Conversations with Nana

I wrote the following piece in 1994. Judging from the current films on some of the cable TV channels, it doesn’t look as if much has changed.

I’ve watched a lot of pornography in my life. It’s not that on a lonely Saturday night I think to myself, “I’ll go to the video store and get a really hot movie.” But over the years many of the men I’ve been with seem to think this very thing. Apparently, in the everyday world of dating, watching porn becomes another form of mutual entertainment, the way watching together any good movie can be entertaining, something to do together to pass the time. Except with pornography there is an inevitable direction and end in mind beyond visual entertainment. The movie is designed to enhance the sex that follows.

The operative word here is enhance. Rather than feeling entertained and my sex life energized after watching porn, I find most of the movies boring, repetitive, and predictable. “Poor exploited woman,” I say in a sarcastic attempt to lighten up the moment. But, at a glance, at least, the women in these movies don’t appear exploited. They are pretty, with great bodies, and are far more limber than I could ever be. They seem…well…hungry, and what the man has is the only thing that will satisfy them. They aren’t afraid to make lots of noise, to grab what they want, and to enjoy the ride. Or so they want me to believe. If they are victims, it is from having all gone to the same school of bad acting.

I remember one movie in particular. I think it was called Harem Nights, or Harem something. The movie was so bad, I can’t forget it. The cast was composed of the same faces I had seen many times before. Apparently a production company can only afford so many actors. They were given an assortment of scarves and cheap big jewelry, which they strung about in ways vaguely reminiscent of old Sinbad movies. If there was a plot, I don’t remember it – probably something about the male star sneaking into the harem late at night. But what I do remember was how much fun they were having. It was almost as if the director had some film left and a little time, and so he (this surely couldn’t have been a woman director’s idea of art) said, “Quick, kids, we’ve got some scarves, let’s make a movie about a harem.” They were laughing and rolling around, stepping on each other’s lines, clearly making it up as they went along. Eventually, of course, the big equipment came out and the scarves slipped away, and everybody seemed satisfied as the moaning subsided. But for once, I could see the humanity behind the scenes, and truthfully, it looked like they were having a great time.

Did that scene hurt me in any way? No. Nor did it turn me on. Watching naked bodies thrusting and arching, women breathing as if in Lamaze training, crying out “yes, do it” and other variations on the theme, actually leaves me cold. There, that’s the way pornography hurts me. After watching such a thing, while my lover is now sufficiently turned on, I, on the other hand, have to quickly dream up some fantasy of my own and try to displace the nonsense I just saw. I have to work harder to “get there” than if I hadn’t seen the movie at all. And in the back of my mind, I can’t help wondering why he needs that film now? Aren’t these movies designed for those days and nights of singular masturbation? Does he really need to see her in order to deal with me? That’s a possibility that hurts. Or perhaps it’s not her he’s watching at all, but him. The male actor becomes a kind of heterosexual role model: This is how we men do it with women. While I am looking at her and thinking, “Why can’t I look like that?” perhaps my partner is looking at him and thinking, “I am that.”

Once I was with my women’s support group on an overnight retreat, and one of the women brought along two videos (yes, it was that long ago) as a surprise. Rather than our watching with feminist anger and criticism, her intention was for us to have our own version of “boys night out”. The first film was similar to the dozens (hundreds?) available at any video store, and we watched with playful interest. We assessed the male star from every angle, both his performance and his apparatus. Were we having fun? A little. Was it at anyone’s expense? A little, but no more than one might evaluate the acting and appearance on any TV commercial. Did we now expect our mates to look like the star? Of course not, although who knows what anyone secretly wished. Unexpectedly, the second film turned out to be something different. It began with a man talking to us, the audience. He was giving us a serious warning, telling us that what we were about to see was only one form of sexual expression, and that although it was between two consenting adults, we may be offended. This film, he explained dryly, was not for everyone. The film was about S/M and bondage, with the man in the dominant position.

What struck me about this second film was the warning. Somehow, I doubt the Internet and films of today go to such lengths to warn their viewers. Perhaps the director back then was only protecting himself (or herself?) from potential trouble, and really didn’t care whether he offended anyone or not. But I found the speech sensitive and ethical. I began to think about all the violent (non-porn) movies I have seen on TV, both inadvertently and by choice. What if the director or producer made such a warning before each film – not the quick letters rating, but an actual artist to viewer conversational admission? Perhaps a fatherly, handsome man or an attractive, professional looking woman could appear at the beginning and say:

“This movie is the product of someone’s imagination and won’t be for everyone. Not only will there be episodes of violent death and physical pain deliberately inflicted throughout the film, the characters you see portrayed will show no typical human emotions of sorrow, remorse, longing, grief, or joy. They will kill and maim other human beings, and not be emotionally or psychologically affected by their behavior. They will only engage in trivial romances based on physical appearance or the proximity of the other during times of danger. They will handle all encounters with a reactive nature, and show no regard for introspection or self-growth. Warning: watching this movie may cause you to believe that death is meaningless, torture and suffering are necessary avenues to personal power, and relationships happen only by chance.”

