refusing-to-be-a-man-essays-on-sex-and-justice
refusing-to-be-a-man-essays-on-sex-and-justice
refusing-to-be-a-man-essays-on-sex-and-justice
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
REFUSING TO BE A MANSince its original publicati<strong>on</strong> in 1989, Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be a Manhas <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en acclaimed as a classic <strong>and</strong> widely cited in genderstudies literature. In thirteen eloquent <str<strong>on</strong>g>essays</str<strong>on</strong>g>, S<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lten<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rgarticulates the first fully argued li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rati<strong>on</strong> theory for men thatwill also li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rate women. He argues that male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity isentirely a political <strong>and</strong> ethical c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> whose advantagesgrow out of in<strong>justice</strong>. His thesis is, however, ultimately <strong>on</strong>e ofhope—that precisely <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause masculinity is so c<strong>on</strong>structed, itis possible <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> refuse it, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act against it, <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> change. A newintroducti<strong>on</strong> by the author discusses the roots of his work in theAmerican civil rights <strong>and</strong> radical feminist movements <strong>and</strong>distinguishes it from the anti-feminist philosophies underlyingthe recent tide of reacti<strong>on</strong>ary men’s movements.John S<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lten<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rg is the radical feminist author of The Endof Manhood: Parables <strong>on</strong> Sex <strong>and</strong> Selfhood (rev. edn, L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong><strong>and</strong> New York: UCL Press, 2000) <strong>and</strong> What MakesPornography “Sexy” ? (Minneapolis, Minnesota: MilkweedEditi<strong>on</strong>s, 1994). He is cofounder of Men Against Pornography.
REFUSING TO BE AMANEssays <strong>on</strong> Sex <strong>and</strong> JusticeRevised Editi<strong>on</strong>JOHN STOLTENBERGL<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>
First published 1989 by Breitenbush Books, Inc.Revised editi<strong>on</strong> published 2000 in the UK <strong>and</strong> the USAby UCL Press11 New Fetter Lane, L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> EC4P 4EEThe name of University College L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> (UCL) is a registered trade markused by UCL Press with the c<strong>on</strong>sent of the owner.UCL Press is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis GroupThis editi<strong>on</strong> published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.“To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’scollecti<strong>on</strong> of thous<strong>and</strong>s of eBooks please go <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> www.eBooks<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>re.t<strong>and</strong>f.co.uk.”© 1989, 2000 John S<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lten<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rgThe right of John S<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lten<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rg <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> identified as the Author of this Work has<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en asserted by him in accordance with the Copyright, Designs, <strong>and</strong> PatentsAct 1988All rights reserved. No part of this book may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> reprinted orreproduced or utilised in any form or by any electr<strong>on</strong>ic,mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafterinvented, including pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>copying <strong>and</strong> recording, or in anyinformati<strong>on</strong> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rage or retrieval system, without permissi<strong>on</strong> inwriting from the publishers.British Library Cataloguing in Publicati<strong>on</strong> DataA catalogue record for this book is available from the British LibraryLibrary of C<strong>on</strong>gress Cataloging in Publicati<strong>on</strong> DataS<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lten<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rg, John.Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>: <str<strong>on</strong>g>essays</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> <strong>sex</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>justice</strong>/JohnS<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lten<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rg.—Rev. ed.p. cm.Includes bibliographical references.1. Sex role—United States. 2. Masculinity—United States3. Sexism—United States. 4. Men—United States—Sexual <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior.5. Women—Crimes against—United States. 6. Pornography—Socialaspects—United States. I. Title.HQ1075.5.U6S76 1999305.3•0973—dc21 99–36409ISBN 0-203-98082-4 Master e-book ISBNISBN 1-84142-062-X (hbk)ISBN 1-84142-041-7 (pbk)
For AndreaIn memory of Jimmy
CONTENTSIntroducti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Revised Editi<strong>on</strong> ixPreface xxviiiPart I: The Ethics of Male Sexual IdentityRapist Ethics 2How Men Have (a) Sex 18Sexual Objectificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> MaleSupremacyPart II: The Politics of Male Sexual IdentityEroticism <strong>and</strong> Violence in the Father-S<strong>on</strong>Relati<strong>on</strong>shipDisarmament <strong>and</strong> Masculinity 65The Fetus as Penis: Men’s Self-interest<strong>and</strong> Aborti<strong>on</strong> RightsWhat Is “Good Sex” ? 88Part III: Pornography <strong>and</strong> Male SupremacyThe Forbidden Language of Sex 102Pornography <strong>and</strong> Freedom 107C<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting Pornography as a Civil-Rights Issue324978120
Part IV: Activism <strong>and</strong> Moral SelfhoodFeminist Activism <strong>and</strong> Male SexualIdentityvii156Other Men 166Battery <strong>and</strong> the Will <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Freedom 178About the Essays 184Notes 188
The world’s definiti<strong>on</strong>s are <strong>on</strong>e thing <strong>and</strong> the life <strong>on</strong>e actuallylives is quite another. One cannot allow <strong>on</strong>eself, nor can <strong>on</strong>e’sfamily, friends, or lovers—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say nothing of <strong>on</strong>e’s children—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>live according <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the world’s definiti<strong>on</strong>s: <strong>on</strong>e must find a way,perpetually, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> str<strong>on</strong>ger <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter than that.James Baldwin
INTRODUCTION TO THEREVISED EDITIONThis book was forged in the heat of radical feminism, a curren<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>f political analysis <strong>and</strong> activism first sparked in the UnitedStates in the late 1960s <strong>and</strong> 1970s. That maverick socialmovement produced a his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rically new view of the relati<strong>on</strong> ofhu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>uality <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> social <strong>justice</strong>. Radical feminism’scoruscating ideas about the c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween <strong>sex</strong>ualviolence <strong>and</strong> tyranny have since radiated far <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>y<strong>on</strong>d U.S.borders, igniting change worldwide, <strong>and</strong> this book carries a<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rch set aflame in that fire. In 1995, delegates <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the BeijingWorld C<strong>on</strong>ference <strong>on</strong> Women ratified a platform declaring, inpart, “The hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> rights of women include their right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> havec<strong>on</strong>trol over <strong>and</strong> decide freely <strong>and</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>sibly <strong>on</strong> mattersrelating <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> their <strong>sex</strong>uality, including <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>and</strong> reproductivehealth, free of coerci<strong>on</strong>, discriminati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> violence.” Thosewords al<strong>on</strong>e were a measure of how far radical feminist ideashad swept the glo<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>.Br<strong>and</strong>ing these pages, seared in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> them, is the philosophicallegacy that brought forth those words: a moral <strong>and</strong> intellectualc<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong> stemming from grassroots resistance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> eroticizedwo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> hate. This book c<strong>on</strong>tributed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> that insurrecti<strong>on</strong>, bytranslating radical feminist ideas in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a worldview <strong>and</strong> a moralidentity that could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> claimed <strong>and</strong> embodied unabashedly bypeople born with a penis. Must that ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mical trait <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ken a<strong>sex</strong>ual identity impervious <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> empathy <strong>and</strong> resistant <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>accountability, a <strong>sex</strong>-class identity in lockstep with rapists,pimps, pornographers, <strong>and</strong> batterers—the go<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> gestapo ofmale supremacy? This book argues unequivocally: “No.” And
xagainst the recent flood of antifeminist “men’s movements” —ancient cults of masculinity in modern guise—this book doesnot sell out women’s lives <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do so; it does not make excusesfor men’s abuse <strong>and</strong> dominati<strong>on</strong> of others; it does not seek <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>redeem or resuscitate patriarchy; it does not settle for socialchange strategies that would replicate gender in<strong>justice</strong>.My title, Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be a Man, has both inspired <strong>and</strong>infuriated. Once, as I sat under hot studio lights near the end ofa U.S. televisi<strong>on</strong> talk show (later syndicated internati<strong>on</strong>ally)about the <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>pic of men <strong>and</strong> pornography, the host, a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>famously li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral, sputteringly challenged me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> explain what itmeant. “I mean disavowing the privilege that comes withhaving <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en born with some kind of extensi<strong>on</strong> of your urethra<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween your legs,” I offered. “I mean the same thing as Iwould mean by ‘<str<strong>on</strong>g>refusing</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a white• in a racist society.” Ihad expected that in the United States, with its particularhis<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry of struggle against white supremacy, my reply wouldring a <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ll with this <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Apparently it did not; he seemeddumbfounded <strong>and</strong> changed the subject.As I look back <strong>on</strong> the first publicati<strong>on</strong> of this book, itappears <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> me like a signpost by the road, a scrawl <strong>on</strong> the wall,a trail marker in the woods. As passers-by pause, perhapss<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>pped by the title, perhaps reading some pages, they haveseemed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> gravitate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward <strong>on</strong>e directi<strong>on</strong> or, angered <strong>and</strong>defensive, determinedly go in its opposite. Few are unfazed.Something here polarizes: It points a possible path of approachfor some, <strong>and</strong> signals <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> others that here lies terrain that must<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> fled.Radical politics do that. Significant egalitarian social changedoes not arise from the li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral middle, the n<strong>on</strong>committal, themean <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween extremes. Substantive change happens when thecenter has <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> migrate, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en tugged <strong>and</strong> pushedby political acti<strong>on</strong> that challenges complacency, stirs up thesediment of received bias, <strong>and</strong> exposes c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s thatem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d the status quo. This has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en especially true of radicalfeminism’s demystifying of male-supremacist ideologies ofgender essentialism. As of the late twentieth century, the <strong>on</strong>cecertain noti<strong>on</strong> that there exists in hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> nature a fixed male
<strong>sex</strong>ual identity— metaphysically grounded in creati<strong>on</strong>, builtin<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> bodies, perhaps transcendentally ordained—has<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gun a slow blurring in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> oblivi<strong>on</strong>. Yet <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y people, stillclinging <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the illusi<strong>on</strong> that <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood materially exists, defendit with all their might <strong>and</strong> rage. Perhaps at some level theyalready know that in the absence of force <strong>and</strong> anger, the male<strong>sex</strong> as a class is a chimera. Perhaps they already intuit thatwithout systemic male dominance, no <strong>on</strong>e can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lievably <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.The rate at which women are raped in the United States ishigher than in any other country that keeps track—four timeshigher than in Ger<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y, thirteen times higher than in GreatBritain, <strong>and</strong> twenty times higher than in Japan. It is thereforeno credit <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the American political Left that progressivepolitics here have tended <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ignore radical feminism’s analysisof how male supremacy is made flesh—including through rape,battery, prostituti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> pornography, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say nothing ofeveryday insults, decepti<strong>on</strong>s, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>trayals. The American politicalLeft has generally accommodated more li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral versi<strong>on</strong>s offeminism, but not radical feminism’s central message that thereis something deeply problematic in men’s pers<strong>on</strong>al use <strong>and</strong>abuse of women—something that could explain <strong>and</strong> help usunderst<strong>and</strong> that which all systems of exploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>oppressi<strong>on</strong> have in comm<strong>on</strong>. It is a sad fact that as I write<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day, a decade after Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be a Man was first publishedin the U.S., the American li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral Left has almost unanimouslyembraced the <strong>sex</strong> industry—defending pornographers <strong>and</strong>systems of prostituti<strong>on</strong>—unlike, for instance, significantsegments of the political Left in Europe. To the extent that theAmerican political Left has rejected radical feminism’s deepinquiry in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the nexus of eroticism, male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity,<strong>sex</strong>ual possessi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> in<strong>justice</strong>, it has increasingly come <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>resemble the American political Right: a politics that isc<strong>on</strong>s<strong>on</strong>ant with male <strong>sex</strong>ual purchase <strong>and</strong> ownership ofwomen’s bodies. The difference is that ideologues <strong>on</strong> the Rightinsist <strong>on</strong> private <strong>sex</strong>ual ownership <strong>on</strong>e-<strong>on</strong>-<strong>on</strong>e, a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> hiswife; whereas ideologues <strong>on</strong> the Left fantasize <strong>sex</strong>ualxi
xiiownership collectively or serially, a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> anything thatmoves.Radical feminism has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en mischaracterized by itsdetrac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs as a politics that drives wedges <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween men <strong>and</strong>women. But what radical feminism has actually d<strong>on</strong>e is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> drawa bright line <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween those people who, <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e side, acquiescein, act out, enjoy, advocate, collaborate in, <strong>and</strong>/or profit fromthe eroticizati<strong>on</strong> of inequality <strong>and</strong> those who, <strong>on</strong> the other side,l<strong>on</strong>g with a passi<strong>on</strong> for eroticized equality. As this book <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>arswitness, <strong>on</strong>e’s genital ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>my neither predicts norpredetermines which side of that divide <strong>on</strong>e will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>.Against the received weight of misogyny <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>comitantprejudices, this book argues simply that if <strong>justice</strong> is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> meananything, it must include every<strong>on</strong>e, <strong>and</strong> it must not protect somehierarchy or in<strong>justice</strong> just <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause some people find it <strong>sex</strong>y.“Whatever turns you <strong>on</strong>” —that addled catchphrase from the1960s—has proved a disastrous moral paradigm for a world inwhich violence, for some people, is prelude <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pleasure, <strong>and</strong>dominance, for <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y, the sensorial sine qua n<strong>on</strong> of gender.This book declares bluntly that there cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> two versi<strong>on</strong>s ofvalues: <strong>on</strong>e male, <strong>on</strong>e female; an ethics bifurcated by <strong>sex</strong>;c<strong>on</strong>sequent identities differentiated by a hierarchy of selfworth.1 There cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> both gender polarity <strong>and</strong> <strong>justice</strong> <strong>on</strong>earth. They cannot coexist. And, instilled with radicalfeminism’s visi<strong>on</strong> of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> rights—which does not wall off<strong>sex</strong>ual subordinati<strong>on</strong> in intimacy from imperialism <strong>and</strong>col<strong>on</strong>ialism in public policy—this book announces <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>wayfarers, “Keep heart. Keep <strong>on</strong>. Because your passi<strong>on</strong> for<strong>justice</strong> is the province not of genitalia but of c<strong>on</strong>science.”This book’s moral heritage is distinctly American—as will<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> readily apparent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> readers outside the United States—forradical feminism had its roots in the unique moment when themovement for Black civil rights erupted here in the 1950s <strong>and</strong>1960s. The genesis of that movement was a br<strong>and</strong>-new noti<strong>on</strong>—propelled in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> America’s c<strong>on</strong>sciousness by marches,ora<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry, civil diso<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>dience, <strong>and</strong> litigati<strong>on</strong>—that the ideals ofdemocracy cannot withst<strong>and</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the basis of skincolor, <strong>and</strong> no c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> of birth can morally or lawfully
xiiiwarrant the subordinati<strong>on</strong> of any hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> any other.That profound <strong>and</strong> revoluti<strong>on</strong>ary noti<strong>on</strong> was not <strong>on</strong> the mindsof the men of European descent, <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y slaveowners, who in the1700s founded the United States of America <strong>and</strong> designed itsC<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> guarantee “life, li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rty, <strong>and</strong> the pursuit ofhappiness” for white men like themselves. In practical fact <strong>and</strong>effect, the U.S. C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> safeguarded both <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lerance forreligious pluralism <strong>and</strong> state sancti<strong>on</strong> for slavery. Inspired bythe French Enlightenment <strong>on</strong>ly up <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a point, the cunningFounding Fathers devised a nati<strong>on</strong>al ethos that grounded boththe freedom <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> worship <strong>and</strong> the entitlement <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> enslave otherhu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ings in exactly the same noti<strong>on</strong> of li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rty. After theU.S. Civil War, slavery <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came illegal, but the principle thatunderlay it stayed intact: a noti<strong>on</strong> of li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rty that kept thegovernment out of the affairs of people with power but that didnot obligate the state <strong>on</strong>e whit <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>half of anybody at thebot<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>m.Not until the Black civil rights movement did “equalprotecti<strong>on</strong> of the laws,” a phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the U.S. C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> include people at the bot<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>m<strong>on</strong> account of the color line. And not until the subsequent CivilRights Act of 1964 was the noti<strong>on</strong> of li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rty that justified slaveowningscaled back by a countervailing ethos ofn<strong>on</strong>discriminati<strong>on</strong>: a legal c<strong>on</strong>cept that disallowed differentialtreatment “<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause of race” <strong>and</strong>, by extensi<strong>on</strong>, “<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause of<strong>sex</strong>.” This principle is not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>fused with an affirmativepromise of genuine equality; it does not require the U.S.government (ostensibly “of, by, <strong>and</strong> for the people” ) <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> takeany acti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> remedy any social inequality. Even thoughpeople harmed <strong>on</strong> the basis of race or <strong>sex</strong> are not, in theory atleast, without st<strong>and</strong>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore U.S. law, anti-discriminati<strong>on</strong> lawhas <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en at <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>st a mere s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>pgap against oppressi<strong>on</strong>. Elsewhere<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day in the world, in the new charter of Canada <strong>and</strong> the newc<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> of South Africa, the state is explicitly obliged <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>guarantee equality, at least <strong>on</strong> paper. 2 Not so in the U.S. WhatAmerican antidiscriminati<strong>on</strong> law has meant is that the powersof m<strong>on</strong>ey <strong>and</strong> white <strong>and</strong> male supremacy must now employmore costly lawyers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do their dirty work. The U.S. Pledge of
xivAllegiance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Flag speaks of “li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rty <strong>and</strong> <strong>justice</strong> for all,”<strong>and</strong> the U.S. Declarati<strong>on</strong> of Independence calls “li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rty” an“inalienable” right, but there is a c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween actual,practical <strong>justice</strong> <strong>and</strong> inalienable, individual li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rty. The tensi<strong>on</strong>,for instance, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween current antidiscriminati<strong>on</strong> law <strong>and</strong>lingering slaveowners’ li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rtarianism is evident in the state’scollusi<strong>on</strong> with pornographers. With their industry-st<strong>and</strong>ardethos—exploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> expropriati<strong>on</strong> of ec<strong>on</strong>omicallyvulnerable hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> flesh—pornographers resemble nothing somuch as modern-day, technologized slavers; but their “li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rty”trumps “equal protecti<strong>on</strong> of the law” for any<strong>on</strong>e whom theyharm. Radical feminists in the U.S. have attempted since theearly 1980s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rend the li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rtarian <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>tle within whichpornographers’ violati<strong>on</strong>s of civil rights are cloaked (see“C<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting Pornography as a Civil Rights Issue,” page 120),but thus far U.S. law has immunized those violati<strong>on</strong>s asc<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>ally protected “speech.” A similarly vengefulretrenchment against the radical challenge of the Black civilrights movement <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> white supremacy has occurred in rollbacksof affirmative acti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> cutbacks in welfare <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> poor women<strong>and</strong> children. But the particular way in which the <strong>sex</strong> industrykeeps <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>sex</strong>y has posed a distinct obstacle <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>women’s equality across all races <strong>and</strong> ethnicities. Shamefully,the American li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral Left has sided with the <strong>sex</strong> trade.The glass is still half empty. The glass is also already halffull.The Black civil rights movement that happened in Americawas an uncomm<strong>on</strong> event. Rarely <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore in his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry had people atthe bot<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>m of a system of oppressi<strong>on</strong> significantly altered thatsystem’s moral foundati<strong>on</strong>. Here <strong>and</strong> there <strong>and</strong> now <strong>and</strong> then,the oppressed had waged coups, revoluti<strong>on</strong>s, re<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lli<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>and</strong>such. But with the American Black civil rights movement, ahither<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> subordinated class fundamentally reoriented the moralcompass of a nati<strong>on</strong>. Democracy in America had <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> meansomething different afterward, <strong>and</strong> so did hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> dignity.When I travel abroad, this above all makes me proud of mycountry: that here in the struggle against a nati<strong>on</strong>’s residues ofslavery arose the noti<strong>on</strong> that no aspect of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> corporality
diminishes equality or justifies hierarchy, that no c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> ofbirth accords status, that hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ity is equally embodied in avast <strong>and</strong> level melange. Radical feminism could not <strong>and</strong> wouldnot have come in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing apart from the aspirati<strong>on</strong>al ethics ofequality that originated with the American Black civil rightsmovement. Therefore, unlike the type of feminism that aroseelsewhere out of ec<strong>on</strong>omic analyses of oppressi<strong>on</strong>—a feminismloyal <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> leftist ideals in anticapitalist class struggle—U.S.radical feminism was grounded in an embodied civil-rightsethics, <strong>on</strong>e that brooked no distincti<strong>on</strong> of worth based <strong>on</strong>difference in ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mical traits. Minuscule variants in thecorporeality that makes us all hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> can neither justify noraccount for the structures of hate <strong>and</strong> hierarchy that hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>shave made specifically through <strong>sex</strong>ual <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior. That is a firstprinciple of U.S. radical feminism, <strong>and</strong> it explains why U.S.radical feminism is so fearless in its critique of the role ofacculturated male <strong>sex</strong>uality in oppressi<strong>on</strong>. Sex, <strong>sex</strong>ual violence,<strong>and</strong> male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity are <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> radical feminism whatcapital, poverty, <strong>and</strong> the owning class are <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feminists whosecentral allegiance is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> tenets sharable by leftist men. To notethese analytic distincti<strong>on</strong>s is not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> argue that <strong>on</strong>e type iscorrect <strong>and</strong> the other is false c<strong>on</strong>sciousness but rather <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>underscore what is unique <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the radical feminism with whichthis book is suffused.The ideas that rallied the French Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, the ideas thatinformed the Enlightenment, the ideas that launched theRussian Revoluti<strong>on</strong>, the ideas that animated the ChineseRevoluti<strong>on</strong>—important <strong>and</strong> influential as they were—alloriginated am<strong>on</strong>g an intelligentsia of educated <strong>and</strong> elite malephilosophers. By c<strong>on</strong>trast, the radical ethics of equality thatmobilized the U.S. Black civil rights movement originatedam<strong>on</strong>g people who, <strong>on</strong> account of their race, lived at the bot<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mof the hegem<strong>on</strong>y that their ideas were <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> upend. Similarly, theradical ethics of equality that mobilized U.S. radical feminismoriginated in experienced inequality, in first-pers<strong>on</strong> testim<strong>on</strong>iesof rape, battery, incest, <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>ual exploitati<strong>on</strong> in prostituti<strong>on</strong><strong>and</strong> pornography—the bleeding words of those whose bodiesmale supremacy had impaled like fish harpo<strong>on</strong>ed in a pool.xv
xviM<strong>on</strong>ey <strong>and</strong> wealth were often part of the in<strong>justice</strong>, but m<strong>on</strong>ey<strong>and</strong> wealth could not sufficiently explain its incarnati<strong>on</strong>, nor itspalpable power, flesh against flesh. Some other force was atwork. Radical feminism located that force in male-over-female<strong>sex</strong>ual subordinati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> this book pro<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>s further: in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theexperience of male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity as such. C<strong>on</strong>trary <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>opp<strong>on</strong>ents’ dissembling, radical feminism did not hurl anaccusati<strong>on</strong> at a biologically determined class named “men” butrather at a value system—an ethic of in<strong>justice</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whicheroticism, both male <strong>and</strong> female, had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ed. Thisbook urges a soluti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> that in<strong>justice</strong>: a radical selfexaminati<strong>on</strong>am<strong>on</strong>g people born with a penis, a radical inquiryin<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ethics of our social identity as men.During the height of the U.S. civil rights movement, JamesBaldwin, the great essayist, novelist, <strong>and</strong> dramatist, was widelymisunders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od <strong>and</strong> reviled for his efforts <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> foment a newethical c<strong>on</strong>sciousness am<strong>on</strong>g people who <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved themselves<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en born “white.” He urged those people <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> engage ina radical self-examinati<strong>on</strong> of the politics of their presumptiveidentity—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> recognize <strong>on</strong> what specious basis, socially <strong>and</strong>relati<strong>on</strong>ally, their “whiteness” was based. In documentary filmfootage of Baldwin as a young <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, fervor glinting in his eyes,he tells an interviewer <strong>on</strong>e of the deepest truths he ever spoke:“If you insist up<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing white, I have no alternative but <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>Black.”I heard Baldwin make that point often in the 1980s, when Ihad the good fortune <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> know him. I was working in New YorkCity as <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>aging edi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of a nati<strong>on</strong>al Black women’s magazinenamed Essence. At the time Baldwin was in his late fifties <strong>and</strong>teaching at Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts. Onmy way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the area <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> attend a regi<strong>on</strong>al anti<strong>sex</strong>ist men’sc<strong>on</strong>ference, I arranged <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> meet him, in hopes of persuading him<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tribute <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the magazine.During the first of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y ensuing c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong>s, over lunch ata sunny restaurant, I brought up a theme that I knew <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>central <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Baldwin’s n<strong>on</strong>ficti<strong>on</strong> work: his <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief that thecategory “race” is a social c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>. It has no meaningscientifically, materially, or mythologically, he <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved; the
<strong>on</strong>ly significance it can sustain is created through politicalpower differentials. In Baldwin’s own words:No <strong>on</strong>e was white <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore he/she came <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> America. It <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>okgenerati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> a vast amount of coerci<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore this<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came a white country.America <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came white—the people who, as theyclaim, “settled” the country <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came white—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause ofthe necessity of denying the Black presence, <strong>and</strong>justifying the Black subjugati<strong>on</strong>. No community can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>based <strong>on</strong> such a principle—or, in other words, nocommunity can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> established <strong>on</strong> so genocidal a lie.White men—from Norway, for example, where theywere Norwegians—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came white: by slaughtering thecattle, pois<strong>on</strong>ing the wells, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rching the houses,massacring Native Americans, raping Black women. 3xviiBaldwin’s work had helped me underst<strong>and</strong> the relati<strong>on</strong> ofpower <strong>and</strong> in<strong>justice</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the racial meaning we attach <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mical attributes. I doubt I would have come <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say, as I doin Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be a Man, that “‘the male <strong>sex</strong>’ requires in<strong>justice</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> exist” had I not absor<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d Baldwin’s underst<strong>and</strong>ing that thecategory “white” <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes credible <strong>on</strong>ly through acts ofsubjugati<strong>on</strong>. His view was both uniquely American <strong>and</strong>implicitly universal. It delved <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>neath the superficial markersof race—discriminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the basis of which U.S. civil rightslaw ostensibly disallows. It reached down <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the core whereidentity <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>duct c<strong>on</strong>nect, where self <strong>and</strong> society intersect,where hate <strong>and</strong> heart c<strong>on</strong>join, where ethics <strong>and</strong> eroticismcathect—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the place where we experience most profoundlywho we <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve ourselves <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>.At that c<strong>on</strong>vivial lunch, after several drinks apiece, Ibrought up the fact that some radical feminist writers had<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gun <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> questi<strong>on</strong> the category “<strong>sex</strong>.” I <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld him that a few ofthem, inspired by Baldwin’s radical critique of “race,” had<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gun <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> challenge the widespread <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief that hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> gender isabsolute <strong>and</strong> either/or. These feminists (I menti<strong>on</strong>ed the nameof my friend Andrea Dworkin, who in the mid-1970s
