So I’m in Eugene, Oregon – home of the Mighty Ducks! – at a conference on pregnancy, childbirth, and mothering seen through a philosophical lens. As a historian, I’m a not-so-mighty duck out of water, but the actual philosophers are turning out to be warm, welcoming, and very very smart. I attended an absolutely fabulous session this afternoon on the trouble with birth plans, but I’m too tired to write about it.
And so, instead, you get a report on what I found on my motel room TV when I flipped through the channels: soft-core porn on HBO Plus. This was a free feature, not blocked by a TV nanny filter. Not sure what the “Plus” stands for, but I think it had to do with the breasts of the hostess. They were at least ten times the volume of your average B cup, and they had the curious feature of not moving when she danced. So maybe it’s plus-sized boobs. Or just “plus” silicone. At any rate, their immobility was an interesting physics experiment.
But what struck me was the prudishness of it all! Here’s this exotic dancer, alternately romancing the pole and “educating” the audience about sex techniques in a faux little-girl voice. Her topic was how to give a blow job, and boy did she offer some advanced techniques. Swirl your tongue! Stroke his balls! And watch those teeth – OMG!
She was fully nekkid. The recipient of her ministrations? A cheap-looking “realistic” plastic dildo. I’ve seen rubber chickens that were more alluring.
So HBO Plus can show full-frontal female nudity. But heaven forbid the audience be offended by actual boy parts made of flesh, attached to an actual man. The assumptions about who wants to look at what (no pix for the gals, fake boobs for the boys) would boggle even if I hadn’t woken up at 4 a.m. (Darn jet lag!) I’m not quite convinced that figleaf’s Two Rules of Desire capture everything important about heterosexuality, but they fit very neatly here:
#1: It is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a woman to have sexual desire.
#2: It is simultaneously inconceivable and intolerable for a man to be sexually desired.
To #1: Our HBO hostess announces – on the “spit or swallow” question – neither, because she has issues with texture. It’s very interesting to see a naked, sexualized woman get all prissy about eating yogurt (which she apparently loathes too).
To #2: Nothing against dildos, but when they’re standing in for real men because women’s nudity is sought but men’s is taboo? Well, I guess that’s one way to damp down women’s desires.
Patron cat of Kittywampus (1985-2001)
I don’t think the Two Rules of Desire capture everything about heterosexuality either. Just all the major dysfunctions.
I just think they’re two major forces — sort of like entropy and enthalpy — that explain why some simple-seeming problems turn out to be intractable and help resolve certain other seeming contradictions.
“…interesting to see a naked, sexualized woman get all prissy…” If she wasn’t all prissy she might be actually sexual instead of *sexualized.* Rule #1 says can’t have that.
“…they’re standing in for real men…” Since it’s *her show* she’d be using real men by choice and not by force. That would violate both rules so again no dice.
Fun stuff.
Cool post, Sungold.
figleaf
Thanks for the compliment, figleaf. As I said, I think the two rules (I almost said your rules, but I don’t think you want to own them!) explain quite a lot. One area not covered by the rules? The absence of male desire is also inconceivable under heterosexual norms. Which makes it very difficult to name, discuss, analyze, or understand it when a man’s not always raring to go. This doesn’t quite fit as a corollary to either #1 or #2 – time for a new rule?
Maybe some viewers would find this show sexy. I realize I’m not exactly its target audience. But so much fakeness is the opposite of sexy, in my opinion. I’d much rather see the German equivalent of this show, which is hosted by a middle-aged trans woman in spangles and sequins – it doesn’t show much male flesh, either, but at least it has a sense of humor.