ecl@hocsj.UUCP (10/06/84)
Re: the recent discussion of women, violence, and sex:
In the October 1984 issue of FILM COMMENT, Marcia Pally interviews
Brian DePalma regarding just these issues surrounding his new film
BODY DOUBLE in an article entitled "'Double' Trouble" (my comments
follow).
She begins by saying (in part):
...women who don't buy the antiporn line have begun to challenge its
hegemony in feminist thought. The matter of consent should be
brought to discussions of S/M, they argue, and the matter of
context--of the difference between fantasy and reality--to
discussions of porn. They worry about the defensive premise of the
antiporn argument: men are lusty brutes, women their nice but
helpless victims. Kept busy warding off attack, women will hardly
have time for their own pursuits, for finding out what they like or
want. And some women don't want to wait till after the revolution.
They are wary of prior restraint: if the state can interfere with
the running of an adult bookstore, is that not a precedent for its
closing gay bookstores or bars, abortion clinics or Planned
Parenthood? The social climate need only shift a little...And they
worry about our ability to define porn: is Brooke Shields in jeans
porn, is a nude Reubens art? Or better yet, if an oil canvas of a
nude hanging in a gallery is stolen and the thief jerks off to it,
is that painting art or pornography? Implicit in the problem of
definition is the question of who gets to decide.
And later in the interview:
Pally: Do you think men feel women are dangerous?
DePalma: They're used to mothers taking care of them and to a
woman being that nurturing partner she had been for so many
centuries. Now when she has her own concerns, career, men have
trouble with that. And women are more sexually demanding now:
"Where's my orgasm, buddy. You call that an erection?"
The points made here (and they are well-taken) are:
1. Fantasy is not reality. (Amazing how few people seem to realize
this.) Fantasizing in a role-playing game about killing demons doesn't
make a game-player go out and kill people. So why are people claiming
that sexual fantasies are any different? No one claims that, after
seeing a James Bond movie, a man is likely to go out and attempt to
kill Russian spies or steal atomic bombs or whatever, but they do seem
to claim that he will want to make love to lots of women, and so become
a rapist. When stated that bluntly, it *is* ridiculous, isn't it?
Fantasy and role-playing are not problems. The people who can't
distinguish between fantasy and reality (like a lot of anti-porn
activists seem to be) have the problem.
2. The current rhetoric against pornography serves to support the old
sterotype of the sex-crazed male and the disinterested (or offended)
female. *I* find it offensive that WAP (Women Against Pornography)
assumes that because I am female, I have no interest in pornography,
or for that matter, in sex. I don't see why I should acknowledge
that stereotype from them any more than from anyone else.
3. Many (most?) X-rated films available these days, particularly on
videocassette, deal with acts between consenting adults. But these are
included in those that the anti-pornographers would ban. In effect,
they are saying that it doesn't matter whether a given action is
enjoyable to both (or more) parties or not, if it is "politically
incorrect" or "abherent," out with it. Well, they should remember that
a lot of what is now considered "normal sex" was at one time considered
"abherent"--this leads into the next item.
4. If adult bookstores are closed, what about gay bookstores? After
all, they carry a wide range of material (books and films) dealing with
"abherent" sex (at least acording to many people). Far-fetched? Well,
I just heard recently that WAP (Women Against Pornography) and WAVPM
(Women Against Violence and Pornography in Movies) are attacking gay
male films as being "violence against women." Considering that the
particular films attacked showed neither violence nor women, the basis
for such a claim is flimsy at best. But this is a sign of what may
come next if WAP et al gets their way.
5. And as Pally says, who gets to decide? Jerry Falwell perhaps? The
answer is usually "a panel of reasonable people," which first of all,
usually means women--after all, men are the cause of all the problems,
right?--and the activists think that they should decide who's
knowledgeable. If and when such a panel is formed consisting of Hugh
Hefner, Bob Guiccione, and Marilyn Chambers, you can bet WAP will
scream "Foul!"
6. The exchange with DePalma addresses the same sort of problems that
have been mentioned before--the general insecurity caused by the
changing roles of the sexes. If it's true that men have come to expect
submissive females, and that now they get "Where's my orgasm, buddy?"
(which of course implies that it's all the man's responsibility anyway),
it's no wonder that some men want to return to the past, when life was
simpler. They see themselves denied what they were "promised" and they
resent this. But this means that the pornography is the symptom (the
effect), not the cause. You have to treat the cause. And it's not all
one-sided. If women want equality, they must accept equal
responsibility--none of this "Where's my orgasm, buddy?" shit.
Comments welcome.
Evelyn C. Leeper
...ihnp4!hocsj!ecl