Why is [a woman] being naked and sexual seen to be trying to please men?
What else could it be for? I mean, obviously you only flirt with me because you've got your eye on those fat librarian paychecks I'm hoping to get in a couple years; what else could you possibly get out of it?
Seriously, I think part of the problem is that there's typically no distinction between "sexy" and "sexual" made by society - women are only recognized as being sexual by being sexy. (I think the reverse is true to some degree for men.) There's also the question of who gets to interpret the act. I think the anti-porn/anti-prostitution feminists tend to focus on how patriarchy views the act, not how the actor does, and conclude that the most self-affirming sexual acts can be invalidated via appropriation by the patriarchy. Which in a way is saying that "because it pleases men" is the problem, though more accurately it's "because it becomes *about* pleasing men, no matter what it was about before". The leer trumps all--and IMO that's even dumber than pretending it doesn't exist.
Who *should* get to define what sexual expression means? That's a tough one. In many forms of expression, we say that authorial intent is less relevant than audience response, but I'm not comfortable making that kind of statement here. I think it's because, in the case of women's sexual expression, things are already too far out of balance in that direction; women's intent is regarded as irrelevant, or is assumed to be deducible from men's reactions (i.e., any woman's expression of sexuality in my presence means "she wants me"). (OTOH, sexual expression by men *is* defined primarily by intent, which is why people will defend harassing behavior as complimentary interest.)
Of course, there's nothing wrong with a call to examine one's behavior (though if it's made in good faith, it should be asked of *everybody*, not just those whose actions one disapproves of), but any solution that's centered around "women shouldn't be sexual" misses the point utterly.
no subject
Why is [a woman] being naked and sexual seen to be trying to please men?
What else could it be for? I mean, obviously you only flirt with me because you've got your eye on those fat librarian paychecks I'm hoping to get in a couple years; what else could you possibly get out of it?
Seriously, I think part of the problem is that there's typically no distinction between "sexy" and "sexual" made by society - women are only recognized as being sexual by being sexy. (I think the reverse is true to some degree for men.) There's also the question of who gets to interpret the act. I think the anti-porn/anti-prostitution feminists tend to focus on how patriarchy views the act, not how the actor does, and conclude that the most self-affirming sexual acts can be invalidated via appropriation by the patriarchy. Which in a way is saying that "because it pleases men" is the problem, though more accurately it's "because it becomes *about* pleasing men, no matter what it was about before". The leer trumps all--and IMO that's even dumber than pretending it doesn't exist.
Who *should* get to define what sexual expression means? That's a tough one. In many forms of expression, we say that authorial intent is less relevant than audience response, but I'm not comfortable making that kind of statement here. I think it's because, in the case of women's sexual expression, things are already too far out of balance in that direction; women's intent is regarded as irrelevant, or is assumed to be deducible from men's reactions (i.e., any woman's expression of sexuality in my presence means "she wants me"). (OTOH, sexual expression by men *is* defined primarily by intent, which is why people will defend harassing behavior as complimentary interest.)
Of course, there's nothing wrong with a call to examine one's behavior (though if it's made in good faith, it should be asked of *everybody*, not just those whose actions one disapproves of), but any solution that's centered around "women shouldn't be sexual" misses the point utterly.