otherwise been co-opted by the Christians in the service of the holiday. The historical link between Valentine's Day and the Roman fertility festival of Lupercalia may be somewhat stretched, but I nevertheless like to use it as a model for what a newly envisioned, modern Valentine's Day could be.
 |
| Feast of Lupercalia |
The festivities of Lupercalia are rather antiquated, but involve naked youths running through the streets, seeking out women who would present themselves to be ritualistically whipped in a blessing of fertility. I would do away with the animal sacrifices, of course, and I'm not one for the strict observance of long-outdated practices (which is one of the prime faults of the Christian church, as with most other religions), but we could certainly use a modern holiday that encourages the public to loosen their chastity belts and have a little naughty fun out in the streets for at least one day out of the year.
 |
| William-Adolphe Bouguereau - The Youth of Bacchus |
I can just imagine it now. All the virile males would gather in the center of town, strip naked, then march down main street while the women lined up and bared their asses for a fly-by spanking. That would be a lot more fun than trading heart-shaped cards with people you don't really care about, wouldn't you say? I wish we still had festivals like this. That's the kind of world I want to live in. One that celebrates eroticism as a part of life to be embraced publicly, not hidden behind locked doors and feared as a destructive impulse.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Past & Present
I've been a little behind on my "year end festivities" this year - not that there's any rush. As you may be familiar with by now (if you've been paying attention :p), at the end of every year I like to go through all the photos I took throughout the previous year, and post a selection of the best of them in the gallery on my webpage. It's growing into a pretty formidable portfolio for me, and while it's getting pretty large now that I'm entering my eighth year as a serious nude/erotic photographer, I like that it shows my progression through the years as my equipment has improved and I've gained experience, and I've visited and revisited different themes in my photography.
So here are some links you should be familiar with (although consider yourself ahead of the curve if you're reading this, as most people seem to have trouble even locating my blog):
My main photography page: http://zharth.net/photos/index.html
My erotic photography page (which can be accessed from the previous link): http://zharth.net/erotica/main.html
My erotic photography gallery (which, also, can be accessed from the previous link): http://zharth.net/erotica/gallery.php
Here are the specific pages for this past year's photography: http://zharth.net/erotica/gallery.php?galleryName=2014a and http://zharth.net/erotica/gallery.php?galleryName=2014b
Also, there are some stray images in my nudist gallery, which I like to post separately for the benefit of those who may be enlightened enough to be able to appreciate nude photography, but are still a bit squeamish about human sexuality. You can find that here: http://zharth.net/photos/nudist/gallery.php (the new images are on pages 5 and 6).
In other news, here are a couple of fun (brand new!) pictures of me getting cheeky in the car on a cold January day, wearing nothing underneath my warm winter coat:
So here are some links you should be familiar with (although consider yourself ahead of the curve if you're reading this, as most people seem to have trouble even locating my blog):
My main photography page: http://zharth.net/photos/index.html
My erotic photography page (which can be accessed from the previous link): http://zharth.net/erotica/main.html
My erotic photography gallery (which, also, can be accessed from the previous link): http://zharth.net/erotica/gallery.php
Here are the specific pages for this past year's photography: http://zharth.net/erotica/gallery.php?galleryName=2014a and http://zharth.net/erotica/gallery.php?galleryName=2014b
Also, there are some stray images in my nudist gallery, which I like to post separately for the benefit of those who may be enlightened enough to be able to appreciate nude photography, but are still a bit squeamish about human sexuality. You can find that here: http://zharth.net/photos/nudist/gallery.php (the new images are on pages 5 and 6).
In other news, here are a couple of fun (brand new!) pictures of me getting cheeky in the car on a cold January day, wearing nothing underneath my warm winter coat:
"What seems to be the problem, officer?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)