cliterature

 The repeated objection to all kinds of sexual art, fiction and entertainment is that it turns people into a sex objects.  I have never really understood the visceral horror this thought seems to provoke.  Because when a person is depicted in writing or art, this is the creation of an object.  And if this object is intended to be erotic, it is a sex object.  In fact, even a performance piece like a dance is an object in a sense–it is something a person does with a specific intent, not their identity (or lack thereof).

It seems that the accusation stems from magical thinking–that erotica is a kind of voodoo doll so that however the work is view, so to will the model be view.  And not only the model but entire demographic groups.  Getting turned on by a photograph of a women (for example) we are told, immediately leads to seeing women as entities that exist entirely to provide sexual gratification.

In contrast, the average human being is considered to comprehend the separation between fantasy and reality by the age of 7 0r 8.  This by the time any person is purchasing a pin-up, an erotic romance or a pornographic DVD they should have a pretty good grasp on the fact that roles, characters and depictions are in fact objects.  Objects that are sexual are sex objects–and there is nothing wrong with that.

 What people think about other people may or may not be significantly effected by what the read, view, create or are otherwise exposed to.  Research results are mixed, pretty weak, and subject to interpretation.  But I truly think that most people realise that a poster of a cute guy may be a sex object, the person is not.  A Chippendale dancer on the stage is offering a sexual display, in the supermarket he is just some guy, a stranger that you should leave alone. He may, depending on your taste, be seen as sexy, but not as an object–and to me that is the end of it.  No matter who is depicted or how.

 If a person models for, or creates, sexual depictions they create objects for consumers.  If consumer doesn’t know how to treat people with respect, that is their problem, not that of the erotica industry.  Sex objects surround us: neolithic statue, Roman mosaics, Victorian oil painted nudes, Penthouse, Raging Stallion DVDs, erotic romance books, Victoria’s Secret catalogs.  Blaming erotic products for a lack of empathy or sexual selfishness is not different to blaming rock and roll for delinquency or masturbation for mental deficits.  Inaccurate, archaic, insulting and an excuse to offered to people to excuse actions that are entirely their own while condemning the erotics industry based on outdated implicit attitudes–that sex is a sin.  Not just a religious sin, but a feminist sin, a sin against literature as the only true genre, a sin against fidelity. 

My position about sex objects is that they just are.  They are objects and they are sexy and there is nothing more to it than that.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS