Playboy Mansion, Desperate Housewives, Kardashians - US Porn?

Ariel Levy argues in "Female Chauvenist Pigs: Women and the rise of Raunch Culture" that contemporary US female stars are living up to every sexist stereotype created by male chauvenists, and hence, what they reproduce is female pigness.
It is not even real sex, like in the 1960s and 1970s, it is some idea of "sexiness" that they are selling with fake boobs, bums, spray-on tans, and streched faces.
Somehow this is thought to empower women. So, living up to every lowly sexual stereotype makes women equal?
Femininity is increasingly associated with frivolity, or stupidity.
Why do so many women colude with their own oppression?
Why is the pimp/ho imagery celebrated? Surely this is nothing to be proud of, nor walking into your hometown as a Playmate and having people lick the doggie-doo of your feet!
Is this raunchy, sexually pushy female really what men want?
What is surprising is that the Bible-belt "red states" have the highest divorce figures, and the highest rating for this kinda "soft-porn".

Originally posted by halfoldman
What is surprising is that the Bible-belt "red states" have the highest divorce figures, and the highest rating for this kinda "soft-porn".

That is an incredible statistic if true.

Could you please provide a link that could verify this?

reply to post by halfoldman


I don't mean here that the Kardashians are really "porn", or that all the examples are equal. The difference between "porn" and erotica is that the former is only made to evoke lust. It has no other, artistic purpose. So it is porn! I was on Twitter and the one Kardashian that was always better spoke about a male who grabbed all the women's ("girls'", she said) va-va-jays. Well, they are very much involved in raunch culture and I cannot believe these people have younger kids.
What is sad is the heterosexist response, mainly against gay men who dare to copy the sluttish behavior.
We're still wondering: who are these people, and why are they on our television?
They could at least visit the troops, like Vera. but then I suppose they can't sing or do anything really but flash their fake bum-bums.
Nobody can tell me that kind of totally undeserved fame is not "lucky sperm" and family connections?
At least we won't be plagued by the Hogans again for a while.

I still haven't been to figure out what the Kardashians do... Even Models have Jobs

reply to post by MemoryShock


"In 2001, Massachusetts had a lower-than-average divorce rate (2.4 per 1,000 residents, compared to a national average of 4 per 1,000 residents). But it also had a lower-than-average marriage rate: 6.4 per 1,000 residents vs. 8.4 in the national average. Texas was the exact opposite: a higher-than-average crude divorce rate and a higher-than-average marriage rate."

That's from her book. She also claims that "Desperate Housewives" was the number one program as the "conservative" G. W. Bush was re-elected. See also www.malenirvana.com...

reply to post by FoxStriker


One of them showed herself at a nightclub and got 500,000 dollars.
Should make every person know the value of a dollar. Is she worth that much for public relations at a night club? Does she know what it is like to be poor?

[edit on 10-11-2009 by problemsolvr]

Originally posted by FoxStriker
I still haven't been to figure out what the Kardashians do... Even Models have Jobs

Yeah, when the Osbournes were on it was endearing to an extent, and everybody knew Ozzy. The Gottis were just the real-life mafia offspring. Even the Hiltons, and the Donald - OK fine. But the Kardashians? Who the hell are they, and why are they famous?
All I know is that they originate in Armenia (!) and their late farther was somehow involved with the Simpson trial? He was some hot-shot lawyer. The 2nd husband was some kind of minor sport star, who was big in the 1970s, and got a botched face-job.
I guess media suddenly dictated that they should be famous. The whole show is slick soft-porn to me (and I'm gay!), and there are two Lopez wannabees, and a fattish Cinderella sister. I HATE the co-opted hip-hop, because hip-hop came from poor people, and these people were NEVER poor.

reply to post by halfoldman

When I see stuff like that, it makes me think of David Icke and the bloodline families. They come from Armenian royalty, but otherwise they are 15 minute of fame guttersnipe trash!

reply to post by problemsolvr


Wow! $500.000?
I wouldn't pay 2 cents for that revolting skank.
That's just crazy

I agree with the original OP about what feminine beauty equates in modern Western society. I personally find it degenerate and only adds to the broader dysfunctionality of Western culture.
Regarding such programming, I think it's quite sad this is popular entertainment. When you watch it you actually feel your brain numbing; or at least I do.

