# Why did feminism end up perpetuating the stereotypes it was supposed to destroy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 5, 2002, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466 "2002-07-05T07:52:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2002, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/101 "2002-07-13T07:02:52Z")
stoid:\*\*"Men just like naked wimmins…any (attractive) naked wimmins will do. So why offer us naked men when it doesn’t motivate or move us? Some men will buy stuff if they think it will help them get cute chicks, so position thing next to cute chick and make subliminal connection, sell product. Doesn’t work with us. (Please excuse the many generalities, we all know that not everyone falls into any of these categories) \*\* how the heck are you supposed to use this to buttress your argument if you arent interested in conflicting data? I, for one, dont buy things in order to pick up women. Very few men in my office seem to be the type to purchase things in order to be successful with women (granted, if something were PROVEN to get you a woman, guaranteed, i’d be soooo on it 🙂 Context to me is key to sexiness! I dont like fake or pained expressions! (then again, neither do i like shit-eating grins w/r/t turnons) I think the sexiest facial expressions are wide-eyed looks of love. For instance, Cindy Crawford and Madonna look a lot better than they did when they were younger, because they actually smile once in awhile. Women that I know in real life turn me on literally ten times more than your random Centerfold. The key to this is not actual proximity, it IS context. I can be equally turned on by a sexy performance in a movie, if its a good performance and an attractive character. i mean, theres something to be said for hooters and a butt, dont get me wrong, but its also difficult for me to look at a picture of a girl and imagine myself with her if she looks like she’s about to throw up or snarl and bite my head off. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/102 "2002-07-14T20:15:29Z")
Sorry to be so pokey in responding, my life has been turned a little bit upside down. I’m a new mother of sorts (10 week old golden retriever mix puppy) and it has tired me out and ruined my schedule. Bizzy bizzy and when I’m not bizzy I am much too tired to compose thoughtful responses to debates. But I hold you in such high esteem, Mandelstam, I could not let this slide away without acknowledgement. > [@](#): > > \*\*_Originally posted by Mandelstam ] > stoid, I get the feeling you think I’m attacking you, or your livelihood._ Actually, not in the slightest. I do feel that at least one or two other participants in this thread were trying to do exactly that, but never you. My last response to you was actually quite light of heart and offered in only the friendliest spirit of disagreement. (Which is how I like to do it, particularly these days.) > [@](#): > > \*\* You have always been one of my favorite posters. \*\* Now this is something I wish to preserve for all time… you know how I feel about you, so to find that I am favored by you, well… do we still have some kind of blush smiley? > [@](#): > > \*\* And I have a very matter-of-fact position on the matter of pornography. I do not in the least feel that women who produce or sell pornography are feminist sell-outs; any more than I feel that strippers or, for that matter, housewives, are feminist sell-outs. I neither am nor respect that kind of feminist.\*\* I pretty much understood that to be the case. > [@](#): > > \*\* You may see the question as purely tangential to the matter of “Why did feminism end up perpetuating the stereotypes it was supposed to destroy?” To my mind it is not. Because to my mind, the answer to the OP is that feminism _didn’t_, by and large, perpetuate the stereotypes; the stereotypes are rooted in a double standard that, by and large, feminism and feminists actively oppose.\*\* Well, we’ve established that we disagree about the double standards, or at least about whether they are a product exclusively of culture or whether they are in part a response to our fundamental natures, so it follows that we would probably disagree about the rest. > [@](#): > > \*\* This may be true for you personally stoid, but I would include this as one of “the stereotypes” that I would like to see go out the window. > > Although I do believe there are biological differences between men and women, on the whole, I believe that this type of difference–what turns us on–is much more to do with individual preference and with socialization than it is with physiology. \*\* This whole question has been a matter of some debate for quite awhile. There is all kinds of evidence to support either position. I don’t have the energy to start having a battle of the cites. Another ATD item (Agree to disagree). > [@](#): > > \*\* Though it’s embarassing to admit it, I seem to recall having a particular pre-pubescent thing for–gulp–Rod Stewart. Anyone ever watch _The Song Remains the Same_ and notice that you can tell which side Robert Plant “dresses on” (to use