xviiiintroduced me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> this aspect of Baldwin’s work) weresuggesting that social gender is also a political <strong>and</strong> socialc<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> with no intrinsic or inherent material basis.Curious, I asked Baldwin whether he was aware of any of thiswork.“No,” he replied, he was not.“Well,” I asked, “what do you think?”Jimmy smiled, his graceful h<strong>and</strong>s a sudden flourish, <strong>and</strong>instantly, as if a light went <strong>on</strong> from inside, answered, “But ofcourse!”As<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nished, I caught my breath; <strong>and</strong> for what seemed anepiphanous moment, I just smiled back.Jimmy died in 1987, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore I had a chance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> give him thegift of this book in <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>uscript as I had intended. Recalling thatlunch <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day, I realize with great sadness the eclipse of hishu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>e visi<strong>on</strong>. With a moral passi<strong>on</strong> rare then as well as now,Baldwin “problematized whiteness” (as academics <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>daywould say), both for those whom “whiteness” cast out <strong>and</strong> forthose whom that dominant identity presumed, insistently, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>include.Having “problematized” <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood from a radical feministperspective for nearly a quarter century now, I have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comeacutely aware of how much resistance this critique hasprompted. Indeed, in some quarters there has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en a mad dashaway from it, a mass retrenchment, a counter-refusal, as itwere, <str<strong>on</strong>g>refusing</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> refuse <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Even am<strong>on</strong>g earnestlyli<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral academics in the emergent field of “masculinitiesstudies” (also called men’s studies), the project of parsing“masculinities” is more often than not a form of resistance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>radical feminist critique of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood as such. 4 Howeverintriguing the scholarship of masculinities studies may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>, itdoes not get at the problem. Without full cognizance of<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood’s underlying lie—the structurally intrinsic politicaldominance without which <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood has no social or subjectivemeaning—the “masculinities” approach serves theoretically<strong>on</strong>ly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> deceive another generati<strong>on</strong> yet <strong>on</strong>e more time.In the years after the U.S. Black civil rights movementgained momentum, when its profound revaluati<strong>on</strong> of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>
xixworth threatened <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> radically undermine the prerogatives of“whiteness,” there was a massive resistance <strong>and</strong> virulentbacklash, which is still going <strong>on</strong>. Defenders of “whiteness” inthe U.S. can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> found <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day not <strong>on</strong>ly in obstreperous hategroups—the Ku Klux Klan, the Christian Identity Movement,Aryan Nati<strong>on</strong>, the Patriot movement—but also in smarmier,more sanctim<strong>on</strong>ious spheres, such as “reverse discriminati<strong>on</strong>”litigati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> the educati<strong>on</strong> model of “multiculturalism” (adepoliticized palette <strong>on</strong> which “white” is viewed as merely <strong>on</strong>eof several “colors” )- Genuinely troubled by American racehate, some academics have introduced a new field called“whiteness studies,” <strong>and</strong> both it <strong>and</strong> men’s studies share asimilar c<strong>on</strong>ceit: Neither particularly desires <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> dissect thepolitical <strong>and</strong> ethical premises of the identity in questi<strong>on</strong>;neither wishes the identity in questi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> wither away for lackof adherents. Rather, both whiteness studies <strong>and</strong> men’s studiesseek <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> catalog variati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> the theme—as if ethnographicmultiplicity <strong>and</strong> ample footnotes might fill the moral void ou<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>f which both identity structures arise. Several mass men’smovements echoing militant-<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>-li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral reverence for whitenesshave sprung up in the U.S. since Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be a Man was firstpublished. All are ideologically opposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> what this bookst<strong>and</strong>s for <strong>and</strong> all are attempting, in <strong>on</strong>e way or another, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rescue <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood from radical feminist critique. These agitatedaggregati<strong>on</strong>s have included the fathers’ rights lobby, themythopoetic men’s movement, the religiously fundamentalistPromise Keepers with its sports-stadium rallies, the raciallynati<strong>on</strong>alist Nati<strong>on</strong> of Islam with its Milli<strong>on</strong> Man March, <strong>and</strong>the paramilitary “weekend warriors.” 5 In years <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> come therewill surely <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> more, for in the flinch from radical critique isevidence of how deeply it cuts.Progressive politics <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day in the United States are indisarray. Without a comm<strong>on</strong> enemy, the facti<strong>on</strong>s cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rallied, the crowds cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> roused. In the past coupledecades, since the civil rights movement inspired hundreds ofthous<strong>and</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> “Black pride,” there has emerged a tenuouscoaliti<strong>on</strong> of categories claim ing analogous oppressi<strong>on</strong>, athreadbare patchwork of variously disenfranchised people who
xxhave <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en stigmatized <strong>and</strong> subordinated in a social hierarchywherein they, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause of some shared trait or acculturati<strong>on</strong> orother status marker, are viewed as “other” in a nameable,classifiable way. In <strong>on</strong>e sense this has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en positive; the U.S.civil rights movement gave all sorts of people a model forst<strong>and</strong>ing up proudly against any who would shame <strong>and</strong> demeanthem. But U.S. civil rights law—seeing “discriminati<strong>on</strong>” <strong>on</strong>ly<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween categories that can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> demarcated in terms the lawrecognizes—has functi<strong>on</strong>ed, ir<strong>on</strong>ically, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reify all categories,including, especially, dominant <strong>on</strong>es. The more the lawdelineates discriminati<strong>on</strong> “<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause of race,” the moreimperative <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes the category “white.” The more the lawredresses grievances “<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause of <strong>sex</strong>,” the more overweening<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes the category “men.” The original civil rights impulse,fundamentally a radical ethics of equality, has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>enovershadowed, perhaps supplanted, by the hairsplitting legalprinciple of n<strong>on</strong>discriminati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween categories. Li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ralslike this principle <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it keeps familiar category systems inplace. C<strong>on</strong>servatives like it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause, with deft lawyering, itcan easily <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> used <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reassert a dominant category’sprerogatives in the name of “equal treatment under law.”Radicals—who underst<strong>and</strong> that some difference categories,like “the white race” <strong>and</strong> “the male <strong>sex</strong>,” exist his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rically <strong>on</strong>lythrough dominance over some other—try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make do withU.S. civil rights law the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>st that they can.Current U.S. antidiscriminati<strong>on</strong> law—which may well <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>descri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d as “categoriphilic” —has also had a negative impac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>n progressive coaliti<strong>on</strong> politics. In recent years, these motleyassemblies have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come harder <strong>and</strong> harder <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> cross-reference<strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>nect—at least without demagogic appeals for unityagainst some dem<strong>on</strong>ized facti<strong>on</strong> or figurehead—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause muchof progressive moral leadership has collapsed in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> defendingdistincti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g classifiable groups. Inevitably competiti<strong>on</strong>s<strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>flicts arise over which sort of people is morevulnerable, more haunted by his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry, more put down, moredespised. And necessarily there are not secure borders aroundany of these classificati<strong>on</strong>s—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they are not meaningfulrelative <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e another; they are meaningful relative <strong>on</strong>ly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>
xxiwhatever identity is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing defined over <strong>and</strong> against eachdisparate “otherness.”If any<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>gs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> two or more “otherness” categories<strong>and</strong> declines <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> commit <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> just <strong>on</strong>e, or if any<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>gs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> adominant identity agglomerati<strong>on</strong> that “otherizes” another, thepost-civilrights-movement coaliti<strong>on</strong> model of progressivepolitics breaks down. The noti<strong>on</strong> of oppressi<strong>on</strong> categories iscogent <strong>on</strong>ly so l<strong>on</strong>g as it appears <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> create an “identity” for theclass of people in each (as Baldwin said: “If you insist up<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing white, I have no alternative but <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> Black” ), but theidentity <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing created most unequivocally is <strong>on</strong>ly ever thedominant identity—the whiteness, the <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood, thehetero<strong>sex</strong>uality, the normal, the whatever identity that wouldexpire without a subordinate category <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> otherize.In the variously c<strong>on</strong>figured categories of oppressi<strong>on</strong>identities that U.S. progressive politics purports <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> represent,<strong>on</strong>e can have, so it is said, multiple st<strong>and</strong>points—<strong>on</strong>e canpartake of an otherized identity here <strong>and</strong> there, <strong>and</strong> perhapseven an oppressor identity as well—but <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> credentialed in thisschematic, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have any footprint all, <strong>on</strong>e must qualify for atleast <strong>on</strong>e b<strong>on</strong>afide oppressi<strong>on</strong> slot. Underst<strong>and</strong>ably, this makessome individuals—able-bodied, pink-skinned, hetero<strong>sex</strong>ualpeople with penises, for example—nervous, for how can they<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> certain they do not st<strong>and</strong> indicted, ipso fac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>, as Oppressor?Progressive politics have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come so c<strong>on</strong>tinually preoccupiedwith keeping track of oppressi<strong>on</strong> slots with ever more nuance<strong>and</strong> precisi<strong>on</strong> that the primary reas<strong>on</strong> for the existence of allthe slots has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en ignored. This distracti<strong>on</strong> is frustratinglyfamiliar <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> any<strong>on</strong>e whose political analysis points <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> capitalismas the source <strong>and</strong> rais<strong>on</strong> d’être of oppressi<strong>on</strong> slots. So also forthose, like myself, whose political analysis views thosecategories as foils for identity structures that have nosustainable significance—they do not feel real, they have nocollective coherence—apart from disidentificati<strong>on</strong>, distance,dominance, <strong>and</strong> disdain.To whatever extent we each have no alternative but <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> “<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>”who we are required <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> shore up some dominantidentity structure, we may “<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e or another identity-
xxiiby-subordinati<strong>on</strong> group. But knowing exactly which categoryor categories we “<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>—no matter how proudly, nomatter how defiantly—is not sufficient for the revoluti<strong>on</strong> weneed. Only by fixing our compass <strong>on</strong> the dominant identitystructure itself, <strong>and</strong> the politics <strong>and</strong> ethical values that sustainit, will all our various groupings find our way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a comm<strong>on</strong>cause, a unified visi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> a collective moral core.Can any<strong>on</strong>e join in this revoluti<strong>on</strong>? Yes, absolutely. Forinstance, there has already <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gun a c<strong>on</strong>scientious critique ofthe identity structure “whiteness.” In the United States thisstarted in the early 1990s am<strong>on</strong>g a few people who sincerelycare about egalitarian social change <strong>and</strong> who were born <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>white skin privilege—“people comm<strong>on</strong>ly called whites who, in<strong>on</strong>e way or another, underst<strong>and</strong> whiteness <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a problem thatperpetuates in<strong>justice</strong> <strong>and</strong> prevents even the well-disposedam<strong>on</strong>g them from joining unequivocally in the struggle forhu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> freedom.” 6 This critique is most evident in what iscalled the New Aboliti<strong>on</strong> Movement. For these self-descri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d“aboliti<strong>on</strong>ists,” disavowal of the dominant identity structure“whiteness” is fundamental:The key <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> solving the social problems of our age is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>abolish the white race. Until that task is accomplished,even partial reform will prove elusive, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause whiteinfluence permeates every issue in U.S. society, whetherdomestic or foreign.Advocating the aboliti<strong>on</strong> of the white race is distinctfrom what is called “antiracism.” …[A]ntiracism admitsthe existence of “races” even while opposing socialdistincti<strong>on</strong>s am<strong>on</strong>g them. The aboliti<strong>on</strong>ists maintain, <strong>on</strong>the c<strong>on</strong>trary, that people were not favored <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause theywere white; rather they were defined as “white” <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>causethey were favored. Race itself is a product of socialdiscriminati<strong>on</strong>; so l<strong>on</strong>g as the white race exists, allmovements against racism are doomed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fail. 7Included in the New Aboliti<strong>on</strong> Movement are now severalcampus groups, including Students for the Aboliti<strong>on</strong> of
Whiteness, at the University of Chicago. In an essay for thejournal Race Trai<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r, the group’s student leaders wrote:[I]t is the idea of race that produces inequalities <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tweenracial groups. [W]hiteness not <strong>on</strong>ly produces theseinequalities but the entire discursive field in which raceis situated.…Race <strong>and</strong> racial thinking will exist as l<strong>on</strong>g as race isunders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od as an <strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>logical category. [W]e <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve thatrace is not a category <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> which we are chained by birth.Only when participati<strong>on</strong> in whiteness is unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od as anactive choice can we <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin the real work of eliminatingracial in<strong>justice</strong>s….Abolishing whiteness means making whiteness ac<strong>on</strong>scious choice. It means giving those who c<strong>on</strong>siderthemselves <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral a new language for talking aboutthemselves as hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ings instead of as whites. 8So also, am<strong>on</strong>g some people born <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> penis privilege, theradical feminist critique of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gun <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> met withserious, deep, <strong>and</strong> subversive acceptance. The testaments aboutabolishing whiteness excerpted above have a res<strong>on</strong>antfamiliarity <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> such radical male feminists, for the idea of<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood also produces inequality; <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood is also <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> an <strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>logical category, but it is not a category <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> which weare chained by birth, <strong>and</strong> we also can speak of ourselves ashu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ings instead of as men. Especially for the thous<strong>and</strong>sof people with penises who over the past decade have read <strong>and</strong>resp<strong>on</strong>ded <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be a Man, the moral <strong>and</strong> politicalparallels <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween <str<strong>on</strong>g>refusing</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> abolishingwhiteness are both stunning <strong>and</strong> self-evident. The followingaboliti<strong>on</strong>ist passage, for instance, is also exactly true if read asa radical male feminist <strong>on</strong>e, as the passages in brackets show:The rules of the white club [the men’s club] do notrequire that all mem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> str<strong>on</strong>g advocates of whitesupremacy [male supremacy], merely that they defer <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>the prejudices of others. The need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> maintain racialxxiii
xxivsolidarity [<strong>sex</strong>-class solidarity] imposes a stiflingc<strong>on</strong>formity <strong>on</strong> whites [<strong>on</strong> males], <strong>on</strong> any subject<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uching even remotely <strong>on</strong> race [<strong>on</strong> <strong>sex</strong>].The way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> abolish the white race [<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> refuse <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> end <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood] is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> disrupt that c<strong>on</strong>formity. Ifenough people who look white [who look male] violatethe rules of whiteness [of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood], their existencecannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> ignored. If it <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes impossible for theupholders of white rules [<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood rules] <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> speak in thename of all who look white [look male], the white race[the male <strong>sex</strong> class] will cease <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> exist….How <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y will it take? No <strong>on</strong>e can say for sure. It is abit like the problem of currency: how much counterfeitm<strong>on</strong>ey has <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> circulate in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> destroy the value ofthe official currency? The answer is, nowhere near amajority—just enough <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> undermine public c<strong>on</strong>fidence inthe official stuff. 9In this book I interrogate <strong>and</strong> disavow the identity structure thatis <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood, or male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity as I call it here: the official<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> stuff; the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief that <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween <strong>on</strong>eself <strong>and</strong> female hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>sthere is a definiti<strong>on</strong>al divide, a moral <strong>and</strong> morphologicaldisc<strong>on</strong>tinuity, a separati<strong>on</strong> in the species. (A compani<strong>on</strong> volumecalled The End of Manhood 10 c<strong>on</strong>tinues that project in a moreentertaining <strong>and</strong> populist voice, amplifying <strong>and</strong> applying theseideas in everyday c<strong>on</strong>texts of love, <strong>sex</strong>, family, <strong>and</strong>friendship.) Were I <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> write Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be a Man <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day, Iwould try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hold up whiteness for critique al<strong>on</strong>gside <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hoodmore often than I did, for as I now underst<strong>and</strong>, the identitystructure that is whiteness exists <strong>on</strong>ly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the extent that itdwells within a definiti<strong>on</strong>al moat over <strong>and</strong> against people ofcolor. Those who, in Baldwin’s words, insist up<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing whiteinhabit the same fictive fortress as those who insist up<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ingmen. The defiance, the dominance, the disidentificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>distancing is the same.We are all hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ings. We <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> who we <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>. We are who weare. Yet we are also inhabitants of categories that we have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en
xxvmade in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>. We have had no alternative, for there are those whoinsist angrily up<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing white, <strong>and</strong> those who insist angrilyup<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing men. But keep heart, <strong>and</strong> keep <strong>on</strong>. Because theseidentities need not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> us. We have a choice. They need not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>our selves.John S<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lten<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rgBrooklyn, New YorkOc<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r 1998Notes1. Three years after Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be a Man was published, adiametrically opposite moral framework <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>popularized in the U.S. by John Gray, author of Men Are FromMars, Women Are From Venus (New York: HarperCollins,1992) <strong>and</strong> other books. His central message that genderdimorphism justifies a double st<strong>and</strong>ard of ethics has had wideappeal, but philosophically he has the problem exactlybackward, for, as I argue in Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be a Man, the malesupremacistethical double st<strong>and</strong>ard is what creates <strong>and</strong>justifies people’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief in the err<strong>on</strong>eous noti<strong>on</strong> of genderpolarity.2. The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights <strong>and</strong> Freedoms promises,in part:Every individual is equal <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore <strong>and</strong> under the law <strong>and</strong> hasthe right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> equal protecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> equal <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>nefit of the lawwithout discriminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>, in particular, withoutdiscriminati<strong>on</strong> based <strong>on</strong> race, nati<strong>on</strong>al or ethnic origin, colour,religi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>sex</strong>, age or mental or physical disability…Notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing anything in this Charter, the rights <strong>and</strong>freedoms referred <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> in it are guaranteed equally <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> male <strong>and</strong>female pers<strong>on</strong>s.The 1996 C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> of the Republic of South Africa alsoobligates the state <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> promote equality:Every<strong>on</strong>e is equal <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>f ore the law <strong>and</strong> has the right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>equal protecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>nefit of the law…Equalityincludes the full <strong>and</strong> equal enjoyment of all rights <strong>and</strong>freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality,
xxvilegislative <strong>and</strong> other measures designed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> protect oradvance pers<strong>on</strong>s, or categories of pers<strong>on</strong>s, disadvantagedby unfair discriminati<strong>on</strong> may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> taken.3. This versi<strong>on</strong> of Baldwin’s oft-repeated point appears in anessay he wrote for Essence, “On Being ‘White’…And OtherLies,” April 1984, pp. 90–92; reprinted in Black <strong>on</strong> White:Black Writers <strong>on</strong> What It Means <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be White, David R.Roediger, edi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r (New York: Schocken Books, 1998), pp. 177–180.4. The philosophical incompatibility <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the men’s studiesproject <strong>and</strong> my radical feminist critique of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood was noted,al<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>it unwittingly, by Eliza<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>th Badinter in her book XY,which was first published in France in 1992 <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came a<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>stseller in Europe. In it, Badinter misrepresents (apparently<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause she deeply misunderst<strong>and</strong>s) Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be a Man,even as she borrows heavily <strong>and</strong> approvingly from British <strong>and</strong>American men’s studies academics. Defending what boilsdown <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> gender binarism, Badinter offers no rebuttal <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> myc<strong>on</strong>trary argument other than innuendos about me. Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>Be a Man, she writes, seeming <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> know for a fact, “arises fromself-hatred” <strong>and</strong> “masochism” (XY: On Masculine Identity[New York: Columbia University Press, 1995], pp. 123–124).By approximate analogy <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Baldwin’s structural framing ofrace, Badinter is saying, in effect, “If you do not insist up<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, I have no alternative but <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> psychopathologizeyou.” Some day, I hope, we will all get past that sort of re<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rt.5. Equivalent British antifeminist men’s movements includeFamilies Need Fathers, The UK Men’s Movement, <strong>and</strong> DadsAfter Divorce.6. Edi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rial, Race Trai<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r, Noel Ignatiev <strong>and</strong> John Garvey, edi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs(New York <strong>and</strong> L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>: Routledge, 1996), pp. 13–14.7. Race Trai<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r, p. 10.8. Sophia Kelley, Rob Schuwerk, Prasad Krishnamurthy, <strong>and</strong>James Kao, “Aboliti<strong>on</strong>ism <strong>on</strong> Campus,” Race Trai<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r, No. 7,Winter 1997, pp. 4–5.9. “When Does the Unreas<strong>on</strong>able Act Make Sense?,” unsignededi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rial, Race Trai<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r, pp. 36–37.10. The End of Manhood: Parables <strong>on</strong> Sex <strong>and</strong> Selfhood (rev. edn,L<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> New York: UCL Press, 2000).
xxvii
PREFACEWhen the ideas of feminism first reached me about fifteenyears ago, almost every detail of my life <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> change, inways I still d<strong>on</strong>’t fully comprehend. Since then I’ve <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en asked,probably hundreds of times, “What got you so interested infeminism anyway?” The questi<strong>on</strong>, or a versi<strong>on</strong> of it, is usuallyasked with <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>wilderment, though sometimes with franksuspici<strong>on</strong>—as if growing up a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>coming a feminist (aradical <strong>on</strong>e, at that) were off the map of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> possibility.I try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> explain, as <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>st I can, that <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ginning in 19741happened <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> really challenged by some close women friends<strong>and</strong> some mind-blowing feminist books <strong>and</strong> hours <strong>and</strong> hours ofintense discussi<strong>on</strong>—all of which is true as far as it goes. Butlike so <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y men I’ve met across the country throughprofeminist activism over the past decade <strong>and</strong> a half, I countmyself part of the struggle for women’s equality for reas<strong>on</strong>sthat are intensely pers<strong>on</strong>al—so pers<strong>on</strong>al, sometimes, they can’t<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> glibly declared.I’m thinking of those men whose feminist c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>s springfrom loyalty <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a particular wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> in their lives—a mother, alover, a cherished friend—some<strong>on</strong>e who has brought them <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>an intimate, almost insider’s view of what life for women is likeunder male supremacy. These men have made a vow <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> st<strong>and</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>side her <strong>and</strong> not ab<strong>and</strong><strong>on</strong> her, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> wholeheartedly <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> her ally.For such men, loyalty <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s life is experienced as aprofound form of intimacy (not a threat <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> selfhood, as it might<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> for other men).
xxixI’m thinking also of those men whose commitment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>feminism draws <strong>on</strong> their own experience of <strong>sex</strong>ual violence or<strong>sex</strong>ual abuse from other men, perhaps as a child or adolescent.Somehow such men have not paved over what happened <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>them; rather, they have recognized in it the same dimensi<strong>on</strong>s ofviolence <strong>and</strong> abuse that women were mobilizing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> resist. Sothese men, for their own silent reas<strong>on</strong>s, have cast their lot withthe feminist struggle for freedom <strong>and</strong> bodily integrity—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they know full well it’s what every<strong>on</strong>e should have.I’m thinking also of those men who have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come feministsin part <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they have suffered the shame of growing upwith a <strong>sex</strong>uality that was not “st<strong>and</strong>ard issue.” It was a<strong>sex</strong>uality that l<strong>on</strong>ged for partnership <strong>and</strong> ardent tenderness; itdid not stir at dominance <strong>and</strong> coerci<strong>on</strong>. It was a <strong>sex</strong>uality thatset them apart, whether with women or other men. These menhave <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come, in a sense, dissidents from the <strong>sex</strong>-classhierarchy in intimacy; <strong>and</strong> they are gathering courage <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> defythat hierarchy <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>y<strong>on</strong>d the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>droom as well.I’m thinking also of those men whose advocacy of feminismderives from other sorts of principled political activism.Coming from the perspective of their pacifism, their antiracism,or their commitment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ec<strong>on</strong>omic <strong>justice</strong>, for instance, thesemen have grasped the ideals of radical feminism with aseriousness <strong>and</strong> intellectual h<strong>on</strong>esty such that they now regardfeminism as logically c<strong>on</strong>sistent with—no, integral <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>—anyhu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>-rights struggle worthy of the name. Cerebral though itmay seem at times, their commitment, in its own way, is alsofrom the heart.What would happen if we each <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld the deepest truth aboutwhy we are men who mean <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> part of the feminist revoluti<strong>on</strong>—why we can’t not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> part of it—why its visi<strong>on</strong> of fullhu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ity for every<strong>on</strong>e so moves us? What would happen if wedared? As the poet Muriel Rukeyser <strong>on</strong>ce asked, I w<strong>on</strong>dersometimes: would the world split open?I wrote this book without exactly knowing I was writing abook. All but <strong>on</strong>e of these <str<strong>on</strong>g>essays</str<strong>on</strong>g> were originally written <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>spoken aloud <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> specific audiences, written <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> spoken face<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>-face,<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> some<strong>on</strong>e I hoped would underst<strong>and</strong>.* For over a
xxxdecade <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan writing these speeches, I was aplaywright, writing for the voices of impers<strong>on</strong>a<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs while Is<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od aside, as if prompting from the wings, feeding imaginedcharacters made-up lines. But when my life was changed byradical feminism, I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> write what my own voice needed<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say. I felt an urgency <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> write words that I could st<strong>and</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>hind with c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>, words that I could trust <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say out loudin public <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause I had thrashed them out in private until theywere as true as I could get them, until they said exactly what Imeant, exactly what I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved, even if those words mightprovoke some people <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> outrage.I almost never knew where an essay would lead when I<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan it. Usually, I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan with a questi<strong>on</strong>, or a set ofquesti<strong>on</strong>s, or a seemingly intractable fact of my life thatresisted my underst<strong>and</strong>ing, or a sense of a philosophicaldilemma that taunted me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> inquire in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it. Then I would workat it through writing, sometimes for as l<strong>on</strong>g as a year, until Ihad figured something out, something that would have clearmeaning <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>y<strong>on</strong>d my pers<strong>on</strong>al brain. In that sense these <str<strong>on</strong>g>essays</str<strong>on</strong>g>are implicitly au<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>biographical, even though not made up ofpers<strong>on</strong>al disclosures. And in that sense Refusing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Be a Manrefers as much <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> what this book is about as <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> how it came <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> written.Several of the speeches were emoti<strong>on</strong>ally momen<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>us whenI first spoke them. For instance, I wrote “The Fetus as Penis:Men’s Self-interest <strong>and</strong> Aborti<strong>on</strong> Rights” <strong>and</strong> ventured fromNew York City out <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Los Angeles <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> deliver it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> over fivehundred people at a nati<strong>on</strong>al anti<strong>sex</strong>ist men’s c<strong>on</strong>ference. Iimagined <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>foreh<strong>and</strong> they would hate what it said—I was,after all, calling for the end of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood as we know it—<strong>and</strong> Irather expected <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> booed off the stage. On the c<strong>on</strong>trary, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> myas<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nishment, they greeted the speech with an almost-allst<strong>and</strong>ingovati<strong>on</strong>—the first time it occurred <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> me there mightreally <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> some num<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs of men out there who wouldn’t turn <strong>on</strong>* See “About the Essays,” pp. 181–185.
