I need to save Flavia's post

[gryphonsegg]

. . . so I can link to the next time I feel pressed to explain why I'm a lot more cautious about het, especially explicit het, than I am about equally explicit slash or femslash. Well, there are several reasons for that, but this is a big one that I've had trouble articulating and/or simply been reluctant/embarrassed to articulate in the past. Basically, Flavia Dzodan in this post points out that current Western social norms construct heterosexual sex as something that women do for men and men do for themselves. Note: linked post and comments contain explicit verbal discussion of sex; no pics.



She's saying something in a fairly short and succinct post that I've stumbled over expressing for years. I've danced around the issue before, in the form of "Even though the book/fic isn't officially about BDSM, I still feel like there's too much male dominance and female submission in some way I can't put my finger on" and "I guess I just have an aversion to that specific sexual act . . . but it doesn't bother me when it's two guys instead of a guy and a girl . . . Is this my internalized misogyny coming out in the form of slut-shaming? But I don't feel hostile to the girl in this story, I just feel sad for her." It also figures into some of the ickiness I've felt when reading discussions at allegedly sex-positive feminist sites, see my frequent cry of "No, I DON'T think it's right for women to be shamed for doing sexual things they enjoy, but I also don't think it's right for women to be shamed for not doing sexual things they don't enjoy, and I don't agree with the presumption that a certain amount of sex or a certain kind of sex is obligatory compensation for the poor, heroic guy who accepts the burden of spending time with his wife/girlfriend." Even in venues that are supposedly for women (feminist websites, books marketed to women, majority-female fan communities), there are still these underlying assumptions that heterosexual sex is primarily for the man's benefit and that in any heterosexual relationship the woman is always (at least) one down and needs to work for the man's approval, affection, and loyalty, while he is simply entitled to hers. (There are non-sexual versions of the latter point too, but those are beyond the scope of this post, although I might write about them later). And that bothers me so much that I'd rather not deal with it at all, even if "not dealing with it" means completely avoiding het romance that hasn't been labeled for a fairly young audience or vetted by a reviewer I trust.

Comments

[holyschist]

The weird thing about this whole issue is that I find myself unable to read or write about male dom/female sub or anything even touching on that area even thought to some degree I'll go there in real life; and I'd rather read about things that bore me in real life (e.g. that cunnilingus feminism tells me all women are supposed to love as an end in itself) if they're written about well than some things I quite enjoy in real life.

...but on the other hand, I'm really hesitant to dismiss all porn that includes someone getting turned on by giving someone else pleasure (especially if the giver is a woman) as "penis-centric" and unrealistic (especially since the same article criticizes trad romance novels--which IMO have a lot of the woman sitting back and receiving pleasure, and very little of the men doing so. Actually, I can't think of a romance novel I've read recently where the man came from anything other than PIV, but the women coming from fingering or oral has become standard even in historicals. BJs in romance novels tend to last about two minutes before the man Cannot Cope With the Sensation Anymore and has to go back to pleasuring the woman)--and I'm not sure that pleasure is typically given by one and received by the other rather than two-way.

I am also not sure that the hinky assumptions don't show up in fem/slash too, although in different ways (and I think m/m slash in particular often comes with its own baggage).

(Also I would very much like more porn where no one climaxes at all. Porn written for women has Obligatory Orgasms for the women, and I realize that as a feminist I am supposed to think this is great and fair, but as an actual person who doesn't think orgasm is the point of sex, it drives me up the wall. I actually really kind of feel like a lot of feminists think there is One True Way to have sex and if you like sex a different way you need some feminist enlightening, and it drives me up the wall.)

[gryphonsegg]

I'm really hesitant to dismiss all porn that includes someone getting turned on by giving someone else pleasure (especially if the giver is a woman) as "penis-centric" and unrealistic

*nods* Well, yeah, it's not the fact that it exists, it's the fact that it's such a big proportion of what exists.

Actually, I can't think of a romance novel I've read recently where the man came from anything other than PIV, but the women coming from fingering or oral has become standard even in historicals.

Huh. That is very different from, well, all the novels with descriptions of sex that I've read in the past few years. Of course, I tend to bounce off genre romance pretty hard for other reasons, so my sample pool doesn't include many of those. Maybe the romances Flavia read were older and/or in different categories. Or maybe she's using "romance" as shorthand for "books that have prominent romance subplots," and that's getting conflated with the romance genre proper, which is a different thing entirely. The trend she's criticizing is very much the norm in recently published non-YA SF, alt history, secondary world fantasy, and what urban fantasy I've read.

I am also not sure that the hinky assumptions don't show up in fem/slash too, although in different ways (and I think m/m slash in particular often comes with its own baggage)

Oh, I am QUITE certain that equally hinky assumptions show in slash and femslash all the time! I hope I didn't imply that I think they're free of such problems, or even free of assumptions about gender roles. It's just that the specific ways in which the conventions of fem/slash are problematic are easier for me to tolerate or overlook than the specific ways in which the conventions of het are problematic.

Part of it is that I think of sexuality in a rather abstract way and tend to view het fiction as being about gender roles just as much as it's about individual characters or kinks that just happen to belong to characters of different sexes. In a less patriarchal and heteronormative society, I would definitely be wrong to get stuck in that kind of thought pattern. But in a less patriarchal and heteronormative society, the pattern might not ever occur to me in the first place.

