a reply .....
scribble pad.: i DONT like pornography.
hi. this is a response to the comment that was posted, for the post on pornography. what, they asked, would happen to men, if the “outlet” of pornography were not provided....
heres some concrete proof to all those who thought feminism was simply male bashing: i sincerely believe no man will burst and die for lack of sex. if he does, hes no loss to the rest of the world!! :-)
the emphasis of needing an “outlet” is, if i may point out, another indicator of patriarchal conditioning. most societies follow a patriarchal culture today. male dominance is emphasised in the most basic form by emphasising the penis. fact: penetration during sex in the 21st century has been deeper than ever before. the condition of women has also deteriorated the most in this time. poverty, ill health and any other social problem you can think of have become feminised. women and children are bearing the brunt of this brutal system. (even the UN reports have cottoned on this fact. btw... have you ever read a “state of the worlds children” report? bet most folks havent. its not popular with mainstream media!)
therefore when i object to pornography, im also objecting to a culture that conditions men to think that they need not, or cannot, resist a sexual impulse. that they must gratify it, no matter how, where, or what the result. that they may resort to even violence to do so. the act of sex loses all meaning. it takes on a unidimensional aspect of being a way to exert power. if youre still in doubt, you need only to look at what happened to women during the genocide in rwanda.
may i also point out that in several old civilisations, the feminine was respected. go back to school. which was the first civilisation you read about... indus valley? remember reading about the mother goddess? sex used to be regarded as a celebration of life. it was an act exalting the divinity of the feminine. when the western countries sent out their crusading missionaries to convert the “heathens” – yes, the same “barbarians” who had this refined attitude to sex – they established their patriarchal society around the world. and since english is a western language, you see it in the words as well : mankind. history. look at the world of business, which was traditionally a male domain - we speak of “penetration” of a market to indicate a conquest. gazni “raped” the land. sex being a basic instinct, our language reflects it strongly. lingual theories deal with this phenomenon extensively.
honestly, it fogs me how we can limit our perceptions so much! theres so much to even the body alone other than sex.... when will we learn to really watch, love and respect our bodies if we're so busy living out these stupid conditioned warped stereotypes?
hi. this is a response to the comment that was posted, for the post on pornography. what, they asked, would happen to men, if the “outlet” of pornography were not provided....
heres some concrete proof to all those who thought feminism was simply male bashing: i sincerely believe no man will burst and die for lack of sex. if he does, hes no loss to the rest of the world!! :-)
the emphasis of needing an “outlet” is, if i may point out, another indicator of patriarchal conditioning. most societies follow a patriarchal culture today. male dominance is emphasised in the most basic form by emphasising the penis. fact: penetration during sex in the 21st century has been deeper than ever before. the condition of women has also deteriorated the most in this time. poverty, ill health and any other social problem you can think of have become feminised. women and children are bearing the brunt of this brutal system. (even the UN reports have cottoned on this fact. btw... have you ever read a “state of the worlds children” report? bet most folks havent. its not popular with mainstream media!)
therefore when i object to pornography, im also objecting to a culture that conditions men to think that they need not, or cannot, resist a sexual impulse. that they must gratify it, no matter how, where, or what the result. that they may resort to even violence to do so. the act of sex loses all meaning. it takes on a unidimensional aspect of being a way to exert power. if youre still in doubt, you need only to look at what happened to women during the genocide in rwanda.
may i also point out that in several old civilisations, the feminine was respected. go back to school. which was the first civilisation you read about... indus valley? remember reading about the mother goddess? sex used to be regarded as a celebration of life. it was an act exalting the divinity of the feminine. when the western countries sent out their crusading missionaries to convert the “heathens” – yes, the same “barbarians” who had this refined attitude to sex – they established their patriarchal society around the world. and since english is a western language, you see it in the words as well : mankind. history. look at the world of business, which was traditionally a male domain - we speak of “penetration” of a market to indicate a conquest. gazni “raped” the land. sex being a basic instinct, our language reflects it strongly. lingual theories deal with this phenomenon extensively.
honestly, it fogs me how we can limit our perceptions so much! theres so much to even the body alone other than sex.... when will we learn to really watch, love and respect our bodies if we're so busy living out these stupid conditioned warped stereotypes?
Labels: feminist issues
scribbled by m. at 7:52 am
1 Comments:
Nothing against your points, but an aside I was tempted to think about:
Do you think we should take at face value passages about a civilisation from a compiled, condensed and politically correct source like a History textbook? It is very easy to write something as generic as "Sex was a celebration of life." (On a tangent, is sex a celebration of life only when it is clothed by prudery and sanctified beyond meaning? Would you say that sex in its rawest form is not a celebration of life?) Nirmal Shekar writes similar platitudinous awe-evoking attempts every week for Sportstar when some famous sports personality retires. But what do those lines really mean? It is very possible that three generations down the line people talk about our generation as one of the first ones that spoke up for feminist thoughts and thwarted prevalent gender inequalities. While we might lend that statement some credence, you and I know that it is not true in entirety, for we Indians still suffer from the backlash of the generations before us.
Anyway, my point is: should we base our thoughts and ideas entirely on literature like History textgbooks (whose objectivity can be clouded by political correctness) that serve merely as a brief throwback to an era?
Merely an aside.
Post a Comment
<< Home