xxxisome<strong>on</strong>e who wanted the whole male-supremacist setupdestroyed.Taken <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether, these <str<strong>on</strong>g>essays</str<strong>on</strong>g> expose <strong>and</strong> challenge whatgoes <strong>on</strong> in men’s minds <strong>and</strong> bodies <strong>and</strong> lives in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> maintaintheir <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief that they are “men.” Coursing through this book ismy analysis that “the male <strong>sex</strong>” requires in<strong>justice</strong> in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>exist. Male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity is entirely a political <strong>and</strong> ethicalc<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, I argue; <strong>and</strong> masculinity has pers<strong>on</strong>al meaning<strong>on</strong>ly <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause certain acts, choices, <strong>and</strong> policies create it—withdevastating c<strong>on</strong>sequences for hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> society. But precisely<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause that pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>and</strong> social identity is c<strong>on</strong>structed, we canrefuse it, we can act against it—we can change. The core ofour <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing can choose allegiance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>justice</strong> instead.This book is about the interrelati<strong>on</strong>ship of <strong>sex</strong>ual politics<strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>ual ethics, <strong>and</strong> the possibility of an emerging selfhoodrooted in <strong>on</strong>e’s capacity for fairness (rather than in <strong>on</strong>e’s<strong>on</strong>going crisis of <strong>sex</strong>ual identity). Though intended as a theoryof li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rati<strong>on</strong>, this book is, in some respects, much <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter thanmy life. I know I have not always lived up <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the values itrecommends. But I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that I have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en h<strong>on</strong>est in divulgingthe meaning of what I know, based <strong>on</strong> the life I have lived <strong>and</strong>the lives I have witnessed. And I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve there are others whowill recognize the possibility of authentic li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rati<strong>on</strong> that thisbook points <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>.If male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity is a social <strong>and</strong> political c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>that is inextricably linked <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> male supremacy, as this bookargues, then what does it mean <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> “refuse <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>” ? Male<strong>sex</strong>ual identity exists, in part, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause people born with peniseslearn an ethic of <strong>sex</strong>ual in<strong>justice</strong>, an ethic that leaves out specificothers. In order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> distinguish themselves as real “men,” theylearn not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> know what can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> known about the values in whatthey do <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> others, specifically any<strong>on</strong>e who is “less a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.” So<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin with, <str<strong>on</strong>g>refusing</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> means learning a radicalnew ethic: determining <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> learn as much as <strong>on</strong>e can knowabout the values in the acts <strong>on</strong>e has d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>and</strong> the acts <strong>on</strong>echooses <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do <strong>and</strong> their full c<strong>on</strong>sequences for other people—asif every<strong>on</strong>e else is absolutely as real as <strong>on</strong>eself.
xxxiiThis book is for people who—like me—have wanted suchan ethic of <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>justice</strong> in the world, far more than we knew.John S<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lten<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rgNew York CityNovem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r 1988
PART ITHE ETHICS OF MALESEXUAL IDENTITY
RAPIST ETHICSS<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ries have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ginnings, middles, <strong>and</strong> endings. Ideas do not.S<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ries can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld <strong>and</strong> unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od in terms of who did what<strong>and</strong> what happened <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom, what happened next, <strong>and</strong> whathappened after that. Ideas do not exist in time <strong>and</strong> space thatway, yet it is <strong>on</strong>ly through our apprehensi<strong>on</strong> of certain ideasthat his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rical reality makes any sense at all. We interpret all thedata of our senses—including characters, acti<strong>on</strong>s,c<strong>on</strong>sequences, even our so-called selves—according <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ideas,c<strong>on</strong>cepts, or mental structures, some of which we underst<strong>and</strong>,some of which we just <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve.Sexual identity is an idea. Sexual identity—the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief thatthere is maleness <strong>and</strong> femaleness <strong>and</strong> that therefore <strong>on</strong>e iseither <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> or wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>—is am<strong>on</strong>g the most fundamental ideaswith which we interpret our experience. Not <strong>on</strong>ly do we “know”<strong>and</strong> “<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve in” the idea of <strong>sex</strong>ual identity, but the idea of<strong>sex</strong>ual identity largely determines how <strong>and</strong> what we know.With the idea of <strong>sex</strong>ual identity in our head, we see things <strong>and</strong>feel things <strong>and</strong> learn things in terms of it. Like a sketch artist wholooks at a still life or figure <strong>and</strong> sees lines <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> drawn where infact there are c<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>urs <strong>and</strong> surfaces that wrap around out ofsight, we observe hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ings about us <strong>and</strong> distinguishappearances <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>haviors <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>ging <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a male <strong>sex</strong>ual identityor a female <strong>sex</strong>ual identity. We say <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ourselves, “There goes a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>,” “There goes a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.” Like the sketch artist, we drawlines at the edges <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>y<strong>on</strong>d which we cannot see.
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 3The idea of <strong>sex</strong>ual identity, in fact, has a claim <strong>on</strong> us tha<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ur actual experience does not; for if our experience“c<strong>on</strong>tradicts” it, we will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>nd our experience so that it willmake sense in terms of the idea. Other ideas—such as our<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief that there is an up <strong>and</strong> a down <strong>and</strong> that objects will tend<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fall <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward earth—are supportable with much less mentaleffort. Gravity is a sturdy, reliable category in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> which most ofour everyday experience fits without much fiddling. No <strong>on</strong>eneed worry their head that gravity will somehow cease if <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y people ab<strong>and</strong><strong>on</strong> faith in it. Nor need cause us anxietyabout whether, say, a dropped object will truly we c<strong>on</strong>tendwith the occasi<strong>on</strong>al excepti<strong>on</strong>s that could nag us <strong>and</strong> fall. Theforce of gravity would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> with us even without our idea of it.Gravity just is; we d<strong>on</strong>’t have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make it <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Not so the idea of<strong>sex</strong>ual identity. Sexual identity is a political idea. Its forcederives entirely from the hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> effort required <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sustain it,<strong>and</strong> it requires the lifel<strong>on</strong>g, nearly full-time exerti<strong>on</strong> ofeverybody for its maintenance <strong>and</strong> verificati<strong>on</strong>. Thoughevery<strong>on</strong>e, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> some extent, plays their part in keeping the ideaof <strong>sex</strong>ual identity real, some people, it should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> noted, workat this project with more fervor than do others.We are remarkably resistant <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> recognizing the idea of <strong>sex</strong>ualidentity as having solely a political meaning. We very muchprefer <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve, instead, that it has a metaphysical existence.For instance, we want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> think that the idea of <strong>sex</strong>ual identity“exists” the way that the idea of a chair does. The idea of achair can have an actual existence in the form of a real chair.There can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y different kinds of chairs, but we can know<strong>on</strong>e when we see <strong>on</strong>e, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause we have the idea of a chair inour head. And every actual chair has a degree of per<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ence <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>its chairness; we can look at it <strong>and</strong> sit in it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>morrow<strong>and</strong> the day after that <strong>and</strong> know it solidly as a chair. We<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve the idea of <strong>sex</strong>ual identity can have such a c<strong>on</strong>tinuity<strong>and</strong> per<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ence <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o, in the form of a real <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> or a real wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.We <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that though people’s appearances <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>haviorsdiffer greatly, we can know a real <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> or a real wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> whenwe see <strong>on</strong>e, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause we have the ideas of maleness <strong>and</strong>femaleness in our head. We think that when we perceive this
4 JOHN STOLTENBERGmaleness or femaleness in another pers<strong>on</strong>, that pers<strong>on</strong>’s <strong>sex</strong>ualidentity has a durability, a c<strong>on</strong>stancy, a certainty—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>themselves as well as <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> us. We think that it is truly possiblefor us ourselves <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a real <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> or a real wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> with thesame certainty that we see in others. We think the idea of<strong>sex</strong>ual identity is an idea like the idea of a chair, yet we can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>dimly aware at moments that the idea of <strong>on</strong>e’s <strong>sex</strong>ual identityis sometimes in doubt, is never fully realized, never settled,never really “there” for any dependable length of time. We canobserve that, oddly, the idea of <strong>on</strong>e’s own <strong>sex</strong>ual identity must<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> re-created, over <strong>and</strong> over again, in acti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> sensati<strong>on</strong>—indoing things that make <strong>on</strong>e feel really male or really female<strong>and</strong> in not doing things that leave room for doubt. To eachpers<strong>on</strong>’s own self, the idea of a fixed <strong>and</strong> certain <strong>sex</strong>ualidentity can seem “out there” somewhere, elusive, always morefully realized in some<strong>on</strong>e else. Almost every<strong>on</strong>e thinkssome<strong>on</strong>e else’s <strong>sex</strong>ual identity is more real than <strong>on</strong>e’s own,<strong>and</strong> almost every<strong>on</strong>e measures themselves against other peoplewho are perceived <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> more male or more female. At the sametime, almost every<strong>on</strong>e’s own <strong>sex</strong>ual identity feels certain <strong>and</strong>real <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> themselves <strong>on</strong>ly fleetingly, with troublesomeinterrupti<strong>on</strong>s. Chairs do not seem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have the same problem,<strong>and</strong> we do not have the same problem with chairs.Many attempts have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en made <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> locate a basis in materialreality for our <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief in <strong>sex</strong>ual identity. For instance, it isclaimed quite scientifically that people think <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>have asthey do, in a male way or in a female way, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause of certainmolecules called horm<strong>on</strong>es, which with rather circular logicare designated male or female. It is said, quite scientifically,that the prenatal presence or absence of these horm<strong>on</strong>esproduces male brains or female brains—brains predisposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>think gender-typed thoughts <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act out gender-typed<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>haviors. In fetuses <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>coming male, it is said, allegedly malehorm<strong>on</strong>es called <strong>and</strong>rogens “masculinize” the brain cells by,am<strong>on</strong>g other things, chemically c<strong>on</strong>necting the brain-wavepathways for <strong>sex</strong> <strong>and</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong>, so that eroticism <strong>and</strong>terrorism will ever after <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> mental neighbors. It is also saidthat in fetuses <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>coming female those <strong>and</strong>rogens are absent, so
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 5those two circuits do not fuse. The scientists who study <strong>and</strong>document such phenomena (most of whom, of course, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lievetheir brains <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> quite male) claim <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have determined thatsome female fetuses receive an abnormal overdose of<strong>and</strong>rogens in the womb, an accident that explains, they say,why <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mboy girls climb trees <strong>and</strong> why uppity women wantcareers. The gist of such theories—<strong>and</strong> there are <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y othersthat are similar—is that <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior follows <strong>sex</strong>ual identity, ratherthan the other way around.If it is true that <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior follows <strong>sex</strong>ual identity, then therightness or wr<strong>on</strong>gness of any hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> acti<strong>on</strong> can justifiably <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>judged differently depending <strong>on</strong> whether it was d<strong>on</strong>e by a maleor a female, <strong>on</strong> grounds such as biology, the natural order, orhu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> nature. The cross-cultural indispositi<strong>on</strong> of able-bodiedmales <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do dishes, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pick up after themselves, or <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> h<strong>and</strong>lechildcare resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities, for example, can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> said <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> derivefrom their horm<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>s, which were engineered forstalking mas<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>d<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> which have not evolved for doing thelaundry.Nearly all people <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve deeply <strong>and</strong> unshakably that somethings are wr<strong>on</strong>g for a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do while right for a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong>that other things are wr<strong>on</strong>g for a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do while right for awo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. This faith, like most, is blind; but unlike most, it doesnot perceive itself as a faith. It is, in fact, an ethic without anepistemology—a particular system of attaching values <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>c<strong>on</strong>duct without the slightest comprehensi<strong>on</strong> of how or whypeople <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that the system is true. It is a creed whosearticles never really require articulati<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause its <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieversrarely encounter any<strong>on</strong>e who does not already <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve it,silently <strong>and</strong> by heart. The valuati<strong>on</strong> of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> acti<strong>on</strong>saccording <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the gender of the <strong>on</strong>e who acts is a noti<strong>on</strong> sounremarkable, so unremittingly comm<strong>on</strong>place, <strong>and</strong> so selfevident<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> so <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y that its having come under any scrutinywhatsoever is a major miracle in the his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>c<strong>on</strong>sciousness.Oddly, at the same time, <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y people cherish a delusi<strong>on</strong>that their ethical judgments are really gender-neutral. Inpopular psychobabble, for instance, <strong>on</strong>e hears the words “give
6 JOHN STOLTENBERG<strong>and</strong> take” in countless c<strong>on</strong>versati<strong>on</strong>s about interpers<strong>on</strong>alrelati<strong>on</strong>ships <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween men <strong>and</strong> women. The catchphrase evokesboth the ideal <strong>and</strong> the practical possibility of a perfectlyreciprocal dyadic relati<strong>on</strong>ship, in harm<strong>on</strong>y <strong>and</strong> equilibrium,exchanging back <strong>and</strong> forth, like a blissfully unbiased teeter<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter.Men <strong>and</strong> women alike will swear by it, ex<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lling giving<strong>and</strong> taking as if it were a first principle of socio-<strong>sex</strong>ualinteracti<strong>on</strong>. The actual reality <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>neath “give <strong>and</strong> take” may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>quite different: for her, swallowed pride <strong>and</strong> self-effacingforgiveness; from him, punishing emoti<strong>on</strong>al withdrawal <strong>and</strong>ego<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>iacal defensiveness. Or per haps they will trade offtears for temporary reforms, capitulati<strong>on</strong> for a moment’stranquillity, her subordinati<strong>on</strong> in exchange for an end <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> histhreats of force. They will speak of this drama, embittering <strong>and</strong>brutalizing, as “give <strong>and</strong> take,” the <strong>on</strong>ly form they can imaginefor a love across the chasm that keeps male distinct fromfemale. They may grieve over their failed communicati<strong>on</strong>, yetthey will defend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the teeth their tacit <strong>sex</strong>-specific ethics—bywhich men <strong>and</strong> women are held accountable <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> two differentsystems of valuing c<strong>on</strong>duct—<strong>and</strong> they will not, ever,comprehend what has g<strong>on</strong>e wr<strong>on</strong>g.In no arena of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> activity are people more loyal <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> that<strong>sex</strong>-specific ethics than in transacti<strong>on</strong>s involving overt genitalstimulati<strong>on</strong>. When people have <strong>sex</strong>, make love, or screw, theyact as a rule in c<strong>on</strong>formity with two separate systems of<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior valuati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>on</strong>e male <strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong>e female, as if theiridentities or lives depended <strong>on</strong> it. For males, generally, it tends<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> their identities; for females, often, it is more a matter oftheir lives. Behaving within the ethical limits of what is wr<strong>on</strong>gor right for their <strong>sex</strong>ual identities <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes so critical, in fact,that physicalized anxiety about whether <strong>on</strong>e is “male enough”or “female enough” is virtually indistinguishable from mostbodily sensati<strong>on</strong>s that are regarded as “erotic.” For a male, theboundaries of what he wants <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make happen in a <strong>sex</strong>ualencounter with a partner—when <strong>and</strong> for how l<strong>on</strong>g, <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>whom he wants it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> happen—are rarely unrelated <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thispivotal c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>: what is necessary in order “<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>there,” in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> experience the functi<strong>on</strong>ing of his own body
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 7“as a male,” <strong>and</strong> in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> regarded by his partner ashaving no tactile, visual, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havioral, or emoti<strong>on</strong>al resemblance<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a not-male, a female. The anxiety he feels—fearing he maynot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> able <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make that happen <strong>and</strong> striving <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> inhabit his bodyso that it will happen—is a comp<strong>on</strong>ent of the <strong>sex</strong>ual tensi<strong>on</strong> hefeels. For <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y females, deference <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a male partner’soverriding identity anxiety can know no bounds; for her, thefear is that his precariously rigged <strong>sex</strong>ual-arousal mechanismwill go awry, haywire, <strong>and</strong> that he will hold her resp<strong>on</strong>sible<strong>and</strong> punish her somehow for turning him off (Or is it forturning him <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin with? That part is never clear). Toavoid that fate, that can of hysterical worms, no sacrifice nomatter how demeaning can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o great. In such ways as theseare most people’s experiences of <strong>sex</strong>ual tensi<strong>on</strong> due in largemeasure <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> their anxiety about whether they are <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havingwithin the ethical parameters of what is wr<strong>on</strong>g or right c<strong>on</strong>ductfor their putative <strong>sex</strong>ual identities. The <strong>sex</strong>ual tensi<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> thegender anxiety are so closely associated within every<strong>on</strong>e’sbody <strong>and</strong> brain that the anxiety predictably triggers the tensi<strong>on</strong><strong>and</strong> the release of the tensi<strong>on</strong> can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> expected <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> absolve theanxiety—at least until next time.This, then, is the nexus of eroticism <strong>and</strong> ethics—the hookup<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the eroticism we feel <strong>and</strong> the ethics of our acts,<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween sensati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> acti<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween feeling <strong>and</strong> doing. It isa c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> at the core of both our selves <strong>and</strong> our culture. It isthe point at which gender-specific <strong>sex</strong>uality emerges from<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havioral choices, not from ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>my. It is the point at whichour erotic feelings make <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ifest the fear with which wec<strong>on</strong>form <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the structure of right <strong>and</strong> wr<strong>on</strong>g for either gender, astructure mined <strong>on</strong> all sides by every peril we dare imagine. Thisis the point at which we might recognize that our very <strong>sex</strong>ualidentities are artifices <strong>and</strong> illusi<strong>on</strong>s, the result of a lifetime ofstriving <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do the right male thing not the right female thing, orthe right female thing not the right male thing. This is thepoint, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o, at which we can see that we are not dealing withanything so superficial as roles, images, or stereotypes, but thatin fact we have come face <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> face with an aspect of ouridentities even more basic than our corporeality—namely, our
8 JOHN STOLTENBERGfaith that there are two <strong>sex</strong>es <strong>and</strong> our secret <strong>and</strong> publicdesperati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e not the other.The ficti<strong>on</strong> of a <strong>sex</strong>ual identity <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes clearer up<strong>on</strong>examining more closely the case of male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity. Whatexactly is the set of <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>haviors that are prescri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d as right for it<strong>and</strong> proscri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d as wr<strong>on</strong>g? How does some<strong>on</strong>e learn <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> knowthe difference? What is the difference <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the male right<strong>and</strong> wr<strong>on</strong>g <strong>and</strong> the female right <strong>and</strong> wr<strong>on</strong>g? And how is itpossible that some<strong>on</strong>e who has successfully attained a male<strong>sex</strong>ual identity can feel so right in doing an acti<strong>on</strong>—forinstance, rape—that <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> some<strong>on</strong>e else, some<strong>on</strong>e female, is so<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tally wr<strong>on</strong>g?That last questi<strong>on</strong> reduces, approximately, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Why do menrape? As a preliminary answer, I propose an analogy <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thecraft of acting in the theater:There is a theory of acting, quite comm<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day, that <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>achieve recognizable naturalism, an ac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r must play a characteras if everything that character does is completely justifiable; so,for instance, an ac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r playing a villain ought not “play”villainous ness, or the evilness of that character. Only anuntrained or amateur ac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r would ever try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> portray the qualityof maliciousness in a character who does morally decrepitthings (the roles of Shakespeare’s Richard the Third <strong>and</strong>Büchner’s Woyzeck come <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> mind). Rather, according <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thistheory, the ac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve at all times that what thecharacter is doing is right, no matter what the audience or theother characters <strong>on</strong>stage may think of the goodness or badnessof that character’s acti<strong>on</strong>s. The ac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r playing the part mustpursue the character’s objectives in each scene, wholly<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieving that there is absolutely nothing wr<strong>on</strong>g with doing so.Although in the eyes of observers the character might committhe most heinous crimes, the ac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r playing the character musthave prepared for the role by adopting a <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief system in whichit makes moral sense <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do those acts.The problem of portraying character in the theater is <strong>on</strong>ethat Aris<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tle dissected in his classic fifth century B.C. textPoetics. His points are still central <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> acting theory as it ispracticed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day:
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 9With regard <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>…characters, there are four things <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aimed at. First, <strong>and</strong> most important, they must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> good.Now any speech or acti<strong>on</strong> that <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ifests some kind ofmoral purpose will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> expressive of character: thecharacter will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> good if the purpose is good. Thegoodness is possible in every class of pers<strong>on</strong>s. Even awo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> good, <strong>and</strong> also a slave, though the <strong>on</strong>e isliable <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> an inferior <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing, <strong>and</strong> the other quiteworthless. The sec<strong>on</strong>d thing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> aim at is appropriateness.There is a type of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ly valor, but <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>liness in awo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, or unscrupulous cleverness, is inappropriate.Thirdly, a character must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> true <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> life: which issomething quite different from goodness <strong>and</strong>appropriateness, as here descri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d. The fourth point isc<strong>on</strong>sistency: for even though the pers<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing imitated…is inc<strong>on</strong>sistent, still he must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>sistently inc<strong>on</strong>sistent. 1The impers<strong>on</strong>ati<strong>on</strong> of male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity in life <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ars severalstriking resemblances <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the techniques by which an ac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rportrays character. Paraphrasing Aris<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tle’s adm<strong>on</strong>iti<strong>on</strong>s fromtwenty-five centuries ago, <strong>on</strong>e can generalize that <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act outc<strong>on</strong>vincingly a male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity requires:• an unfailing <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief in <strong>on</strong>e’s own goodness <strong>and</strong> themoral rightness of <strong>on</strong>e’s purposes, regardless of how othersmay value what <strong>on</strong>e does;• a rigorous adherence <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the set of <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>haviors, characteristics,<strong>and</strong> idiosyncrasies that are appropriately male (<strong>and</strong>therefore inappropriate for a female);• an unquesti<strong>on</strong>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief in <strong>on</strong>e’s own c<strong>on</strong>sistency, notwithst<strong>and</strong>ingany evidence <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the c<strong>on</strong>trary—a c<strong>on</strong>sistencyrooted, for all practical purposes, in the relentlessness of<strong>on</strong>e’s will <strong>and</strong> in the fact that, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing superior by socialdefiniti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>on</strong>e can want whatever <strong>on</strong>e wants <strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong>e canexpect <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get it.This much, we can assume, Aris<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tle meant by “true <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> life,”for in fact in life this is how male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity is acted out,
10 JOHN STOLTENBERG<strong>and</strong> this is how “maleness” is inferred <strong>and</strong> assessed—as,fundamentally, a characterological phenomen<strong>on</strong>. Most people,whether as specta<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs of real life or staged life, regard ascredible <strong>and</strong> laudable some<strong>on</strong>e’s c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>s about therightness of what that <strong>on</strong>e is doing—no matter what, at nomatter what cost—when that some<strong>on</strong>e is a male, operatingwithin the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havioral choices of male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity. A “he,”<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing a he, can get away with murder—figuratively, <strong>and</strong>sometimes even literally—simply by virtue of the fact that hedissembles so sincerely, or he uses up some<strong>on</strong>e’s life with suchsingle-minded purpose, or he <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>trays some<strong>on</strong>e’s trust withsuch resolute passi<strong>on</strong>, or he ab<strong>and</strong><strong>on</strong>s commitments with suchpanache. When men are held <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> account for what they do intheir lives <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women—which happens relatively rarely—theirtunnel visi<strong>on</strong>, their obliviousness <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>sequences, theiregotism, their willfulness, all tend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> excuse, rather thancompound, their most horrific interpers<strong>on</strong>al offenses. Some<strong>on</strong>efemale, however, is regarded very differently. What i<strong>sex</strong>pected of her is hesitancy, qualms, uncertainty that what sheis doing is right—even while doing something right. Sheshould, as Aris<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tle might have put it, play her part as if inperpetual stage fright, a comely quality <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fitting <strong>on</strong>e as inferioras she. And when she is called <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> account—which happensrelatively often—not <strong>on</strong>ly is there never an excuse, but her lackof appropriate faintheartedness may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> grounds for yet moreblame.Blame, of course, figures prominently in what happens whena <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> rapes a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>: The <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> commits the rape, then thewo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> gets blamed for it. If rape was a transacti<strong>on</strong> wheregender-specific ethics were not operative, that assessment ofresp<strong>on</strong>sibility would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> regarded as the n<strong>on</strong> sequitur it is. Butin rape that illogic is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> explain what happened <strong>and</strong>why: If a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> rapes a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, the wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is resp<strong>on</strong>sible;therefore the rape is not a rape. What is the meaning of thatn<strong>on</strong>sensical blaming? And how does it illuminate the structureof <strong>sex</strong>-specific ethics?According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the tacit ethics of male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity, <strong>on</strong>ewho would act out the character of “a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, not a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>” will