the tailor-specific term)? \*\* Well, no need to be embarassed around me! While I never really went wild for Rod, I thought he was pretty damn hot anyway, and Robert Plant was a sort of sexual milestone for me, in that he was the first famous man I had a crush on that was really sexual, not romantic. Davey Jones at 8 and David Cassidy at 12 were both about smooching and running along the beach in slow motion. Robert Plant was about having a big fat orgasm to the tune of “Whole Lotta Love” > [@](#): > > \*\* Certainly there is no shortage of teen idol magazines and other paraphernalia for young girls with pictures of “cute guys.” \*\* Sure, but how much of the interest goes straight to their crotch? I don’t believe that for most girls it is quite the direct route from eyes to clit that it is for boys from eyes to dick. For most girls it is a much more elaborate and romantic fantasy. Young girls swoon at pictures of teen idols and write love poems to them and kiss their pillows and imagine him wanting to date them. Young boys see pictures of Britney and go hang out in the bathroom for 15 minutes. (Again, yes, I’m generalizing, I know, but I think it’s a fair generalization.) There is a sexual component to both the girls’ and boys’ reactions, but they manifest rather differently. > [@](#): > > \*\* At right about the time that girls might be interested in checking out the Full Monty, what they get instead is a lot of conflicting messages 1) that they’d better invest their time and energy turning themselves into hot babes or no boys will like them; 2) that if their “nice” girls they won’t be interested in sex at all, except for “romance,” marriage, maternity, and finding a provider.\*\* Very true. And with modern birth control,.women are finally able to battle back from these constraints. But these attitudes, let us not forget, were a direct consequence of biology. However distasteful we may find it as sentient beings that can reason and choose, we are in fact animals and part of the circle of life, which means we have urges and instincts and responses that were passed down to us from ancestors that lived in a more, shall we say natural way. And the natural thing for females to do is be picky about their lovers and find one that will help them raise the kids all that lovin’ is bound to produce. Biologically, as I’m sure you are fully aware, Mandelstam, females have a whole lot more riding on their choice of sex partner than males do. This affects how we choose. Males…different story entirely. And of course, I am not saying we are prisoners of our evolutionary drives, of course not. But we cannot dismiss them out of hand as utterly meaningless, either. Science is showing us more and more each day how very great the impact of our DNA really is. > [@](#): > > \*\* > Sometime around 1750 or so–for reasons I could but won’t go into–the idea came about that women are less sexual than men–more maternal, and willing to engage in sex only to please husbands and produce babies. To some degree that vision of women has remained. Interestingly, though, prior to the 18th century women were often thought to be _more_ sexual than men: Eve-like, prurient, curious, even insatiable. My point: times change and so do prevailing stereotypes about sexual “nature.” \*\* I know all this. But there is a great difference between saying that women don’t enjoy sex at all, and saying that women enjoy sex differently, or enjoy different things about sex. And that’s all I’ve said. > [@](#): > > \*\* First, lesbians are also socialized as women. Second, how would you know what the market for lesbian porn is since lesbians can buy porn produced for men–including porn featuring lesbian sex acts?\*\* Well, ya know, I’ve fooled around with a few gals in my time but I’d hardly lay claim to being a lesbian, so I’d love to get \*\* Andygirl \*\* or one of her DoperSapphic sisters in here to give us some input on what does it for lesbians in the way of porn. Because I am under the impression, I’m not sure where from, that a lotta lesbians don’t much care for “girl-on-girl action!” in straight porn vids because its so tacky and obviously staged to please the male eye. But I admit I might be way wrong. I hope someone will weigh in on this. > [@](#): > > \*\* I wish for a world beyond self-fulfilling stereotypes. On the one hand, you claim to be against stereotypes (the stereotype of the shrinking violet female who must be protected against sex); on the other, you are ready to defend such stereotypes as “natural” or otherwise inevitable (the stereotype of the women who’s turned on by “romance” but not by a good-looking male body in full active mode). \*\* Now, I think you are making some leaps, here. Or perhaps I just wasn’t clear enough. I do not think that most women are about romance-novel sex, I know they aren’t. But I feel equally sure that most women aren’t into the kind of porn that is mostly available for men. We are just more complicated in our sexual response than that. > [@](#): > > \*\* > **stoid** replied:_“Bingo. If I didn’t know you were a woman before, that would have given you away.”