"Objectification makes sexuality a material reality of women's lives, not just a psychological, attitudinal, or ideological one. It obliterates the mind/matter distinction that such a division is premised upon. Like the value of a commodity, women's sexual desirability is fetishized: it is made to appear a quality of the object itself, spontaneous and inherent, independent of the social relation which creates it, uncontrolled by the force that requires it. It helps if the object cooperates: hence, the vaginal orgasm; hence, faked orgasms altogether. Women's sexualness, like male prowess, is no less real for being mythic. It is embodied. Commodities do have value, but only because value is a social commodity arising from the totality of the same social relations which, unconscious of their determination, fetishize it. Women's bodies possess no less real desirability - or, probably, desire. Sartre exemplifies the problem on the epistemological level: "But if I desire a house, or a glass of water, or a woman's body, how could this body, this glass, this piece of property reside in my desire and how can my desire be anything but the consciousness of these objects as desirable?" Indeed. Objectivity is the methodological stance of which objectification is the social process. Sexual objectification is the primary process of the subjection of women. It unites act with word, construction with expression, perception with enforcement, myth with reality. Man fucks woman; subject, verb, object." The foregoing observations are an excerpt from Catherine MacKinnon's essay "On Coercion of Women's Sexuality" from THE SIGNS READER, Abel & Abel eds. University of Chicago Press. 1. Are MacKinnon's views excessively determinist? 2. To what degree would the elimination of both the vaginal orgasm and the faked orgasm affect the sexual desirability of womankind? 3. Exactly what is, as MacKinnon writes, "the force that requires it"? 4. Do our traditions and media cause our attitudes toward the weaker sex? 5. Indeed, are human actions merely conditioned reflexes? 6. Would it surprise you to learn that MacKinnon is a bull dyke? Or a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model? 7. To the degree that women's sexual desirability is "fetishized," does it enrich our lives? 8. MacKinnon claims, "Sexual objectification is the primary process of the subjection of women." Corollary: Sexual objectification of women is the primary process of the manipulation of men. True or false? 9. Is not a woman's sexual desirability in fact inherently "a quality of the object itself"? 10. What do you think is MacKinnon's agenda?
Does the female of the homosapien species mark a male as her mate? Are there protocols in place that other females will follow when securing their mates? Do females fight over males even if they are friends? Is the female always after a dominant male or not? Do females seek men or do they let men seek them for mating? Do females let males know they desire coupling? Do females ever go out with nice guys? Will thee female having marked a man as hers seek other males, or will she stop and only stay with that one? Does the female stay attached to thee male for a long period of time or drift off in search of others to mark? etc. etc..
I think MacKinnon needs to get laid. First of all, a woman can fuck a man, it just takes extreme creativity to figure out that the man must lay on his back and the female must then climb on top of the man. Pretty heady stuff, I know. I'm working on a doctoral thesis which I plan to get published in the American Journal of Gynecology, it's called... "GET ON TOP B*TCH!!!" As for the vaginal orgasm - there is clitoral orgasm and orgasm from stimulating the G-spot. Apparently Ms McKinnon has never experienced either. I would ablige to demonstrate, but alas I am married. My skills and "prowess" belong to only one... Perhaps she should purchase a dildo?
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=penis power ^^ This one seems to have actually seen a penis before. She's even been subject to some good fuckin', too, apparently.
Not at all. I'd still want to nail hot chicks whether they could orgasm or not. But they would probably be less likely to consent if they achieved no enjoyment whatsoever. So I'd say evolution favors the female orgasm as it should lead to more opportunities to reproduce.
LMFAO. That's great. I can't find words that ... Never mind. I'll just sit here and grin. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! PENIS POWER!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I know you say a woman can "do" a man if she gets on top but I would see that as still the man doing the woman because it is still her being penetrated as it should be. So for a wmoan to do a man she would need to pentrate him and I don't think much men are up to that, and it still wouldn't be with a womans body part. soooo I don't know if that is even a piont but its what I think. Women are objectified but usually in porn the womans actual enjoyment is not important so her pleasure cannot be fetishised or whatever because the men and men watching don't care. When the men do care they should be the 1 u stick with. I don't know if anything I'm saying is anything!!
By the use of the verb "do" is one in effect indicating that the burden for the successful completion of the act falls on the male?
Yes obviously if he hasn't got an erection it wont happen! But I just said "do" because I didn't wanna say the F word like all the grown ups have.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! But the woman has some involvement though ofcourse which is what annoys me about the way men speak about their conquests to their mates."I shagged her, I fucked her brains out" and all that, they may think they have but they didn't sneak up on her, I'm sure she had somethin to do with it.
Depends. Ever had a girl that just lays there like she's dead? wtf is that all about. What a turn off. It's much more fun when you're both putting some effort in.
It is not only women’s sexual desirability that is fetishized, many other groups experience this. And with the ubiquity of tell-it-all TV shows and reality television, the fetishization of sexuality itself is parodied, at once resisting and reproducing the fetish.
Yikes! I'm going to have to watch that a few hundred more times before I can even begin to figure out what shes driving at...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sex has long been commodified. After all, what is the ancient dictate that slaves provide sexual favors to the aristocracy? After all, some might say, what is marriage? But when does sex, as a commodity that embodies the use value/exchange value dialectic, become fetishized sexuality – that is, when does the "use" value of sex (however that may be understood in any given society – pleasure, reproduction, etc.) become so overdetermined by the commodity's desire/exchange value, that its "bare life" quality, its human content (as Karl Marx says) is completely obscured? That is what Marx meant by commodity fetishism – you can't see the human content in the commodity any longer. How do these abstract laws of economics (as the study of the creation of value) live in the world? Perhaps they live dialectically. In the Marxist view, sexuality is part of the market, just as food is. But human beings struggle for bare life within commodity capitalism (something many people forget that about Marx's work -- capital is a social relation for Marx, not the abstract market of the bourgeois political economists). We can say that women's sexuality has become fetishized, but that doesn't mean that men and women don't struggle for its "bare life" aspect.