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 11necessarily <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that the series of acti<strong>on</strong>s appropriate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thatcharacter is right <strong>and</strong> that there is absolutely nothing wr<strong>on</strong>gwith doing anything in pursuit of the character’s objectives.Rape is, of course, such an acti<strong>on</strong> in that it is committed almostexclusively by those who are acting out the character of “a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, not a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.” Rape is not the <strong>on</strong>ly acti<strong>on</strong> that isc<strong>on</strong>gruent with the tacit ethics of male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity. Wife<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ating, for instance, is another. So, for that matter, are anynum<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of things men do every day that are faithless, heedless,irresp<strong>on</strong>sible, or humiliating in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women—things mendo with impunity <strong>and</strong> women suffer silently <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause “that’sjust how men are.” If ever a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> decides not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> suffer suchan offense silently—if, for instance, she decides not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lerate<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing treated as if she is less of a pers<strong>on</strong> than he—<strong>and</strong> if shedecides <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>t him <strong>on</strong> terms that come close <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> exposingthe gender-specific ethics in what he has d<strong>on</strong>e (“You acted justlike a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. You treated me as if I completely didn’t matter just<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause I’m a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>” ), she will likely experience hisvengeful defensiveness at gale force; <strong>and</strong> he will likely try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>blow her away. That sorry scenario is also c<strong>on</strong>sistent with thetacit ethics by which male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity is played out. Sexspecificethics are tacit <strong>and</strong> they must remain tacit, otherwisethe jig would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> up. 2The series of acti<strong>on</strong>s that are appropriate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the character of“a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, not a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>” is profoundly influenced by thepresence of rape am<strong>on</strong>g them. This series of acts is not like adiss<strong>on</strong>ance composed of r<strong>and</strong>om, unharm<strong>on</strong>ious notes. It is,rather, a chord in which the root or fundament colors everypitch above it, its over<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nes enhancing every note that isstruck. Rape is like the fundamental <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ne; played sometimesfortissimo, sometimes pianissimo, sometimes a mere echo, itdetermines the harm<strong>on</strong>ics of the whole chord. “Sometimes,”“just a little,” “now <strong>and</strong> then,” “<strong>on</strong>ly rarely” —however much<strong>on</strong>e may wish <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> qualify the salient feature of the series, the ac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>f prevailing up<strong>on</strong> another <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> admit of penetrati<strong>on</strong> without full<strong>and</strong> knowledgeable assent so sets the st<strong>and</strong>ard in the reper<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ireof male-defining <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>haviors that it is not at all inaccurate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>
12 JOHN STOLTENBERGsuggest that the ethics of male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity are essentiallyrapist.Rapist ethics is a definitive <strong>and</strong> internally c<strong>on</strong>sistent systemfor attaching value <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>duct: The c<strong>on</strong>cepts of both right <strong>and</strong>wr<strong>on</strong>g exist within rapist ethics; it is not an ethic in whichblame <strong>and</strong> moral c<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong> go unreck<strong>on</strong>ed or unremarked.There is also in rapist ethics a structural view of pers<strong>on</strong>alresp<strong>on</strong>sibility for acts, but it views the <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom the act isd<strong>on</strong>e as <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing resp<strong>on</strong>sible for the act. It is a little like the driverof a car <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieving that the tree <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>side the road caused the car <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>collide with it. For example, <strong>on</strong>e victim of a rape <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld aninterviewer:There he was, a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who had the physical power <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> lockme up <strong>and</strong> rape me, without any real threat of societalpunishment, telling me that I was oppressive <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause Iwas a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>! Then he started telling me he couldunderst<strong>and</strong> how men sometimes go out <strong>and</strong> rapewomen…. He looked at me <strong>and</strong> said, “D<strong>on</strong>’t make mehurt you” as though I was, by not giving in <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him,forcing him <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rape me. That’s how he justified thewhole thing. He kept saying women were forcing him <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rape them by not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing there when he needed them. 3This reversal of moral accountability is not an isolatedinstance; it is a characteristic of nearly all acts that arecommitted within the ethic of male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity. It is a typeof projecti<strong>on</strong>, of seeing <strong>on</strong>e’s “wr<strong>on</strong>g” in the pers<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e iswr<strong>on</strong>ging, which is the same as saying that <strong>on</strong>e has d<strong>on</strong>e nowr<strong>on</strong>g. Social scientists who have surveyed the attitudes ofpris<strong>on</strong>ers report that “[s]ex offenders are twice as likely <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>insist <strong>on</strong> their own innocence as the general offenders” <strong>and</strong>that “they frequently see in their victims aggressive, offensivepers<strong>on</strong>s who force them in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> abnormal acts.” 4And a psychiatrist who has worked extensively withadmitted rapists reports, “It is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>coming increasingly moredifficult for these men <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> see their acti<strong>on</strong>s as criminal, as <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>inganything more than the normal male resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a female.” 5
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 13In the twisted logic of rapist ethics, the victim is ultimatelyculpable; the victim is the culprit; the victim did the wr<strong>on</strong>g.Absurdly, the most obvious <strong>and</strong> absolute facts about the act—who did what <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tally obfuscated <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>causeresp<strong>on</strong>sibility is imputed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the victim for an act that some<strong>on</strong>eelse committed. Myths that promulgate this ethic abound:Women want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> raped, women deserve <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> raped, womenprovoke rape, women need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> raped, <strong>and</strong> women enjoy<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing raped. The societal force of these myths is so great that<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y rape victims fear <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reveal <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> any<strong>on</strong>e what has happened<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> them, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieving themselves <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the cause of whathappened. Several years after she was gang-raped at the age offourteen, for instance, a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> recalled:I felt like I’d brought out the worst in these men just by<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing an available female body <strong>on</strong> the road. I felt like if Ihadn’t <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en <strong>on</strong> the road, these men would have c<strong>on</strong>tinuedin their good upst<strong>and</strong>ing ways, <strong>and</strong> that it was my faultthat they’d <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en lowered <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rape me. 6Also, she remem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>red:I forgave them immediately. I felt like it was all myfault that I’d <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en raped. I said, well, they’re men. Theyjust can’t help themselves. That’s the way men are. 7Implicit in this victim’s recollected feelings are the twin tenetsof rapist ethics: It is right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rape; it is wr<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> raped. Thattranslates more often than not in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a precept even moreappalling yet probably closer <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the raw insides of malesupremacisteroticism: It is right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> male; it is wr<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>female. Or, in the words of a character who has just raped,<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aten, <strong>and</strong> forcibly sodomized his wife in the pornographicnovel Juliette by the Marquis de Sade:There are two sides <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> every passi<strong>on</strong>…: seen from theside of the victim up<strong>on</strong> whom the pressure is brought <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ar, the passi<strong>on</strong> appears unjust; whereas…<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him whoapplies the pressure, his passi<strong>on</strong> is the justest thingimaginable. 8
14 JOHN STOLTENBERGIt is right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> male; it is wr<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> female; thereforeanything d<strong>on</strong>e against a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the purpose of <strong>on</strong>e’s passi<strong>on</strong>—realizing male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity—is justifiable <strong>and</strong> goodwithin the frame of rapist ethics.In rape, in additi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the physical act, a transacti<strong>on</strong> occursthat can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od as the obliterati<strong>on</strong> of the victim’s moralidentity. In an act of rape, the ethical structure of male right<strong>and</strong> wr<strong>on</strong>g jams or destroys the victim’s sense of herself assome<strong>on</strong>e who is resp<strong>on</strong>sible for her own acts; rapist ethicsdisintegrates her accumulated knowledge of acts <strong>and</strong>c<strong>on</strong>sequences <strong>and</strong> of the relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween herself <strong>and</strong> her ownacts. She regards herself as “at fault” for the assault, perhaps“forgiving” of her assailant at the same time, taking up<strong>on</strong>herself all the blame there is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> had, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the most basicc<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en severed—the c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween heridentity <strong>and</strong> her own real deeds. The obliterati<strong>on</strong> can result in anear <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tal eclipse of her sense of herself as a <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing withintegrity, as ever actually having had the capacity for moraldeciding, rati<strong>on</strong>al thought, <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>scientious acti<strong>on</strong>. The <strong>on</strong>ewho rapes, <strong>on</strong> the other h<strong>and</strong>, experiences himself asreintegrated, miraculously made whole again, more vital <strong>and</strong>more real. Rapists often report that they felt “bad” <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore theyraped—<strong>and</strong> that’s why they set out <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rape—but that they felt“<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter” afterward, that the rape itself was stimulating, exciting,enjoyable, <strong>and</strong> fun. The disintegrati<strong>on</strong> of the victim’s sense ofself is, <strong>on</strong>e might say, a prerequisite for the integrati<strong>on</strong> of therapist’s sense of self—a dynamic that is replicated wheneverany<strong>on</strong>e acts within the ethical structure of male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity.As <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> said, succinctly stating the modern <strong>and</strong> ancientmale dilemma: “A <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> gotta have a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> or he d<strong>on</strong>’t knowhe’s a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.… 9Some acti<strong>on</strong>s c<strong>on</strong>gruent with rapist ethics are committedwith what appears <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a “c<strong>on</strong>science” that is not quite clear.It would seem that while committing the act with completec<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>, the ac<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r who does it experiences some remorse aswell. This familiar show of c<strong>on</strong>triti<strong>on</strong> is apparent in thefollowing, a s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld by a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> about her twenty-four-yearoldhusb<strong>and</strong>:
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 15He didn’t <strong>on</strong>ly hit me. He bit me <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>re my hair. I havea scar <strong>on</strong> my arm from where he bit a hole out of it <strong>on</strong>etime. The <strong>on</strong>ly way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> end the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ating situati<strong>on</strong> was <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come submissive, so it could go <strong>on</strong> for hours <strong>and</strong>hours <strong>and</strong> hours until I couldn’t take it any l<strong>on</strong>ger, <strong>and</strong>I’d end up <strong>on</strong> the floor a sobbing heap, <strong>and</strong> then hewould c<strong>on</strong>tinue kicking at me for a while. Then he wouldpick me up <strong>and</strong> brush the tears away <strong>and</strong> tell me howsorry he was. And he’d ask me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> stay in so that peoplewouldn’t see the black eye <strong>and</strong> bruises. Another trip helaid <strong>on</strong> me was how heavy it was for him <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> deal with hisguilt about <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ating me. 10On the face of the matter, remorse, regret, or guilt would seem<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tradict the unequivocal c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong> with which a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> actsout rapist ethics, since all resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for “wr<strong>on</strong>gdoing” has<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en imputed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the victim, the female, the <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom the actwas d<strong>on</strong>e. Perplexingly, there does sometimes occur a kind ofritual dance of repentance after certain acts, especially brutal<strong>on</strong>es, through which men realize male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity. It is as if<strong>on</strong>e can hear the <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> murmuring some lyrical l<strong>on</strong>ging fora<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nement <strong>and</strong> propitiati<strong>on</strong>: “I’m sorry, forgive me, I didn’tmean <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>, I apologize; I promise I will never do it again.” Therefrain about refraining.What is the erotic substructure of that swift transiti<strong>on</strong> fromviolence <strong>and</strong> brutality <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pangs of remorse? How are we <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>underst<strong>and</strong> what happens <strong>on</strong>ce a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> has teased (perhaps) or<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>yed with, or <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>trayed or humiliated, or attacked or terrorizeda wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> then he turns suddenly repentant, <strong>and</strong> just assuddenly he indicates that what he wants <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do now is fuckher? And what are we <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make of his entreaties for forgiveness,for another chance, for rec<strong>on</strong>ciliati<strong>on</strong>? his protestati<strong>on</strong>s of selfreproach?the woe<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>g<strong>on</strong>e look in his eyes? Is there, after all,such a thing in rapist ethics as a genuine moral c<strong>on</strong>sciousnessof the true c<strong>on</strong>sequences of <strong>on</strong>e’s acts <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> other actual hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ings?The answer, I think, is no.
16 JOHN STOLTENBERGI <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that for those who strive <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward male <strong>sex</strong>ualidentity, there is always the critical problem of how <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>age<strong>on</strong>e’s affairs so that <strong>on</strong>e always has available a supply ofsustenance in the form of feminine deference <strong>and</strong> submissi<strong>on</strong>—some<strong>on</strong>e female <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do the things that will adequatelyrealize <strong>on</strong>e’s maleness. The sustenance must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> pers<strong>on</strong>al, from<strong>on</strong>e or more particular females who are in pers<strong>on</strong>al relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>on</strong>eself. The appeal for “forgiveness” within any suchrelati<strong>on</strong>ship functi<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> trap <strong>and</strong> lock in any female who mayhave <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en c<strong>on</strong>sidering withdrawing her sustenance from him.The forgiveness asked—though it is almost always de<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ded,<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause even here pressure is applied—is a form of insistencethat she remain in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him. One who lives by rapistethics, after all, c<strong>on</strong>stantly risks alienating the objects of hispressures <strong>and</strong> passi<strong>on</strong>s—<strong>and</strong> with good reas<strong>on</strong>. Butforgiveness elicited at those critical moments seduces thewo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> back in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> victimizati<strong>on</strong>. Without that relati<strong>on</strong>, male<strong>sex</strong>ual identity withers. As <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> put it: “When women arelosing their will <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> women…how can men <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> men? Whatthe hell have we got <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> male about any more?” 11 Theunforgiving wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is the judging wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, the angry wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>,the withdrawing wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>; she has lost her will <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> asmen define it. Forgiveness from a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> represents herc<strong>on</strong>tinued commitment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> present for him, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> stay inrelati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him, enabling him <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> remain by c<strong>on</strong>trast male.Her charity, her mercy, her grace (not for nothing have menpers<strong>on</strong>ified all those abstracti<strong>on</strong>s as female in legend <strong>and</strong> art!)are in fact the emblems of female subordinati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rapist ethics.Now I have delineated the structure of a particular ethic, theethics of male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity—its value system, its dynamics,its basic scenarios, the way it functi<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> create male <strong>sex</strong>ualidentity out of the ashes of female selflessness. It is the valuesystem in which some acts are deemed “good” <strong>and</strong> “right”<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they serve <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make an individual’s idea of malenessreal, <strong>and</strong> others “bad” or “wr<strong>on</strong>g” <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they numb it.Having read this far, <strong>on</strong>e may well ask: What is the use?“What is the use?” meaning: It all seems so hopeless. And“What is the use?” meaning: What is the practical value?—
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 17what good does it do <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> know that eroticism, ethics, <strong>and</strong> genderidentity are fundamentally interrelated?If we do not underst<strong>and</strong> that interrelatedness, then indeedthere is no hope. But there is enormous promise in perceivinggender as an ethically c<strong>on</strong>structed phenomen<strong>on</strong>—a <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief wecreate by how we decide <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act, not something that weau<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>matically “are” <strong>on</strong> account of how we are born. To <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>sure, for there <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> any real hope of change, it means that menmust examine scrupulously <strong>and</strong> h<strong>on</strong>estly how we actually<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>have, the real facts about our acts <strong>and</strong> our resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities,what happens <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom as a result, <strong>and</strong> men must own thec<strong>on</strong>sequences of what we have d<strong>on</strong>e. Men will have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p therapist-ethics mindfuck—imputing “oppressiveness” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> any<strong>on</strong>ewho refuses <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> give in, ignoring the word “no,” disregardingcompletely the reality of any<strong>on</strong>e who is not fawning <strong>and</strong>flattering <strong>and</strong> full of awe for our masculine prerogative. Andmen will no l<strong>on</strong>ger <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> entitled <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> defend our choices—<strong>and</strong> theyare choices—by appeal <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those dear substances our braincells, our horm<strong>on</strong>es, our g<strong>on</strong>ads, our DNA. And yes, the idea ofgiving up our deep attachment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rapist ethics is frightening atfirst. But I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that when men do <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> look at how weact the way we do in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> re-create certainty about ourotherwise elusive gender—<strong>and</strong> how our gender identity is theresult, not the cause, of the rapelike values in our c<strong>on</strong>duct—then we may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> grasp that it is thoroughly possible <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>change how we act.For there <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> hope, nothing matters more.
HOW MEN HAVE (A) SEXAn address <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> college studentsIn the hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> species, how <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y <strong>sex</strong>es arethere?Answer A: There are two <strong>sex</strong>es.Answer B: There are three <strong>sex</strong>es.Answer C: There are four <strong>sex</strong>es.Answer D: There are seven <strong>sex</strong>es.Answer E: There are as <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y <strong>sex</strong>es as there arepeople.I’d like <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> take you, in an imaginary way, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> look at a differentworld, somewhere else in the universe, a place inhabited by alife form that very much resembles us. But these creaturesgrow up with a peculiar knowledge. They know that they have<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en born in an infinite variety. They know, for instance, thatin their genetic material they are born with hundreds ofdifferent chromosome formati<strong>on</strong>s at the point in each cell thatwe would say determines their “<strong>sex</strong>.” These creatures d<strong>on</strong>’t justcome in xx or XY; they also come in XXY <strong>and</strong> XYY <strong>and</strong> xxxplus a l<strong>on</strong>g list of “mosaic” variati<strong>on</strong>s in which some cells in acreature’s body have <strong>on</strong>e combinati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> other cells haveanother. Some of these creatures are born with chromosomesthat aren’t even quite X or Y <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause a little bit of <strong>on</strong>echromosome goes <strong>and</strong> gets joined <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> another. There arehundreds of different combinati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> though all are notfertile, quite a num<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of them are. The creatures in this world
JOHN STOLTENBERG 19enjoy their individuality; they delight in the fact that they arenot divisible in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> distinct categories. So when another newbornarrives with an esoterically rare chromosomal formati<strong>on</strong>, thereis a little celebrati<strong>on</strong>: “Aha,” they say, “another sign that weare each unique.”These creatures also live with the knowledge that they are bornwith a vast range of genital formati<strong>on</strong>s. Between their legs aretissue structures that vary al<strong>on</strong>g a c<strong>on</strong>tinuum, from cli<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>riseswith a vulva through all possible combinati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> gradati<strong>on</strong>s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> penises with a scrotal sac. These creatures live with anunderst<strong>and</strong>ing that their genitals all developed prenatally fromexactly the same little nub of embry<strong>on</strong>ic tissue called a genitaltu<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rcle, which grew <strong>and</strong> developed under the influence ofvarying amounts of the horm<strong>on</strong>e <strong>and</strong>rogen. These creaturesh<strong>on</strong>or <strong>and</strong> respect every<strong>on</strong>e’s natural-born genitalia—includingwhat we would descri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> as a microphallus or a cli<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ris severalinches l<strong>on</strong>g. What these creatures find amazing <strong>and</strong> precious isthat <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause every<strong>on</strong>e’s genitals stem from the sameembry<strong>on</strong>ic tissue, the nerves inside all their genitals got wiredvery much alike, so these nerves of <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch just go crazy up<strong>on</strong>c<strong>on</strong>tact in a way that res<strong>on</strong>ates completely <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween them. “Mygosh,” they think, “you must feel something in your genitaltu<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rcle that intensely resembles what I’m feeling in my genitaltu<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rcle.” Well, they d<strong>on</strong>’t exactly think that in so <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ywords; they’re actually quite heavy in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> their feelings at thatpoint; but they do feel very c<strong>on</strong>nected—throughout all theirw<strong>on</strong>drous variety.I could go <strong>on</strong>. I could tell you about the variety of horm<strong>on</strong>esthat course through their bodies in countless different patterns<strong>and</strong> proporti<strong>on</strong>s, both <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore birth <strong>and</strong> throughout their lives—the horm<strong>on</strong>es that we call “<strong>sex</strong> horm<strong>on</strong>es” but that they call“individuality inducers.” I could tell you how these creaturesthink about reproducti<strong>on</strong>: For part of their lives, some of themare quite capable of gestati<strong>on</strong>, delivery, <strong>and</strong> lactati<strong>on</strong>; <strong>and</strong> forpart of their lives, some of them are quite capable ofinseminati<strong>on</strong>; <strong>and</strong> for part or all of their lives, some of them arenot capable of any of those things—so these creatures c<strong>on</strong>cludethat it would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> silly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> lock any<strong>on</strong>e in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a lifel<strong>on</strong>g category
20 REFUSING TO BE A MANbased <strong>on</strong> a capability variable that may or may not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> utilized<strong>and</strong> that in any case changes over each lifetime in a fairlyuncertain <strong>and</strong> idiosyncratic way. These creatures are no<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>blivious <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reproducti<strong>on</strong>; but nor do they spend their livesc<strong>on</strong>structing a self-definiti<strong>on</strong> around their variablereproductive capacities. They d<strong>on</strong>’t have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause what istruly unique about these creatures is that they are capable ofhaving a sense of pers<strong>on</strong>al identity without struggling <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fit in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>a group identity based <strong>on</strong> how they were born. These creaturesare quite happy, actually. They d<strong>on</strong>’t worry about sorting othercreatures in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> categories, so they d<strong>on</strong>’t have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> worry aboutwhether they are measuring up <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> some category theythemselves are supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>.These creatures, of course, have <strong>sex</strong>. Rolling <strong>and</strong> rollicking<strong>and</strong> robust <strong>sex</strong>, <strong>and</strong> sweaty <strong>and</strong> slippery <strong>and</strong> sticky <strong>sex</strong>, <strong>and</strong>trembling <strong>and</strong> quaking <strong>and</strong> tumultuous <strong>sex</strong>, <strong>and</strong> tender <strong>and</strong>tingling <strong>and</strong> transcendent <strong>sex</strong>. They have <strong>sex</strong> fingers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fingers.They have <strong>sex</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lly. They have <strong>sex</strong> genital tu<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rcle <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>genital tu<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rcle. They have <strong>sex</strong>. They do not have a <strong>sex</strong>. Intheir erotic lives, they are not required <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act out their status ina category system—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause there is no category system. Thereare no <strong>sex</strong>es <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>, so <strong>sex</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween creatures is free <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween genuine individuals—not representatives of acategory. They have <strong>sex</strong>. They do not have a <strong>sex</strong>. Imagine lifelike that.Perhaps you have guessed the point of this science ficti<strong>on</strong>:Ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mically, each creature in the imaginary world I have<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en describing could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> an identical twin of every hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <strong>on</strong> earth. These creatures, in fact, are us—in every wayexcept socially <strong>and</strong> politically. The way they are born is theway we are born. And we are not born <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>ging <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e or theother of two <strong>sex</strong>es. We are born in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a physiological c<strong>on</strong>tinuum<strong>on</strong> which there is no discrete <strong>and</strong> definite point that you cancall “male” <strong>and</strong> no discrete <strong>and</strong> definite point that you can call“female.” If you look at all the variables in nature that are said<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> determine hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> “<strong>sex</strong>,” you can’t possibly find <strong>on</strong>e thatwill unequivocally split the species in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> two. Each of the socalledcriteria of <strong>sex</strong>edness is itself a c<strong>on</strong>tinuum—including
JOHN STOLTENBERG 21chromosomal variables, genital <strong>and</strong> g<strong>on</strong>adal variati<strong>on</strong>s,reproductive capacities, endocrinological proporti<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> anyother criteri<strong>on</strong> you could think of. Any or all of these differentvariables may line up in any num<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of ways, <strong>and</strong> all of thevariables may vary independently of <strong>on</strong>e another. 1What does all this mean? It means, first of all, alogical dilemma: Either hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> “male” <strong>and</strong> hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> “female”actually exist in nature as fixed <strong>and</strong> discrete entities <strong>and</strong> youcan credibly base an entire social <strong>and</strong> political system <strong>on</strong> thoseabsolute natural categories, or else the variety of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>sex</strong>edness is infinite. As Andrea Dworkin wrote in 1974:The discovery is, of course, that “<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>” <strong>and</strong> “wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>” areficti<strong>on</strong>s, caricatures, cultural c<strong>on</strong>structs. As models theyare reductive, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>talitarian, inappropriate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>coming. As roles they are static, demeaning <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thefemale, dead-ended for male <strong>and</strong> female both. 2The c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong> is inescapable:We are, clearly, a multi<strong>sex</strong>ed species which has its<strong>sex</strong>uality spread al<strong>on</strong>g a vast c<strong>on</strong>tinuum where theelements called male f<strong>and</strong> female are not discrete. 3“We are…a multi<strong>sex</strong>ed species.” I first read those words alittle over ten years ago—<strong>and</strong> that li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rating recogniti<strong>on</strong> savedmy life.All the time I was growing up, I knew that there wassomething really problematical in my relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood.Inside, deep inside, I never <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved I was fully male—I never<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved I was growing up enough of a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved thatsomeplace out there, in other men, there was something thatwas genuine authentic all-American <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood—the real stuff—but I didn’t have it: not enough of it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>vince me anyway,even if I <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>aged <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> fairly c<strong>on</strong>vincing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those around me. Ifelt like an impos<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r, like a fake. I ag<strong>on</strong>ized a lot about notfeeling male enough, <strong>and</strong> I had no idea then how much I wasnot al<strong>on</strong>e.Then I read those words—those words that suggested <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> mefor the first time that the noti<strong>on</strong> of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood is a cultural
22 REFUSING TO BE A MANdelusi<strong>on</strong>, a baseless <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief, a false fr<strong>on</strong>t, a house of cards. It’snot true. The category I was trying so desperately <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>,<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a mem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of in good st<strong>and</strong>ing—it doesn’t exist. Poof.Now you see it, now you d<strong>on</strong>’t. Now you’re terrified you’re notreally part of it; now you’re free, you d<strong>on</strong>’t have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> worryanymore. However removed you feel inside from “authentic<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood,” it doesn’t matter. What matters is the center insideyourself—<strong>and</strong> how you live, <strong>and</strong> how you treat people, <strong>and</strong> whatyou can c<strong>on</strong>tribute as you pass through life <strong>on</strong> this earth, <strong>and</strong>how h<strong>on</strong>estly you love, <strong>and</strong> how carefully you make choices.Those are the things that really matter. Not whether you’re areal <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. There’s no such thing.The idea of the male <strong>sex</strong> is like the idea of an Aryan race.The Nazis <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved in the idea of an Aryan race—they <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lievedthat the Aryan race really exists, physically, in nature—<strong>and</strong>they put a great deal of effort in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> making it real. The Nazis<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved that from the bl<strong>on</strong>d hair <strong>and</strong> blue eyes occurringnaturally in the hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> species, they could c<strong>on</strong>strue theexistence of a separate race—a distinct category of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ings that was unambiguously rooted in the natural order ofthings. But traits do not a race make; traits <strong>on</strong>ly make traits. Forthe idea <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> real that these physical traits comprised a race,the race had <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> socially c<strong>on</strong>structed. The Nazis inferiorized<strong>and</strong> exterminated those they defined as “n<strong>on</strong>-Aryan.” Withthat, the noti<strong>on</strong> of an Aryan race <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> seem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> come true.That’s how there could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a political entity known as an Aryanrace, <strong>and</strong> that’s how there could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> for some people a pers<strong>on</strong>al,subjective sense that they <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>ged <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it. This happenedthrough hate <strong>and</strong> force, through violence <strong>and</strong> victimizati<strong>on</strong>,through treating milli<strong>on</strong>s of people as things, thenexterminating them. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief system shared by people who<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved they were all Aryan could not exist apart from thatforce <strong>and</strong> violence. The force <strong>and</strong> violence created a racialclass system, <strong>and</strong> it created those people’s mem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rship in therace c<strong>on</strong>sidered “superior.” The force <strong>and</strong> violence served theirclass interests in large part <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it created <strong>and</strong> maintainedthe class itself. But the idea of an Aryan race could never<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come metaphysically true, despite all the violence unleashed
