Topics Gender

Question Are the psycho-sexual aspects of ourselves fixated from a relatively early age, so that "turn ons" are conditioned if not unalterably then in some way that fixes in ourselves certain ideas about what it is for something to be sexual in nature? Should considerations about this act as impetus to revise any aspects of the media and popular culture, including of course, pornography, which is one of the largest domains of media-culture despite being confined to less blatant forms of presentation (than, say, advertisments for "Big Macs")? Finally, I have the idea that cyber-porn (and to a lesser extent all cyber-sex) is covertly homo-erotic when men use it to get off on "straight" screen sex. This isn't entirely true, sex is sex and breasts are breasts, but the fact that a machine which could be (not unfairly) called a "boys toy" is being used as the platform for a mathematically constructed system of media exchange (viz. the world wide web) that was developed primarily by men. Crucially, the sex scenes themselves are heavily male edited, and in many of them there is little left of female sensuality (and, perhaps not coincidentally, a hugely disproportionate screenage of male/female genitilia as compares to sex in the flesh). Doesn't that amount to "getting off on" a male conception of sexuality (or one form of it), and if so, can that count as homoerotic? [Feel free to respond to all or just some of these questions]

Accepted:
December 18, 2005

Comments

I won't endeavor to reply to all of the questions you have asked here. But I am inclined to be quite skeptical about your hypothesis that all cyber-porn is "covertly homo-erotic." I doubt that what most (or even many) of the men who find such material titillating really find interesting is the fact that the medium through which it is conveyed "was developed primarily by men" (as if the images of women conveyed via that medium were somehow incidental to the titillation). Really!

I am also just a bit concerned by the vast generality of expressions such as "a male conception of sexuality." My own experiences and inquiries strongly suggest that such generalities ignore the indefinitely great varieties of sexuality and sexual experience between people of the same gender (as well as ignore the commonalities some have found with one another, despite differences in gender).

(1) Are the psycho-sexual aspects of ourselves fixated from a relatively early age, so that "turn ons" [what we find sexually arousing] are conditioned if not unalterably then in some way that fixes in ourselves certain ideas about what it is for something to be sexual [to be sexual or to be sexually arousing?] in nature?

---Some philosophers argue about this. See Ed Stein's edited book, Forms of Desire, on the "essentialism" vs. "social constuctionism" debate. The question appears to be one for psycholgical theory (see Freud, e.g.). Perhaps what philosophers have been doing is to reflect metapsychologically on the issue. Some experimental research has been done on to what extent and how certain sexual desires can be modified (e.g., in the case of pedophilia and rape). See also Sylvere Lotringer, Overexposed: a study in behavioral modification through overstimulation and habituation. (The idea being, if one gets too much of a stimulus, one gets bored of it. Married couples know this well. Works to some extent on other, nonmarital, sexual interests.)

(2) Should considerations about this act as impetus to revise any aspects of the media and popular culture, including of course, pornography, which is one of the largest domains of media-culture despite being confined to less blatant forms of presentation (than, say, advertisments for "Big Macs")?

---Again, a question dealt with by a bunch of social psychologists, e.g., Malamuth, Dinnerstein, Check, Zillman, and others, although philosophers have contributed by asking questions such as: can psychological science really answer questions about the impact of pornography (and advertising), and what are the normative implications, if any, of the (purported) harmfulness of various types of media?

(3a) Finally, I have the idea that cyber-porn (and to a lesser extent all cyber-sex) is covertly homo-erotic when men use it to get off on "straight" screen sex.

---It is probably true to some extent that some males who watch heterosexual porn are primarily interested in the workings and doings of penises. Whether that means they are covertly (or overtly) homo-erotic (homosexual? gay? bisexual? pansexual? polymorphous? etc.) depends exquisitely on how we understand the concept of "sexual orientation." Further, the unconscious is a funny thing. We also know from Kinsey and other studies that on the scale from 0 to 6 (0 = pure het), many more men are 1 and 2 than we ordinarily think. So why believe that the homoerotic component is always or mainly covert?

(3b) This isn't entirely true, sex is sex and breasts are breasts, but the fact that a machine which could be (not unfairly) called a "boys toy" is being used as the platform for a mathematically constructed system of media exchange (viz. the world wide web) that was developed primarily by men.

---So? What does this have to do with the homoeroticism, latent or patent, of cyberseuxal images and the responses of men to them? I am not seeing the connection here.

(3c) Crucially, the sex scenes themselves are heavily male edited, and in many of them there is little left of female sensuality

Grossly false; take a better, more representative look at pornography-- not just the kind you like. :)

(3d) (and, perhaps not coincidentally, a hugely disproportionate screenage of male/female genitilia as compares [compared] to sex in the flesh).

---Oh? Again you misrepresent porn. Futher, the last time I had sex (years ago, I must admit) the time- or attention- proportion of male/female genitalia was large (including oral sex, mutual masturbation, not only coitus), although not exclusive---as compared with what? Ozzie and Harriet? The perfunctory domestic kiss that Kierekegaard rightly made fun of?

(3e) Doesn't that amount to "getting off on" a male conception of sexuality (or one form of it), and if so, can that count as homoerotic?

---Nah. "Getting off on" a male conception of what sexuality is, or is like, or should be, or would be in ideal circumstances, has nothing to do with the images so constructed being homoerotic or appealing to homoeroticism. Indeed, quite the opposite, if the make makers of porn, employing a male take on sexuality, or male hopes and wishes, are heterosexual. You are reaching, stretching, for something that is just not there. Still, it is good to stretch, as long as we can put our muscles back where they belong afterwards.