_ > > Really? And if I didn’t know you were a pornographer before, _that_ would have given _you_ away. > > To wit: I have never in my life met or talked to a man, straight or otherwise, who wouldn’t rather live out a fantasy, with a real-live human to whom he’s attracted, than buy a magazine or a video and jerk himself off. > > Any men reading this who disagree?\*\* I really don’t follow how you get from A to B on that one. I never asserted that men prefer masturbation to real sex! > [@](#): > > \*\* Which branch would that be? Do you have a cite in which a feminist or feminist organization is promoting out-of-court settlements for sexual harassment? \*\* Now, now, M, you know that isn’t what I meant. There has been an atmosphere created where any kind of sexual reference can be considered sexual harassment by someone, somewhere, and companies just don’t want the expense and hassle, so they fold. The fear of sexual harassment suits for virtually anything is real, we have received real-life reports right here in this thread. Where do you think it came from? > [@](#): > > \*\* Bear in mind: I do feel that there are counterproductive feminist positions on the matter of sexual harassment. However, I feel that 1) they are the minority of feminist positions; \*\* I know for sure that I never said they were the majority. > [@](#): > > \*\* 2) that if one looks at these positions in good faith they never boil down to a desire for prudishness; \*\* I don’t think so either. I think they boil down to what I believe is a hysterical overreaction to the effect that sexual images, jokes, etc have on women in the workplace. > [@](#): > > \*\* 3) that the public’s familiarity with such positions is almost always indirect, coming at the hands of the media and usually the right-wing media; and 4) that there’s a lot of conflation between conservative and so-called “feminist” positions on sexuality in general. \*\* I’ll buy that for a dollar > [@](#): > > \*\* I do, however, ask that a self-styled feminist with a good head on her shoulders hold herself to rigorous account when she lays blame for social problems on “feminism.” \*\* Well, I didn’t lay blame for social problems on feminism – I wondered how feminism (certain feminists would be more accurate) perpetuating certain stereotypes. Now, my puppy is biting my ankles so I must go… ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/103 "2002-07-14T20:50:13Z")
Just a quick question: When I talk about porn, I usually think of exploitation. I’d rather read erotica-which I think of as celebrating sexuality, rather than trying to sell it. Would that make a difference? ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/104 "2002-07-14T21:26:58Z")
I don’t think it makes a good one, **Guin** , because it begs the question, “What celebrates sexuality [to you]?” One man’s porn breaks another man’s law… ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/105 "2002-07-14T21:38:59Z")
Actually, nudity itself, _per se_ is not invariably associated with pornography. Perhaps, one day, **Stoid** will release to the general public her definitive collection of Amish porno. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/106 "2002-07-14T21:58:10Z")
Never! You want kink? try “bundling”! _shudder_ That stuff is like crack… think of it as me protecting you from the road to perdition. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/107 "2002-07-14T22:59:36Z")
Amish porn? Like in “Amish Paradise”, where the guys are looking a picture of a woman showing her knee? What the hell is “bundling?” Please tell me… ---
**Author:** ![WV\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e95f7d/32.png) [@WV\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WV_Woman)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/108 "2002-07-14T23:03:45Z")
Bundling is where an engaged Amish couple lays in bed together, with a board between them, usually under covers, and they talk. Supposedly. It’s supposed to be a way to get to know each other before the wedding. Maybe that’s where the phrase “man overboard” comes from? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/109 "2002-07-14T23:21:30Z")
AAAaaaaarrrrgh! What a **terrible** pun! I’m certainly glad I didn’t think of it first, as I might have disgraced myself as thoroughly as Volkswagen Woman! ---
**Author:** ![WV\_Woman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e95f7d/32.png) [@WV\_Woman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WV_Woman)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2002, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/110 "2002-07-14T23:53:12Z")
elu, it’s WV (as in West Virginia), not VW. I am the proud owner of a Dodge Caravan. Actually I didn’t think up the pun first, I read it, but I can’t remember where. ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/111 "2002-07-15T16:29:41Z")