JOHN STOLTENBERG 23<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> create it, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause there simply is no Aryan race. There is<strong>on</strong>ly the idea of it—<strong>and</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>sequences of trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make itseem real. The male <strong>sex</strong> is very like that.Penises <strong>and</strong> ejaculate <strong>and</strong> prostate gl<strong>and</strong>s occur in nature, butthe noti<strong>on</strong> that these ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mical traits comprise a <strong>sex</strong>—adiscrete class, separate <strong>and</strong> distinct, metaphysically divisiblefrom some other <strong>sex</strong>, the “other <strong>sex</strong>” —is simply that: anoti<strong>on</strong>, an idea. The penises exist; the male <strong>sex</strong> does not. Themale <strong>sex</strong> is socially c<strong>on</strong>structed. It is a political entity thatflourishes <strong>on</strong>ly through acts of force <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>ual terrorism.Apart from the global inferiorizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> subordinati<strong>on</strong> ofthose who are defined as “n<strong>on</strong>male,” the idea of pers<strong>on</strong>almem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rship in the male <strong>sex</strong> class would have no recognizablemeaning. It would make no sense. No <strong>on</strong>e could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a mem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rof it <strong>and</strong> no <strong>on</strong>e would think they should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a mem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of it.There would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> no male <strong>sex</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>. That doesn’t meanthere wouldn’t still <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> penises <strong>and</strong> ejaculate <strong>and</strong> prostategl<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> such. It simply means that the center of ourselfhood would not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> required <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reside inside an utterlyfictitious category—a category that <strong>on</strong>ly seems real <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theextent that those outside it are put down.We live in a world divided absolutely in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> two <strong>sex</strong>es, eventhough nothing about hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> nature warrants that divisi<strong>on</strong>. Weare sorted in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e category or another at birth based solely <strong>on</strong>a visual inspecti<strong>on</strong> of our groins, <strong>and</strong> the <strong>on</strong>ly questi<strong>on</strong> that’sasked is whether there’s enough el<strong>on</strong>gated tissue around yoururethra so you can pee st<strong>and</strong>ing up. The presence or absence ofa l<strong>on</strong>g-enough penis is the primary criteri<strong>on</strong> for separatingwho’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> grow up male from who’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> grow up female. Andam<strong>on</strong>g all the ir<strong>on</strong>ies in that utterly whimsical <strong>and</strong> arbitraryselecti<strong>on</strong> process is the fact that any<strong>on</strong>e can pee both sittingdown <strong>and</strong> st<strong>and</strong>ing up.Male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity is the c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong> or <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief, held by mostpeople born with penises, that they are male <strong>and</strong> not female,that they <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the male <strong>sex</strong>. In a society predicated <strong>on</strong> thenoti<strong>on</strong> that there are two “opposite” <strong>and</strong> “complementary”<strong>sex</strong>es, this idea not <strong>on</strong>ly makes sense, it <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes sense; thevery idea of a male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity produces sensati<strong>on</strong>,
24 REFUSING TO BE A MANproduces the meaning of sensati<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes the meaning ofhow <strong>on</strong>e’s body feels. The sense <strong>and</strong> the sensing of a male<strong>sex</strong>ual identity is at <strong>on</strong>ce mental <strong>and</strong> physical, at <strong>on</strong>ce public<strong>and</strong> pers<strong>on</strong>al. Most people born with a penis <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween their legsgrow up aspiring <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel <strong>and</strong> act unambiguously male, l<strong>on</strong>ging<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <strong>sex</strong> that is male <strong>and</strong> daring not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<strong>sex</strong> that is not, <strong>and</strong> feeling this urgency for a visceral <strong>and</strong>c<strong>on</strong>stant verificati<strong>on</strong> of their male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity—for a fleshyc<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood—as the driving force of their life. Thedrive does not originate in the ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>my. The sensati<strong>on</strong>s derivefrom the idea. The idea gives the feelings social meaning; theidea determines which sensati<strong>on</strong>s shall <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> sought.People born with penises must strive <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make the idea ofmale <strong>sex</strong>ual identity pers<strong>on</strong>ally real by doing certain deeds,acti<strong>on</strong>s that are valued <strong>and</strong> chosen <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they produce thedesired feeling of <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>ging <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a <strong>sex</strong> that is male <strong>and</strong> notfemale. Male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity is experienced <strong>on</strong>ly in sensati<strong>on</strong><strong>and</strong> acti<strong>on</strong>, in feeling <strong>and</strong> doing, in eroticism <strong>and</strong> ethics. Thefeeling of <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>ging <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a male <strong>sex</strong> encompasses bothsensati<strong>on</strong>s that are explicitly “<strong>sex</strong>ual” <strong>and</strong> those that are no<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rdinarily regarded as such. And there is a tacit social valuesystem according <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> which certain acts are chosen <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause theymake an individual’s <strong>sex</strong>edness feel real <strong>and</strong> certain other actsare eschewed <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they numb it. That value system is theethics of male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity—<strong>and</strong> it may well <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the socialorigin of all in<strong>justice</strong>.Each pers<strong>on</strong> experiences the idea of <strong>sex</strong>ual identity as moreor less real, more or less certain, more or less true, depending<strong>on</strong> two very pers<strong>on</strong>al phenomena: <strong>on</strong>e’s feelings <strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong>e’sacts. For <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y people, for instance, the act of fucking makestheir <strong>sex</strong>ual identity feel more real than it does at other times,<strong>and</strong> they can predict from experience that this feeling ofgreater certainty will last for at least a while after each timethey fuck. Fucking is not the <strong>on</strong>ly such act, <strong>and</strong> not <strong>on</strong>ly socalled<strong>sex</strong> acts can result in feelings of certainty about <strong>sex</strong>ualidentity; but the act of fucking happens <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a very goodexample of the correlati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween doing a specific act in aspecific way <strong>and</strong> sensing the specificity of the <strong>sex</strong>ual identity
JOHN STOLTENBERG 25<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> which <strong>on</strong>e aspires. A pers<strong>on</strong> can decide <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do certain acts<strong>and</strong> not others just <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause some acts will have the payoff of afeeling of greater certainty about <strong>sex</strong>ual identity <strong>and</strong> otherswill give the feedback of a feeling of less. The transient realityof <strong>on</strong>e’s <strong>sex</strong>ual identity, a pers<strong>on</strong> can know, is always afuncti<strong>on</strong> of what <strong>on</strong>e does <strong>and</strong> how <strong>on</strong>e’s acts make <strong>on</strong>e feel. Thefeeling <strong>and</strong> the act must c<strong>on</strong>join for the idea of the <strong>sex</strong>ualidentity <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> come true. We all keep l<strong>on</strong>ging for surety of our<strong>sex</strong>edness that we can feel; we all keep striving through ouracti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make the idea real.In hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> nature, eroticism is not differentiated <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween“male” <strong>and</strong> “female” in any clear-cut way. There is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o much ofa c<strong>on</strong>tinuum, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o great a resemblance. From all that we know,the penis <strong>and</strong> the cli<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ris are identically “wired” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> receive <strong>and</strong>retransmit sensati<strong>on</strong>s from throughout the body, <strong>and</strong> thec<strong>on</strong>gesti<strong>on</strong> of blood within the lower <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rso during <strong>sex</strong>ualexcitati<strong>on</strong> makes all bodies sensate in a remarkably similar<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ner. Simply put, we all share all the nerve <strong>and</strong> bloodvessellayouts that are associated with <strong>sex</strong>ual arousal. Who cansay, for instance, that the penis would not experiencesensati<strong>on</strong>s the way that a cli<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ris does if this were not a worldin which the penis is supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> hell<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>nt <strong>on</strong> penetrati<strong>on</strong>? Bythe time most men make it through pu<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rty, they <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve thaterotic sensati<strong>on</strong> is supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin in their penis; that ifengorgement has not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gun there, then nothing else in theirbody will heat up either. There is a massive interiordissociati<strong>on</strong> from sensati<strong>on</strong>s that do not explicitly remind a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> that his penis is still there. And not <strong>on</strong>ly there as sensate,but functi<strong>on</strong>al <strong>and</strong> operati<strong>on</strong>al.So much of most men’s <strong>sex</strong>uality is tied up with genderactualizing—withfeeling like a real <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>—that they canscarcely recall an erotic sensati<strong>on</strong> that had no gender-specificcultural meaning. As most men age, they learn <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> cancel out<strong>and</strong> deny erotic sensati<strong>on</strong>s that are not specifically linked <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>what they think a real <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel. An eroticsensati<strong>on</strong> unintenti<strong>on</strong>ally experienced in a receptive,communing mode—instead of in an aggressive <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trolling<strong>and</strong> violative mode, for instance—can shut down sensory
26 REFUSING TO BE A MANsystems in an instant. An erotic sensati<strong>on</strong> unintenti<strong>on</strong>allylinked <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the “wr<strong>on</strong>g” <strong>sex</strong> of another pers<strong>on</strong> can similarly meansudden numbness. Acculturated male <strong>sex</strong>uality has a built-infail-safe: Either its political c<strong>on</strong>text reifies <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood or theexperience cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> felt as sensual. Either the act creates his<strong>sex</strong>edness or it does not compute as a <strong>sex</strong> act. So he tenses up,pumps up, steels himself against the dread that he <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> found notmale enough. And his dread is not stupid; for he sees whathappens <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> people when they are treated as n<strong>on</strong>males.My point is that <strong>sex</strong>uality does not have a gender; it createsa gender. It creates for those who adapt <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it in narrow <strong>and</strong>specified ways the c<strong>on</strong>firmati<strong>on</strong> for the individual of <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>ging<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the idea of <strong>on</strong>e <strong>sex</strong> or the other. So-called male <strong>sex</strong>uality is alearned c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween specific physical sensati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong>the idea of a male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity. To achieve this male <strong>sex</strong>ualidentity requires that an individual identify with the class ofmales—that is, accept as <strong>on</strong>e’s own the values <strong>and</strong> interests ofthe class. A fully realized male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity also requiresn<strong>on</strong>identificati<strong>on</strong> with that which is perceived <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>male, orfemale. A male must not identify with females; he must notassociate with females in feeling, interest, or acti<strong>on</strong>. Hisidentity as a mem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of the <strong>sex</strong> class men absolutely depends<strong>on</strong> the extent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> which he repudiates the values <strong>and</strong> interests ofthe <strong>sex</strong> class “women.”I think somewhere inside us all, we have always knownsomething about the relativity of gender. Somewhere inside usall, we know that our bodies harbor deep resemblances, that weare wired inside <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>d in a profound harm<strong>on</strong>y <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theres<strong>on</strong>ance of eroticism inside the body of some<strong>on</strong>e near us.Physiologically, we are far more alike than different. Thetissue structures that have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come labial <strong>and</strong> cli<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral or scrotal<strong>and</strong> penile have not forgotten their comm<strong>on</strong> ancestry. Theirsensati<strong>on</strong>s are of the same source. The nerve networks <strong>and</strong>interlock of capillaries throughout our pelvises electrify <strong>and</strong>engorge as if plugged in <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether <strong>and</strong> pumping as <strong>on</strong>e. That’swhat we feel when we feel <strong>on</strong>e another’s feelings. That’s whatcan happen during <strong>sex</strong> that is mutual, equal, reciprocal,profoundly communing.
JOHN STOLTENBERG 27So why is it that some of us with penises think it’s <strong>sex</strong>y <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>pressure some<strong>on</strong>e in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> having <strong>sex</strong> against their will? Some ofus actually get harder the harder the pers<strong>on</strong> resists. Some of uswith penises actually <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that some of us without peniseswant <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> raped. And why is it that some of us with penisesthink it’s <strong>sex</strong>y <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> treat other people as objects, as things <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>bought <strong>and</strong> sold, impers<strong>on</strong>al bodies <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> possessed <strong>and</strong>c<strong>on</strong>sumed for our <strong>sex</strong>ual pleasure? Why is it that some of uswith penises are aroused by <strong>sex</strong> tinged with rape, <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>commoditized by pornography? Why do so <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y of us withpenises want such anti<strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>sex</strong>?There’s a reas<strong>on</strong>, of course. We have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make a lie seemreal. It’s a very big lie. We each have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do our part. Otherwisethe lie will look like the lie that it is. Imagine the enormity ofwhat we each must do <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep the lie alive in each of us.Imagine the awesome challenge we face <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make the lie asocial fact. It’s a lifetime missi<strong>on</strong> for each of us born with apenis: <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have <strong>sex</strong> in such a way that the male <strong>sex</strong> will seemreal—<strong>and</strong> so that we’ll feel like a real part of it.We all grow up knowing exactly what kind of <strong>sex</strong> that is.It’s the kind of <strong>sex</strong> you can have when you pressure or bullysome<strong>on</strong>e else in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it. So it’s a kind of <strong>sex</strong> that makes your willmore important than theirs. That kind of <strong>sex</strong> helps the lie a lot.That kind of <strong>sex</strong> makes you feel like some<strong>on</strong>e important <strong>and</strong> itturns the other pers<strong>on</strong> in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> some<strong>on</strong>e unimportant. That kind of<strong>sex</strong> makes you feel real, not like a fake. It’s a kind of <strong>sex</strong> menhave in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel like a real <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.There’s also the kind of <strong>sex</strong> you can have when you forcesome<strong>on</strong>e <strong>and</strong> hurt some<strong>on</strong>e <strong>and</strong> cause some<strong>on</strong>e suffering <strong>and</strong>humiliati<strong>on</strong>. Violence <strong>and</strong> hostility in <strong>sex</strong> help the lie a lot <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o.Real men are aggressive in <strong>sex</strong>. Real men get cruel in <strong>sex</strong>. Realmen use their penises like weap<strong>on</strong>s in <strong>sex</strong>. Real men leavebruises. Real men think it’s a turn-<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> threaten harm. Abrutish push can make an erecti<strong>on</strong> feel really hard. That kindof <strong>sex</strong> helps the lie a lot. That kind of <strong>sex</strong> makes you feel likesome<strong>on</strong>e who is powerful <strong>and</strong> it turns the other pers<strong>on</strong> in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>some<strong>on</strong>e powerless. That kind of <strong>sex</strong> makes you feeldangerous <strong>and</strong> in c<strong>on</strong>trol—like you’re fighting a war with an
28 REFUSING TO BE A MANenemy <strong>and</strong> if you’re mean enough you’ll win but if you let upyou’ll lose your <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood. It’s a kind of <strong>sex</strong> men have in order<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood.There’s also the kind of <strong>sex</strong> you can have when you pay yourm<strong>on</strong>ey in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a profit system that grows rich displaying <strong>and</strong>exploiting the bodies <strong>and</strong> body parts of people without penisesfor the <strong>sex</strong>ual entertainment of people with. Pay your m<strong>on</strong>ey<strong>and</strong> watch. Pay your m<strong>on</strong>ey <strong>and</strong> imagine. Pay your m<strong>on</strong>ey <strong>and</strong>get real turned <strong>on</strong>. Pay your m<strong>on</strong>ey <strong>and</strong> jerk off. That kind of<strong>sex</strong> helps the lie a lot. It helps support an industry committed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>making people with penises <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that people without aresluts who just want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> ravished <strong>and</strong> reviled—an industrydedicated <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> maintaining a <strong>sex</strong>-class system in which men<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve themselves <strong>sex</strong> machines <strong>and</strong> men <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve women aremindless fuck tu<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>s. That kind of <strong>sex</strong> helps the lie a lot. It’slike buying Krugerr<strong>and</strong>s as a vote of c<strong>on</strong>fidence for whitesupremacy in apartheid South Africa.And there’s <strong>on</strong>e more thing: That kind of <strong>sex</strong> makes the lieindelible—burns it <strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> your retinas right adjacent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> your brain—makes you remem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r it <strong>and</strong> makes your body resp<strong>on</strong>d <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it<strong>and</strong> so it makes you <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that the lie is in fact true: Youreally are a real <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. That slavish <strong>and</strong> submissive creaturethere spreading her legs is really not. You <strong>and</strong> that creaturehave nothing in comm<strong>on</strong>. That creature is an alien inanimatething, but your penis is completely real <strong>and</strong> alive. Now you cancome. Thank god almighty—you have a <strong>sex</strong> at last.Now, I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve there are <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y who are sick at heart overwhat I have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en describing. There are <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y who were bornwith penises who want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p collaborating in the <strong>sex</strong>-classsystem that needs us <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> need these kinds of <strong>sex</strong>. I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve someof you want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p living out the big lie, <strong>and</strong> you want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> knowhow. Some of you l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch truthfully. Some of you want<strong>sex</strong>ual relati<strong>on</strong>ships in your life that are about intimacy <strong>and</strong> joy,ecstasy <strong>and</strong> equality—not antag<strong>on</strong>ism <strong>and</strong> alienati<strong>on</strong>. So whatI have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say next I have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> you.When you use <strong>sex</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have a <strong>sex</strong>, the <strong>sex</strong> you have is likely <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>make you feel crummy about yourself. But when you have <strong>sex</strong>in which you are not struggling with your partner in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act
JOHN STOLTENBERG 29out “real <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood,” the <strong>sex</strong> you have is more likely <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> bringyou close.This means several specific things:1. C<strong>on</strong>sent is absolutely essential. If both you <strong>and</strong> yourpartner have not freely given your informed c<strong>on</strong>sent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <strong>sex</strong>you are about <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have, you can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> quite certain that the <strong>sex</strong> yougo ahead <strong>and</strong> have will make you strangers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> each other. Howdo you know if there’s c<strong>on</strong>sent? You ask. You ask again ifyou’re sensing any doubt. C<strong>on</strong>sent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do <strong>on</strong>e thing isn’tc<strong>on</strong>sent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do another. So you keep communicating, in clearwords. And you d<strong>on</strong>’t take anything for granted.2. Mutuality is absolutely essential. Sex is not somethingyou do <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> some<strong>on</strong>e. Sex is not a <strong>on</strong>e-way transitive verb, with asubject, you, <strong>and</strong> an object, the body you’re with. Sex that ismutual is not about doing <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing d<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>; it’s about <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ingwith<strong>and</strong> feelingwith. You have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> really <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> there <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> experiencewhat is happening <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween <strong>and</strong> within the two of you—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween every part of you <strong>and</strong> within both your whole bodies.It’s a matter of paying attenti<strong>on</strong>—as if you are paying attenti<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> some<strong>on</strong>e who matters.3. Respect is absolutely essential. In the <strong>sex</strong> that you have,treat your partner like a real pers<strong>on</strong> who, like you, has realfeelings—feelings that matter as much as your own. You mayor may not love—but you must always respect. You mustrespect the integrity of your partner’s body. It is not yours forthe taking. It <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>gs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> some<strong>on</strong>e real. And you do not ge<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>wnership of your partner’s body just <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause you are having<strong>sex</strong>—or just <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause you have had <strong>sex</strong>.For those who are closer <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ginning of your <strong>sex</strong> livesthan <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the middle or the end, <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y things are still changingfor you about how you have <strong>sex</strong>, with whom, why or why not,what you like or dislike, what kind of <strong>sex</strong> you want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have moreof. In the next few years, you are going <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> discover <strong>and</strong> decidea lot. I say “discover” <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause no <strong>on</strong>e can tell you what you’regoing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> find out about yourself in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>—<strong>and</strong> I say“decide” <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause virtually without knowing it you are going <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> laying down habits <strong>and</strong> patterns that will probably stay withyou for the rest of your life. You’re at a point in your <strong>sex</strong>ual
30 REFUSING TO BE A MANhis<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry that you will never <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> at again. You d<strong>on</strong>’t know whatyou d<strong>on</strong>’t know yet. And yet you are making choices whosec<strong>on</strong>sequences for your particular <strong>sex</strong>uality will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> sealed yearsfrom now.I speak <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> you as some<strong>on</strong>e who is closer <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the middle of my<strong>sex</strong>ual his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry. As I look back, I see that I made <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y choicesthat I didn’t know I was making. And as I look at men who arenear my age, I see that what has happened <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y of them isthat their <strong>sex</strong> lives are stuck in deep ruts that <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan as tinyfissures when they were young. So I want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>clude byidentifying what I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve are three of the most importantdecisi<strong>on</strong>s about your <strong>sex</strong>uality that you can make when you areat the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ginning of your <strong>sex</strong>ual his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry. However difficult thesechoices may seem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> you now, I promise you they will <strong>on</strong>lyget more difficult as you grow older. I realize that what I’mabout <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> give is some quite unsolicited nuts-<strong>and</strong>-bolts advice.But perhaps it will spare you, later <strong>on</strong> in your lives, some ofthe obsessi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> emptiness that have claimed the <strong>sex</strong>ualhis<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ries of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y men just a generati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore you. Perhaps itwill not help, I d<strong>on</strong>’t know; but I hope very much that it will.First, you can start choosing now not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> let your <strong>sex</strong>uality <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ipulated by the pornography industry. I’ve heard <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>yunhappy men talk about how they are so hooked <strong>on</strong>pornography <strong>and</strong> obsessed with it that they are virtuallyincapable of a hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> erotic c<strong>on</strong>tact. And I have heard evenmore men talk about how, when they do have <strong>sex</strong> with some<strong>on</strong>e,the pornography gets in the way, like a mental obstacle, like abarrier preventing a full experience of what’s really happening<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween them <strong>and</strong> their partner. The <strong>sex</strong>uality that thepornography industry needs you <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have is not aboutcommunicating <strong>and</strong> caring; it’s about “pornographizing” people—objectifying <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>quering them, not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing with them as apers<strong>on</strong>. You do not have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> buy in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it.Sec<strong>on</strong>d, you can start choosing now not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> let drugs <strong>and</strong>alcohol numb you through your <strong>sex</strong> life. Too <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y men, asthey age, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come incapable of having <strong>sex</strong> with a clear head.But you need your head clear—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make clear choices, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sendclear messages, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> read clearly what’s coming in <strong>on</strong> a clear
JOHN STOLTENBERG 31channel <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween you <strong>and</strong> your partner. Sex is no time for yourawareness <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sign off. And another thing: Beware of relying <strong>on</strong>drugs or alcohol <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> give you “permissi<strong>on</strong>” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have <strong>sex</strong>, or <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>trick your body in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feeling something that it’s not, or so youw<strong>on</strong>’t have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> take resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for what you’re feeling or forthe <strong>sex</strong> that you’re about <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have. If you can’t take so<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rresp<strong>on</strong>sibility for your part in a <strong>sex</strong>ual encounter, you probablyshouldn’t <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> having it—<strong>and</strong> you certainly shouldn’t <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> z<strong>on</strong>kedout of your mind in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have it.Third, you can start choosing now not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fixate <strong>on</strong> fucking—especially if you’d really rather have <strong>sex</strong> in other, n<strong>on</strong>coitalways. Sometimes men have coital <strong>sex</strong>—penetrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>thrusting then ejaculating inside some<strong>on</strong>e—not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause theyparticularly feel like it but <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they feel they should feellike it: It’s expected that if you’re the <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, you fuck. And ifyou d<strong>on</strong>’t fuck, you’re not a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. The corollary of this culturalimperative is that if two people d<strong>on</strong>’t have intercourse, theyhave not had real <strong>sex</strong>. That’s bal<strong>on</strong>ey, of course, but themessage comes down hard, especially inside men’s heads:Fucking is the <strong>sex</strong> act, the act in which you act out what <strong>sex</strong> issupposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>—<strong>and</strong> what <strong>sex</strong> you’re supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>.Like others born with a penis, I was born in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a <strong>sex</strong>-classsystem that requires my collaborati<strong>on</strong> every day, even in how Ihave <strong>sex</strong>. Nobody <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld me, when I was younger, that I couldhave n<strong>on</strong>-coital <strong>sex</strong> <strong>and</strong> that it would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> fine. Actually, much<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter than fine. Nobody <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld me about an incredible range ofother erotic possibilities for mutual lovemaking—includingrubbing body <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> body, then coming body <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> body; includingmultiple, n<strong>on</strong>ejacula<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry orgasms; including the feeling youget when even the tiniest place where you <strong>and</strong> your partner<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes like a window through which great tidal s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rmsof passi<strong>on</strong> ebb <strong>and</strong> flow, back <strong>and</strong> forth. Nobody <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld me aboutthe <strong>sex</strong> you can have when you s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p working at having a <strong>sex</strong>.My body <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld me, finally. And I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> trust what my bodywas telling me more than the lie I was supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make real.I invite you <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> resist the lie. I invite you <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comean erotic trai<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> male supremacy.
SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATIONAND MALE SUPREMACYWhen a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> looks at a pers<strong>on</strong>’s body as if he wants that body<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him, or as if the body does <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him—not asif the pers<strong>on</strong> is somebody, an independent, voliti<strong>on</strong>al pers<strong>on</strong>whose flesh <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>gs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> that self <strong>on</strong>ly—<strong>and</strong> when a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> looks atthat body as if it were an object, a thing, <strong>and</strong> the <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes<strong>sex</strong>ually excited, what does that mean?What does it mean that a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes <strong>sex</strong>ually arousedwhen he looks at a body in that way, <strong>and</strong> what does it meanthat he looks at a body in that way in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come <strong>sex</strong>uallyaroused?When a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is in a public place, <strong>and</strong> he sees a pers<strong>on</strong> fromsome distance, a pers<strong>on</strong> whom he has never seen <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore, <strong>and</strong>he applies his attenti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the pers<strong>on</strong>’s body, <strong>and</strong> he scrutinizesthe pers<strong>on</strong>’s body with a particular intensity, with deli<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ratecuriosity, with unequivocal intent, <strong>and</strong> inside his body there<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gins a pounding, a rushing of blood, a craving, <strong>and</strong> what hecraves is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have <strong>sex</strong> with that stranger, what does that mean?What does it mean when a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is in a darkened theater,watching a film, <strong>and</strong> he is watching pictures of a performerwho has a certain appearance <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>haves in a certain way, <strong>and</strong>he studies that body through the performer’s clothing, <strong>and</strong> theimage of the performer’s body, the shape of it, its softness <strong>and</strong>solidity, the definiti<strong>on</strong> of its <strong>sex</strong>edness, is more real, morepresent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him at that moment than any other aspect of hisc<strong>on</strong>scious life, <strong>and</strong> in gazing at that image he feels moreurgently virile, more intensely c<strong>on</strong>nected <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood, thanhe feels in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> any actual pers<strong>on</strong>, what does that mean?
