Additionally, I don’t think you can make any kind of art or media without, to some degree at least, objectifying the artistic subjects and creating your own narrative and interpretation of those subjects. To to say pornography is “objectifying” is, in itself, as much of a non-statement as saying its “visual” or “written”. Yes? And?BUT, that does not mean I cease to realize that the model I’m being turned on by is a full human being, with their own life and thoughts outside of what they do in porn. That seems self-evident to me.
You groked what I was trying to say and re-wrote the underlying idea far more eloquently than I could.
I think a person must be of an uncommonly low denominator not to innately realize that all people with bodies have an internal self that is worth empathizing with. I’d think if one didn’t automatically assume this, one would have serious cognitive deficits that could be labeled as a personality disorder.
And yet, some people who tend to get very in their head about social relationships assume that the world is one big social construct, and that noticing anything physical is a sin against the purity and primacy of good thought. As you said, a glorfied version of “it’s what’s on the inside that really counts”.
I’d sincerely love to know what evidence you think you have that most people are predisposed to respond to sexual dominance. Until you remove all, or most, of the patriarchal cues that support dominance and submission in relationships from society I fail to see how this is a testable hypothesis.
Firstly, people are animals, and all animals show patterns of social organization, and patterns of sexual activity. Lions have a social hierarchy of a tribe dominated by a female, I think. When they have sex there is a lot of biting and growling. If you saw badgers go at it you might think to report rape to the badger police.
Here is a quote from some some smart folks on this subject:
RU: If you acknowledge that every other living animal group has certain inherent forms of social organization, it’s fundamentally absurd to say, “Well no, human beings don’t.” And certain people on the left remind me of fundamentalist Christians. It’s kind of a denial of evolution. They’re not denying Darwin, but they’re denying something that is a logical extension of Darwin.
JQ: Right. And the sort-of social science academics on the left are the only ones who have a problem with this stuff. When I speak in front of most women, they’re trying to understand their husband and they’re all over it. They want to understand why does he do the things he does; why does he communicate the way he does? People on the street assume that there’s something fundamentally different about men and women.
RU: What happens with people in the process of a sex change — like a guy who’s taking a lot of estrogen and that sort of thing? Have you looked into that?
JQ: Sure, I’m fascinated with that stuff. If a woman gets a sex change operation, and she starts taking injections of testosterone, different genes that are suppressed are turned on in her, and she finds herself feeling more aggressive; she finds it harder to cry; she finds it easier to get angry; and she can’t get sex out of her mind. I talked to one woman who was in the midst of this process, and she said, “God, I suddenly understand how guys feel.”
Again, not everything has a social basis. You can’t extricate out the social elements, but that doesn’t mean they are primary.