Originally posted by bigdog36
reply to post by problemsolvr

 

Wow! $500.000?
I wouldn't pay 2 cents for that revolting skank.
That's just crazy

Don't worry, in a few years (months?) they'll waitron at Hooters for morsels.
No - shame on us, I wouldn't wish bad on anyone (I'll leave that to veangeful God). The programs are fairly entertaining in their fake banality - especially when the mother poses for Playboy, and looks better than the daughters. Strange, I always thought this family was well-known in the USA for decades, but it seems that Americans are at a similar loss to explain why they are suddenly famous. I wonder sometimes whether it's maybe a sham with cheap, crappy actors, and 3 Latina wenches. Unlike the dumb blondes from the Playboy Mansion, the inter-racial thing seems really important here. The curves, the crap hip-hop, the black boyfriends - it all seems so pre-planned.
Perhaps it's the German guys from Milli Vanilli in drag, with really hectic fake tans. Not.

reply to post by Moonsouljah

Too true: one of Arial Levy's main gripes is with the "sexist" attitude of "raunch-culture" women towards other women. I think it does have analogies to The Muscle Man towards weaker (and hence, "inferior") specimen of men (who get sand kicked in their eyes). Both sexes are objectified and marketed. However, the Kardashians are meant to show that raunch icons can have a "normal" family-life. However, there is little doubt that it is meant as straight male titilation. To my annoyance, the sexy brother is never exposed, and they are always in conflict with women, but submissive to patriarchy. This mirrors The Hogans and The Playboy Mansion. I think the sheer bitchiness is meant to attract a gay viewership, yet nothing else is actually offered to this market.
Incidentally, the "Girls of the Playboy Mansion" has a Satanic pentagram after the credits. Perhaps I'm going too far and getting paranoid, but that use of the body as total self-worship and aggrandizement is compliant with Satanic theory.

Your OP would be a really interesting point for discussion if it didnt contain contrived data trying to turn it into a partisan issue.

reply to post by Skyfloating

I'll meditate on that. Hopefully when I return to ATS in few days or so, I'll be refreshed. It's difficult to focus on the more feminist, gender aspects without feedback. So I can only go into what irks me. I have a sense of the criticism, but it is also somewhat vague. What would your opinion be on female chauvenism, as Levy terms it?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Your OP would be a really interesting point for discussion if it didnt contain contrived data trying to turn it into a partisan issue.

I first had another interpretation of this crit, but now I think you are referring to Levy's work? I had to return the text to the library, but I would encourage people to read it (if they haven't done so already). I did not find it contrived at all, but the nature of US politics is so partisan that the Levy critics fall into the same deliniated either/or (left/right) system.
I'm not going to surf the web on figures now, but even Richard Dawkins in the "God Delusion" mentions that the religious right's "family values" are not proven in practice in the conservative states.
Levy's point is that all culture at large is affected by "raunch" culture. I must add, there is a huge interest in the Bible and sexuality, and some of the right-wing discourse is virtually pornographic. (Just go on any homophobic Christian site, and every perversion is highlighted - strangely it mainly goes for gay men shoving gerbils up their bottoms, lesbian acts are rarely described - we wouldn't want to turn the patriarchy on!)
I'm from South Africa, and do not know about US partisan dichotomies.
However, I think that Levy offers a useful basis for critique for both right and left-wing feminists.
So what if not all of her points are equally convincing? Aggro raunch culture is a fact. Perhaps it's even defensible.

Two cents from a "not your average feminist":

Originally posted by halfoldman
Somehow this is thought to empower women. So, living up to every lowly sexual stereotype makes women equal?

Equal to the stereotype of the oversexed, ripped abs, obsessed with sports, power and success male counterpart - sure, why not?

Just because these folks work on that level doesn't make them any less human. It's just a different set of influencing factors that makes them gravitate towards one another. Birds of a feather, so to speak.

Femininity is increasingly associated with frivolity, or stupidity.
Why do so many women colude with their own oppression?

It's immediate gratification. A little makeup, haristyle, some revealing clothing and voila! Instant attention. Work it while you've got it.

Physical and emotional and mental maturity don't always move at the same rate for everyone - and some never grow out of certain stages.

It's a character flaw, when imbalanced - but I know several girls who go to immense amounts of time and effort to gain their visage. They've got it down to an art and science. They're also very nice people.

Why is the pimp/ho imagery celebrated?

Human sexuality/sensuality comes in many sizes, shapes and flavors. Take the lowest common denominator and surround it with the material trappings of youth, percieved wealth and prosperity and you're bound to catch attention.

It's an illusion, true - but a popular one.

Is this raunchy, sexually pushy female really what men want?

For some it's a passing fantasy, a one night stand or just a fling. Some never go beyond that phase, others make it a lifestyle. To each their own.