JOHN STOLTENBERG 33When with <strong>on</strong>e h<strong>and</strong> a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is paging through a magazine, amagazine c<strong>on</strong>taining pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphs of naked <strong>and</strong> nearly nakedbodies, bodies posed with their genitals c<strong>on</strong>cealed <strong>and</strong> bodiesposed with their genitals showing, bodies posed with props <strong>and</strong>with other bodies, bodies posed with their faces looking at thecamera <strong>and</strong> not looking at the camera, bodies posed by apho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>grapher <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> look available, accessible, takeable, in color<strong>and</strong> in black <strong>and</strong> white, <strong>and</strong> with his other h<strong>and</strong> the <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> ismasturbating, <strong>and</strong> he is searching from picture <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> picture,searching from body <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> body, from part of body <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> part of body,from pose <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pose, rhythmically stroking <strong>and</strong> squeezing <strong>and</strong>straining, seeking some coalescence of the flesh he is lookingat <strong>and</strong> the sensati<strong>on</strong>s in his own, imagining his body <strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong>e ofthe bodies attached, joined, tenderly or forcefully, <strong>and</strong> hemasturbates until he is finished, <strong>and</strong> when he is d<strong>on</strong>e he is d<strong>on</strong>elooking, <strong>and</strong> he s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>res them away until next time, themagazines, the pictures, the bodies, the parts of bodies, whatdoes that mean?When a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> st<strong>and</strong>s at a magazine rack, <strong>and</strong> his eyes roamfrom image <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> image, from pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graph <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graph, pausingover the bodies that make him palpitate the most, the bodiesthat make his insides sensate, the way a great <strong>and</strong> sudden frightdoes, the way a s<strong>on</strong>ic boom does, the particular bodies thatas<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nish him, that jolt him, that make him tremble with <strong>sex</strong>uall<strong>on</strong>ging, exacerbating an ache, a pelvic c<strong>on</strong>gesti<strong>on</strong> that neverseems <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> leave him, bodies that he can count <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do that,bodies that will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> there <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do that when that is what he needsd<strong>on</strong>e, <strong>and</strong> the magazines that are not wrapped in plastic heopens, he thumbs through, until he finds the <strong>on</strong>es that areeffective, the <strong>on</strong>es he wants at home, <strong>and</strong> he takes some, hebuys some, what does that mean?When in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel like having <strong>sex</strong>, a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> requires <strong>sex</strong>partners who look a certain way, who have a certain build, <strong>and</strong>when as they age he discards them, <strong>and</strong> when as he ages he<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes increasingly obsessed with obtaining <strong>sex</strong> partnerswho are the specific body type, the color, the age that herequires, <strong>and</strong> he obtains them however he can, by buying them,
34 REFUSING TO BE A MANby buying pictures of them, by owning them somehow, whatdoes that mean?When a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is in a public place <strong>and</strong> he observes a particularpers<strong>on</strong>, a pers<strong>on</strong> he has never seen <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore or a pers<strong>on</strong> he seesthere regularly, a pers<strong>on</strong> whose body triggers his <strong>sex</strong>ualcuriosity, <strong>and</strong> he seeks out opportunities for surveillance,obviously or discreetly, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> look at a part of the body in moredetail, or several parts, or <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> see the pers<strong>on</strong> less clothed, or <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> nearer <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the pers<strong>on</strong> so as <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch, brush against, press next<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>, or grasp, <strong>and</strong> he remem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs the body that he has seen, hememorizes its details, the particular shapes of its <strong>sex</strong>ual parts,<strong>and</strong> the memory c<strong>on</strong>tinues in him vividly, in his imagining,during his subsequent episodes of <strong>sex</strong>ual arousal, al<strong>on</strong>e or withsome<strong>on</strong>e else, <strong>and</strong> he carries that picture with him, that picture<strong>and</strong> the pictures he has taken in his mind of other strangers’bodies, <strong>and</strong> they stay with him, they are his, <strong>and</strong> he reviews thepictures mentally, <strong>and</strong> the reviewing helps him come, whatdoes that mean?What does it mean when a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> calls up pictures in his mindwhen he is having <strong>sex</strong> with some<strong>on</strong>e’s body, in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>imagine a different body, a body that is not there, pictures of abody that suits him, a body he thinks about in his mind in order<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel like having <strong>sex</strong>?When a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is feeling tense or angry or anxious, orwithdrawn <strong>and</strong> isolated <strong>and</strong> irritable <strong>and</strong> unhappy withhimself, <strong>and</strong> so <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make himself feel <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter he has <strong>sex</strong> byhimself, with pictures of other people’s bodies in his mind,with pictures of other people’s bodies in his h<strong>and</strong>, pictures ofparticular parts <strong>and</strong> poses, <strong>and</strong> as he masturbates he uses thepho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphed or mental pictures <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> help him imagine a bodythere with him, a particular body he can seem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> with, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch <strong>and</strong> feel, a body he can do things <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>, a body <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>nect <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>,an imaginary body more real than his own, <strong>and</strong> the morevividly he imagines the body the more aroused he <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes,until he comes, having <strong>sex</strong> in his mind with a body in apicture, <strong>and</strong> he feels a moment’s relaxati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> resoluti<strong>on</strong>, afleeting c<strong>on</strong>solati<strong>on</strong>, then, gradually or suddenly, he feelsunease again, disc<strong>on</strong>solate, incomplete <strong>and</strong> cut off, <strong>and</strong> the
JOHN STOLTENBERG 35body he had imagined has vanished, there’s nobody else there,<strong>and</strong> he doesn’t want anybody else there, he wants <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> utterlyal<strong>on</strong>e now far more than he had wanted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have <strong>sex</strong> withsome<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore, what does that mean?What does it mean that a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s most routine, most repeated,most reliable, perhaps even most intensely “pers<strong>on</strong>al” eroticexperiences are those that happen in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> things, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>bodies perceived <strong>and</strong> regarded as things, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> images depictingbodies as things, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> memories of images of bodies as things?What does it mean that he resp<strong>on</strong>ds <strong>sex</strong>ually <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> bodies asthings <strong>and</strong> images of bodies as things in a way that is more orless c<strong>on</strong>stant, no matter whether another hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing isactually with him? What does it mean when a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s inner lifeis obsessi<strong>on</strong>ally devoted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying? What doesit mean when a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> arranges much of his life around his <strong>sex</strong>ualobjectifying, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make sure he will periodically <strong>and</strong> often <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> incircumstances where he can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come <strong>sex</strong>ually aroused inrelati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> bodies he imagines as things? What does it meanthat a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s appetites, attenti<strong>on</strong>, opini<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> buying habitshave <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come almost completely <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ipulable simply bytriggering his habit of <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying? What does it meanthat in his <strong>sex</strong>ual resp<strong>on</strong>siveness <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying,such a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is quite ordinary? What does it mean that such a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is “normal” ?Sexual Objectifying as an ActOf course, not all men’s selecti<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>sex</strong>ual objects arec<strong>on</strong>sidered normal. There is much psychiatric, religious, <strong>and</strong>legal disagreement over which sets of parts or body types a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is entitled <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ually objectify. From various points ofview, various <strong>sex</strong>ual objects are taboo: depending up<strong>on</strong> theirgender; depending up<strong>on</strong> their age; depending up<strong>on</strong> their color,creed, or class; depending up<strong>on</strong> how much force or violencethe <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> wants <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> use against them in fantasy or in fact;depending up<strong>on</strong> which <strong>sex</strong> acts he wants <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> perform, whichgenitals <strong>and</strong> orifices he wants c<strong>on</strong>joined; depending up<strong>on</strong>whether another <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> has a prior claim <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> exclusive possessi<strong>on</strong>
36 REFUSING TO BE A MANof the <strong>sex</strong>ual object; <strong>and</strong> so <strong>on</strong>. But <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> in<strong>and</strong> of itself is c<strong>on</strong>sidered the norm of male <strong>sex</strong>uality. Men’s<strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying is deemed a given, a biological <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>date,having the same preordained relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> male <strong>sex</strong>ualresp<strong>on</strong>siveness that, say, the smelling of food has <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a ravenouspers<strong>on</strong>’s salivati<strong>on</strong>. Men’s <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying—apart fromhair-splitting quibbles about which <strong>sex</strong> objects areinappropriate—is seen as a “natural” <strong>and</strong> “healthy” way oflooking at other people. In fact, <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying isc<strong>on</strong>sidered <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> as natural as the sense of sight itself:Typically, men <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that whenever <strong>on</strong>e is resp<strong>on</strong>ding<strong>sex</strong>ually <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> visual stimuli, <strong>on</strong>e must by definiti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>uallyobjectifying, despite the obvious fact that visi<strong>on</strong> is not at allessential for <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> occur (after all, it canhappen with the lights out; <strong>and</strong>, for that matter, some<strong>on</strong>e blindfrom birth can regard another pers<strong>on</strong> as a <strong>sex</strong> object, as athing). Male <strong>sex</strong>uality without <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> isunimagined. Male <strong>sex</strong>uality without it would not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> male<strong>sex</strong>uality. So of course there is never inquiry in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the activityitself, the actual doing that is <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong>. What isthe act that is d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>and</strong> how is it d<strong>on</strong>e—<strong>and</strong> what are itsc<strong>on</strong>sequences? If all we know about <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> isthat when a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> does it he <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes <strong>sex</strong>ually aroused, perhaps<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> climax, then we really d<strong>on</strong>’t know a lot, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause we reallyd<strong>on</strong>’t yet know anything about the process, the dynamic, theevent, the sense in which “<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ually objectify” is a verb. Topro<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the matter further, we d<strong>on</strong>’t yet know anything about theethical meaning of the act: In what sense is it intransitive—merely a private <strong>and</strong> perhaps inc<strong>on</strong>sequential mental event—orin what sense is it transitive—a transacti<strong>on</strong> in which there is adoer, a deed, some<strong>on</strong>e the deed is d<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>, <strong>and</strong> certainc<strong>on</strong>sequences, which should <strong>and</strong> can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> evaluated?Needless <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say, trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> delineate the ethical meaning of<strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> is very difficult. On the <strong>on</strong>e h<strong>and</strong>, thereis no traditi<strong>on</strong> of public <strong>and</strong> truthful discourse about men’s<strong>sex</strong>ual resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> their percepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> treatment of people asobjects. There is scarcely even a vocabulary. And <strong>on</strong> the otherh<strong>and</strong>, trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> think about <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> in a
JOHN STOLTENBERG 37c<strong>on</strong>scientious way can make the mind want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> give up, goblank, <strong>and</strong> shut down. Trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> unlock <strong>and</strong> unblock thefuncti<strong>on</strong> of <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying in a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s life <strong>and</strong> trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>trace the effects of <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong>, particularly <strong>on</strong>women’s lives, can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> risk recognizing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o much that is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>odeeply disturbing. Trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> think about the reality <strong>and</strong>experience of <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> like struggling <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>untie a knot that has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en pulled <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o tight over <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y yearsby <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y h<strong>and</strong>s—<strong>and</strong> like having <strong>on</strong>e’s own fingers boundup someplace in the knot.There are much easier ways of discussing <strong>sex</strong>ualobjectifi cati<strong>on</strong>—types of discourse in which troublesomequesti<strong>on</strong>s of ethical resp<strong>on</strong>sibility need not arise. For instance,a natural scientist can speak of evoluti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> genetics in termsthat provide social scientists with a vocabulary for renderingthe functi<strong>on</strong> of <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> ethically neutral. Azoologist can state that <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> serves anevoluti<strong>on</strong>ary purpose in the natural order, in the selecti<strong>on</strong> ofmating partners who will improve the species. Ananthropologist can state that <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> in hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>s isanalogous <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the way animals resp<strong>on</strong>d <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e another’s odors,especially pherom<strong>on</strong>es released during estrus. And asociobiologist can state that there is a genetic basis for <strong>sex</strong>ualobjectificati<strong>on</strong>: It is an expressi<strong>on</strong> of our DNA <strong>and</strong> its hell-<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ntdrive <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> present at the c<strong>on</strong>cepti<strong>on</strong> of the next generati<strong>on</strong>’sgene pool. In such ways as these, <strong>on</strong>e can discourse with ease,<strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong>e can evade the ethical issues entirely.Evaluati<strong>on</strong> of the ethical issues in men’s <strong>sex</strong>ual <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior hasfallen <strong>on</strong> hard times. It is the fashi<strong>on</strong> nowadays <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> presume thatan act is more or less outside the pale of ethical examinati<strong>on</strong> ifat any point al<strong>on</strong>g the course of it there is an erecti<strong>on</strong> or anejaculati<strong>on</strong>. It is also the fashi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> descri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>duct inlanguage that obscures the fact of acts, the fact that acts havec<strong>on</strong>sequences, <strong>and</strong> the fact that <strong>on</strong>e is c<strong>on</strong>nected <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e’s actswhether or not <strong>on</strong>e acknowledges it. Also, it is fashi<strong>on</strong>able <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>call acts “reacti<strong>on</strong>s,” as if the agent really resp<strong>on</strong>sible for theact were some<strong>on</strong>e or something else. So it is that in matters ofmen’s <strong>sex</strong>ual <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior there is talk of “feelings,” “emoti<strong>on</strong>al
38 REFUSING TO BE A MANreacti<strong>on</strong>s,” “expressi<strong>on</strong>,” <strong>and</strong> “fantasies” in situati<strong>on</strong>s where itwould <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> more accurate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> speak of acti<strong>on</strong>s that are acti<strong>on</strong>s—that is, susceptible <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ethical interpretati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> evaluati<strong>on</strong>:Who is doing exactly what <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom? is the act fair or unfair?what is the c<strong>on</strong>sequence of the act for the pers<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom it isd<strong>on</strong>e? <strong>and</strong> is the pers<strong>on</strong> who is doing the act paying anyattenti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the act, its c<strong>on</strong>sequence, <strong>and</strong> its impact <strong>on</strong> some<strong>on</strong>eelse? This sort of ethical interpretati<strong>on</strong> is not syn<strong>on</strong>ymous withascribing “sinfulness” or “righteousness” or “damnati<strong>on</strong>” or“<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>atitude.” Such lofty categories—which hang by a threadfrom supremely suspect cosmologies—are rarely clear ways ofarticulating matters of nitty-gritty <strong>justice</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>selves. Rather, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> inquire in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ethical meaning of <strong>sex</strong>ualobjectificati<strong>on</strong> is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> attempt <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> identify that aspect of <strong>sex</strong>ualobjectifying which is a transitive doing—an act that some<strong>on</strong>edoes, an act that some<strong>on</strong>e does <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> some<strong>on</strong>e else as if <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> something. Just <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the act treats another pers<strong>on</strong> as not a realpers<strong>on</strong> does not mean there is no real pers<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom the act isd<strong>on</strong>e. To <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> sure, technology <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day can significantly changethe time <strong>and</strong> space c<strong>on</strong>tinuity in which acts of <strong>sex</strong>ualobjectificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> their c<strong>on</strong>sequences might ordinarily <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>c<strong>on</strong>sidered <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have a c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>. For instance, the act of<strong>sex</strong>ually objectifying the body of some<strong>on</strong>e who is actually“there,” actually alive <strong>and</strong> present <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <strong>on</strong>e who is doing the<strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying, may have a somewhat different ethicalmeaning from the act of <strong>sex</strong>ually objectifying some<strong>on</strong>e whosebody is now represented in a pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graph or film (which existsas documentary evidence that an act of <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong>was d<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a particular pers<strong>on</strong> at some other time <strong>and</strong> place bysome<strong>on</strong>e else). Nevertheless, both acts have an ethicalmeaning. Some<strong>on</strong>e—the <strong>on</strong>e who is doing the objectifying—isdoing something, <strong>and</strong> what he is doing is an act—he is notsimply reacting, he is not simply in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a feeling state, he is notsimply expressing his <strong>sex</strong>uality, he is not simply having afantasy. And whatever his feelings, reacti<strong>on</strong>s, expressi<strong>on</strong>, orimaginings, they do not disc<strong>on</strong>nect his act from its impact <strong>on</strong>other selves.
JOHN STOLTENBERG 39When a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ually objectifies some<strong>on</strong>e—that is, when heregards another pers<strong>on</strong>’s body as a thing, not another self, forthe purpose of his own subjective <strong>sex</strong>ual stimulati<strong>on</strong>—he isnot terribly likely <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> perceptive of what is happening <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>any<strong>on</strong>e other than himself. Actually, the <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is likely <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>completely oblivious <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> what is happening <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the pers<strong>on</strong> he isobjectifying, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause <strong>on</strong>ce he objectifies that pers<strong>on</strong>—<strong>on</strong>ce hereduces the pers<strong>on</strong> in his mind <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the object he desires—thenthe pers<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him, is by definiti<strong>on</strong> not a real subject like himself.If he c<strong>on</strong>siders his objectifying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have any effect at all, he mayproject <strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the pers<strong>on</strong> a rather asinine reveling in what he isdoing; <strong>and</strong> indeed, the pers<strong>on</strong> objectified may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> duped in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>feeling “flattered” at having <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en singled out for a particular<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s depers<strong>on</strong>alizati<strong>on</strong>—a dubious distincti<strong>on</strong> often c<strong>on</strong>fusedwith <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing “desired.” But <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him, this pers<strong>on</strong> is not worth anyreal empathy at all <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause this pers<strong>on</strong> simply does not exist assome<strong>on</strong>e who could have a valid experience apart from, muchless c<strong>on</strong>trary <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>, his own. “What is happening” is his own<strong>sex</strong>ual arousal, period. Given his subjective self-absorpti<strong>on</strong> atthis point, in his own mind there is literally no real other selfpresent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom anything could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> happening.Sexually objectifying a pers<strong>on</strong> makes them seem absent, notreally “there” as an equally real self, whether or not the pers<strong>on</strong>is physically present. In this way, the <strong>on</strong>e who is <strong>sex</strong>uallyobjectifying interposes a distance <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween himself <strong>and</strong> thepers<strong>on</strong> he <strong>sex</strong>ually objectifies; it is a gulf <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween some<strong>on</strong>ewho experiences himself as real <strong>and</strong> some<strong>on</strong>e whom heexperiences as not-real. Then, if while <strong>sex</strong>ually objectifying heproceeds <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have <strong>sex</strong>, either al<strong>on</strong>e or “with some<strong>on</strong>e,” heexperiences the reality of his <strong>sex</strong>ual arousal <strong>and</strong> release as amedia<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r, a sensory go-<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween, which produces a transientfeeling of what seems <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him like pers<strong>on</strong>al, <strong>sex</strong>ual intimacy.But it is essentially a solipsistic event, a completely selfreferential<strong>sex</strong>ual experience.Men’s predispositi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ually objectify, combined withmodern imagemaking technologies, has created a vastcommerce in pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphic documents of people <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing turnedin<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> things. The camera has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come both medium <strong>and</strong>
40 REFUSING TO BE A MANmetaphor for men’s <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong>: It can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> used <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>take a picture of an actual pers<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <strong>sex</strong>ually objectified,then the image can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> duplicated <strong>and</strong> sold <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> milli<strong>on</strong>s of menso they can vicariously <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ually “present” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the body of thepers<strong>on</strong> made “absent” in the picture. In this way, the c<strong>on</strong>sumeris c<strong>on</strong>nected—both viscerally <strong>and</strong> ethically—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the act of<strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> that <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ok place in fr<strong>on</strong>t of the camera.The picture is taken the way it is taken so that it can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> sold theway it is sold so that it can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> used the way it is used. Eachc<strong>on</strong>sumer, each purchaser of a reproduced documentati<strong>on</strong> ofthe original <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong>, is complici<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>us in thecommerce, a link in the chain of profit, <strong>and</strong> hence he <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>arssome resp<strong>on</strong>sibility, however widely shared by others, for theact of <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> that <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ok place in fr<strong>on</strong>t of thecamera <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin with, even though it happened <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore he paid.The act was not d<strong>on</strong>e by him, but as so<strong>on</strong> as he buys adocumentati<strong>on</strong> of it he <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes some<strong>on</strong>e it was d<strong>on</strong>e for,some<strong>on</strong>e whose intent—al<strong>on</strong>g with that of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y others—wascollectively expressed <strong>and</strong> acted out in the original, particularact. Knowing that he shares this intent with other men—a classof c<strong>on</strong>sumers who are similarly situated, both viscerally <strong>and</strong>ethically, vis-à-vis the pers<strong>on</strong> pictured—is in fact a significantelement in the “pleasure” he receives; <strong>and</strong> his identificati<strong>on</strong>with those other men’s subjectivity is the extent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> which hispercepti<strong>on</strong>s are even remotely empathic. When men—individually <strong>and</strong> collectively—have <strong>sex</strong> looking at apho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphed <strong>sex</strong> object, they are literally having <strong>sex</strong> with athing, the pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graph, <strong>and</strong> they are figuratively having <strong>sex</strong>with the thing that a pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>grapher has turned some<strong>on</strong>e in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>.The whole point of c<strong>on</strong>suming documentati<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>sex</strong>ualobjectificati<strong>on</strong> is not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> empathize with the pers<strong>on</strong> who is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ingobjectified. To call this mass-marketed necrophilia is <strong>on</strong>ly aslight exaggerati<strong>on</strong>; in differing degrees, men who <strong>sex</strong>uallyobjectify through pictures tend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>d <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> images of“ecstasy,” “wan<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nness,” <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>ual accessibility that areactually pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphed signs of lifelessness. Certain druggy <strong>and</strong>drowsy facial expressi<strong>on</strong>s, postures of languidness bordering<strong>on</strong> paralysis, dull eyes that stare off emptily in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> space—these
JOHN STOLTENBERG 41are all popular symbols—or, perhaps more accurately,comm<strong>on</strong>place symp<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ms—of a cancelled-out c<strong>on</strong>sciousness,an absence of self-possessed selfhood, a lack of independentvoliti<strong>on</strong>, a kind of brain death.Male Supremacy <strong>and</strong> Male SelfhoodHow does a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry of <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin?Toward whom? in what c<strong>on</strong>text? <strong>and</strong> why? There are doubtlessas <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y different details as there are individual men, but allmen’s psycho<strong>sex</strong>ual his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ries share a set of comm<strong>on</strong> themes<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause all men’s psycho<strong>sex</strong>ual his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ries occur within malesupremacy.Male supremacy is the h<strong>on</strong>est term for what is sometimeshedgingly called patriarchy. It is the social system of rigiddicho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mizati<strong>on</strong> by gender through which people born withpenises maintain power in the culture over <strong>and</strong> against the <strong>sex</strong>caste of people who were born without penises. Malesupremacy is not rooted in any natural order; rather, it has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ensocially c<strong>on</strong>structed, socially created, especially through asocially c<strong>on</strong>structed <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief in what a <strong>sex</strong> is, how <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y thereare, <strong>and</strong> who <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>gs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> which.Sexual objectificati<strong>on</strong> has a crucial relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> malesupremacy. Sexual objectificati<strong>on</strong> is not rooted in the naturalorder of things either; rather, <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> is a habitthat develops <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it has an important functi<strong>on</strong> in creating,maintaining, <strong>and</strong> expressing male supremacy. The relati<strong>on</strong>shipof <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> male supremacy works in twomutually reinforcing ways: (1) Men’s habit of <strong>sex</strong>uallyobjectifying serves in part <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>struct the male supremacy ofculture, <strong>and</strong> (2) the male supremacy of culture urges males <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>adapt by adopting the habit of <strong>sex</strong>ually objectifying. This habit<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes as str<strong>on</strong>g as it does in each <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s lifetime precisely<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the habit serves most forcefully <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> locate his sense ofhimself as a peer in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the supremacy he perceives inother males. Once he knows that locati<strong>on</strong> palpably, he knowswhat can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> called a male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity—a sense of himself
42 REFUSING TO BE A MANas having dissociated sufficiently from the inferior status offemales.Here’s how the habit emerges: First, there comes a time inthe life of the child-with-a-penis when it dawns <strong>on</strong> him that hisworld is organized in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> two discrete categories of people—male <strong>and</strong> female, or however he c<strong>on</strong>ceptualizes them at the time.Somewhat later he realizes, through social cues of varyingweight, that he had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter identify with <strong>on</strong>e (male) <strong>and</strong>disidentify with the other (Mom). There also comes a timewhen he experiences this state of affairs <strong>and</strong> his ownprecarious relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it with no small measure ofc<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>, stress, anxiety, <strong>and</strong> fear. Call this his genderidentityanxiety—his particular terror about not completelyidentifying as male. (Of course, boy children are not actually<strong>on</strong> record about this point, but it is an inference that canreas<strong>on</strong>ably <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> drawn from memory <strong>and</strong> observati<strong>on</strong>.) Next,there comes a time in the course of the growth of his bodywhen various c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s of risk, peril, hazard, <strong>and</strong> threat causehis penis <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come erect—without his underst<strong>and</strong>ing why <strong>and</strong>without, as yet, any particular <strong>sex</strong>ual c<strong>on</strong>tent. (This much isnot c<strong>on</strong>jecture; it has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en documented in interviews withprepu<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>scent boys. 1 ) Am<strong>on</strong>g the events or experiences thatboys report as <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing associated with erecti<strong>on</strong>s are accidents,anger, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing scared, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing in danger, big fires, fast bicycleriding, fast sled riding, hearing a gunshot, playing or watchingexciting games, boxing <strong>and</strong> wrestling, fear of punishment,<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing called <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> recite in class, <strong>and</strong> so <strong>on</strong>. Call this his basicfight-or-flight reflex, involuntarily expressed at that age as anerecti<strong>on</strong>. The catch is, of course, that this humble flurry ofana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mical activity just happens <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> occur in the c<strong>on</strong>text of asociety that prizes the penis not <strong>on</strong>ly as the locus of male<strong>sex</strong>ual identity but also as the fundamental determinant of allsacred <strong>and</strong> secular power. Call this, therefore, feedbackfrom the boy’s body that is loaded with male-supremacistportent, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say the least. 2In his early years, a young male’s involuntary “n<strong>on</strong><strong>sex</strong>ual”erecti<strong>on</strong>s (those that arise from peril, for instance, as against<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch <strong>and</strong> warmth) can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> so distracting <strong>and</strong> disc<strong>on</strong>certing that
JOHN STOLTENBERG 43they trigger even more panic <strong>and</strong> anxiety, which in turn canmake detumescence quite impossible. At some point in his life,if he is developing “normally,” he learns a physical <strong>and</strong>emoti<strong>on</strong>al associati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween this dread <strong>and</strong> his “desire” ; thisis the point when, perhaps irrevocably, his gender anxiety <strong>and</strong>his reflex erecti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come linked: In relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> other people’sbodies, he experiences acutely his anxiety about hisidentificati<strong>on</strong> with authentic maleness—particularly in relati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those details of other people’s bodies that he perceives asgender-specific. Somewhere in the moment of his perceivingwhat he regards as another body’s unambiguous <strong>sex</strong>edness, heexperiences a jolt, an instant of panic, a synapse of dread, as ifreminded that his own authenticity as a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> hangs in thebalance. The panic, the physiological agitati<strong>on</strong>, produces anau<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>matic erecti<strong>on</strong>. He eventually learns <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> desire sucherecti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause he experiences them as a resoluti<strong>on</strong> of hisgender anxiety, at least temporarily—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause while he isfeeling them, he is feeling most profoundly a sensoryaffiliati<strong>on</strong> with what he infers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <strong>sex</strong>edness of othermen. Nevertheless, he c<strong>on</strong>tinues <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> depend up<strong>on</strong> his genderanxiety as a source of the physical <strong>and</strong> emoti<strong>on</strong>al agitati<strong>on</strong> thathe knows can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> counted <strong>on</strong>, if properly stimulated, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> makehis penis hard.*The Promise of ViolenceSexual objectifying in people born with penises is a learnedresp<strong>on</strong>se in a social c<strong>on</strong>text that is male-supremacist. Male<strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying is not biologically ordained, or geneticallydetermined. Rather, the male supremacy of culture determineshow penile sensati<strong>on</strong>s will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> interpreted. The meaning ofthose sensati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes variously encoded <strong>and</strong> imprintedover time, such that a male will develop a characteristic habi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>f resp<strong>on</strong>ding with an erecti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his perceiving of genderspecificity in other bodies. In his quest for more reliablerepetiti<strong>on</strong> of such erecti<strong>on</strong>s, he may cultivate a privateic<strong>on</strong>ography of gender-specific bodies <strong>and</strong> body parts,particular emblems of gender dicho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>my that revive his buried
44 REFUSING TO BE A MANanxiety about whether he really <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>gs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <strong>sex</strong> he issupposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>. The particular ic<strong>on</strong>ography may vary greatly from<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>—for example, the emblematic body images may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>predominantly female, in which case his objectifying isdeemed hetero<strong>sex</strong>ual, or the images may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> predominantlymale, in which case his objectifying is deemed homo<strong>sex</strong>ual. Inany case, all male <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying originates in the comm<strong>on</strong>predicament of how <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> identify <strong>and</strong> feel real as a male in amale-supremacist culture. The predicament can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> resolvedeither in c<strong>on</strong>tradistincti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a female object or throughassimilati<strong>on</strong> of a male object. Either way, the resoluti<strong>on</strong> strivedfor is a body-b<strong>on</strong>d with men.Male <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying is not simply a resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> malesupremacy; it functi<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> enforce male supremacy as well.Everywhere <strong>on</strong>e looks—whether in mass culture or high culture—there are coded expressi<strong>on</strong>s of male <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong>—primarily presentati<strong>on</strong>s of women <strong>and</strong> girls as objects—displayed like terri<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rial markings that define the turf as aworld <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> seen through men’s eyes <strong>on</strong>ly. There are somec<strong>on</strong>straints <strong>on</strong> male <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying of other males; mostmen do not want d<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> them what men are supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>women. Meanwhile most women find their ec<strong>on</strong>omiccircumstances determined <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a large extent by whether <strong>and</strong> forhow <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y years their physical appearance meets st<strong>and</strong>ards laiddown by men—st<strong>and</strong>ards that both hetero<strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>and</strong>homo<strong>sex</strong>ual men c<strong>on</strong>spire <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> decree. And for <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y women,male <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> is a prelude <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ual violence.Sometimes the mere regarding of another pers<strong>on</strong>’s body asan object is not enough; it does not satisfy a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s habituatedneed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> experience physical <strong>and</strong> emoti<strong>on</strong>al agitati<strong>on</strong> sufficient<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> set off sensory feedback about his <strong>sex</strong>edness. At times likethese, a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> learns, he can reproduce the erectile result of* The elective “forbiddenness” of homo<strong>sex</strong>ual encounters, as forinstance in public places, <strong>and</strong> the objective physical danger of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ysadistic <strong>sex</strong> practices can also <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> seen <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> preserve the role of risk,peril, hazard, <strong>and</strong> threat in effectively inducing erecti<strong>on</strong>s.