As a woman who doesn’t make pornography, but only occasionally watches, I don’t find the typical American porn films hurtful to me at all. Aside from an occasional stab at feeling physically inadequate, which many TV commercials or magazine ads can also do, the most problem I have with them is that they are boring. On the other hand, I think pornography has hurt some of the men I’ve known. Maybe they know that ordinary women don’t look like the on-camera, air brushed types, and maybe experience has shown them that they don’t act that way either. But while they know what real women aren’t like, where do they learn what they are like? The vast majority of films involving overt sexuality, whether labeled pornography or a box office hit, teach only the fantasy, and don’t teach anything about how an ordinary woman really does act. If she isn’t loudly moaning and verbal, or if she doesn’t have an orgasm at all, why wouldn’t a man think something is wrong—if not with his performance, then with her?

Pornography and most other movies have taught some of the men I know that women are supposed to be a visual feast, are supposed to be easily aroused no matter what is going on in their lives, are supposed to think that sex is the most important part of their day. And when that doesn’t turn out to be the case, instead of taking it like a man, which means like a grown up, instead of turning to their women (and this type of man usually goes through a lot of women) and saying, “Teach me about the real world,” instead they turn back to pornography to fulfill the fantasy. So that eventually, ordinary sex with an ordinary woman becomes boring after awhile, and pornography must be included in the foreplay. Some women I know make a valiant effort to go along with the program rather than fight it. They wear filmy lingerie and garters. They are constantly on the alert for an element of surprise. But eventually their priorities change, especially in raising children, or they get old, or just plain tired. In the several cases I’m thinking of, the men hadn’t fallen in love with an actual person, and when their fantasy woman finally folded, they simply slipped away.

Censorship, education, lawsuits, and femme porn all have been suggested as possible solutions. I think a good place to start to repair some of the damage is with the porn industry itself. Lately, there are a few smart women who are making porn videos for men and women, slipping in the erotic and gentler side of sex along with the visual and robust. The next step might to begin to work genuine characters with emotionally diverse relationships into the purely sexual. This will take cleverness on the part of the producer and director for they will have to do something intelligent within very little time. If the interpersonal parts take up too much footage, the viewer might simply get bored and move on. And it will take patience on the part of the male audience. Men may have to put up with a little boredom, too, until they get used to the idea that the people in the movie, who still are enthusiastically cavorting and bumping their bodies together, actually do have a story, and a psychology, and a deeper tenderness than the “Oh baby,” variety. In other words, the sex scenes would not be about having a change of character, as in the typical ‘librarian/school teacher/secretary with thick glasses and a bun’, who suddenly shakes down her hair and reveals lacy underwear. The sex would be a natural progression of the character’s unfolding discovery of pleasurable feelings. Simply having sex would not cause the stars to gain power and stature. Rather the sex, wilder and juicier than ever, would be the end result of each of them coming to terms with their own innate personhood. But then, that wouldn’t be pornography, would it?

August 1994

You are hereby notified that you are strictly prohibited from disclosing, copying, distributing, disseminating, or taking any other action against me with regard to the contents herein, including, but not limited to my photos. The foregoing prohibitions also apply to your employee, agent, student, or any personnel under your direction or control. The contents of this site are private and legally privileged and confidential information, and the violation of my personal privacy is punishable by law. UCC 1-103 1-308 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

I read with horror and tears Sunday’s story about the two year tracking of a child rape ring that spread across two continents and caused the arrest of 43 so far. Denise Lavoie’s excellent journalism, from the clever opening paragraph through the step-by-step forensics was engaging and chilling.

But as I read about the accidental yet intricate set of clues that led to the criminals’ unraveling, I couldn’t help but think that this part of the story was, for the casual reader, really only entertainment, albeit fascinating and as well crafted as any segment of Law and Order. Isn’t it possible that this kind of investigative information, so precisely laid out, will also be read by other predators and used to hone their skills at avoiding detection?

I’m brought back to the old question, when does effective journalism cross into sensationalism (not in this case), or, in this case, too much information?

8/5/2012

I think as a culture we have grown past the days of presenting personal rules and expecting them to be obeyed. As a culture, we have more or less thrown out our children to raise themselves. Media exposure is extreme now so that there is no such thing as an age of innocence, if there ever was. Adults are extremely busy and exhausted working to meet the demands of a materialistic society, and teens are learning to do the same. Religious rules are no longer intimidating, and many families, it seems to me, have not learned to teach ethics in a meaningful way.

I don’t know how to give a definitive answer about adolescent abstinence. To insist on one way over another usually just makes the forbidden more exotic and interesting, especially to adolescents and the emotionally immature. I am interested in teaching how to use critical thinking and sound reasoning, and to make conscious decisions that are effective in the long run.

3/23/11

To see the humanity in all others:

You are just as much human as I am. We both fail and succeed in equal measure. It is in being human that we act the way we do.

