Some reasons why I love Movie-Cap

As I’ve mentioned, I always found the comic book Steve Rogers to be completely boring. I understand that they wanted his true power to be his unerring moral compass, but he’s perfect in every other way too—he is always sure of himself, he has no fears, no psychological damage… no personality, really. Some like Bernie will debate this to the death with me, but that’s how I see it. But now that he's been depicted on the big screen... I am in love. I find the move version of the character fascinating, and I wanted to ramble a little bit about why. And I swear, it's not just because I want to jump his perfectly formed bones.

Traditionally in comic books, male characters are depicted as masculine self-insertion fantasies. They are extremely strong, emotionally invulnerable, and of course they are very attractive to the women in the universe. This is not because they are depicted as what women actually find attractive, but because the female characters are acting in the service of the masculine fantasy. They look like what male readers supposedly want to look like, and the women are attracted in the way the readers would like them to be.

But this tendency is what contributes to that huge big problem that comics book have in how often they give off a powerful vibe to women of “THIS IS NOT FOR YOU.” Superhero comic books often indulge hypermasculine fantasy concepts— such as high violence, low emotion, powerful men and sexualized women —and most of the people who are conditioned to find those fantasies appealing are men. And if you don’t have that conditioning, you don’t often find shaved bear men built like refrigerators to be all that relatable. I mean, in one particularly egregrious example, take a look at how notoriously terrible artist Rob Leifeld depicts Cap:

Um... yuck? This is exaggeration, not idealization. And yeah, this is worse even than usual, but it's the extreme of a ubiquitous problem. And I find it stomach-turningly offputting.

Given this theory of what masculinity "should be," there is a long history of when a lot of women find a certain man particularly alluring, other men start deriding that man on the grounds that said alluring qualities make him unmanly or even gay. Often it's for excessive prettiness, or just for not being as traditionally masculine as a desirable man should be under their schema. I read that Rudolph Valentino got a lot of that back in the day, and modern day examples include Orlando Bloom and even Justin Bieber. It stems from a combination of envy for their desirability with ideas about how caring about one's looks is supposed to be a feminine responsibility, how men can't be hot because only men care about hotness, so if a man is hot it's gay.

But to play Captain America in the film, they didn’t find a shaved bear of a man with a shape like a refrigerator. Quite the contrary, they found an exceptionally beautiful man. And the difference that makes is unbelievable. It’s not just the fact that I’m a shallow person who really enjoys looking at beautiful men. (Though I am.) It's that in presenting me with a person who is pleasing to my eye, as opposed to an earlier conception of the same person who is less so, they are acknowledging that my eye and others like mine are in the audience. And more than just acknowledging me, they are are courting my viewership. This beautiful man makes me want to come look, to join that audience. For rising out of a medium that has so much history of scaring the female audience off, that is a remarkable turnabout.

But that's not the only subversive, even progressive aspect of how the film portrayed Steve. For how sexy and gorgeous he is, and how we are allowed to regard him in that capacity, he is not excessively or inappropriately sexualized. He's actually a virgin, pretty explicitly so. This is in the face of the enormous cultural stigma against men with no sexual experience. But the film does not portray this as a negative, unmanly thing; far from it, it is one more thing that shapes the admirable man Steve is. Yeah, he was the kind of dork that some associate with being a virgin, but more than that, it's about his personal value system. He has his own strict code of conduct, something that's very important to him. He's the sort of person who wants to wait for the one, for real love, and anything less isn't enough for him. It's so earnest and decent that we respect him for sticking to this belief system even though it doesn't conform to our own. I find that massively progressive. I mentioned this in my initial review of the film, but it bears repeating: how cool is it that they made a tough, masculine action hero that dudes want to be like with VIRGIN stamped on his forehead? And frankly, I find incredibly attractive.

And you know what, I just plain like beautiful men. Not even necessarily in a stroke material sort of way. I DESPISE how often it is a asserted that by "objective aesthetic sensibilities" the female form is inherently more beautiful than the male one. That's such male-gaze-influenced garbage. I love the masculine figure, and even beyond sexual attraction, I just enjoy basking in the beauty of it. Especially a man like Chris Evans. Dreamy blue eyes, perfectly styled good boy hair, full lips, lovely cheekbones, strong jaw. And that body-- well, suffice it to say, like a work of art, I could just look at him all day.

There are other small adjustments that make the character more human and appealing. This Steve Rogers is young. In the comics he’s a more mature presence, but in the movie they made him more of a boy. This I think was an excellent decision. (Especially in contrast with Tony, who is more of a man, but that's another discussion entirely.) Young people are less formed, have had less time to grow past their issues and figure themselves out. This allows for Steve to not be totally sure of himself, to not have a complete handle on the things that he's insecure about. And he's insecure here, in a beautiful, human, sympathetic way. Leading up to the procedure, he was a complete dork. Even when people are no longer the person that they used to be, the self-image created by their previous state doesn’t just disappear. Having spent more than twenty years as a skinny, awkward nerd that got picked on and ignored, a modest guy like him is not going to shake feeling like that nerd right away. Even after a magical transformation into his current Adonis-like state. That insecurity adds a dimension of humanity, that he may look perfect on the outside, but on the inside, he sometimes feels awkward, unsure, and not very special, just like real people do. And you know what else? Sometimes even perfect Captain America is awkward! Steve Rogers is not a smooth operator. I find it unbelievably cute that he's not worldly, doesn't know how to talk to girls, and sometimes trips over the right thing to do or say. I get the feeling that we sometimes think really desirable guys often have a really arrogant attitude in regards to other people, like "I can have any woman I want, what makes you good enough for me?" But there's no superior attitude there at all-- in fact, he sometimes isn't comfortable with himself. So he would never make anyone feel like they're not good enough.

Finally, I was reading a well-written article on The Good Men Project that was about how female dominants more often exist in the form of desiring the position of control and comparative emotional strength, rather than the classic image of the smacky woman in black leather. I was not so interested in the BDSM aspect of it, but I did connect with how it posits, quote, that “The key component of the female gaze… is vulnerability.” Emotional nakedness rather than emotional armor. I had never thought about it that way, but upon reflection it feels true to me. The fact that they included that youth and insecurity in this conception of the character confers a real vulnerability on him. I love that he's such a good man, the fact that that goodness is his real power. He's endlessly courageous, self-sacrificing, and decent. But he's not always sure of himself, not full of himself despite his own goodness. And yes, yes, that vulnerability is SEXY.

This has gone on way too long, so best to stop there. But those are some of the reasons I can't stop thinking about Movie-Cap. <3

A gorgeous contradiction

Whenever new people discover my blog, I get anxious about my content. Should I hold off on the silly nonsense for a while and only post, say, polished writings or serious intellectual musing, so as to convince the new readers that I have worthwhile things to say?

But fuck it, this is who I am. My brain gets eaten by larps, I rant about silly pop culture phenomenons, and I drool over pretty boys. Especially the pretty Avengers boys. Which I want to do right now.