JOHN STOLTENBERG 45feeling threat, terror, <strong>and</strong> danger as a child simply by <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ingthreatening, terrifying, <strong>and</strong> dangerous <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his chosen <strong>sex</strong> object.It works even <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter now, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause now he is in c<strong>on</strong>trol. He cansuccessfully do this in his imaginati<strong>on</strong>, then in his life, thenagain in his memory, then again in his life…. It works even<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter now; the more dread he produces, the more “desire” hecan feel.Before a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> commits a <strong>sex</strong>ual assault or a forced <strong>sex</strong> act,that <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> performs an act of <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong>: He makes apers<strong>on</strong> out <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> an object, a thing less real than himself, athing with a <strong>sex</strong>; he regards that object as <strong>sex</strong>ual prey, a <strong>sex</strong>ualtarget, a <strong>sex</strong>ual alien—in order that he can fully feel his ownreality as a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Not all <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying necessarilyprecedes <strong>sex</strong>ual violence, <strong>and</strong> not all men are yet satiated bytheir <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying; but there is a perceptible sense inwhich every act of <strong>sex</strong>ual objectifying occurs <strong>on</strong> a c<strong>on</strong>tinuumof dehu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>izati<strong>on</strong> that promises male <strong>sex</strong>ual violence at its farend. The depers<strong>on</strong>alizati<strong>on</strong> that <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gins in <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong>is what makes violence possible; for <strong>on</strong>ce you have made apers<strong>on</strong> out <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a thing, you can do anything <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it you want.Finally, the dirty little secret about <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> isthat it is an act that cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> performed with any attenti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>its ethical meaning. Experientially—from the point of view ofa <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who is <strong>sex</strong>ually objectifying—<strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>ethical self-awareness are mutually exclusive: A <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> cannotreflect <strong>on</strong> what he is doing <strong>and</strong> its real c<strong>on</strong>sequences for realpeople <strong>and</strong> at the same time fully accomplish the act of <strong>sex</strong>ualobjectifying. There’s no way it can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> d<strong>on</strong>e, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause his ownsubjective reality is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o c<strong>on</strong>tingent up<strong>on</strong> the unreality ofsome<strong>on</strong>e else. All that can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> left “out there” in his field ofawareness is the other pers<strong>on</strong>’s <strong>sex</strong>edness—an abstractrepresentati<strong>on</strong> of a gender—in comparis<strong>on</strong> with which his own<strong>sex</strong>edness may flourish <strong>and</strong> engorge. So it is that a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> shuts offhis capacity for ethical empathy—whatever capacity he mayever have had—in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> commit an act of depers<strong>on</strong>alizati<strong>on</strong>that is “gratifying” essentially <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it functi<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fulfill hissense of an identity that is authentically male.
46 REFUSING TO BE A MANIf there is ever <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> any possibility of <strong>sex</strong>ual equality inany<strong>on</strong>e’s lifetime, it requires, minimally, both the capacity <strong>and</strong>the commitment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> regard another pers<strong>on</strong> as a whole self, assome<strong>on</strong>e who has an integrity of independent <strong>and</strong> au<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nomou<strong>sex</strong>perience, as some<strong>on</strong>e who is, simply, just as real as <strong>on</strong>eself.But as a society we are as far from realizing that requisite inmatters of private <strong>sex</strong>ual <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior as we are in matters ofpublic policy. When private <strong>sex</strong>ual arousal <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes predicated<strong>on</strong> imagining that a particular other pers<strong>on</strong> is not real, not there,not an inhabitant of his or her body as an equally activesubject; when most of the <strong>sex</strong> that men have takes place<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween their own imagined reality <strong>and</strong> their so-calledpartner’s imaged unreality; when completely self-referentialorgasmic release can pass for “a meaningful <strong>sex</strong>ualrelati<strong>on</strong>ship” ; when private <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cometacit public policy, our agreed-up<strong>on</strong> criteri<strong>on</strong> of “li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rated”<strong>sex</strong>uality; when the c<strong>on</strong>sumer market is saturated with pic<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rialdocumentati<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>sex</strong>ual objectificati<strong>on</strong> specificallymerch<strong>and</strong>ised for men’s use in masturbati<strong>on</strong>, for repetitivec<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ing of their <strong>sex</strong>uality <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>d <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> alienati<strong>on</strong> fromother people’s real lives …it means that all of us are in deeptrouble.The ethical issues in any <strong>sex</strong>ual relating are complex <strong>and</strong>varied. There may perhaps <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> no way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> absolutely certainthat <strong>on</strong>e is acting completely fairly or resp<strong>on</strong>sibly in anyparticular <strong>sex</strong>ual encounter. We are, as the saying goes, “<strong>on</strong>lyhu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.” But our shared hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ity does not obviate ourobligati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> try; <strong>on</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>trary, it is what creates ourobligati<strong>on</strong>: <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause all of us are hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. In <strong>sex</strong>ualobjectificati<strong>on</strong>, we suspend our <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief that that is true, <strong>and</strong> weviolate our mutual rights <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reality. But there’s also a sense inwhich we cut ourselves off from our own hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> individuality,<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause we cut ourselves off from our resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for ouracts. Resp<strong>on</strong>sibility is pers<strong>on</strong>al; it is who we are. We disappear<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e another as pers<strong>on</strong>s when we cancel out our pers<strong>on</strong>alresp<strong>on</strong>sibility; we disc<strong>on</strong>nect, we lose hold; we s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p interactingas subject <strong>and</strong> subject. The way out of our insularity is not assubject <strong>and</strong> object, nor as taker <strong>and</strong> taken, nor as real-self <strong>and</strong>
JOHN STOLTENBERG 47<strong>sex</strong>-<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>y. That’s not intimacy; that’s merely adjacency. Whatc<strong>on</strong>nects us, what relates us, is our certainty that each of us isreal—<strong>and</strong> how we take that profound fact in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> account inwhatever, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether, we do.
PART IITHE POLITICS OF MALESEXUAL IDENTITY
EROTICISM AND VIOLENCEIN THE FATHER-SONRELATIONSHIPNo <strong>on</strong>e can really underst<strong>and</strong> how men treat women withoutunderst<strong>and</strong>ing how men treat other men—<strong>and</strong> no <strong>on</strong>e canreally underst<strong>and</strong> how men treat other men withoutunderst<strong>and</strong>ing how men treat women. The father-s<strong>on</strong>relati<strong>on</strong>ship is usually a boy’s first exposure <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> this complexinterlock of <strong>sex</strong>ual politics. The less<strong>on</strong>s he learns in thisrelati<strong>on</strong>ship last a lifetime, <strong>and</strong> they <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come the basis of all heever <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieves <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> true about who he is supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> inrelati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> other men.Bey<strong>on</strong>d <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing a pers<strong>on</strong>al <strong>and</strong> biographical experience, thefather-s<strong>on</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>ship is an element of culture that replicates<strong>and</strong> reproduces <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y of society’s most fundamental <strong>sex</strong>ualpoliticalvalues. So it seems crucial <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> analyze thatrelati<strong>on</strong>ship in depth—both from the political perspective ofradical feminism 1 <strong>and</strong> from the pers<strong>on</strong>al perspective of <strong>on</strong>ewho has grown up as a s<strong>on</strong>.In the three secti<strong>on</strong>s that follow, I look first at the c<strong>on</strong>text ofthe father-s<strong>on</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>ship, then at its c<strong>on</strong>tent, <strong>and</strong> finally at itsc<strong>on</strong>sequences.The C<strong>on</strong>textPatriarchy, also known as father right, is the <strong>sex</strong>ual-politicalc<strong>on</strong>text of the father-s<strong>on</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>ship. Indeed, father right is thecultural c<strong>on</strong>text of all relati<strong>on</strong>ships <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>s.
50 JOHN STOLTENBERGOne remarkable aspect of father right is the quantity ofviolence required <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> enforce it, the quantity of violencerequired <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> perpetuate it, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep it the form in which hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>slive out their lives, the air they breathe so l<strong>on</strong>g as they inhale<strong>and</strong> exhale. If father right were natural, or inevitable, orinherent in hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> biology, <strong>on</strong>e might have thought that somuch coerci<strong>on</strong> would not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> necessary—<strong>and</strong> so <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y wouldnot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> suffocating.Father right is now the most widespread form of socialorganizati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the planet. The R<strong>and</strong>om House Dicti<strong>on</strong>arydefines patriarchy as “a form of social organizati<strong>on</strong> in whichthe father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>and</strong> descent is reck<strong>on</strong>ed in the male line, with the children<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>ging <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the father’s clan or tri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>.” This definiti<strong>on</strong> ofpatriarchy is certainly patriarchal—it neglects <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> menti<strong>on</strong> thechildren’s mother. Her body, it should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> noted, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>gs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thefather first. The father possesses her, legally <strong>and</strong> carnally; theverb “<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> possess” indicates literally what he does <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> her. That iswhy <strong>and</strong> that is how all children under father right <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>fathers, not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> mothers.Many would like <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that father right is morallyneutral, simply an ingenious <strong>and</strong> equitable hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> inventi<strong>on</strong> ofkinship that is necessitated by the compositi<strong>on</strong> of zygotes—sothat a pers<strong>on</strong> who c<strong>on</strong>tributes a sperm cell <strong>and</strong> a pers<strong>on</strong> whoc<strong>on</strong>tributes an egg cell might know with equal certainty who isrelated <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom genetically. But father right is not so simple,father right is not so scientific, nor is father right an expressi<strong>on</strong>of gender <strong>justice</strong> in any way.Fundamentally, father right is a system of ownership, literalownership of other hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> lives—ownership of the labor, will,body, <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sciousness of whole other people, whole hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ings. And that ownership <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gins with ownership by adultmen of the <strong>on</strong>ly means of producing those lives, the flesh <strong>and</strong>blood of women.Patriarchal law legalizes that ownership. Normal phalliceroticism embodies that ownership. Patriarchal culture alsoro<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ticizes, spiritualizes, emoti<strong>on</strong>alizes, <strong>and</strong> psychologizesthe right of men <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> own women <strong>and</strong> children as property.
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 51Patriarchal culture tends <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> obscure the violence in thosestructures of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> relati<strong>on</strong>ship that are essentially structuresof possessi<strong>on</strong>, as of inanimate objects. But it is in patriarchallaw <strong>and</strong> phallic eroticism that father right is fixed <strong>and</strong> fatherright is felt. The law <strong>and</strong> the phallus are both primaryinstruments of owning.The reality of male ownership in all hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> relati<strong>on</strong>shipsunder father right can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> seen immediately <strong>and</strong> most clearly asit affects the lives of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>s defined by culture as female—allhu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>s, that is, who were born without a penis. At no time in awo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s life is she not defined by law <strong>and</strong> culture as theactual or potential property of some<strong>on</strong>e who is male, some<strong>on</strong>eborn with a penis. First, as a child, she is owned by a father,the <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who owns the flesh of her mother in marriage. That<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> owns her as a daughter until such time as her body isc<strong>on</strong>tracted in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> marriage—until she is possessed carnally <strong>and</strong>legally by a husb<strong>and</strong>.The modern western marriage cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>m of a father’s “givingaway the bride” is a remnant from the time when the fathersold his daughter for m<strong>on</strong>ey. This commodity exchange, thebride price paid by a husb<strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a father, c<strong>on</strong>tinued in Europeuntil shortly after the Crusades, when a lot of men had died <strong>and</strong>the bot<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>m dropped out of the bride market. According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theec<strong>on</strong>omics of supply <strong>and</strong> de<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>d, the bride price wasab<strong>and</strong><strong>on</strong>ed <strong>and</strong> fathers <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> give their daughters away forfree. To this day, the marriage cerem<strong>on</strong>y is a ritual reminderthat title <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s body has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en transferred from <strong>on</strong>emale owner <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> another.Under comm<strong>on</strong> law, a husb<strong>and</strong> cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> charged with rapeif he did it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his wife; she is his property; he can do <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hisproperty whatever he pleases. 2 His<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rically, rape wasrecognized as a crime <strong>on</strong>ly against the male owner of property.If the wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who was raped was still the virgin daughter of afather, the law recognized the rape as a crime against the fatherwhose property was devalued. If the wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who was rapedwas the married wife of a husb<strong>and</strong>, the law recognized the rapeas a crime against the husb<strong>and</strong> whose property was s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>len.Rape exposes the reality that female flesh is never her own. If
52 JOHN STOLTENBERGat some time in her life it is not the carnal property of a fatheror husb<strong>and</strong>, she still has no claim <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it; it <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>gs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> any <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> whowants it. To this day, in any court of law, a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who is notmarried, who is also no l<strong>on</strong>ger the virgin daughter of a father,faces cruel societal censure if she claims that a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> committeda <strong>sex</strong> act against her body <strong>and</strong> will. The underlyingpresumpti<strong>on</strong> is that such a <strong>sex</strong> act is not a real crime, since noparticular <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> owns her, therefore no actual party has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>enaggrieved. And <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> this day, any wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who is raped also faceshysterical* rejecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> abuse by any <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who regularlyfucks her. Though he may or may not legally own her body inmarriage, he has felt that he owns it while fucking, <strong>and</strong> he nol<strong>on</strong>ger can functi<strong>on</strong> with the same feeling since his pers<strong>on</strong>alproperty was defiled.Patriarchal law both protects <strong>and</strong> expresses a cultural normof phallic eroticism. Normally acculturated phallic eroticismresp<strong>on</strong>ds <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>st <strong>and</strong> basically <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> bodies as objects, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> fleshas property. Phallic eroticism is intrinsically proprie<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rial; it isan eroticism cultivated for owning, <strong>and</strong> it is dysfuncti<strong>on</strong>al <strong>and</strong>insensate except in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> flesh perceived <strong>and</strong>treated as pers<strong>on</strong>al property. Phallic eroticism is intrinsicallyalienating; it is an eroticism cultivated for defending the barrier<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween subject <strong>and</strong> object, active <strong>and</strong> passive, owner <strong>and</strong>owned, master <strong>and</strong> slave. Phallic eroticism is intrinsicallyhostile, for violence is necessary <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sustain such an unnaturalrelati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> other hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> life. By defining men’s propertyrights <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the bodies of women, patriarchal law licenses <strong>and</strong>reinforces each <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s private eroticized owning, each <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’sprivate eroticized estranging, each <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s private eroticizedviolence. And patriarchal law seeks <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> protect each <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’serotic privacy from usurpati<strong>on</strong> by other men.According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> biology, <strong>on</strong>ly a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> can birth achild; a child not birthed by a mother does not, in nature, exist.According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> patriarchal law, however, a child not owned by a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is deemed a legal n<strong>on</strong>entity <strong>and</strong> is called “illegitimate” or“bastard,” <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the law grants men exclusively the right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ownership of children. A wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who is not properly owned bya <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> when she gives birth <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a child is scorned, shamed,
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 53humiliated, <strong>and</strong> castigated; <strong>and</strong> an unwed mother who persistsin birthing children that are not a father’s property may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>forced against her will <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> sterilized. In order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make certainthat men will own every child that women birth, all the forcesof law <strong>and</strong> culture are allied <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep every wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s body thelegal <strong>and</strong> carnal property of men throughout her life.Male ownership of children has always <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en separate <strong>and</strong>distinct from the labor of hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dianship. If a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> isproperly owned by a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> when she gives birth <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a child,am<strong>on</strong>g her duties <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act as cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dian of his child.That means feeding it <strong>and</strong> cleaning up after it, disposing of theenormous quantity of shit, for instance, that an infant producesin the first three years of its life. That shit-work is cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dial. Itis not an owner’s duty. A properly owned mother literallytakes care of children that are legally, always, the hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>property of a father.His<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rically, it was a dead father’s legal right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>queathed his children <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> another <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, irrespective of the factthat his wife (the children’s mother) might still <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> alive.Eliza<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>th Cady Stan<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>n, addressing the Joint JudiciaryCommittee of the New York State Legislature in 1854,descri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d the legal prerogative of fathers at that time:The father may apprentice his child, bind him out <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> atrade, without the mother’s c<strong>on</strong>sent—yea, in direc<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ppositi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> her most earnest entreaties, prayers <strong>and</strong>tears…. Moreover, the father, about <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> die, may bind outall his children wherever <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whomsoever he may seefit, <strong>and</strong> thus, in fact, will away the guardianship of all hischildren from the mother…. Thus, by your laws, the* According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the R<strong>and</strong>om House Dicti<strong>on</strong>ary, the word hysteriameans “an unc<strong>on</strong>trollable outburst of emoti<strong>on</strong> or fear, oftencharacterized by irrati<strong>on</strong>ality.” The word hysteria derives from theGreek, where it meant, literally, “suffering of the womb.” Perhaps theword should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> spelled histeria, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> denote the suffering of theproprie<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rial penis.
54 JOHN STOLTENBERGchild is the absolute property of the father, wholly at hisdisposal in life or at death. 3Four years later, as a direct c<strong>on</strong>sequence of acti<strong>on</strong> by the firstU.S. Women’s Rights Movement, the New York StateLegislature passed a law declaring every married wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> “thejoint guardian of her children, with her husb<strong>and</strong>, with equalpowers, rights <strong>and</strong> duties in regard <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> them, with the husb<strong>and</strong>.” 4This law was called the Married Women’s Property Act of1860; <strong>and</strong> it applied significantly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> mothers who werewidowed, for it guaranteed that they could c<strong>on</strong>tinuecus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dianship of a dead father’s children. This statute was thefirst legal challenge in his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a precept up<strong>on</strong> which all ofpatriarchal culture st<strong>and</strong>s, the principle that hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> lives can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>c<strong>on</strong>trolled by a father who is dead. The power of maleownership from the grave is still alive <strong>and</strong> well, of course, no<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nly in patriarchal law <strong>and</strong> the Judeo-Christian religioustraditi<strong>on</strong>, but also in pers<strong>on</strong>al psychological identity. As JulietMitchell has observed:Whether or not the actual father is there does not affectthe perpetuati<strong>on</strong> of the patriarchal culture within thepsychology of the individual; present or absent, “thefather” always has his place. His actual absence maycause c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>, or, <strong>on</strong> another level, relief, but the <strong>on</strong>lydifference it makes is within the terms of the over-allpatriarchal assumpti<strong>on</strong> of his presence. In our culture heis just as present in his absence. 5So-called child-cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dy disputes are a rather recent his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ricalphenomen<strong>on</strong>. In that same speech <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the New York StateLegislature, Eliza<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>th Cady Stan<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>n descri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d this situati<strong>on</strong> ofmothers:In case of separati<strong>on</strong>, the law gives the children <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thefather; no matter what his character or c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>. At thisvery time we can point you <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> noble, virtuous, welleducatedmothers in this State, who have ab<strong>and</strong><strong>on</strong>ed
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 55their husb<strong>and</strong>s for their profligacy <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>firmeddrunkenness. All these have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en rob<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d of theirchildren, who are in the cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dy of the husb<strong>and</strong>, underthe care of his relatives, whilst the mothers are permitted<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> see them but at stated intervals…. 6The laws <strong>on</strong> divorce—as <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> what are its proper grounds, forinstance—were framed then as now in the interests of fathers.But those interests have shifted somewhat. Only within the lastseveral decades did it <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come in the father’s interest <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> allowan extensi<strong>on</strong> of the mother’s cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dial resp<strong>on</strong>sibilities <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hischildren after terminating, in divorce, her domestic <strong>and</strong> coitalresp<strong>on</strong>sibilities <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him. The father’s ownership of his childrencould thus <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> maintained at a comfortable <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>venientdistance, without the burden <strong>on</strong> him of finding some<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> dothe shit-work. This recent his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry is reflected in the fewremaining “maternal preference” state laws, whichau<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>matically c<strong>on</strong>tinue cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dianship of children by divorcedmothers, but <strong>on</strong>ly those children who are yet very young.A pendulum of paternal pride has swung, however, <strong>and</strong>fathers are again rejecting divorced mothers as suitablecus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dians for their children. 7 Cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dianship is not ownership.Cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dianship is service, shit-work, <strong>and</strong> daily care. Ownershipis the legal relati<strong>on</strong>ship of a father <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his child, a relati<strong>on</strong>ship ofowner <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> property that is immutable, even in death.Modern child-cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dy disputes reveal how all mother-childrelati<strong>on</strong>ships under father right <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come dis<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rted <strong>and</strong> deformedaccording <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the model of the property relati<strong>on</strong>ship that obtains<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween father <strong>and</strong> child. In a child-cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dy dispute, themother must now haggle <strong>on</strong> the father’s turf (the court) <strong>and</strong> inthe father’s terms (children as property). And the unnaturalquesti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> resolved is who shall “own” this child’s time<strong>and</strong> company, this child’s affecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> allegiance—discounting the cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dial labor the mother performed for thatchild’s life, since that labor was a functi<strong>on</strong> of the father’sformer ownership of her.Phallic eroticism entirely informs these disputes. In order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> permitted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tinue her cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dial relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a father’s
56 JOHN STOLTENBERGchildren, the divorced mother must pass a peculiar test as <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>whether or not she is “fit.” That test, essentially, is celibacy, atest supported by much c<strong>on</strong>temporary legal opini<strong>on</strong>. In order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>c<strong>on</strong>tinue her labor of cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dianship <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward a father’s children,the divorced mother must dem<strong>on</strong>strate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the court that she hasnot improperly <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come the carnal possessi<strong>on</strong> of another <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.If she must return <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> court years later—in the likely event, forinstance, that the father has s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>pped sending her m<strong>on</strong>ey <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>support the child—she may again <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> required <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pass thecelibacy test of “fitness.” The use of m<strong>on</strong>ey by fathers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>c<strong>on</strong>trol the lives of ex-wives <strong>and</strong> children is a cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>m protectedby law. And the celibacy test for divorced mothers assures thefather in his imaginati<strong>on</strong> that his ex-wife, like a daughter, willstay carnally owned by him until such time as another <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>legally marries her. The courts recognize the prerogative of thatfather’s imaginati<strong>on</strong> not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> pertur<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d. Of course, even moreperturbing than carnal possessi<strong>on</strong> of the mother by another<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is the case of a divorced mother who would share hereroticism with a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. In a child-cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dy dispute, a mother’slesbianism is deemed worse than adultery. The hysteria of afather whose private property has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en violated by the penis ofanother <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is exceeded by the hysteria of a father whose formerprivate property has renounced phallic possessi<strong>on</strong> al<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether.The courts, needless <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say, protect a father from all suchhysteria under the camouflage of what is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>st for the “welfare”of his child.Just as father right is predicated <strong>on</strong> the right of absent <strong>and</strong>dead fathers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> own <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol the living, so also is father rightpredicated <strong>on</strong> the right of living fathers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> own <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol theunborn. Nowhere in America is aborti<strong>on</strong> available <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> womenfree <strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong> de<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>d; in <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y states where aborti<strong>on</strong> has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>endecriminalized, the c<strong>on</strong>sent of the nearest male relative must<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> obtained, or there must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a sec<strong>on</strong>d attending physician <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> save the fetus. Patriarchal law protects the propertyrelati<strong>on</strong>ship of a father <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his fetus. That law expresses theerotic relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> his phallus. Fathersfantasize all fetuses as male, <strong>and</strong>, in effect, as reposi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ries ofphallic life. Acculturated phallic eroticism is genital-centric;
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 57all sense of life is centered in the phallus; the rest of the bodyis armored <strong>and</strong> kept relatively dead. The phallus thus seems <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>have an independent life <strong>and</strong> will of its own, au<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nomous <strong>and</strong>unpredictable, <strong>and</strong> the <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is at pains <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>trol it, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make itdo what he wants. Least of all does he want it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> cut off. Asfather right serves dead fathers, so also does father right servemen whose bodies are dead while their penises are alive.Against this background, I want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make a simple statement,actually a self-evident observati<strong>on</strong>: Under father right, the firstfact of every hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> life is that <strong>on</strong>e is birthed by hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> fleshthat <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>gs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> some<strong>on</strong>e barren. Every hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> life comes forthfrom a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> whose body at no moment in her life is notdefined as the actual or potential pers<strong>on</strong>al property of men.These are the real “facts of life” under father right, theec<strong>on</strong>omic realities c<strong>on</strong>cerning the labor of mothers. Adult menare entitled <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ownership of every body that is birthed <strong>and</strong>every body that births. Every ec<strong>on</strong>omic system devised by men—whether capitalism or communism or socialism—is designed<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> defend male ownership of the bodies <strong>and</strong> labor of women.Every religious <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief system instituted by men—includingJudaism, which deifies the father, <strong>and</strong> Christianity, whichdeifies the s<strong>on</strong>—is designed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> dehu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ize the pers<strong>on</strong> of themother. Every psychological system theorized by men—whether the Freudian traditi<strong>on</strong> with its noti<strong>on</strong> of “penis envy”or the modern <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>haviorist view with its babies in boxes—isdesigned <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> validate male ownership of birth itself. Everyagency of culture—including the state, the university,medicine, marriage, the nuclear family—is an instrumentalityof male ownership of other hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> lives.Father right circumscri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>s how we see, how we feel, <strong>and</strong>most devastatingly how we imagine. We are so accus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>med <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>definiti<strong>on</strong>s of love, <strong>justice</strong>, <strong>and</strong> hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> community that arepredicated up<strong>on</strong> male ownership of other hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> lives that wecan scarcely imagine a future in which people are not property.We are so accus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>med <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the traumatizing reality that in thiscivilizati<strong>on</strong> the most violent, debilitating, exploitative, <strong>and</strong>ostensibly intimate relati<strong>on</strong>ships <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>s are preciselythose relati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween owner <strong>and</strong> owned that we cannot
