Newspapers / Lambda (Carolina Gay and … / June 1, 2004, edition 1 / Page 18
Part of Lambda (Carolina Gay and Lesbian Association, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) / About this page
This page has errors
The date, title, or page description is wrong
This page has harmful content
This page contains sensitive or offensive material
OPINION LAMBDA - Volume XXVII - Issue 2 Problems with Playboy **I>oes this mean pornography causes rape?** No. If pornogra phy were abol ished tomorrow, rapes would still happen. A guest writer answers questions about porn in light of Playboy's UNC visit By Matthew Ez2ell In November 1998, Playboy released its month ly magazine. The cover model was a blond woman dressed as a cheerleader with a low-cut top next to a description of the magazine as a “Hot, Hot, Col lege Issue” on her right and the title of the spread “Girls of the ACC” on her left. All of this was un der the title and subtitle, “Playboy: Entertainment for Men.” On March, The Daily Tar Heel ran an adver tisement that started, “Attention female smdent body.” It was an advertisement for Playboy’s new est “Girls of the ACC” pictorial. On April 5-6, Playboy staff came to interview UNC female stu dents as potential models. This is a problem. What’s the deal? First, let me say what the deal isn’t - it isn’t a call for censorship and it isn’t a call to take away these women’s right to audition. It isn’t about being all in a tizzy because our sensibili ties are offended or our feelings hurt. What it is, however, is a call to discuss how pornography is harmful. What I’m about to say (in very few words) is a critique of mainstream heterosexual pornography. This critique is informed by a radical feminist per spective and the foundational work of feminists throughout the last three decades. Pornography is harmful. What does that mean? Consider this: Playboy is an enterprise that sells images of women’s bodies as “Entertainment for Men.” It’s not rocket science: the magazine func tions as a facilitator for men’s masturbation and sexual pleasure. When a man uses the images in these ways, the woman who is represented in the picture is ren dered a mirror for his desire. This is sexual ob jectification. It dehumanizes the real women that are used in pornography’s production, and it rein forces the dehumanization of all the other women who arc walking around on this planet. Playboy’s spokespersons are clear on this: “You never know if the girl sitting next to you in Biology 101 could be Playboy material.” In Playboy’s world, women everywhere are available for heterosexual men’s pleasure. When a group of people is seen as less than human, it is easier to commit acts of systemic violence against them. We see this in war, slavery and hate-crimes. We see this in heterosexual men’s co-optation of woman-woman sex for their own sexual gratification. We see this in men’s violence I against women. | “Does this mean pornography causes rape?” I No. If pornography were abolished tomorrow, rapes would still happen. However, in a world in | which our cultural landscape is saturated with im- j ages of women as sexual objects, as things, and as | body parts, it is more likely that acts of violence | will be perpetrated against them. Pornography ] doesn’t cause rape, but it is implicated in rape. 1 “But isn’t pornography really about sexual ex- j pression?” Not really. These images and videos are ^ part of an industry that, not including revenues ] from the Internet, has earnings of an estimated j $56 billion a year. Playboy’s online ventures alone j are expected to top $70 billion a year by 2006. In that sense, these pictures and movies are afl industrial product that are churned out over and over, reinforcing the same limited notion of what it means to be sexual. It’s a patriarchal script that; revolves around submission, domination and hi-^ erarchy. While it can feel rebellious because it’s “dirty,” it’s not close to revolutionary in that it’s a basic re-telling of the status quo. “But if the models and actors like it, that’s all that matters, right?” Not totally. We don’t live in a vacuum. Individualism neglects that we are inter connected. It neglects that our actions affect oth-^ ^ ers. Even if a woman who poses for Playboy feels ■ ^ great about her decision (although it’s telling that; the women interviewed in local press didn’t to give their last names, despite the fact that im ages of their bodies could be re-produced millions ^ of times over for men to look at and masturbate)) «« we have to ask the question: What are the conse quences of this for women as a group} “Does it hurt men, too?” Yes, but not in tb« same ways. Largely through our choice to consum^ it, I believe that mainstream heterosexual pornog raphy limits our ability to connect with women an^ other men by conditioning us to see other human^ as means to an end, instead of as ends in and themselves. In short: Patriarchal sex is about what is doo^ to, not mth, another body. We can all be more cf^ ative and expressive than that. 0 C( a, d re is I SI Guest writer Matthew Es^ll, a sociology gra^h ate student from Clinton, N.C., can be contacted ^ lambda@,unc. edu.
Lambda (Carolina Gay and Lesbian Association, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)
Standardized title groups preceding, succeeding, and alternate titles together.
June 1, 2004, edition 1
18
Click "Submit" to request a review of this page. NCDHC staff will check .
0 / 75