To see the divine in everyone:

You and I are equal parts of the whole. You house the divine fire, you are God come to me. This is Jesus on the road. This is the  Buddha in disguise.

To forgive self and others:

You are doing your very best at every moment. You are only trying to survive. Your worst and best is part of me. There is nothing to criticize. All that is past I forgive. All that is present I forgive. All that is to come I forgive.

To develop gratitude:

How you are and who you are, no matter how difficult or full of grace, is helpful to me in my growth and learning. You are my teacher, generously helping me to learn certain lessons. I thank you for all the time and energy, positive or negative, that you have expended in my direction.

To live freely:

I dismiss my expectations about each person. I release everyone. All are free to be who we must be and to act the way we must act. I accept everyone’s past and relinquish any past actions we shared. I accept everyone’s future and surrender any part I may play. I accept everyone just as they are at this moment.

August 6, 2008

An acquaintance sent me a joke recently with this question: “I think this is funny, but is it offensive to gays?” The joke was about an irritable passenger annoying a male flight attendant to the point that he lost his professional reserve altogether and subsequently used the word “bitch.” The joke included the caveat that the flight attendant was “obviously gay.” Here are some things to consider:

1. If you have to ask if it’s offensive, it probably is. Or, you are so hopelessly behind the times that you no longer can trust your own peers to be of a like mind, in which case, it probably is.

2. If you are a heterosexual telling a joke about homosexuals, it’s probably offensive to at least some people on both sides of the coin.

3. Any use of the word bitch will probably offend some segment of women, especially those who are tired of being globally stereotyped.

4. Where human beings are concerned, there is no such thing as being “obviously” anything. Is a person with cerebral palsy obviously retarded because he is spastic? Is a woman who wears stylish clothes, jewelry, and cosmetics obviously a ‘bimbo?’

5. It is incongruent to say ‘flight attendant, wait person, etc.’ in the same story as ‘obviously gay.’ Organize your thinking one way or the other, for consistency’s sake.

6. Try telling the joke without relying on any stereotypes. If its still funny, then the new version is probably not offensive.

7. If at any time, you wished the actual joke were printed here, you have missed the point.

—5/15/12

I looked in on The Ricky Gervais Show a while ago – the one where he and a friend have conversations with a man named Karl, all three of them in cartoon form. I didn’t understand the format at the time and after a few minutes I moved on. Without any prior information, it just seemed like overheard conversation without any meaningful point.

Then I saw a clip on You Tube where Gervais explained the concept and had a demonstration conversation with Karl. Gervais and his friend simply sit down together with Karl in a sound studio and converse. There are no memorized scripts, and no director designing the mood. A topic is introduced, such as what to do with our ever expanding garbage, Karl gives it some thought, and draws his logical conclusions, such as shoot it into outer space. The majority of the show is devoted to listening to Karl, or reading from his journals, and then Ricky and his cohort questioning his thinking with loud guffaws from Ricky and blatant ridicule from both.

The point is that Karl, to whom much of the conversation and philosophical question are directed, appears to be intellectually impaired in a uniquely fascinating way. He is capable of ordinary conversation, he understands the question, or recognizes that the topic is new to him and then readily asks for clarification, and he applies a consistent logical type of reasoning to his answers. But, in Karl’s case, logic does not indicate wisdom, intelligent thinking, or even correctness. Logic in Karl’s case means following his own established premise to its predictable conclusion, without being sidetracked by extraneous variables. Any “but, what if” questions are simplistically brushed away.

What keeps the show from degenerating into a Don Rickels style attack-a-thon is the demeanor of Karl. He is never hurt or offended. Occasionally he will furrow his brow in a puzzled way, as he tries to understand why his thinking is being questioned. He does not get defensive, does not raise his voice in an attempt to get his point across, but it must also be noted, he never laughs or even smiles, ever. He is aware he is being laughed at, but Ricky’s contention that Karl is his best friend – a stupid man, but in a delightful way – seems to allows Karl to simply ignore the ridicule and quietly wait for the laughs to subside. It does not really occur to Karl that his thinking is flawed, or even ridiculous. Rather he thinks, no doubt, that Ricky just has a personality quirk in his social skills. Karl’s non-reaction is part of his overall “flat affect”; his logical brain does not make emotional connections. He is a kind of non-intellectual Star Trek Spock.

Another point that saves the show:  Ricky’s counter points and attempts to educate his friend are intelligent and thought provoking, making this format a showcase for Gervais – thus, the show’s title. There is something refreshing in his raw non-malicious honesty (although Gervais’ uninhibited, loud braying can be overkill.)

But I am left questioning the ethical and moral implications of this show’s premise. How long before the watcher is lulled into feeling justified in bullying someone, because he deserves it for being so dumb? Is playing with Karl’s non-defensive brain possibly just another form of attacking those who are different? Is it ok because Karl is not wounded or offended, or planning to sue for defamation of character? If Karl is receiving equal shares of the show’s profits, does that mean he is not being exploited or taken advantage of? Who would be protected, in this case, if laws were enforced in protection of the innocent?

March 2012