I read a Penny and Aggie comic from a few years ago doing a who's who strip of the large cast of characters. They made a point of explaining how, of the two main sought-after male characters in the strip, one is even hotter because he realizes how masculine he is, and the other is even hotter because he doesn't realize how feminine he is. The strip acknowledges how bizarre this contradiction is. And yet, still true. It makes me think of one of my favorite things about some of my favorite Avengers. Tony and Steve are both fabulous, but in a way they make each other more delicious in their contrast, like the salty and sweet in a chocolate-covered pretzel.

You see, Tony is arrogant, splashy, slutty, a smoking hottie and he knows it. Which makes him even more attractive.



Steve is modest, quiet, a little-self conscious, a smoking hottie and he doesn't even know it. Which ALSO makes him even more attractive.



Yeah, I don't know how that works either. But, oh, how it does. How ever how it does. And I'm not ashamed to think that.

...This entry was friends-only for a while. Thought it best not to overwhelm the newcomers right away. ;-)

The scandal in Bohemia

If you are familiar with the fabulous Sherlock Holmes story A Scandal in Bohemia, the only one to feature Irene Adler and one of the stories to inspire the show I am in, you know that Irene Adler was in possession of a photograph of herself with the King of Bohemia. The two of them carried on a whirlwind affair, and when he broke it off so that he could marry some Scandinavian princess, she threatened to ruin that marriage by sending the photograph to his bride's father on the day of the wedding. This image above is what we're using for that photograph in the show, and I must say that the two of us do making a charming couple, as they say in the show, "the very picture of love."

With my modern sensibilities, I find it absolutely hilarious that such a tame picture of a man with his ex-girlfriend could be the cause of so much shame and distress. Our director Matt, who took the picture, joked that he should be doing a line of coke or something off my stomach, except that in Victorian times cocaine was a lot more acceptable than dating an opera singer, apparently. I am curious exactly what the nature of the issue is supposed to be. Is it that the highborn king of Bohemia would be degraded to be known to have carried on an affair with a lowborn adventuress from New Jersey? Is it that it is evidence that Wilhelm is going to his marriage less pure and virginal than the driven snow? If that's it, well, at least I am pleased at the lack of a double standard, as I'm sure dear Princess Clothilde is expected to be.

As I mentioned, when we realized the audience is not going to be seeing this picture given how small the prop is, we took silly ones after.

These are my favorites.

Kissing rehearsal

I managed to be off-book for rehearsal tonight! Not perfectly so, I had to call line a fair bit, but I was acceptably able to go on my own. I'll have to do some reviewing for tomorrow, but I'm close to where I should be. We ran the whole first act Sunday night and the whole second act just now, and I think we're in pretty good shape.

I am very much enjoying the process, and I'm also relaxing into the company and the role. I was nervous going in because my acting felt stiff-- probably a self-perpetuating cycle there --and I was terrified that someone was thinking "Oh, she got the role because she's pretty, not because she can act." But I'm doing better and better, and I find I really like my castmates. They're all really good actors and, it turns out, very fun people to work with. I love a cast I can laugh and joke with between scenes.

Tonight was kind of amusing. In the script, I have two scenes where I each kiss one of two of my castmates. The first is Larabee posing as Godfrey Norton at our wedding, then Holmes near the end of the show. We hadn't rehearsed either for real yet. While I was ready to put it in whenever everyone else was, I am, however, accustomed to the director declaring "Tonight we'll be doing the kissing," or something like that. Tonight, our first night off-book with it, our Sherlock just kind of went for it. I confess I was a little thrown. Though it surprised me, I had no trouble going with it, and as I said to the gentleman playing Holmes, good for him for just going for it. I always admire people who don't bother with stupid little hangups and don't waste the time being awkward.

The timing was a little bit weird too, because we're supposed to hold it until the lights go out, and because the stage manager was a wee bit slow declaring the transition we had some people teasing us about just hanging out like that. I said I read in an acting textbook once that a stage kiss isn't supposed to last more than four seconds. One of my castmates thought that was oddly specific, so I said I thought the idea behind it was that when people kiss, after four seconds it no longer seems realistic for them to just press their lips together. After that point the kiss needs to "progress," shall we say, basically transitioning to a makeout if it is to stay believable. Of course, that meant  that when we ran the scene for the second time, the SM started chanting, "One thousand one... one thousand two..." causing Holmes and I to break with laughter. I flipped him off, but he rightly said, "You asked for it!" and I had to concede, that yes, he got me there. :-)

What this also suggests is that if the lights are ever late, we've got four seconds until we have no choice but to escalate. ;-) Did the Victorians even have makeouts? Well, since the scene is obviously supposed to imply they go to bed together after the fade, I guess it wouldn't be totally inappropriate.

Meh, slash fic

As I’ve mentioned, I’m not a slash fan. I tend to prefer when fan work sticks to canon, so I don’t really enjoy when the characters’ relationships are disrupted to suit an author’s personal preferences. But another thing that bothers me is how it encourages fans to interpret everything characters who are close to each other do through a lens searching for romantic possibility. This propensity in slash often leads to the invalidating of the notion that FRIENDSHIP CAN BE A POWERFUL AND MEANINGFUL RELATIONSHIP IN AND OF ITSELF. Of course, my making this argument at all is kind of missing the fact that slash is mostly porn. The assumption is made all the time that women don’t like or don’t use porn, which irks me for a lot of feminist reasons, and is obviously refuted by the existence of slash. So I don’t like to gloss over it, and that makes it a little less silly to bitch about. But still, there’s a big cultural concept going on that suggests that friendship is inferior to romantic connection. A girl who doesn’t want to date a guy is “demoting” him to friend status, for example. This is what pushes people away from making real connections with each other non-sexually or non-romantically, either because they think those relationships aren’t as valuable, or that they’re afraid that, since people assume romantic relationships are the only ones worth seriously pursuing, their attempts at closeness will be perceived as romantic interest. This is especially off-putting if there is a concern of making other think the person is gay. So we don’t get a lot of strong portrayals of friendship, or when we do, people wonder at the supposedly “romantic” undertones. :-P And in real life, we get lots of people who don't have any strong connections outside of their significant others, which leads to less emotional support in their lives.

When lust shuts down your brain

Pondering some things lately that I want to explore here. I've been having thoughts on standards of beauty and dynamics of attraction again, spurred by certain things I've been finding lately in myself.

When women are objectified, they tend to be objectified as sex objects-- that their value lies in their sexiness. When men are objectified, they tend to be objectified as success objects-- that their value lies in their monetary and career success. I get that men get stuck with that lot because society expects them to be providers, but what I wonder is why they get away with being sexually objectified so much less frequently. Women have sex drives and eyes just like men do-- why don't they provide enough demand for pretty men to show up in the media?

I hate to say it, but it seems like in most cases they don't. One thing that's always troubled me in my pondering gender equality is the fact that in my personal experience I have found women to be significantly less invested in the physical beauty of men than vice versa. I know that of the men I have been most attracted to, it wasn't necessarily because of the way they looked, and how far, far more often I have seen couples where the girl was significantly more attractive than the guy than the other way around.

