pornography: ugly enough, but only the tip of the iceberg
george spelvin
One of my main gripes about pornography is that it tells the viewer or reader lies which he wants to hear - chiefly that women are eager to jump in bed with the viewer or reader and ask nothing in return in terms of relationships; in other words, female heterosexuality is simply the flipside of male heterosexuality.
I have similar objections to soap operas and drug store novels. They tell the female viewer or reader that if the smile pretty enough, a knight on a galloping white horse will come and bestow the viewer or reader with a relationship and ask nothing in return; in other words, male heterosexuality is simply the flipside of female heterosexuality.
Furthermore, I have similar objections to parental drives being similarly exploited. The Fifties sitcoms told parents that children hallow the ground they walk on. The dime store prints of bug-eyed urchins tell the viewer that there are millions of submissive and innocent little darlings waiting to be rescued, and that these pitiful waifs will behave perfectly in return.
This is not a mere academic problem. Media lies affect our daily lives. Husbands ask their wives, “Why can’t you pose in black lace nighties for me like the centerfold girl?” Wives ask their husbands, “Why can’t you meet my every need like the hero in the Harlequin Romance?” Parents ask their children, “Why can’t you say, ‘Gee, dad,’ like Beaver Cleaver?”
The answer to these questions is very simple: the centerfold girl, the Harlequin hero, and Beaver Cleaver don’t exist.
