A little sexual politics
Q: Pornography isn't something that many people come out and
defend, and a vociferous minority say it is really terrible. Are pics
of guys and girls without their swimming costumes on so very bad?
A: One liberal view says that if you are at home and you're an
adult just looking at pictures or videos or DVDs or whatever, you aren't doing
anyone else any harm so no one should stop you, however weird or sick those images might seem to others. On the other hand, people who have thought a little about feminism would at least want to raise a voice of criticism, even if they wouldn't want to ban
pornography. Pornographic images can be said to reinforce some pretty
unpleasant sexual stereotypes. They portray an utterly phallocentric world in which all women are ready and waiting for just one
thing. There's absolutely no romance, no friendship, no conversation, no sensitive seduction. Sex is reduced to the act of penetration, with the woman submitting
unquestioningly to the demands of the domineering and ruthless male organ of reproduction.
It's a fantasy world to satisfy male dreams of sexual
conquest. It certainly has little connection with the ways both guys and girls can have a really
good time together, enjoying sex as what they used to call a consummation - a completion - of an
entire relationship that they are both excited about.
Some would say that it's as harmless as Tom and Jerry.
It's just a little fantasy, and as with Tom and Jerry people know the difference between
fantasy and reality. Certainly it depends how individuals use the products of the porn industry and
the role they play in their lives. Perhaps it is possible to consume porn in a perfectly harmless
way, but it may still be true that in quite a subtle way it often helps to reinforce attitudes and
behaviours that many of us object to.
Profeminist guys who don't get so hot under the collar about porn point out that if the forces that maintain sexual stereotypes are the issue, then porn must be considered a fairly peripheral phenomenon. A much more significant influence must be all those mainstream non-porn images of girls who are there for the sole reason that they look good. Think of all those chicks in adverts and all those hip hop music videos broadcast day and night filled with girls doing little more than shaking their tight asses and waitin' for the MC to pick 'em.
Is it reasonable for the law to set the age of consent at sixteen?
According to the statistics, teenagers don't seem to be paying
that much attention to the law when it comes to romance. That raises the question of whether the
law should be changed.
In any case, laws about something going on behind closed doors were never going to deter teenagers from doing what elderly members of parliament think they ought not to be doing. It may even exacerbate the problem, forcing teenagers to be a lot less open about what they are doing, which could cut them off from sources of information, assistance and support. That seems to be the case in Britain where the problem of teenage pregnancies is much worse than it is in Holland, for instance, where the age of consent is 12 and the culture generally is much more open and tolerant regarding issues like sex.
What's the best way of avoiding getting pregnant?
Undoubtedly the best way is to keep your trousers on. For those who find this technique a little
restrictive other methods of contraception have been invented. The two most popular methods are the
condom and the pill. The former is reasonably effective if used carefully and it has no
side-effects, except where people have an allergy to latex. Condoms have the added benefit of
providing a high level of protection against sexually transmitted diseases - a big plus for those
who are not in a settled relationship. As for the pill, this is what really enabled women to take
control of the business of conception. There is now a range of oral contraceptives (there's
even one for men now), with the different pills containing different proportions of the hormones
oestrogen and progesterone. It can be almost 100% effective but it has to be taken all the time and
there can be side-effects, such as problems with the circulatory system and an increased risk of
breast cancer particularly in women over the age of 35.
What about abortion? How
traumatic is it?
A number of highly vociferous groups object very strongly to abortion, usually on religious
grounds. Abortion, they say, is murder. Only God has the right to take a human life. Many other
women, though, see the embryo or the foetus as a potential human life, which is one reason
for seeing abortion as acceptable, although it is certainly not a decision to be taken lightly. For
many women it is also a question of their right to choose if they want to continue with an
accidental pregnancy or not. They feel it is morally wrong for them to be forced by the religious
or legal establishment to continue with an unwanted pregnancy. Any attempts to outlaw abortion
would, in any case, just drive it underground, forcing women to try to seek what they used to call
"backstreet abortions" with all the health risks and exploitation that that would
involve.
As for abortion being traumatic, studies show that the medical intervention itself is
psychologically insignificant. Any trauma results from the meaning surrounding the event.
For instance, a woman who succumbs to pressure to abort the pregnancy from her partner or others
may go through a difficult period of feeling guilty and depressed afterwards.
Getting back to the act of
sexual intercourse itself, one last question: Do you really have to turn the lights
out?
Whatever turns you on. But ecologists
would advise turning the lights out anyway because this will reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which
contribute to the phenomenon of global warming, and if you're feeling guilty about carbon
dioxide emissions you're not going to be able to lie back and enjoy that glorious consummation
of romantic love.
CLICK HERE for a little vocabulary revision.
BACK to the previous section
|