This bugs me because it supports those unequal expectations of beauty that I wrote about once before. It seems to verify the idea that women need to be more beautiful in order to be attractive to men, while men can be less beautiful and still be attractive to women. Which leads to women having to work harder on their appearance, to stay fit, to work on their hair, to dress better, to "put on their faces," while men can get away with putting on weight, or presenting themselves with less polish. That's really unfair, and it encourages women to think that desiring male beauty is basically pointless-- or worse, that there's something weird or unnatural about desiring it.

But still-- it does happen. Maybe less often, maybe less universally, but it does happen. On the rare occasions I DO find myself really, really struck by a man's physical beauty... the feminist in me is kind of happy. Yeah, I know nobody should sexually objectify anyone, it's definitely not feminist to do so, but I must confess I feel weirdly pleased when I find myself drawn to do it. It supports the idea that women and men AREN'T all that different after all, that it probably happens to all of us in differing amounts, and maybe women are just socialized not to do it as often as men are allowed to.

Right now I really really like Chris Evans Captain America. Like, whoa, a lot. Like I'm wasting entirely too much time browsing for NSFW photo edits on DeviantArt I like him so much. I like pretty people, sure, but frankly, any feeling of attraction based solely on appearance occurs rarely for me. Hell, there aren't that many people I feel attracted to at all! What's funny is that with me, there must be a perfect storm of little details about a man's appearance for that to even happen. I couldn't care less about Chris Evans when he looks like this...

But when he looks like this, it knocks the breath out of me. :-)

It's not that I can point to anything in particular, like, oh, I like him clean shaven or whatever, because that's not it. It's just there's a particular confluence here that works for me in a big way, helped along by the "I am a super good guy but also a little awkward" built into the character he's playing. Actually, that's one of the reasons why I don't think it's fair to us straight ladies that guys get to toss off how they present themselves, because sometimes sometimes little details as small as how somebody dresses or parts their hair (see above, heh) that can make the sexy difference.

What's also funny-- or creepy --is how much it makes me lose my mind. I can actually feel it pushing out higher thought. I have heard of this phenomenon, men are accused of giving in to it all the time, but it's a relatively infrequent experience for me. As I said, I'm attracted to very few people in general, much less to the point where I find myself objectifying them. So it's kind of freaking me out how strongly looking at Chris Evans Captain America threatens to push me into thinking like an absolute pig-- to let the feeling in my guts and elsewhere completely overtake the working of my brain. I am at the point where I can't even watch the ads for the Avengers without being all, "Fuck this noise, just take off your shirt and stand there." That, my friends, is pretty much textbook sexual objectification. Who even am I, that that's something that I do? Jared has actually been kind of weirded out by this, saying things like, "What if I did this about Scarlett Johansson? Wouldn't you think I was being tacky?" Hmmm, maybe I would. More likely what I'd think is, what's the big deal? Why so strong a reaction? And yet here I am, having my sensibilities and my good taste swept away by something that in normal circumstances wouldn't be that big a deal for me.

And yet... and yet. Lousy as it is, I am glad that it can happen. I'm glad for the proof that this is something I can experience. There's this one ad for Marc Jacobs cologne that looks like... well, I guess I'll just post it, despite what its presence may do to my blog traffic.

I mean, look at that. Wow, that's... unsubtle. I have a very complex reaction to it.

It's sexualized so blatantly. The man is ripped, naked, and oiled up with just some fake cologne bottle hiding his junk. On one hand, it's tacky. I tend to dislike such unsophisticated, nuance-free depictions of sexiness, and find them more gross than appealing. But being of an idealized standard of beauty and put on display to appeal to sexual interest, this sort of depiction is a rare example of a man being sexualized in a way that is usually reserved for objectifying portrayals of women.  I am very very pleased to see something equalizing in that manner, as well as something that tries to appeal to the female gaze for a change. (Presumably. I have a vague memory of reading that cologne is mostly bought by women as gifts for men.)

Also, I have to say... I find it kind of hot. I really shouldn't, see above about how such depictions are usually gross instead of sexy to me, but for some reason I do. I'm embarrassed to be taken in by such a display. I wonder if this is what it's like when men don't really find exaggerated porn actresses with fake breasts and stylized faces attractive, but are turned on enough by them anyway. But at the same time, for reasons of equalization there's a part of me that is pleased that I am. The argument that men aren't sexualized because women don't like them to be falls flat.

I'm curious-- how often does that happen to other people? When you gauge someone's raw attractiveness largely divorced from their actual self, how often does anyone experience that feeling of lust that you feel it pushing out your higher thought (whether you allow it to or not)? Does it happen to men as often as we seem to think it does? And does it happen to women as infrequently as we think it does? As with the stereotype, I will admit that it happen to me very rarely. But sometimes, one rare occasion, it definitely does happen.

Domm'd

Played in Leash this past Saturday. I must say, though I had my reservations, I ended up really enjoying it. My character had a strong BDSM element to it, and while I was not bothered by that fact, I knew it was going to take some boldness on my part to be able to act like that toward other people in public without feeling totally embarrassed. But I relished the acting challenge of contrasting that part of the character with her normal quiet, more goody-goody personality, so I figured there was no point in doing it if I didn't do it all the way. Jared helped me make a costume that would be easily hidden under my big old rust-colored suede blazer (really need to get that thing tailored), and I decided that it would be best if I arranged with someone who I was comfortable with and vice versa to have a little scene. I settled on morethings5 as a personal who fit that bill, and would make the scene interesting. So, though I had a wee bit of trepidation, in the end I just went for it.

Looks like I got over my reservations, I guess. :-) And Jonathan was an excellent scene partner. Thank you, dear, for rolling with me! I also ended up going off on bleemoo*, with whom I did NOT confer beforehand, but I think that turned out okay as well! Again, thanks for being such a good sport!

Beyond that, the game is good overall, with good plot and lots of reasons for characters to interact. I like how the powers and mechanics were just very flowy, and yet did not interfere too much with each other. I liked it very much and would recommend it, provided you're comfortable with dark and mature themes. There was more intense stuff than just my character's, and a lot of it was kind of twisted, but I enjoy that stuff so it didn't bother me. So my compliments, hazliya* and elenuial*! I am suddenly now particularly interested in Better Off Dead when it runs at Festival, but I doubt I will have time for it with all my other committments. :-(

Also, on Sunday I played in Lise's FantasyCraft game. The mystery is really starting to emerge, and I think the plot she designed is really very clever. I love being Ophelia and getting to say inappropriate things. I also am really happy about the company being who it is, which makes the game even better. Jared tagged along to the game this time and then we all went out to dinner afterward, which was lovely. All in all, this was a fantastic weekend full of lovely lovely gaming.