**elucidator** , I too imagined **WV\_Woman** as the driver of one of those inimitable 70s buses. Now, instead, I’m hearing “Take me home country roads…” But, please, after reading this post, _do not_ attempt to e-mail me any naked photos of John Denver ;). \*\* Stoid \*\*, glad we are still the best of e-friends. And congrats to you on the new arrival. 🙂 _"Well, we?ve established that we disagree about the double standards, or at least about whether they are a product exclusively of culture or whether they are in part a response to our fundamental natures, so it follows that we would probably disagree about the rest. "_ Actually, to be more accurate, we disagree about the extent to which double standards derive from culture, and about the impact that actual biological differences may and do have. I repeat: I believe that there are some basic biological differences between men and women, tied to their different reproductive functions. But I also believe that much nonsense is spouted-- and much self-interest is masked–by what is said to follow from biological differences. In the nineteenth century, before women got the vote, scores of experts claimed that women lacked the brain structure to be doctors, lawyers, etc. One of the leading scientists of the day, Herbert Spencer, claimed that women needed extra physical energy to bear children and, if they devoted energy to mental pursuits, they would become infertile. (Though interestingly he did not argue that if women did hard labor in coal mines, as they often did at that time, that they’d become infertile. Obviously, at that time, the threat of women competing with men as middle-class professionals was more intimidating to such men than the threat of women underbidding working-class men in blue collar jobs.) At that time to say that a woman was as mentally fit to be a good lawyer as a man, even to say that she should have the vote, was to say something ridiculous and highly controversial. Many if not most women also agreed that it was ridiculous and highly controversial. _“While I never really went wild for Rod, I thought he was pretty damn hot anyway, and Robert Plant was a sort of sexual milestone for me, in that he was the first famous man I had a crush on that was really sexual, not romantic. Davey Jones at 8 and David Cassidy at 12 were both about smooching and running along the beach in slow motion. Robert Plant was about having a big fat orgasm to the tune of “Whole Lotta Love””_ That’s exactly why I mentioned Rod and Plant. They were making very explicit _physical_ appeals to their female listeners. “If you want my body, and you think I’m sexy, come on sugar let me know.” And Plant’s underwearless tight jeans, combined with those extemporaneous "push, push"es that he emits throughout _The Song Remains the Same_ were, to the budding Mandelstamette, **major** turn-ons. I suspect that Elvis’s roto-pelvis meant much the same thing to the screaming women of a generation or two before. (However, as time has been very unkind to poor old Rod, and as _The Song_, these days, seems like the production of a stoned 13-year-old, let’s let these examples drop lest younger posters such as **Guinasastasia** lose all faith in our credibility. 😉 ) _“Sure, but how much of the interest [in photos of teen idols] goes straight to [a girl’s] crotch? I don?t believe that for most girls it is quite the direct route from eyes to clit that it is for boys from eyes to dick. For most girls it is a much more elaborate and romantic fantasy. Young girls swoon at pictures of teen idols and write love poems to them and kiss their pillows and imagine him wanting to date them. Young boys see pictures of Britney and go hang out in the bathroom for 15 minutes. (Again, yes, I?m generalizing, I know, but I think it?s a fair generalization.) There is a sexual component to both the girls? and boys? reactions, but they manifest rather differently.”_ First, there is a limit to how confessional I care to be in this thread; and I’m already close to it! Suffice it to say that my own teen-age fantasy life did not culminate in kissing my pillow–whether the object was Rod, R. Plant, an actor, or, later on, a guy in school. I don’t know how unusual my behavior was or wasn’t but, so far as I know, I was hormonally typical: no premature development, not the bearded lady, just a plain-old teenager who thought about sex an awful lot, read about it wherever I could, and had a strong response to rock stars in particular because of their overt physicality. So, in my experience, the “manifestations” of puberty were very similar. What’s different, though, is the social consequence of the manifestation: that is, when a 15 year old boy is caught with a magazine, or even caught in the act of, um, auto-eroticism, it’s more socially expected. Hopefully by now most parents recognize that this is normal development for children of both sexes. But I still think there’s more stigma attached to girls’ sexuality, and more alarm about it. If a girl shows signs of being ready to rock, her parents are much more likely, on average, to pay attention and to want to curb her activities than they will with their son–or so I think. Mind you, I’m not suggesting that either fifteen-year-old girls or boys should be encouraged by their parents to have sex, or should have a full range of erotic materials on hand for their use. I’m only pointing to the way the double standard tends to play out: such materials tend to be more easily available to boys; boys will be expected to want sex as soon as they can get it. Girls’ sexual desires will raise eyebrows. I had written: _“At right about the time that girls might be interested in checking out the Full Monty, what they get instead is a lot of conflicting messages 1) that they’d better invest their time and energy turning themselves into hot babes or no boys will like them; 2) that if they’re “nice” girls they won’t be interested in sex at all, except for “romance,” marriage, maternity, and finding a provider.”