This is a comment by wellokaythen on the post “10 Things I Wish Someone Had Told Me About Porn“.
“Here’s another piece of writing on the GMP that I largely agree with and that I think is extremely necessary. My only issues are with some minor language points that I think overstate the case just a little bit.
“Not all bodies are actually beautiful, certainly not equally beautiful. Any body CAN be beautiful, and no matter what body you have there is probably someone out there who can find it sexy. Same with pubic hair. Not all pubic hair is equally attractive. It’s a nice sentiment, the idea that everyone is beautiful in a unique way, but realistically that’s not quite true.
“Also, there’s already too much equating of sex with penetration. Penetration is not the be-all and end-all of sex, and it’s certainly not universal in porn anyway. (Leaving aside the fact that ‘penetration’ is a very one-sided view of sexuality in the first place. When it comes to intercourse or fellatio, one could just as easily say ‘envelopment’ as ‘penetration.’ If I eat a corndog, I don’t say the corndog is penetrating me.)
“One problem with the prevalence of porn today is that it exists in a society that is otherwise repressed about nudity. For many young men, porn is not only their main source of information about sex, it’s also the only way they ever see any nudity besides their own. As you point out, it’s a distorted look not just at sex but at what most people actually look like.”
Photo credit: Flickr / IntangibleArts
I think we need to be just as careful not to reverse the hierarchy and call the act “envelopment”. Both “penetration” and “envelopment” presuppose a hierarchical subject-object dichotomy. A better and more mutualistic language could be in terms of a “sharing” of the body.
I think we need to be just as careful not to reverse the hierarchy and call the act “envelopment”. Both presuppose a hierarchical subject-object dichotomy.