Random feminist grumblings

I am no longer as amused by Feminist Hulk as I was at first. The formula is pretty facile, and I've grown weary of the fill-in-the-blank messages of "HULK SMASH (insert reference to patriarchy, masculine hegemony, gender inequality, whatever)". How helpful, physically breaking down a concept with no physical manifestation. :-P Also, it conflates a lot of things-- veganism, genderqueer, alternative sexuality, nontraditional relationships, and all manner of hippy-dippy things --into the definition of feminism as if they were intrinsic parts, which I dislike. Adding all these unrelated conditions turns feminism into some kind of exclusive club that you can only join if you agree with all these leftist politics that don't even factor into it. Feminism is not a lifestyle, it is a simple straightforward belief. The only "thing feminists do" is believe in the inherent value equality between the genders.

By the same token, I must point out that it feminism and being pro-LBGTQ do not necessarily go hand in hand, nor, I feel, should one necessarily enter the definition of the other. While I certainly believe you should ALSO be pro-LBGTQ and it may be a related issue, it is not in fact the same issue, and I think that the simple, elegant, effective definition of feminism gets clouded enough without giving it corollaries.

Just fucking call yourself a feminist, already. I know many people who refuse to identify as feminists because they dislike the implications. But all it really means is belief in the inherent value equality between the genders! I know the word might kind of imply something different, but that just means more people need to be educated as to the real definition. GET YOURSELF EDUCATED ON IT ALREADY.


I am so tired of people for whom their desire to construct a feminist image for themselves obscures the point of feminism. While you are out there talking about sex toys and objecting to the word "pussy" as a derogative and all the other trappings of feminism you assume, you are not always remembering to act, in all ways, on the belief that there is an inherent value equality between the genders. THAT is all of feminism that matters. The minute you treat a man like he's less or bad because he's a man, or the minute you treat a woman like she's not responsible for her own choices and actions, you are failing in being the thing you are trying to wear the costume of.

I am all about personal responsibility. I believe being a capable, discerning agent of your own actions is part of being an independent and important member of society. Therefore, any notion of feminism that does not expect personal responsibility from women offends me deeply. Either we are adults who owe the same level of responsibility as any other adults, or we are children and cannot be held responsible. So, for example, if I don't want to have sex with someone, I need to SAY SO. Unless I am being forcibly held down and violated beyond my power to control, if I just allow someone to interact with me sexually in a way I do not desire, I am at fault for my own bad situation. The man's at fault too, if only because he should be able to tell when his partner is not into it. But if you're not giving him any indication, what, he was supposed to read your mind? The average man is not a rapist; he is almost certainly going to stop the minute you say something. If it is at all within your power, by not speaking up, YOU deny yourself that agency, NOT the other person in the equation. Be your own advocate, do not make yourself into the victim.

The fact that I am a woman does not need to factor into every decision I make about the way I live my life. I am a person first and a woman second. I swear, the way some of these people see the importance of my having a vagina, they want to reduce me to the sum of my girl bits more than the knuckle-dragging cavemen-types. My vagina is not the most important part of me. I am the most important part of me.

I don't like the Bechdel Test. It's got an interesting idea on it's face, ostensibly intended to encourage female characters who are more than just foils to masculine journey and activity. That I can get behind, but I find this particular presentation flawed. I believe it is possible for women to talk about men (who, we must not forget, are human beings as well) in ways that are not subservient to a male character's narrative, and in ways that contribute to her being a full and complex character. The implication that women just shouldn't talk about men at all because it means they are inherently subjugated in such contexts is offensive to me. Way to encourage the notion that men and women just never can get along in equality.

I also don't like the Vagina Monologues. I don't understand why it is the premier women's performance piece that gets done again and again; is there really nothing better out there? The misandry running rampant throughout it is pretty disgusting to me-- there are so many recollections of horrible things done by men to women, but very, very few depictions of positive, loving men in the speakers' lives. Also, "The Little Coochie-Snorcher That Could" is so offensive I cannot believe anyone puts up with it. That one portrays in a positive light the sexual predation of a young girl by an adult woman. Apparently it's okay if A WOMAN SEXUALLY ABUSES ANOTHER WOMAN, while if it had been a man the Monologues WOULD CRUCIFY HIM. Disgusting. Disgusting to glamorize sexual assault so long as the sexuality is lesbian. A screaming, sexist double-standard. Feminism is about equality, NOT superiority! Gah!

In short: stop being anti-man, stop shirking personal responsibility, stop corrupting the definition, stop wearing it's like it's a trendy outfit that makes you cool, stop thoughtlessly playing at empty girl-power games that accomplish nothing.

As a final note, I am sorry for how often violation of these notions causes me to scream, "AHHH NO WONDER MEN HATE YOU I HATE YOU AHHHH." It is flawed and unfair to assume that men generally hate women, and it is also not good for me to hate women. I acknowledge this. I will probably not stop doing it.

The last straight girl on Earth

Sometimes I feel like the last straight girl on Earth. As more and more of my nominally straight female friends decide that they're at least a little bit bi, I am continually blown away by how few girls I know have that aversion-to-physicality-with-women that I used to think was a hallmark of feminine heterosexuality. And while if this is your genuine setting I wish you Godspeed, but I must confess a slight irritation with how it ties into a certain kind of sexual politics that has always gotten on my nerves.

I've never been a big fan of the expectation that all girls are just a couple appletinis away from a picturesque lesbian encounter. It's almost become the norm that if you go to a certain kind of party that frequently happens on college campuses, chances are you're going to see at least one instance of non-gay girls making out. And when this happens, you're going to have at least some of the guys in attendance hanging nearby enjoying the view. And I find this kind of gross, for a number of reasons.

I guess it's not like it's really my business; people have a right to be into whatever they're into, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. I don't even have a problem with guys thinking girl-on-girl is hot. Hell, I think guy-on-guy is hot, so I certainly don't see anything weird or wrong with it. The thing that does bother me is the cultural standard that girls are becoming expected to feel and express some level of bisexuality, in which men are allowed to have pornographic interest, because that's the way men want it.

I guess if the girls are willing to do this stuff and allow it to be watched, who am I to tell them they shouldn't be doing it, but are all these girls really totally okay with interacting sexually with other girls while guys look on to be titillated? The fact that so few of these girls actually ever date other girls gives me a bit of pause, but that's not necessarily an indicator of attraction. Heh, I was REALLY attracted to a certain black-haired friend of Alain's, but that didn't mean I wanted to date him, after all. And I certainly think you're still responsible for your actions-- I don't care what kind of pressure is being laid on you, you have a responsibility to yourself to refuse to do anything sexual that you don't want. Nobody can make you do anything just by encouraging you. But I have a hard time believing that no desire for validation and to be considered desirable factor into it, which is incredibly repellent to me. Are none of the things the girls want being compromised?

And worse, it's never the other way around. Guys never make out for the viewing pleasure of girls. It's just not done-- straight guys are straight, God damn it, they don't go in for that fag stuff. It doesn't matter that maybe I'd like to get the chance to watch two guys who don't look either like twinks or like Tom of Finland models. And really, that's fine, but that girls don't get the same respect for the rigidity of their sexuality is not fine. It's a double standard, one I am very much not okay with.

