![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drydemI would agree and go further(I am coming a little late to this discussion). If you look at the way in which gendered sexuality is constructed in our society, there is a definite split in terms of who is a socially permissible object of a desiring gaze. In a simple fashion, those who gaze on male bodies are classified as deviant, while those who gaze on female bodies are normal.
Let me first explain the way I am using the term of gaze. According to Lacanian examinations of human desires, humans tend to objectify others, conceiving of them as desirable. This process occurs through the classification of an individual as categorically desirable, in other words, the creation of imaginary heirarchies of desirability where one group is desirable(object) and one group is undesirable(abject). The gaze is the classifying act of scopophilia, in which an individual examines others with the intention or result of classifying the individual into a desired group. Society has attempted to regulate the gaze historically and in the present.
One of the ways in which Society has attempted to regulate the gaze in recent times is through the use of gendered clothing norms. In the early 19th century, male clothing began to shift in style. While before this period male clothing had been just as variable as female clothing and involved the highlighting of bodily features of individual males, in the mid 1800s things began to shift towards standardization and gender differentiation in clothing. It was during this period that the suit as we know it came into common use. It was also during this period that the corset reached a peak of usage. The sack suit, as the standard suit was then known, has an interesting effect of erasing bodily features. In a suit, it is difficult to make out any details of an individual males body. the corset, on the other hand, has the effect of enhancing bodily features. In a corset, an individual female body becomes a standardized female body. This move in clothing, which corresponded with increased industrialization, was important in the classification of male and female bodies. The only emphasized physical characteristic of the suited male is the shoulders, thus emphasizing manual labor, while the emphasized physical characteristics of the corseted female are the highly culturally sexualized hips and breasts. Thus, the male body is characterized as strong while the female is characterized as sexually desirable. This norm is perpetuated in modern culture, where men are valued for strength, and women for beauty.
The exception to this male bodily erasure is the penis. We are a penis worshipping culture. The penis is an object of sexual desire, though men are trained extensively to only desire their own penises. All desire for male bodies is focused into the object of the penis as the key marker of masculinity. This is why Freud found the penis to be so important to the psychology of the victorian european. This is also why Lacan equated women to the phallus, in that they are culturally constructed objects of desire.
So, how does this define those that desire the male body as deviant? Well, there is a distinctive division between those that desire the male body and those that desire the female body. Let's examine the portrayal of individuals who desire male bodies. First, there are whores. I use this term to indicate the madonnna/whore split in views of women. A woman who expresses desire for male bodies, especially in terms of acting on said desire, is abnormal and socially dangerous. Second, there are gay men. Men who express desire for male bodies are constructed as deviant. This is especially present in the differentiation between being a bottom and being a top in homosexual behavior. Men who top are less deviant(in society's view), in that they could still be seen to be loving their own penis, expressing desire rather than evoking it.
So, if you look at it, those who ignore the bodily erasure of the male body by desiring it are constructed as deviant.
So, where does the lesbian fit into this? This is the societally interesting thing to me. What happens with lesbianism is the differentiation between social desires and sexual desires. Especially in our modern internet culture of fetishized lesbianism, the deviance of lesbianism is moved from the desire for the body to the repudiation of social norms.
In other words, lesbian physical acts are safe, while lesbian social acts are dangerous. Example wise, girls kissing at a party-hot, girls getting married to each other-dangerous, girls experimenting in college-hot, girls having girlfriends instead of boyfriends-dangerous. It is thus the socially performative acts that are dangerous more than the physical acts. Women are permitted to desire women's bodies, but must desire men's social power.
In the end, society is deeply invested in the maintenance of women as a category. This links well with the male priviledge checklist. Women in the public sphere are constantly forced to act for their entire gender while men have no such pressure. This is maintained by the social construction of women as objectifiable bodies, through the enforcement of clothing norms, the association of women's behavior with their bodily processes(the demonization of PMS) and the deviantizing of female desire.
Let me first explain the way I am using the term of gaze. According to Lacanian examinations of human desires, humans tend to objectify others, conceiving of them as desirable. This process occurs through the classification of an individual as categorically desirable, in other words, the creation of imaginary heirarchies of desirability where one group is desirable(object) and one group is undesirable(abject). The gaze is the classifying act of scopophilia, in which an individual examines others with the intention or result of classifying the individual into a desired group. Society has attempted to regulate the gaze historically and in the present.
One of the ways in which Society has attempted to regulate the gaze in recent times is through the use of gendered clothing norms. In the early 19th century, male clothing began to shift in style. While before this period male clothing had been just as variable as female clothing and involved the highlighting of bodily features of individual males, in the mid 1800s things began to shift towards standardization and gender differentiation in clothing. It was during this period that the suit as we know it came into common use. It was also during this period that the corset reached a peak of usage. The sack suit, as the standard suit was then known, has an interesting effect of erasing bodily features. In a suit, it is difficult to make out any details of an individual males body. the corset, on the other hand, has the effect of enhancing bodily features. In a corset, an individual female body becomes a standardized female body. This move in clothing, which corresponded with increased industrialization, was important in the classification of male and female bodies. The only emphasized physical characteristic of the suited male is the shoulders, thus emphasizing manual labor, while the emphasized physical characteristics of the corseted female are the highly culturally sexualized hips and breasts. Thus, the male body is characterized as strong while the female is characterized as sexually desirable. This norm is perpetuated in modern culture, where men are valued for strength, and women for beauty.