I actually really kind of feel like a lot of feminists think there is One True Way to have sex and if you like sex a different way you need some feminist enlightening, and it drives me up the wall

I agree with this. I wish there were more acknowledgement of and less prescriptivism about variation among women and other non-men. I'm tired of the feminists who get most of the attention playing into same old game of "Women are-- or should be-- exactly like THIS, and departure from this model mean you are being you wrong!"

[holyschist]

Well, yeah, it's not the fact that it exists, it's the fact that it's such a big proportion of what exists.

No, I know, but I don't think "penis-centric" and "focusing on giving pleasure" are the same thing, and I'm not sure the former is as easy to define as Flavia's post suggests.

Of course, I tend to bounce off genre romance pretty hard for other reasons, so my sample pool doesn't include many of those.

I probably share those reasons; I am not sure why I still read it. (And it does, to be fair, place a lot of emphasis on PIV sex and the man being Manly. But I think it's done in a female fantasy way rather than a male fantasy way--the difference being that the hero and his penis are all Manly for the benefit and enjoyment of the Heroine. It's a fantasy that's tied up pretty tightly in traditional gender roles, but I still wouldn't conflate it with, say, mainstream video porn.)

r maybe she's using "romance" as shorthand for "books that have prominent romance subplots," and that's getting conflated with the romance genre proper, which is a different thing entirely. The trend she's criticizing is very much the norm in recently published non-YA SF, alt history, secondary world fantasy, and what urban fantasy I've read.

Wouldn't surprise me! I haven't read much UF recently since I bounced off it so hard, and I tend to read SFF that doesn't have much explicit sex or primary romance plots.

I hope I didn't imply that I think they're free of such problems, or even free of assumptions about gender roles. It's just that the specific ways in which the conventions of fem/slash are problematic are easier for me to tolerate or overlook than the specific ways in which the conventions of het are problematic.

Not at all! I'm just thinking (incoherently) out loud. And I know what you mean, mostly.

Part of it is that I think of sexuality in a rather abstract way and tend to view het fiction as being about gender roles just as much as it's about individual characters or kinks that just happen to belong to characters of different sexes. In a less patriarchal and heteronormative society, I would definitely be wrong to get stuck in that kind of thought pattern. But in a less patriarchal and heteronormative society, the pattern might not ever occur to me in the first place.

*nods* I think where I come down at this point is that if sexually explicit fiction is meant as commentary on gender dynamics, it doesn't really matter what kinks or interests or dynamics are present as long as they're presented thoughtfully and carefully (and this is why I am willing to do things in certain contexts after much discussion that I'm uncomfortable reading about 95% of the time--because how they're written about doesn't often convey the thought process I need to not be squicked).

But if the purpose of sexually explicit fiction is to get people off, it's going to say something about gender dynamics whether intended or not, but neither the author nor the readers are likely to be interested in having conscious social commentary interfere with the experience they're going for. And saying "well, the preponderance of Manly Men Are Dominant is problematic" is just going to make them go "...but Manly Men Are Dominant gets me off! Do you want me to not have orgasms?" And then everyone's talking past each other.

I...am not sure what the solution is. I'd definitely like to see more variety, and more consciously thoughtful porn. But I gather that reading porn for social commentary primarily is really unusual, and the majority of porn readers and writers are both a) going to be reading/writing porn for primarily sexual purposes, and b) are statistically likely to have more common mainstream interests. So I'm not sure that just creating more variety would do much, but I also don't think that trying to convince people Manly Men Are Dominant or PIV sex isn't hot is likely to gain much traction. (I do not think you are trying to suggest this; I think some of the commenters over at Tiger Beatdown may be.)

[gryphonsegg]

I gather that reading porn for social commentary primarily is really unusual . . .

XD Maybe I should add the "LOL INTP!" tag.

One of the issues I have in this area is that it's not just porn per se but porn-like tropes creeping into stuff that isn't written or meant to be read primarily for sexual purposes. Like, a larger story about going on a quest or solving a mystery has a romance subplot or a major character who is written as very sexually active and so has a couple of sex scenes and some sexual references/jokes/innuendos included, and all the characters seem to be assuming that the kind of sex Flavia describes is the only way to do it.

[holyschist]

Haha, last I checked I was a borderline INTJ/INFP.

And yeah--I don't think I'd frame it as solely porn-like tropes, because what really stands out to me is the assumptions about het romance in YA, where sex rarely comes into it even semi-explicitly. (And good god, for all its flaws, the fact that so many fans flipped their shit over Katsa in Graceling not wanting to get married just boggles my mind...and makes me very glad it exists just so there's one YA book out there that says "it's okay not to want to get married.")

*sigh*

[gryphonsegg]

Right, porn-like tropes certainly aren't the only problem afoot, and all the different problems are connected. I was deliberately focusing on portrayals of at least three-quarters-explicit sex because it so often has been the sex itself that threw me out of het fic where I liked the pairing otherwise.

In most YA, as in all the genre romance I've tried, I don't like the pairing at all to begin with. Basically, I hate the typical male love interest personality type. I haven't yet pinned down exactly why, but it makes not finish the very romance-centric books and read around the romance, so to speak, in most of the others.

I never paid attention to that fandom, but I can imagine. It probably ties into this tendency I've observed in other young-skewing fandoms to conflate "gets married at the end" with "has a happy ending." For example, Harry Potter and Avatar are kind of notorious for having a lot of fans who flipped their shit over the main characters marrying people the fans thought they shouldn't, but both of those fandoms also had some people flipping their shit over their favorite supporting character not getting a definitive pairing at the end of the series because that was taken to be evidence of the writer(s) disapproving of the favored character and marking them out as not good enough to deserve to get married.