Apparently emerging research suggests that while men's sexuality tends to be rigidly defined, women are more inclined to blurring whatever lines they fall between. In other words, men are more likely to be inflexibly attracted to one gender and one gender only, while women are more likely to feel some level of bisexuality. Of course these are just trends, and plenty of people don't conform to them. I invite you bisexual men out there to raise your hands with me as exceptions to the rule. But this kind of pisses me off because this emerging viewpoint validates that double standard. Yeah, maybe it is true, but I feel like that people will use that to say, "Well, it's okay for me to lay that expectation on girls because that's just what girls are like. But it's totally not okay to lay that expectation on guys, because guys aren't like that."

That is such phallocentric bullshit. I'm not normally the sort of feminist who wastes a lot of time railing against the patriarchy, but here's one case where I will gladly make an exception, because basically, all the standards and expectations are set up by men, for men. Men's sexuality is consider inviolate because men want it that way, and women's sexuality is considered flexible because men want it that way. I mean, talk about being a victim of the male gaze.

What this comes down to is, as a person with a rather rigid sexuality, I dislike that fact not being respected. Since if that rigidity were compromised it would be actively damaging to me, I dislike when its existence is dismissed with "Oh, all girls are a little bit bi." I want to be like, "No, fuck you. Why don't you go stick your tongue down some other guy's throat for my amusement instead?"

People of course should do what they want. Just because the number of girls who are okay touching each other seems to be going up doesn't change what is true about myself. And of course nobody can make me do anything I don't want to do, no matter what their assumptions or expectations might be. But that double standard gets under my skin, and unfortunately even genuine things that seem to support it are going to get under there as well.

World's sexiest shoes

I can't believe I forgot to mention this, but the other day I saw quite possibly the sexiest shoes I've ever seen in my life.



Gladiator heels-- you know, with all the straps? All in crisscrossing black leather with brass studs. Four-inch chunky heel, just like I love, with just a fraction of a platform. Sound like you've seen them before? What's so special about that, you ask?

Well, see, the crisscrossing straps? Just kept on going.

Yes, darlings, these wrapped those studded black leather straps all the way up the leg, sort of like the ribbons on a ballet shoe, except skinny strips of leather weaving around and around. These were THIGH-HIGH HEELED GLADIATORS. GAH SAVE ME FROM THE SEXY.

I scoured the internet trying to find a picture but could not. The closest I found were these:



And though they are gut-tighteningly sexy, they cannot reach the perfection of the thigh-high version I saw in the mall. They were so fantastic I couldn't even bear to look at the price tag for fear of getting my heart broken.

It's probably just as well. If I owned them, I would never take them off. I would sleep in them, shower in them. I would never wear weather-appropriate clothing ever again because I could not bear to obscure the fabulousness. I would ruin my poor flat feet. But none of that would matter, because I had the world's sexiest shoes.

Feminist rant on appearence reactions

I recently read an article about women's fear of dressing "sexy" because they're afraid of not being respected and being viewed as inappropriate. And I gotta say, some of the thoughts really irked my feminist anxieties.

First of all, I thought the article did a poor job of defining what it meant by "sexy." Do we mean "looking really good such that people think we're hot?" Do we mean "showing a lot of skin?" Do we mean "with the intent to elicit a sexual reaction?" Because in my opinion, those things are very different, and while there may be some overlap, I do not believe there always is.

I always aim to look attractive, both to my own standard, to general opinion, and to the opposite sex. So I would say I always try to "look hot"-- I want people to think I'm hot. I don't think any woman should be at fault for that; who doesn't want to look good, even attractive, as they define it? Maybe it's going a little too far if you're trying to get any real, immediate sexual reaction out of people in a context where that is not appropriate. But I honestly I think you'd have to go pretty extreme in how you're dressing in order to get a lot of that. And I feel like that extremity makes it is pretty easy to identify when that intent is present.

honestly, I don't really agree with the notion that skin automatically is about eliciting sexual reaction. I'm sure all of you know by now that I like showing skin. I think there's a degree of it that people are not such animals as to be totally revved up about when they see it. Being small-busted, necklines have to be pretty damn low in order to seem even vaguely provocative on me. I do tend to show my midriff a lot, at least the little strip of it between my waistband and the hem of my shirt. Is my typical inch-wide band of skin there really anything more than a fun and cute little touch? I think it looks hot, sure, but as I said, there's a difference between looking hot and actually looking like you're trolling for arousal.

Now, make no mistake, I'm not saying every look is appropriate for every situation. And sure, there's a limit of when some is too much. Save the plunging decolletages, the belt skirts, and the crop tops for having fun with, not anywhere that sort of thing would be inappropriately provocative. Though honestly I don't find any of my dressing habits to be that extreme, even I tone it down a little for, say, going to work. I've thrown on camisoles under low necklines and buttoned a few more buttons than I might otherwise. But I really don't see anything wrong with showing a moderate bit of skin. My workplace isn't all that conservative about dress, and if there's a different standard at yours, you should of course observe it. Heh, when I asked about the dress code when I first came to work there, literally the answer I got was, "Uh... no mirco-minis?" Well, okay, then. I've never heard a word about my belly, and I can't remember any serious context in which I felt less respected due to how much skin I was showing.

Maybe it's just that I have never felt terribly bothered by objectification. I've only felt I was being objectified a handful of times in my life, and I found these occasions to be moronic rather than hurtful. I know I'm not an object-- nobody has the power to actually turn me into one, regardless of how they see me. Yes, I am very pretty, thanks for noticing. I'm sorry that you're too much of a moron to realize that I'm smart too. Perhaps it might have been different if the objectification ever came from anyone with any power over me-- a boss, for example --to make consequences come of their reduction of me to object status, but in general, I find it to be that person's problem, not mine. As I said-- I'm not an object, and even if they treat me that way, nobody on earth has the power to make me into one.

And that brings me to another point-- these days, are men in general inclined to that kind of behavior? It's not the fucking fifties anymore, people. Maybe I've just had unusually fortunate experience, but I have found most men I've interacted with have internalized the notion that women are more than just pretty sexy things. That a woman dressing pretty, even sexy, does not automatically negate the possibility that she's got a lot going on upstairs as well.

I feel like this is predicated on a pretty offensive assumption about men as hyper-sexual beasts such that an attractive girl showing a little more skin than usual equals an automatic horny reaction that blots out all thought of that girl being a human being. Yuck. So sexist, so unfair, and I pray to God, so inaccurate. Do people really see men as lust-landmines that are going to explode with inappropriate behavior the minute something they find sexy sets them off? How patronizing! They're not animals, for Christ's sake. And if there ARE actually men like that, whose attraction to a woman cancels out any regard for her intellect or personhood, those men are creepy and fucked up and THEY are the problem and the ones that need to shape up, not the woman they're reacting to.