The exception to this male bodily erasure is the penis. We are a penis worshipping culture. The penis is an object of sexual desire, though men are trained extensively to only desire their own penises. All desire for male bodies is focused into the object of the penis as the key marker of masculinity. This is why Freud found the penis to be so important to the psychology of the victorian european. This is also why Lacan equated women to the phallus, in that they are culturally constructed objects of desire.
So, how does this define those that desire the male body as deviant? Well, there is a distinctive division between those that desire the male body and those that desire the female body. Let's examine the portrayal of individuals who desire male bodies. First, there are whores. I use this term to indicate the madonnna/whore split in views of women. A woman who expresses desire for male bodies, especially in terms of acting on said desire, is abnormal and socially dangerous. Second, there are gay men. Men who express desire for male bodies are constructed as deviant. This is especially present in the differentiation between being a bottom and being a top in homosexual behavior. Men who top are less deviant(in society's view), in that they could still be seen to be loving their own penis, expressing desire rather than evoking it.
So, if you look at it, those who ignore the bodily erasure of the male body by desiring it are constructed as deviant.
So, where does the lesbian fit into this? This is the societally interesting thing to me. What happens with lesbianism is the differentiation between social desires and sexual desires. Especially in our modern internet culture of fetishized lesbianism, the deviance of lesbianism is moved from the desire for the body to the repudiation of social norms.
In other words, lesbian physical acts are safe, while lesbian social acts are dangerous. Example wise, girls kissing at a party-hot, girls getting married to each other-dangerous, girls experimenting in college-hot, girls having girlfriends instead of boyfriends-dangerous. It is thus the socially performative acts that are dangerous more than the physical acts. Women are permitted to desire women's bodies, but must desire men's social power.
In the end, society is deeply invested in the maintenance of women as a category. This links well with the male priviledge checklist. Women in the public sphere are constantly forced to act for their entire gender while men have no such pressure. This is maintained by the social construction of women as objectifiable bodies, through the enforcement of clothing norms, the association of women's behavior with their bodily processes(the demonization of PMS) and the deviantizing of female desire.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 08:24 pm (UTC)Perhaps it is true that a woman looking upon a man in a lusty manner is considered culturally deviant but there seems to be a few phenomenons that this theory does not address sufficiently:
First, anyone who has taken a single advertising research class will tell you that, particularly in the magazine industry (which is considered to be on par with television for advertising importance), male-body-based-sex advertising is nearly as common as female-body-based-sex advertising and has been rising rapidly. It is just as acceptable, and useful, to market using half naked men as it is to market using half naked women. Also, to digress for a moment from the point of your theory, these "men" are just as far from actual men as the women portrayed in advertising are from actual women. These men are hairless, have unreasonable body proportions and are just as air brushed (this portrayal is really no less damaging to male ego than their female counterparts are to the female ego). This last part is not directly related to your theory, but needs to be said anyway.
The second phenomenon is the matter of the sexual harassment lawsuit. Perhaps a woman staring at a man's body is in fact considered more socially deviant....but this act has almost no chance of being punishable in a legal manner. On the other hand, a misplaced lusty glance can bring a male's life to a virtual end. Not only could they be sued for large amounts of money but they can also be reprimanded, fired or even disbarred and black listed. I have met someone who was a doctor...a DOCTOR.. someone who could heal or save dozens of people forever lose the chance to do so because he looked the wrong way at a woman (and I do not mean coerced into sex or touched or anything like that....just looked) the wrong way. I would therefore argue that our society does in fact find the male lusty glance to be quite deviate....to the point of severely punishing some who employ it; whereas the female one, while perhaps frowned upon, can hardly be punished in the same way.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 08:36 pm (UTC)1. advertising men's bodies. Right now, there is a preponderence of sexualized male bodies in advertising. However, the emphasized aspects of the male body in these cases are muscles and packages. Look at the earliest examples of this, Calvin Klein underwear ads. The focus is the penis, and then the musculature of the model. The male body is photographically dismembered and presented in sexualized parts.
2. sexual harrasment. this is one of the current battlegrounds of this issue. While I would say that there is a chance for redoing the argument through the deployment of sexual harrasment discourse, this is still in dispute. look at the way that the media treats the suing women, like they did Anita Hill. These women are villainized for rejecting being objectified. I think that sexual harrassment is one of the places where this issue can potentially be suitably problematized, but right now, things are very complicated.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 09:29 pm (UTC)I don't think that's universally true. It is certainly sometimes the case but heroine-sheik (sp?), boy-bands and all manner of bishounen emphasizes skinny effeminate males and uses them for advertising. Let's not even begin on how that entails the destruction of the male figure all together, rather than posing some unreasonable ideal: that is a threat that not even women have really faced extensively throughout their very persecuted history: Society wants disdains your very gender and wants you to look more like the other one. Again, I digress; this is a very touchy subject that I think is not really discussed much.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 09:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 08:40 pm (UTC)I don't think it's the desire for male bodies itself that's demonized for women as much as acting upon that desire outside of a relationship. Men are expected to desire women, and if they act on that desire, they're just being men; women, on the other hand, are expected to be a lot less sexually driven, at least in terms of their actions.
no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 08:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-14 08:53 pm (UTC)On the other hand, as phallocentric as our culture is, women don't seem to be expected to have that desire based on the phallus itself; namely, it's not as sexual a desire somehow. Women are expected to have sex with their partners more out of a desire of intimacy and to please them than out of their own sexual desires, I think. This isn't true in all circles, certainly, but I think it is true of society at large.