_ **stoid** replied: _“And with modern birth control,.women are finally able to battle back from these constraints. But these attitudes, let us not forget, were a direct consequence of biology. However distasteful we may find it as sentient beings that can reason and choose, we are in fact animals and part of the circle of life, which means we have urges and instincts and responses that were passed down to us from ancestors that lived in a more, shall we say natural way. And the natural thing for females to do is be picky about their lovers and find one that will help them raise the kids all that lovin? is bound to produce. Biologically, as I?m sure you are fully aware, Mandelstam, females have a whole lot more riding on their choice of sex partner than males do. This affects how we choose. Males?different story entirely.”_ I think it’s very interesting how you interpret this evolutionary story. Our animal nature, such as it is, developed thousands and thousands of years ago, millenia before civilization as we know it. Who do you want hunting a buffalo for you and your offspring? Bill Gates, or the 18-year-old guy you saw lifting weights at the gym? My point: insofar as women’s sexual instincts are predetermined by evolution, they will favor a male who looks strong and fit. Pre-historic humans focused on survival, not romance. Romance is an entirely modern construct and, if you know anything about its cultural provenance, it developed to foster a degree of individual autonomy while, at the same time, helping to protect private property. Human biology has not significantly changed for thousands of years: but relations between the sexes have changed dramatically. Therefore what’s telling about the evolutionary reading of sexual nature is the way that human evolution is frequently used–as in your example–to naturalize conditions that are relatively new. Pre-historic humans and, for most of history, historic humans, did not raise two kids in a four-bedroom house while leasing an SUV and contributing to a 401k. Their mating practices were, consequently, entirely unlike that of must humans today. The more closely you look at biological factors, the more you realize just how much modern (post-1750) notions of sexual difference depend on certain cultural conditions. Recent research on sperm competition suggests that human women are, relative to other primates, moderately promiscuous. Human women are the only females who can “mate” 365 days a year–whether they’re likely to reproduce at that time of the month, or not. Psychologically speaking, humans are entirely unique: our behaviors, our motivations, our communicative capacities are not even remotely analagous to those of any other animal. Therefore, the extent to which you can deduce human psychology from animal functions is extremely limited–and vastly overstated IMO. Remeber too: before the invention of “romance” and the modern notion of femininity, female sexuality was curbed (as it sometimes still is today) by brute force. _"Science is showing us more and more each day how very great the impact of our DNA really is._ Actually, on the matter of gender/sexuality, I think that genetic science has shown very little. Genetically, men and women are much more alike than not. DNA may predict a given _individual_’s propensity for heart disease, or fat content; but it appears to have very little predictive ability, beyond the obvious, on the matter of men vs. women. Indeed, human sexuality is so highly individualized and so culturally conditioned that genetics seems to me to be the very last place you’d want to look to understand it. Knowing what you presumably know about different men’s preferences: do you think there is a gene for leather vs. lace? for big “bush” vs. trimmed? for triple-D hooters vs. a boyish look? You didn’t respond to **Ludovic** post on the importance of context but, I tend to agree with him that context is very important to a man’s sexual gratification; and I can’t imagine “context” as something that derives from genetics. So no, I don’t think genetic science has been revelatory here. _“I do not think that most women are about romance-novel sex, I know they aren?t. But I feel equally sure that most women aren?t into the kind of porn that is mostly available for men. We are just more complicated in our sexual response than that.”