And I gotta say, I really hate this panic-reaction so many women have about, "OMG, he thinks I'm hot, now he won't respect me as a person!" Oh, get over yourself. WHY is it assumed that respect and attraction can't coexist? That being sexy and being smart mutually exclude one another? I find that not only insulting to men, but to women as well! Women can either be seen as respectable and capable, OR attractive and sexy? Screw that! I am a beautiful, smoking-hot woman who acts, directs, cooks, designs, organizes, and writes everything from larps to plays to poetry! Don't you forget for a minute that I've got beauty AND brains!

Is an inch-wide band of skin that I think is cute going to light the fires of brain-consuming lust? Nuh-uh. Is my being seen as a sexy woman negate the truth that I am also an intelligent and capable one? No on your life! And while yeah, it's important to hold men to a proper standard, we need to not turn them into the enemy when they don't deserve it.

And that's today's feminist rant. Your thoughts?

Heh.

Heh. I just realized I wrote "the problem of porn." C.S. Lewis must be rolling in his grave.

Pondering porn

Not exactly sure what got me thinking about this, but I found myself pondering my feelings about porn, and since they turned rather analytical, I thought I'd codify them in a journal entry. I didn't intend for this to be the behemoth it turned into, but once I got started I found a lot of ground I wanted to cover. This is mostly about the issues porn raises for women, though I have tried to give fair examination to both the masculine and feminine perspectives on them. It occurs to me that I have mostly neglected the straight female use of porn in favor of the straight male use of it. I'm addressing the feminism of visual porn specifically, of which men tend to be the viewers and women the viewed, so this is the relationship I am analyzing. But I don't believe in double standards, so if I establish a rule for one, that means I believe the other must obey it as well. This entry gets a little, well, frank in spots, so if you'd rather not discuss such things, please read no further.

As a woman, as a feminist, and as a user of porn, where do I stand in all of this? As I've mentioned before in this rant of an entry, the biggest problem I have personally with it is the assumption that straight women aren't interested in it and therefore nobody produces decent porn aimed at straight women, or if they do it's all on ABSURDLY EXPENSIVE pay sites that I am not going to shell out for. Guy-on-guy is more readily available (again because it's aimed at men) and that's all well and good, but mostly I just want a hot guy and a hot girl with the focus on the guy. I maintain that if there actually existed more porn that they'd enjoy, more women would get into it, but as things stand right now, I'm most restricted to the written-word stuff. Which works just fine, I'd just like the option is all.

The issue that I want to examine now though is the frequent perspective held by feminists that porn is damaging to women, both those who are in it and by extension all females in general. The assumption here is that porn is filled with desperate women who feel they have no other option being taken advantage of for the sake of making films that are dehumanizing and objectifying their gender as a whole. This assumption is not just held by women, either. I spoke to a friend once who said that, while he did use some porn, he still had a hard time shaking the guilt of the concern that the girls on camera were being degraded and taken advantage of by the process. Is that really the case, that this is not simply a somewhat unorthodox career choice? Are in fact most of these girls actually low-self-esteem sheep who are being caused real damage by their participation?

I'm not sure, but I am inclined to think not. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but in this day and age, I'm inclined to believe that probably the majority of them do it because they want to. Not to say there cannot be some other negative factor-- sexual abuse in childhood or thinking she's not smart enough to do anything else --weakening her ability to take positive control of her own destiny. But I want to make it very clear that I feel that an integral part of feminism is that women, as valuable, capable human beings, must be accountable for their actions. If we don't want to be treated like we're helpless or weak, we must not abdicate the responsibilities that come with the rights to live as independent agents of our own lives. That means that not only do we make choices for ourselves, but also that it is not acceptable to blame other people if that choice is a bad one. Perhaps there are reasons why we made the bad one, but ultimately, the choice lay with us. To say otherwise is to reduce a woman to the level of a child, or of the second-class citizen that women have been relegated to in the past. That I find profoundly unfeminist.

And it's not like it couldn't seem like anything other than a bad choice to be taken only by the desperate. Make no mistake, there are certainly reasons to want to do porn. Whether or not you find participating in the making of pornography utterly distasteful or not, you must admit there are a number of thing about it that have an undeniable appeal. I don't know much about the economics of porn, but assuming it's something you are willing to do, I'd bet the money's pretty good for the nature of the work. You don't need a college degree, you don't need any special skills except those that anyone can develop with practice, you probably only work a few hours a day. If you can make a nice living off having sex on camera, you might be able to pay off those student loans, or not have to spend lousy hours on your feet all day waiting tables or working retail. And, of course, let's not forget the validation factor.

Honestly, well... I can understand that better than anything else. It feels good to be know that people find you attractive and desireable-- and the idea that people find you attractive and desireable enough to pay you to display that attractiveness and desireablity, well, who can't see the validation in that? Also, sex and beauty are powerful. When you're the girl that everybody wants, it gives you a kind of value that other people around you might not necessarily have. The appeal of that validation and power are intense; I know, I'm affected by it myself. The small amount of modeling I've done, basically being compensated because I am beautiful, speaks to that instinct in me. Something I've always kind of wanted to do was some kind of sexy pre-show striptease act before a campus performance of Rocky Horror. The idea of the attention, admiration, and, let's face it, the chance to turn every guy on and (every girl green ;-)) in the audience really appealed to me. I never did it, partially because Rocky ended and partially because Jared understandably wasn't quite comfortable with the idea, but I wanted to, and I still do. So I can definitely understand a girl doing something like going into porn because it she liked the way it made her feel desirable and powerful. Crudely put, nobody jerks off to girls they don't find attractive. So there are certainly, at least to me, very compelling reasons why one would willingly get into porn.

Of course, there are equally valid reasons NOT to, and God knows I personally find them even more compelling. I may want to do a show at Rocky, but I would never actually do anything actually pornographic. Though I take for granted in this piece that porn is not inherently morally repugnant, sexual knowledge of me is a privilege reserved to the very, very few who are worthy of it, not a commodity to be bought and indulged in at leisure by anyone at all. That is too important to me. But could it be that that's simply where the dividing line lies? Is the fact that I see the appeal of but wouldn't actually do porn the difference between someone with healthy self-esteem and girls who actually are willing to have sex on camera?

So that begs the question-- if I don't do it as a matter of self-respect, does that mean that the girls who do aren't respecting themselves? Does the fact that I find porn to be something that I would never, ever do for the sake of my personal dignity make it so that I find those who are willing to do it automatically less dignified, and therefore less worthy of my respect? And if it's not so much a choice but a feeling of having no other option for whatever reason, does the fact that porn exists mean those who don't have much self-respect to begin with get put in an even worse position?