What is surprising is that the Bible-belt "red states" have the highest divorce figures, and the highest rating for this kinda "soft-porn".

"Bible-belt Red States" are also probably very high in working class demographics (I'm assuming here), and after a hard day at the job site, of course the desire to lean towards something "different and exciting" to supplicate the drudgery of the day is going to be there. For men and women alike.

Not to generalize, but men are highly visual creatures - women tend to get more emotionally involved - throw sexual attractiveness together in with drama and you have a guarenteed audience.

As far as the divorce rates go, I'm willing to bet it has more to do with those who want the "illusion" so badly that some succumb to the lustful temptations, and lose sight of the beauty of their domestic partnerships.

It's kind of sad really - that some folks go down that road...but in the same respect, I can't really blame the people born with the "good" genetics and the industry willing to capitalize off their exhibitionism.

I do, however, feel saddened that so many people are allowing themselves to lose sight of inherent human beauty and relationships in favor of said stereotypes...but that's the path many have chosen.


*edit - clarity, spelling



[edit on 11/11/09 by GENERAL EYES]

reply to post by GENERAL EYES

That is one of the most powerful, coherent responses.
It is certainly a challenge regarding gender, and even the the haphazard way we may read these shows.
Some shows become almost a parody of a parody.

reply to post by Skyfloating

I think Levy shortly uses the data on divorce rates and the popularity of Desperate Housewives at the time of the cinservative re-election of George W. Bush to illustrate that "raunch" culture moves beyond partisan positions.
From outside the US people do get mixed messages: some very right-wing religious material and PEPFAR Aids plans with moral strings attached.
One issue is certainly the commodification of both genders, but it is probably just an extention of consumerism - good capitalist business probably goes across political partisanism. Such programming certainly goes with selling all kinds of print media, fashions, perfumes and so forth. It is probably not "evil" as such, and could have empowring effects and the odd support for moral causes. However it does remind one that the exported moralism regarding pre-marital sex, prostitution, homosexuality etc., is just idealism. (In the very strict Islamic contries such progarmming wouldn't be allowed.)
Particularly in the 3rd World it encourages anti-Americanism, or at least a sense that America stands for shallowness that threatens local cultures, and presents happiness and success with (unatainable) materialism. In that sense raunch culture paradoxically goes hand-in-hand with the prosperity gospel. Ironically it is a love-hate relationship, an aspiration to follow the media imagery, and also a resistance against it. One can thus speak of the "pornography" of consumerism.
Families like the Kardashians may even be US replacemnts for the role that royalty may play elsewhere (especially Britain).

Best way to reduce the divorce rates? Outlaw marriage, it's an antiquated concept well past its sell by date. It's called an "institution" for a reason. Also, men and women are not equal, no matter how many liberals want to chain themselves to lamposts. They are different in almost every way. So when someone says men and women are equal, what they really mean is that they support the agenda which effeminates men and emasculates women. Pretty soon you'll need to have a quick grope of the crotch just to make sure the thing you're looking at is actually a woman, not some dude with an obsession for skin creams.

[edit on 14-11-2009 by quackers]

reply to post by quackers

Conversely, femininity is portaryed as sexually masculine. The female characters in "Sex In the City", for example, are described as women behaving towards sex like men (I suppose in the sense of emotionless conquests). That is, these female characters (and I have no doubt that these celibrity families are scripted characters, at least the aspcts we see on the shows) don't gender-bend in the sense of cross-dressing. For some feminists they seem to betray some thing of the sexual revolution and the previous sacrifices of acticvists. It seems that all this was simply so that women could behave equally piggish to men.
And why are they created as "stars"? Arguably simply to facilitate consumption. Whether it's TBN or E-Entertainment, it all shouts: "Give us your money" (just to most viewers the Crouch family is far more tedious than the Kardashians)!
And perhaps, so what? Popular music and other entertaiment has been doing so for ages. The one annoying thing in raunch material is the forced one-night-stand lesbian kiss. That is really pandering to soft-porn for ratings. And who can forget Britney's little moral virgin act, even while she dressed up like a schoolgirl singing "Oops I did it again". Yet Oprah's "New Ageism" gets more negative response from the evangelical right.
I don't see that many men in feminine outfits these days - ironically only on TBN, where wigs, guyliner and big hair are common. It's nothing like the hair metal of the 1980s when Dee Snider from Twisted Sister was voted the ugliest woman in America. In fact, at a first superficial glance shows like the Kardashians and the Hogans reinforce gender norms.
I do however wonder whether on could do some kind of family-tree check on these suddenly appearing celebs, to find out who they are related to?