_ Well part of my original point, stoid, was that typical porn offers very little for the female viewer. But, unlike you, I don’t see that fact as deriving from the difference between uncomplicated males vs. complicated females; or males who want physique and nothing else, vs. females who want context and don’t care about physique. To me those are incredibly artificial and inaccurate stereotypes. The mere fact that so many straight women these days are watching porn–as a prelude to sex with their male partners–testifies to just how adaptive human sexuality can be. Personally, I agree with Freud that both sexes have bisexual potential. But, in our culture, women’s bisexual potential is, I believe, much more culturally developed than men’s. That is, women are constantly in view of good-looking women’s ultra-sexualized bodies and, therefore, respond to them. I suspect that when a straight woman watches a porn video with her guy she’s being aroused by watching sexual acts, and by the physical attractiveness of the women involved. Perhaps she’s also aroused by her partner’s arousal. And I guess every once in a while such videos actually feature a good-looking guy and show something of him. My point here is that if a woman can become aroused by watching this male-oriented fare, imagine what fare designed from her point of view might do for her. Once again: I’m not demanding that as part of my personal utopia, because I think there are more interesting things a couple can do during or before sex than watch TV together. Let’s not forget that four thousands of years before the invention of photography, people managed to want sex just fine. The desire for pornography, as we know it, is not “natural”: it is a desire that has been artificially produced by the availability of certain technologies and the social conditions that accompanied them. What I _am_ suggesting is that straight women’s current sexual habits–including their increasing readiness to watch porn with men–suggests that they might be very interested in a female-geared erotic product _if_ they didn’t feel embarassed about wanting it, and _if_ the men in their lives were willing to be experimental about their own viewing habits. _“I never asserted that men prefer masturbation to real sex!”_ I think the confusion arose because you didn’t realize what I meant when I said that I prefer written, verbal and performative erotica to watching the box. I said that in a couples context: I meant couples reading or writing their own particular scenarios, telling stories to each other, and acting out these fantasies instead of, say, watching a video. I genuinely believe that if more people felt uninhibited enough to engage in this kind of communication that the interest in and demand for passive visual products would diminish. But that could be bad news for someone in your line of biz ;). _"There has been an atmosphere created where any kind of sexual reference can be considered sexual harassment by someone, somewhere, and companies just don?t want the expense and hassle, so they fold. The fear of sexual harassment suits for virtually anything is real, we have received real-life reports right here in this thread. Where do you think it came from? "_ What feminists have wanted and continue to want is equality of opportunity. (That’s true even of feminists who have sought such equality in what we and others in this thread seem to agree are counterproductive ways.) Are you surprised that corporate culture has responded by covering the legal ass rather than delivering up the substantive equality? And is the fault of feminism? By all means, complain loudly about the kind of feminist position that you don’t agree with. But also be careful to acknowledge where factors such as corporate self-interest, conservative ideology, and preservation of the status quo fit in to the picture. And one should also be careful, I think, to examine the basis of one’s own feminist position. In your case, as a pornographer, you have a vested interest in the sexual status quo. In my utopia, couples would not need your product. At the workplace, and in their relationships, men and women would respect each other as true equals. In the bedroom the sky would be the limit because the human imagination is _that_ glorious and human sexuality _that_ kinky ;). If the male or female CEO wants to spend his or her private time down on all fours begging a sexual partner for mercy, by all means let them. If they’re straight, let the girlfriend of said male CEO be unfazed by her partner’s submissive side; let her enjoy for herself the experience of taking the bull by the horns. 