I have pondered these questions, and I have arrived at the conclusion that personally I don't believe just because you wouldn't do something yourself means you think someone else is less for doing it. Doing porn is not for me. Neither is polyamory, Islam, or allowing myself to become larger than a size zero. Not to imply that all those things are on a level, they're just what popped into my head, but the point is it's not that I think those things are bad; they just don't work for me. Does the personal rejection of an idea necessarily mean you don't respect it, or at least not think it's not okay if someone else accepts it as part of the way they live their life? No, I don't think porn is classy, I don't think anybody thinks that, but class isn't the sole indicator of worth in the world. I don't think Ikea furniture or not cleaning your bathroom often enough are classy either. Do these things make you a less valuable human being? I don't believe they do, and I don't believe just because I would never do it doesn't mean I automatically devalue those who do.

As for whether or not porn's existence facilitates taking advantage of girls with less self-respect... yes, I suppose it is very likely that at least some girls get into because they lack the self-esteem to keep them out of it. But again, I believe that women must be held responsible for their choices. Self-esteem issues are unfortunate and deserve sympathy, but you are the only one who can do anything about them, and if you don't, you are still not excused from the responsibility to run your own life. It is not the fault of the viewer, who is in all likelihood just looking for something sexy to help him get off, if you're doing something to hurt yourself for all the wrong reasons. I don't believe enjoying the feeling of being turned on by sexy images makes anyone anything other than perfectly human. To me, it's like saying knives shouldn't exist because people might use them to hurt themselves.

Also, I notice nobody ever wonders if the men in porn were sexually abused or have low-self-esteem. Why is it so much more likely for a woman to only be there because she was coerced by some factor, while a man could only be in it because he wanted to? I think we tend to see men as sexual to the point where having any kind of sex at all is a positive for them, one that outweighs any possible side effects. Men can use sex to feel better about themselves too, as well as make bad sexual choices based off of other emotional needs. Men and women are different but they're not that different; maybe MORE women are succeptible to these issues, but if women are at all, that means men can be too. Nobody worries about what being in porn does to male porn stars and I don't know if that's fair. It makes me wonder about the basis for so many of these concerns-- Reports? Statistics? Evidence? --or if at least some of it stems from that notion that the patriarchy is of course willing to do subject women to anything to satisfy their sexual urges. As usual, the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle-- some women and some men get into porn because of their negative issues, and other men and other women do it because they want to.

So I suppose I feel that if you do porn, the choice to do so is ultimately your own. But that is not to say I think the user bears no responsibility to behave correctly in this situation. I believe that if you use porn, you've surrendered your right to make value judgments on it. It's biting the hand that feeds you-- it doesn't sound pretty, but frankly, I'm glad there are some people who don't have the hangups that I do, because if nobody was willing to do porn, then I'd have no porn to watch. It reminds me of how I sometimes get teased for the revealing way I dress by boys who like looking at my body. It drives me crazy to be treated negatively for doing something that they enjoy! It's completely unfair, and I think to myself, well, if I'm going to get mistreated for it, maybe I should stop doing it! Also, it seems to say an awful lot about you that you're involving yourself with something you find so base as to warrant your condemnation. If you're going to dismiss the girl you're jerking off to as a whore, what does it make you, the person who's jerking off to the whore? What makes you any better for wanting her to do something that makes her so bad?

Now, I'm just saying this is wrong, not that that nobody ever does it-- plenty of lousy people are happy to stroke off to those they see as having no more value than chunks of meat. But I see this as a problem of the person using it, not as an inherent aspect of porn itself. I really don't think the average porn user forms any opinions about the specific woman he's looking at beyond "You are hot enough to masturbate to," or about women in general. The process is not deep; find suitable material, use suitable material, induce orgasm, move on with life. Christ, at least that's the way it is for me. And I refuse to accept the whole "But you're a woman and you don't have that problem of objectifying like that." Come off it. I use porn for the exact same reason guys do-- to help me get off. I am not any more evolved than they are.

In relation to this a lot of people also raise the issue of whether or not porn teaches men to disrespect women. Does the fact that in porn women are basically displaying themselves on camera for the express purpose of getting off a male audience necessarily result in objectification and dehumanization of the woman? I guess the argument here is that it casts women in the light of being nothing more than the objects of men's sexuality. I wonder if this comes from that outdated notion that using porn is the indulgence of creepy, socially stunted men who don't have any actual interactions with women and so don't learn anything about them as real people, from back when we pretended that not everyone masturbates. First of all, most men use some kind of porn, and a lot of women too. I feel like if you have interactions with actual women, you learn that they ARE people as a matter of course, and good upbringing is to show them respect. I feel like if you develop that, as pretty much every normal person does, porn has no power to negate it. Again, probably MOST men use porn-- does every man in your life have a block against respecting women? Of course not.

I guess you could point out that some porn is made specifically to cater to that misogynistic audience, but again, I think that's more because some people have the problem of misogyny. They also make all kinds of other media, including the completely non-sexual, that projects a negative view of women as well. Just as you pick your other forms of entertainment based on the kind of content you want to see, so do you pick your explicit material. Some people get off on pretty people having wild consensual sex. Other people get off on the degradation of women. Porn exists for both. Just as some people like sci fi and other people like realistic fiction, books, movies, and TV exist for both. This is not a matter of what is inherent to the nature of the medium-- this is a matter of what the consumer looks for. And Christ knows porn is an excellent example of how, if somebody's willing to pay for it, somebody else is willing to make it. Both nice guys and jerks watch TV shows, and both nice guys and jerks read porn.

Related to this concept is the worry of whether, through the omnipresent use of porn in our culture, men are being trained to want things that might not be healthy under the influence of the standards of porn, while the concern for women is whether they're internalizing the need to be an unhealthy pornographic ideal in order to be sexy. They say that women are made to feel bad by men that want them to look and act in these impossible ways that they see in porn, and when they either can't or don't want to, it both makes them feel less desirable and enjoy sex less. That is an unacceptable state of affairs, that I won't argue with. And certainly this is something that does happen. The trouble with this view, however, is that as an unfair byproduct it also demonizes sexuality that might not necessarily deserve it. There's this accusation that if you do enjoy certain things-- and I feel this gets leveled at men more often than women, but since I've experienced it myself I know it can go both ways --you've been conditioned by our porn-saturated culture to indulge misogynistic, phallocentric sexuality, and you're wrong for it.

I really resent this idea of presuming to tell people what is and isn't okay about their sexuality. Real sex, as in, sex that you are having with another person as opposed to watching on your screen, is an intimate act. What is and isn't okay is to be defined by the people involved, not by any external and unrelated standard. And that goes both ways. No, you shouldn't have to have an impossibly enormous rack and tiny waist in order to be sexy, or pretend to enjoy sex acts that you find frankly painful, much less orgasmic. But if you're a woman who gets turned on by getting called "slut" and "whore" by a man who loves you utterly, or playing submission games with him, are you simply expressing your sexuality in a way that pleases both of you, or are you both just products of the misogynist sexual culture that porn allegedly gives rise to? I hate that question because it's makes your private business with your significant other a matter for standards external to you to decide, rather than yourselves alone.

There's a guilt issue here-- if you're a man who likes a very mainstream standard of female beauty, or is turned on by the stylized version of sexuality in porn, you're made to feel like a bad person for it. If you're a woman, you get it both ways-- you feel like you're not attractive enough for the ways you don't conform to that pornographic standard, and you feel like a bad feminist for the ways you do. Are these fair? Can a man help what he's attracted to, as long as he doesn't disregard the feelings of any woman he's with? Should a woman have to be something, anything, she's not because some external force decided that's what she should be? These guilty feelings are dangerous because they lead to people developing complexes over things that needed healthy expression.

True sexual liberation in my opinion is women deciding for themselves what they want in the bedroom. You shouldn't be having sex with a man who doesn't respect you, but you should be able to decide for yourself what that means. You're in charge of your own sexual destiny. If he gets off calling you "slut" but you don't? Ask him to stop. If he wants to throw your legs back and pound you but it hurts? Ask him to stop. He's not a bad person for wanting these things; he's only a dick if you ask him to stop and he doesn't, and you shouldn't be fucking a man who doesn't care about your feelings. But if you do like and want those things, neither you nor your partner should have to feel like you're dirty or wrong for it.

My foremost experience of this was the time I once got into it with a female acquaintance about what she called "pornocratic sexuality." She was extremely sensitive to the notion that pornographic standards are unfairly applied to women, feeling like women became obligated to do things they didn't want to in order to be attractive to the unrealistic preferences of their men. One of the thigns she cited as an example was shaving one's pubic hair, declaring it infantalizing, unreasonable, and denigrating to the nature of the female body. My response was that this was an over-generalization; why couldn't a woman actively prefer herself that way; why would it have to just be to please a man? "That never happens," she declared, and I started to get irritated. So I told her that I shaved everything below the waste, and I'd been doing so for years. Now this isn't something I should bring up often, but I'm certainly not ashamed of it. She basically said I was pandering to a misogynistic pornographic ideal, which demonstrated how insidiously the "pornocracy" influenced us that I could be affected that way and not even know it. That really offended me. Like I couldn't possibly simply happen to like myself better this way? The blunt fact of the matter is I think bush is kind of unattractive on a girl and I feel much sexier without it. I understand the notion of how that kind of thinking can lead women to seeing their bodies as unacceptable and disgusting for being something that is completely normal, which of course is extremely unhealthy and dangerous. But I do it because I want to. This isn't about pleasing the porn-addled expectations of a man, though I won't lie and say I'm not pleased when it does. If you don't want to shave, then by God you shouldn't. I don't think anyone should have to do anything so trivial if they don't want to. But this is something that makes me feel good about myself, and nobody gets to tell me I'm unfeminist for doing what I want to do with my own body.

Also? If a guy honestly thinks, "Well, I like you just the way you are, but I'd probably like you better without a bush"? There's nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean he finds you unattractive, or that he doesn't respect you. It's just the way things are. I'm sure you like him the way he is even you might like him a little better if he had rock-hard abs. It doesn't mean he's a misogynist monster, and it doesn't mean that you're not a sexy woman.

I've also heard this tied into the idea that porn creates unrealistic concepts of sex in the minds of the viewers. This one makes me roll my eyes, because this is overwhelmingly the problem of the viewer, not the material they're viewing. You should learn at a very young age that you can't believe everything you see on television, from how wrestling is fake to that models are airbrushed to the fact that it usually takes a little more than a good jackhammering to get a girl to come. Again, not to say that nobody ever does this, and that it's not incredibly stupid-- Christ knows I get irritated at people with the assumption that with every chick is two drinks away from a makeout session with her girl friend over there --but a guy is a moron if he gets his ideas about life from porno. I think there's a little bit of that old idea at work here again that only maladjusted bozos that can't get laid look at porn, which I guess I can understand if the bozo at hand has never had any actual sex, but again, normal people use the stuff too, and I believe it isn't too much to ask from humanity as a whole to know how to distinguish fantasy from reality.

See, I think a lot of this comes down to the fact that for me, porn for me is fantasy. It's indulging in a little make-believe sexual scenario and using it to get off when you masturbate. I don't think it's wrong for people in relationships to use porn, probably because it's not real. It's the same as indulging in a little sexual fantasy in your head of something you're not actually going to do. I'm never ever going to make out with another girl, so if that's what he wants to see, well, there's porn for that. Chances are my boyfriend isn't going to have the flawlessly cut abs that I love so very, very much. Does it make me a bad person for enjoying said abs? No, it does not. For that I'll go to porn. It's not that the people in the relationships are unsatisfied with each other. It's just masturbation, which everyone does and in the right moderation is perfectly healthy. If he stops fucking you and only uses porn, well, he's got a much bigger problem than liking girls with big racks, the same way he would with any addiction. So many of the problems people associate with porn I believe are not inherent to it, but come from the misuse of it, or the way it makes people express issues that they have.

So, my conclusions-- I do not find porn inherently degrading to women, or to men for that matter. The decision to make porn is a choice. I do not believe it is acceptable to look down on those who make the porn you use. I believe that men can use porn and completely respect women at the same time, and if they do not, the problem most likely lies within the man and is not the result of porn use. I believe it is up to the individual to determine what sort of sexuality is acceptable to them, and it is not anyone else's place to make that judgment. Porn is fantasy and the indulgence of the desire to get off.

So that, in probably way too much detail and far too many words, is how I feel on the subject of porn. Again, maybe I'm giving too much credit here, (such credit as that is) but I tend to think the complete thought process on the issue from beginning to end is, "That girl is hot. I want to see her naked and have an orgasm." I know that's my thought process. Only for me it's a guy. :-)

Kissing rehearsal

Had my first kissing rehearsal for Romeo and Juliet last night. I feel like it's important to the character and scene, so I definitely want it to happen, but I confess, the idea of kissing girls creeps me out. Other people can do what they want, but when it comes to myself, I am a big sucky homophobe-baby and I'm not ashamed to admit it. So this is something I had slightly worked myself up about. Of course, when there's something I'm afraid I'm going to puss out on, I really want to do it to prove I can get it done. The first time we went through it my nerves were making me fuck up my lines and do stupid nervous-tic things like shifting my weight and tucking my hair, and I was really irritated with myself. So I asked Elana if I could do it again, and that time I really concentrated on giving a good performance and not dwelling on my icky feeling. It wasn't so bad, I guess, but it goes to further solidify my lack of understanding of the appeal of bisexuality.

A number of people I know recently decided they were bisexual, and apparently many of the mostly or nominally straight girls I know can get into the idea of other girls. I... don't get it. For me, the idea of touching or kissing a person of my own gender is, well, creepy. I guess it's a matter of "you don't really get it unless you feel it yourself," but whenever I hear about girls talking about attraction to other girls, I can't help but feel like, "But... doesn't the ick factor get in the way? Oh... you don't... have that? Oh." It's not that I can't find girls beautiful, or enjoy looking at them-- Christ, quite the opposite. But when it goes from looking to touching, the little bells go off and a part of me is just grossed out.

If that's your thing, Godspeed, of course, but for me... ew.