😉 But these kinds of power dynamics, with their tantalizing erotic appeal, don’t belong in the workplace where their real effect is to subject people to limited economic and professional opportunities. Almost everybody wants to feel powerful (including sexual submissives who are enjoying the power of their all-powerful “top”). Men have to learn how to interact with and befriend their female colleagues as colleagues; they have to learn how to share power with women, whatever it is they might like to do with particular women in their bedrooms. Women also have to learn what to do at the workplace, and I think that the current stress on “cleavage power” at the workplace is retrograde–though obviously an attractive professional look can help both sexes. In my bedroom a man panting for my cleavage or chasing the hem of my mini-skirt might be a huge turn-on. But at the workplace what I really want is the power of having my co-workers and clients, male and female, respect my abilities. Too few women experience this feeling. For all of these reasons, I think that stereotypes about sexual nature are very damaging to men and women. Although repressed and ultra-stereotyped sexual culture is far from the only reason why women have not yet achieved equality of opportunity, it is, IMO, a mitigating factor. _“I think [counterproductive feminist positions] boil down to what I believe is a hysterical overreaction to the effect that sexual images, jokes, etc have on women in the workplace.”_ Some might (although I really dislike the term “hysterical” which, for obviously etymological reasons, implies that women are prone to irrational behavior due to the possession of a uterus). But, once again, the way that the quest for equality of opportunity has been responded to–by corporations, by conservatives, by religious people, by powerful men, by _un_powerful men, by frustrated women (to name just a few complex actors)–is so much larger than what “feminism,” in all its many varieties, has been responsible for. _“I?ll buy that for a dollar”_ Ah, that’s the beauty of the SDMB. You can have it for free ;). ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/112 "2002-07-15T17:05:44Z")
Just re-read my post and wanted to make two clarifcations. First, “mitigating factor” was the wrong choice of words; what I meant was “conbtributing factor”. Second, what I meant by “religious people” was people whose religious beliefs–as in the example given by one poster above–make them especially uncomfortable with explicit sexual reference in public. Obviously not all “religious people” have those feelings. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [July 15, 2002, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/113 "2002-07-15T17:19:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Imagine a world in which every box of tampons had an Ambercombrie guy with his pants half unzipped: “Use it baby. You deserve it.” You know, I see lots of marketing with hot young guys, a great deal of which is for perfume, women’s clothes, diet products, and suchlike - i.e. is being marketed towards women. In fact, these days I see as many if not more scantily-clad boys on billboards in Montreal than girls. (Well, I don’t see any Montreal billboards these days, but you know what I mean.) ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [July 16, 2002, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466/114 "2002-07-16T14:41:28Z")
_“You know, I see lots of marketing with hot young guys, a great deal of which is for perfume, women’s clothes, diet products, and suchlike - i.e. is being marketed towards women. In fact, these days I see as many if not more scantily-clad boys on billboards in Montreal than girls. (Well, I don’t see any Montreal billboards these days, but you know what I mean.)”_ I do think this trend will continue, **matt** , precisely b/c I think it’s an effective marketing tool–for men and women both. That is, sexy male bodies effectively attract attention and sell products–to both men and women–just as sexy female bodies do. There’s no “natural” tendency for the female body to sell and the male body to fizzle. I do think, though, that advertisers will face more resistance, and will proceed more cautiously in this area, than with the female bod. At least in the US where the strong Puritanical streak exerts itself, and this might be seen as the last straw. I did read of a male underwear ad being censored in England (where, AFAIK, it’s easier to censor than in the US) and where female underwear ads are as racy as they can possibly be. I think it will be a long while, if ever, before an ultra-fem product such as tampons is marketed in this way. More important, I’m not really sure that this would do much for male/female relations other than to lessen or erase an aspect of the double standard. At what cost to men? I dunno. What are your thoughts on the impact of the Ambercrombie guy on men’s self-esteem? It seems to me that even with this fairly recent phenomenon there’s still a lot less pressure on men to conform to this physical ideal than on women. A straight guy might think, well so I’m not buff, but I’m successful at work. Women are still attracted to the latter. OTOH, I think men are already under so much pressure to “cut it” in the dog-eat-dog world that this added pressure is just another drag on their focusing on things that really matter. (Gay men seem already to have imposed this ideal standard on themselves to a higher degree than straight men, no?) Any thoughts? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-feminism-end-up-perpetuating-the-stereotypes-it-was-supposed-to-destroy/117466.md?page=5)