58 JOHN STOLTENBERGimagine <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing related in any other way. We are so accus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>med<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> imagining that father right merits our respect—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause wedare not provoke the father’s wrath, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause we know in ourhearts that he loves <strong>on</strong>ly those whom he c<strong>on</strong>trols, that heprovides if at all <strong>on</strong>ly for those lives which he owns, that hisapproval is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>wed c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ally <strong>on</strong>ly up<strong>on</strong> pers<strong>on</strong>s who arehis compliant pers<strong>on</strong>al property <strong>and</strong> that he knows no otherc<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> any other hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> life—we are so <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>holden <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thefather that we have sacrificed <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>trayed all mothers in hisname.The C<strong>on</strong>tentIn <strong>on</strong>e sense, the origin of father right is inaccessible <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ourunderst<strong>and</strong>ing, shrouded in mystery, <strong>and</strong> lost in the prehis<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ryof civilizati<strong>on</strong>. We know male ownership of women’s bodiespredates written his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry. We know women were the first slaves<strong>and</strong> women’s bodies were the first capital. We know maleownership of children predates male knowledge of therelati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween coitus <strong>and</strong> pregnancy. We do not knowwhat mothers knew, for their knowledge has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en obliterated.But we know that the first father knew he was a father byvirtue of <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing an owner; he was paterfamilias, which literallymeans “master of slaves.” We may suppose that hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> malesinvented the power of owning <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> overshadow the mystery ofbirthing, <strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong>ce male ownership was unleashed up<strong>on</strong> theearth, it knew no bounds, it grew insatiable, <strong>and</strong> it wanteddomini<strong>on</strong> over all life <strong>and</strong> death. But we really cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>certain exactly how lives <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> owned.In another sense, however, the origin of father right can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od clearly, for father right reoriginates in generati<strong>on</strong>after generati<strong>on</strong>, quite remarkably regenerating in the lifetimeof every male. How does it happen that a hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> infant, who<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gins life as the owned property of a father <strong>and</strong> who isaccidentally born with an el<strong>on</strong>gated genital—how does helearn the bizarre propensity <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> own the lives of other hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ings? It is <strong>on</strong>e thing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> answer that this societyinstituti<strong>on</strong>alizes male supremacy <strong>and</strong> father right <strong>and</strong> that this
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 59society therefore entitles genital males <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ownership of femaleflesh. That’s of course true. But it is quite another thing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>perceive that in every male lifetime a process is effected, moreor less successfully, that produces in the male the character ofa father, the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior of a supremacist, <strong>and</strong> the capability ofowning lives—a capability realized not simply <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause he issocially entitled <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> but more profoundly <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause he isc<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>ally dysfuncti<strong>on</strong>al otherwise—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause, in otherwords, <strong>on</strong>ly owning is erotic. Somehow, every male in hislifetime learns <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> adjust his entire erotic, emoti<strong>on</strong>al, <strong>and</strong>voliti<strong>on</strong>al sensibility in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come an owner, inc<strong>on</strong>tradistincti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women, who are <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> owned. Somehow,we must not <strong>on</strong>ly abolish the social instituti<strong>on</strong>s that sancti<strong>on</strong>father right; we must also discover <strong>and</strong> analyze the pers<strong>on</strong>alorigin of father right in every s<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin in this generati<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> abolish the pers<strong>on</strong>al erotic compulsi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> own other lives.In our present culture, there exist mythic renderings of thedamage mothers do <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>on</strong>s, wildly inc<strong>on</strong>sistent myths, fromthe myth of “<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o much affecti<strong>on</strong>” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the myth of “not enough.”These myths have enormous power in enforcing the culturalassumpti<strong>on</strong> that am<strong>on</strong>g the mother’s duties <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> father right isher duty <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> produce a s<strong>on</strong> who is capable of owning a life likehers. But that is a duty fraught with c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong>s. On the <strong>on</strong>eh<strong>and</strong>, the mother’s duty <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the father is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> remain his carnalpossessi<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reassure him in his imaginati<strong>on</strong> that his s<strong>on</strong>,this little phallic presence, is not a threat <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his coitalprivileges. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, the mother’s duty <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the futurefather in the s<strong>on</strong> is always <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> present herself as <strong>on</strong>e whom hemight like someday <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> marry—for instance, by reassuring himthat unending quantities of her labor are his for the asking. Theessential erotic c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> in all mother-child relati<strong>on</strong>shipsunder father right is descri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d in these words by Alice S.Rossi:It is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> men’s <strong>sex</strong>ual advantage <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> restrict women’s <strong>sex</strong>ualgratificati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hetero<strong>sex</strong>ual coitus, though the price forthe wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> a child may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a less psychologically <strong>and</strong>physically rewarding relati<strong>on</strong>ship. 8
60 JOHN STOLTENBERGThat erotic c<strong>on</strong>tradicti<strong>on</strong> exists whether the child will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> raisedas a s<strong>on</strong> or a daughter, but if the child grows up a s<strong>on</strong>, thefather imagines that the infantile <strong>sex</strong>uality of his little boy issomehow centered <strong>on</strong> fucking his wife. Only a father couldhave imagined that that is what a child wants <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do, but thatindeed is the fantasy fear of fathers, a fear that requires muchcoital c<strong>on</strong>solati<strong>on</strong>.Fathers fantasize all fetuses as male, as reposi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ries ofphallic life. This fantasy c<strong>on</strong>tradicts not <strong>on</strong>ly birth statistics butalso the fact of gestati<strong>on</strong> that until the seventh week of fetaldevelopment, all fetuses have identical genitalia. This fantasyof fathers, that all fetal life is phallic, <strong>on</strong>ly makes sense if it isunders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> an expressi<strong>on</strong> of a fundamental characteristicof phallic eroticism: The feelings that <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come isolated in anadult <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s phallus are experienced as disembodied <strong>and</strong> seem<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> left <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>hind in a vagina if his phallus ejaculates <strong>and</strong> shrinksthere. These phallic feelings seem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>len, asaccords with his proprie<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rial world view <strong>and</strong> his disregard forwomen, <strong>and</strong> he imagines that in a fetus those lost phallicfeelings are c<strong>on</strong>tained <strong>and</strong> he can somehow have them back. Ifthe baby is born without protu<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rant external genitalia, thefather’s projecti<strong>on</strong> of phallic life in the fetus s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ps. But if thebaby is born a boy, the father’s projecti<strong>on</strong> of phallic life in theinfant c<strong>on</strong>tinues, <strong>and</strong> the father perceives the infant as a rivalfor his wife.The father’s attitudes <strong>and</strong> acti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward his baby boy areambivalent at <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>st. The father desired a baby boy in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>retrieve from his wife’s body all the erecti<strong>on</strong>s that disappearedthere, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> repossess in the form of infant male flesh all thesensati<strong>on</strong>s she drained <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fiscated from his erect penis.And now what does he do with it? How does he <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch it? Ordoes he not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch it at all? While the father in his ambivalenceis waiting for the boy <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> grow up big <strong>and</strong> str<strong>on</strong>g, the s<strong>on</strong> islearning the difference <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween Mother <strong>and</strong> Not-mother—hisfirst crucial less<strong>on</strong> in gender polarity. The child is learning thisdistincti<strong>on</strong> from informati<strong>on</strong> that is tactile, informati<strong>on</strong> that iserotic. The child is learning how his own eroticism is inharm<strong>on</strong>y with the eroticism of Mother but in discord with his
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 61sensory experience of Not-mother. The child is learning thisdistincti<strong>on</strong> not <strong>on</strong> account of ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>my, not <strong>on</strong> account oflactati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>on</strong>e <strong>and</strong> the absence of lactati<strong>on</strong> in another. Babieswill suckle a male’s nipple just as readily as a female’s, thoughfew men will permit it. And even babies who were neverbreast-fed learn the two c<strong>on</strong>cepts just as quickly. Rather, thebaby is learning the c<strong>on</strong>cepts of Mother <strong>and</strong> Not-mother from apeculiar fact of culture: phallic eroticism in not-mothers isinimical <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> communi<strong>on</strong> with other hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> life. Something inNot-mother is alien. Something in Not-mother is dead. Notmotherpats but does not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch. Not-mother f<strong>on</strong>dles but doesnot feel. Not-mother grabs but does not hold. There is no sensoryres<strong>on</strong>ance of pulse <strong>and</strong> breath <strong>and</strong> moti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween Not-mother<strong>and</strong> the child. And the child perceives <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether with the motherthat they are different from the not-mother.By the time this distincti<strong>on</strong> is fixed in the child’sc<strong>on</strong>sciousness, the father is enraged. From the father’sperspective, the child—who is the corporeal projecti<strong>on</strong> of hisphallic eroticism—is in the clutches of a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, seeminglysubsumed within her body, humiliatingly limp <strong>and</strong> soft. Now<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gins the arduous process by which the father will seek again<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> retrieve from that wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> the phallic life that he seems <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>keep losing. He <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gins in earnest <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> repossess his s<strong>on</strong>, for nowwhat is at stake is the father’s rather tenuous hold <strong>on</strong> existence,which seems <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> st<strong>and</strong> or collapse with engorgement in hispenis <strong>and</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> in his s<strong>on</strong>.The father’s struggle <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> repossess the s<strong>on</strong> will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> played outin fr<strong>on</strong>t of the boy’s uncomprehending eyes <strong>and</strong> up<strong>on</strong> thebodies of both the boy <strong>and</strong> the mother. Of course, the fatherwill <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> aided <strong>and</strong> a<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tted by schools, televisi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> othercultural accessories <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the theft of s<strong>on</strong>s from mothers. But thefather figure in the flesh will succeed in dividing the boy’seroticism against the mother <strong>on</strong>ly by physical or emoti<strong>on</strong>albrutality. The boy will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a witness as the father abuses his wife—<strong>on</strong>ce or a hundred times, it <strong>on</strong>ly needs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> happen <strong>on</strong>ce, <strong>and</strong>the boy will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> filled with fear <strong>and</strong> helpless <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> intercede. Thenthe father will visit his anger up<strong>on</strong> the boy himself,unc<strong>on</strong>trollable rage, wrath that seems <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> come from nowhere,
62 JOHN STOLTENBERGpunishment out of proporti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> any infracti<strong>on</strong> of any rules theboy knew existed—<strong>on</strong>ce or a hundred times, it <strong>on</strong>ly needs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>happen <strong>on</strong>ce, <strong>and</strong> the boy will w<strong>on</strong>der in ag<strong>on</strong>y why themother did not prevent it. From that point <strong>on</strong>ward, the boy’strust in the mother decays, <strong>and</strong> the s<strong>on</strong> will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the fatherfor the rest of his natural life.It is a pity. The s<strong>on</strong> could have learned from the mother theeroticism of mothering; the s<strong>on</strong> could have learned <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feelwith, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> care for, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> cherish other lives. The s<strong>on</strong> could havelearned <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> mother the mother. Instead, the s<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>trays her.The authority of the anger of the father is interpreted by thes<strong>on</strong> as follows: (1) Not-mother hates Mother <strong>and</strong> Not-motherhates me; Not-mother hates us. (2) It is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause I am likeMother that Not-mother hates me so. (3) I should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> differentfrom Mother; the more different I am from Mother, the safer Iwill <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>. These are the cardinal principles of logic in malematurati<strong>on</strong> under father right. They are so simple, even a childcan underst<strong>and</strong>. They are backed up by the c<strong>on</strong>stant threat ofthe father’s anger, so the child will remem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r them, <strong>and</strong> thechild will never forget.The s<strong>on</strong>, in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come as different from Mother as hecan possibly <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>, now <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gins <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rid his body of the eroticism ofthe mother. He withdraws from it. He purges it withaggressi<strong>on</strong>. He refuses <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel it anymore. In his memory, theirsensory identificati<strong>on</strong> had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en complete. In his whole body,their eroticism had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en the same. Now it must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> ab<strong>and</strong><strong>on</strong>ed,negated, canceled, denied; he must no l<strong>on</strong>ger feel with herfeeling, feel how he feels with her, feel her feeling with him.Every nerve in his body is <strong>on</strong> guard against her, againstc<strong>on</strong>tinuity with her, against the erotic c<strong>on</strong>tinuum <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween them,for fear of the father, who might mistake the s<strong>on</strong> for her. Andevery nerve in his body is <strong>on</strong> guard against the father, the ffather who hates the mother, the f father who hates the s<strong>on</strong> whocannot get rid of the mother in his body. All the boy’ssensibilities for erotic communi<strong>on</strong> with other life <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comeanesthetized in terror of ever again feeling <strong>on</strong>e with Mother.The boy learns he has a penis <strong>and</strong> the boy learns the motherdoes not. If he cannot feel his penis, he will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the same as her
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 63for sure. So <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gins the disembodiment of sensati<strong>on</strong> in thatsmall organ.Later in his life, the boy’s eroticism will inhabit hispenis exclusively, the part of him that is not Mother, the <strong>on</strong>eplace in his body where he can feel for sure that he is differentfrom her, separate <strong>and</strong> discrete. He will discover <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hisfrustrati<strong>on</strong> that the organ is ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mically incapable ofsustaining that obsessi<strong>on</strong>. He will not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> pleased afterejaculati<strong>on</strong>, when the eroticism in his penis s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ps, <strong>and</strong> when hefeels a kind of numbness, the death of his phallic life. Themore he has purged the memory of the mother from his body,the more <strong>and</strong> more his phallic eroticism must embody hiswhole sense of self. This is male identity, defined by thefather, defined against the mother. This is male identity, inneed of c<strong>on</strong>stant verificati<strong>on</strong>, in desperate struggle not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>identify with the body <strong>and</strong> eroticism of the mother. The <strong>sex</strong>ualpoliticalc<strong>on</strong>tent of the relati<strong>on</strong>ship of father <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<strong>on</strong> isessentially <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> divide the s<strong>on</strong> against the mother so that the s<strong>on</strong>will never s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>form <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the cultural specificati<strong>on</strong>sof phallic identity.The C<strong>on</strong>sequences <strong>and</strong> the C<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>We live in a two-gender system, in service <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the father. Thereis no <strong>justice</strong>. There is no peace. That system is inappropriate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>the memory of erotic communi<strong>on</strong> with other life.In fear <strong>and</strong> in h<strong>on</strong>or of the father, s<strong>on</strong>s learn <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> deny thatmemory, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rid their bodies of it. In fear <strong>and</strong> in h<strong>on</strong>or of thefather, s<strong>on</strong>s learn an identity isolated in the phallus.The father-s<strong>on</strong> relati<strong>on</strong>ship is a m<strong>on</strong>ument <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> phallic identity,<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the dying of the disembodied penis inside the vagina of awo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. A s<strong>on</strong> must live <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> avenge that death. A s<strong>on</strong> mustlive <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> repudiate the mother. A s<strong>on</strong> must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> withdrawn fromthe influence of the mother, which is perceived by the father asdangerous <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> virility. The s<strong>on</strong> must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> terrorized <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> mistrusther, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p feeling with her, in order that his identity shouldreside in his penis. This is an insane inheritance. It is passed <strong>on</strong><strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong>.
64 JOHN STOLTENBERGWe live in a two-gender system, in service <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the father’srage. S<strong>on</strong>s learn <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> dissociate, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> immune from the mother.S<strong>on</strong>s learn the father’s rage against the flesh that birthed them,as a c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong> of escape from the father’s c<strong>on</strong>demnati<strong>on</strong>.That rage is the rage against flesh that is “other” ; that rageis the rage against dissoluti<strong>on</strong> of self. That rage is the rage ofthe self that is a ficti<strong>on</strong>, the self that is c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ed inannihilati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> denial of another, inherently estranged bycultural definiti<strong>on</strong>, identity c<strong>on</strong>tingent <strong>on</strong> n<strong>on</strong>identificati<strong>on</strong>, theself that must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> divided against the mother or it does notexist, it is a n<strong>on</strong>entity.S<strong>on</strong>s can fuck with that rage. S<strong>on</strong>s can kill with that rage.They can <strong>and</strong> they do. Still the father is not appeased.We live in a two-gender system, in service <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> father right.Fathers, not mothers, invented <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol the state. Fathers,not mothers, invented <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol the military. Fathers, notmothers, wage war against other peoples. And fathers, notmothers, send s<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> war.Who are the fathers who want s<strong>on</strong>s so much? Who are thefathers <strong>and</strong> the s<strong>on</strong>s who can <strong>on</strong>ly <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> rec<strong>on</strong>ciled in sharingdisdain for the life of the mother? And who are the s<strong>on</strong>s whohave <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come fathers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> turn s<strong>on</strong>s against mothers again <strong>and</strong>again?This servitude must cease. This inheritance must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> refused.This system of owning must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> destroyed.
DISARMAMENT ANDMASCULINITYA meditati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> warIf we could see more clearly how <strong>and</strong> why wars are waged,could we see more clearly how <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> end them? If we knew moreabout why men experience combat as the ultimate test of theirmasculinity, would we know more about how <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> resolvec<strong>on</strong>flicts in n<strong>on</strong>violent ways? If we did not hold <strong>on</strong> sodesperately <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> masculinity, might we not also then <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> able <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> letgo of warfare?S<strong>on</strong>s or fathers, poor men or rich men, sacred or secular:all are homo<strong>sex</strong>ual in their worship of everythingphallic. A <strong>sex</strong>ual revoluti<strong>on</strong> might destroy what men doso well <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether, away from women: the making of Hiss<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry,the making of war, the triumph of phallic will.—Phyllis Chesler*It should require no great imaginative leap <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> perceive adeep relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the mentality of rape <strong>and</strong>genocide. The socializati<strong>on</strong> of male <strong>sex</strong>ual violence inour culture forms the basis for corporate <strong>and</strong> militaryinterests <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> train a vicious military force.—Mary Daly* A list of sources for the quotati<strong>on</strong>s in this essay appears in theNotes, pp. 188–190.
66 REFUSING TO BE A MANThe politics of male <strong>sex</strong>ual dominati<strong>on</strong> define not <strong>on</strong>ly thewaging of wars but also the protesting of wars. After theUnited States military finally got out of Vietnam, this bitterless<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came clear. Women had put their bodies <strong>on</strong> the line inthe movement against that genocidal war. Women had puttheir bodies <strong>on</strong> the line al<strong>on</strong>gside young men who were <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ingsent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fight it. But <strong>on</strong>ce the war ended, men in the antiwarmovement revealed themselves <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> completely uninterestedin ending gynocide, men’s eroticized aggressi<strong>on</strong> against thegender class women. For these men, rape was merely “awomen’s issue,” whereas ending the war had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en “a realradical’s issue.”As a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tally committed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the feminist cause Ireceived several requests…<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> march, speak <strong>and</strong> “bringout my sisters” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> antiwar dem<strong>on</strong>strati<strong>on</strong>s “<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> showwomen’s li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rati<strong>on</strong> solidarity with the peace movement,”<strong>and</strong> my resp<strong>on</strong>se was that if the peace movement cared <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>raise the issue of rape <strong>and</strong> prostituti<strong>on</strong> in Vietnam, Iwould certainly join in. This was met with s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ny silence<strong>on</strong> the part of antiwar activists whose catchwords of theday were “anti-imperialism” <strong>and</strong> “American aggressi<strong>on</strong>,”<strong>and</strong> for whom the slogan—it appeared <strong>on</strong> but<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ns—“S<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p the Rape of Vietnam” meant the defoliati<strong>on</strong> ofcrops, not the abuse of women.—Susan BrownmillerMovement men are generally interested in womenoccasi<strong>on</strong>ally as <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d partners, as domestic-servantsmother-surrogates,<strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>stantly as ec<strong>on</strong>omicproducers: as in other patriarchal societies, <strong>on</strong>e’s wealthin the Movement can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> measured in terms of the peoplewhose labor <strong>on</strong>e can possess <strong>and</strong> direct <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e’sprojects.—Marge PiercyThe fact that wars are waged <strong>and</strong> rapes are committed by“normal” men—who experience aggressi<strong>on</strong> against other life
as a paradigm of “<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood” —was entirely ignored by themen who had dominated the antiwar Left. Men ostensiblycommitted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>violence refused even <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> entertain the noti<strong>on</strong>that war <strong>and</strong> militarism were functi<strong>on</strong>s of male <strong>sex</strong>ual violence—<strong>and</strong> that male <strong>sex</strong>ual violence is a functi<strong>on</strong> of malesupremacy. Though they espoused n<strong>on</strong>violent, equitable, <strong>and</strong>n<strong>on</strong>hierarchical forms of social organizati<strong>on</strong>, they c<strong>on</strong>tinued <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>act <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward women in male-supremacist ways. It <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came clearthat they were interested <strong>on</strong>ly in rearrangements of men’spower over other men, not in any fundamental change in men’srelati<strong>on</strong>ships with women. And <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y women who had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>enprominent in the movement for peace in Vietnam saw that ingiving over their lives <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a social-change movement based <strong>on</strong>terms defined by men, they had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en deceived <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>trayed.Pornography is the theory, <strong>and</strong> rape the practice. Andwhat a practice. The violati<strong>on</strong> of an individual wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> isthe metaphor for <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s forcing himself <strong>on</strong> whole nati<strong>on</strong>s(rape as the crux of war), <strong>on</strong> n<strong>on</strong>hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> creatures (rapeas the lust <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>hind hunting <strong>and</strong> related carnage), <strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong>the planet itself….—Robin Morgan[A]ny commitment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>violence which is real, whichis authentic, must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin in the recogniti<strong>on</strong> of the forms<strong>and</strong> degrees of violence perpetrated against women bythe gender class men.—Andrea DworkinWhite males are most resp<strong>on</strong>sible for the destructi<strong>on</strong> ofhu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> life <strong>and</strong> envir<strong>on</strong>ment <strong>on</strong> the planet <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day. Yetwho is c<strong>on</strong>trolling the supposed revoluti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> change allthat? White males…. It seems obvious that a legitimaterevoluti<strong>on</strong> must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> led by, made by those who have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>enmost oppressed: black, brown <strong>and</strong> white women—withmen relating <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> that as <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>st they can.—Robin Morgan67
68 REFUSING TO BE A MANThe post-Vietnam War era rever<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rated with a <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>trayal ofwomen by “progressive” men—a <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>trayal that may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> said <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the very essence of whatever political progressivism in thiscountry has ever meant. At no time has an objecti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tyranny <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en couched in terms that even hinted at an objecti<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> men’s tyranny over women.I can not say that I think you very generous <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theLadies, for whilst you are proclaiming peace <strong>and</strong> goodwill <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Men, E<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>cipating all Nati<strong>on</strong>s, you insist up<strong>on</strong>retaining an absolute power over wives.—Abigail Adams <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> John Adams, 1776L<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore Vietnam, in the movement against slavery in theUnited States, women, black <strong>and</strong> white, also put their bodies<strong>on</strong> the line. But <strong>on</strong>ce the slavery of blacks was outlawed, menin the Aboliti<strong>on</strong> Movement opposed ending the ownership ofwomen’s bodies, black <strong>and</strong> white, by men—as breeders, asdomestic servants, as carnal chattel, <strong>and</strong> as idiots under the law.In the aboliti<strong>on</strong> movement as in most movements forsocial change, then as now, women were the committed;women did the work that had <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> d<strong>on</strong>e; women werethe backb<strong>on</strong>e <strong>and</strong> muscle that supported the whole body.But when women made claims for their own rights, theywere dismissed c<strong>on</strong>temptuously, ridiculed, or <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld thattheir own struggle was self-indulgent, sec<strong>on</strong>dary <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thereal struggle.—Andrea DworkinIt was, again, a bitter less<strong>on</strong>. And <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y women who had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>enprominent in the movement for aboliti<strong>on</strong> saw that they had<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en deceived <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>trayed.During the late nineteen fifties <strong>and</strong> early sixties, women puttheir bodies <strong>on</strong> the line again in the movement againstsegregati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> racial discriminati<strong>on</strong>. But <strong>on</strong>ce the lawguaranteed equal rights under the law for black men, men inthe Civil Rights Movement opposed the right of women <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>
absolute c<strong>on</strong>trol over their own bodies <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> absolute equalityunder the law. The right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> decide whether <strong>and</strong> when <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> birth achild is the bot<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>m line of freedom for women as a class—yetmost birth c<strong>on</strong>trol methods are ineffective <strong>and</strong>/or harmful <strong>and</strong>the right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> choose aborti<strong>on</strong> is under massive attack. Withoutthe absolute right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> true reproductive self-determinati<strong>on</strong>,women as a class will c<strong>on</strong>tinue <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> exploited <strong>and</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ipulated in service <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ec<strong>on</strong>omic, <strong>sex</strong>ual,<strong>and</strong> psychological priorities of men. In additi<strong>on</strong>, the EqualRights Amendment has still not passed—over half a centuryafter it was first introduced—<strong>and</strong> it is in serious danger of notpassing ever. Opp<strong>on</strong>ents of the ERA are funded by the lifeinsurance industry, which earns billi<strong>on</strong>s in profits baseddirectly <strong>on</strong> women’s inequality under the law, <strong>and</strong> also byvarious right-wing religious groups. ERA’s most powerfulopp<strong>on</strong>ents perceive accurately that the amendment will force aredistributi<strong>on</strong> of wealth. Yet so-called radical men c<strong>on</strong>tinued <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ignore these issues as “reformist,” even as, during theseventies, they established closer <strong>and</strong> closer ec<strong>on</strong>omic,ideological, <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>ual ties <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the pornography industry.To put it bluntly, feminism is a movement that “radical”men <strong>and</strong> “the Left” seem <strong>on</strong>ly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o willing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> trash, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ridicule, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> put in its “place” or <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> destroy if they can’tc<strong>on</strong>trol it.—Gary Mitchell W<strong>and</strong>achildAnd <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y women who had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en prominent in the movementfor civil rights saw that they had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en deceived <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>trayed.Now the nuclear-arms race is a clear <strong>and</strong> present emergency,<strong>and</strong> in resp<strong>on</strong>se <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> that emergency, there has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en a growingnati<strong>on</strong>al <strong>and</strong> internati<strong>on</strong>al movement calling for disarmament.But though disarmament now seems as urgent as aboliti<strong>on</strong><strong>on</strong>ce did, or as black male civil rights <strong>on</strong>ce did, or as peace inVietnam <strong>on</strong>ce did, is there not again decepti<strong>on</strong> built in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thegoals <strong>and</strong> strategy <strong>and</strong> political theory of this movement fornuclear disarmament? If our political c<strong>on</strong>sciences resp<strong>on</strong>dsolely <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the “doomsday” rhe<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ric of the nuclear-arms69
70 REFUSING TO BE A MANemergency, isn’t the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>trayal of women again inevitable?Again, we are <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld, there is a higher, more pressingcause, <strong>on</strong>e that makes “women’s issues” pale by comparis<strong>on</strong>.Thus the threat of nuclear destructi<strong>on</strong> is used by political“progressives” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> silence women’s de<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ds for civil rights,freedom, <strong>and</strong> dignity <strong>and</strong> for an end <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ual violence. Andthus the threat of nuclear war is used <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ipulate women’sguilt in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> maintain the political power of men overwomen.“Therefore if you insist up<strong>on</strong> fighting <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> protect me, or‘our’ country, let it <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od, so<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rly <strong>and</strong> rati<strong>on</strong>ally<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween us, that you are fighting <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> gratify a <strong>sex</strong> instinctwhich I cannot share; <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> procure <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>nefits which I havenot shared <strong>and</strong> probably will not share; but not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> gratifymy instincts, or <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> protect myself or my country. For…infact, as a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, I have no country….”—Virginia Woolf, Three GuineasDuring the Vietnam War, for the first time in United Stateshis<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry, young males in large num<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs rejected soldiership.Prior <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> that time, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> heed the call of his country <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> asoldier was <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a real <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> (as the tales of World War II <strong>and</strong>Korean War veterans still tell us). But during the VietnamWar, a significant cultural adjustment occurred. Large num<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rsof mothers endorsed their s<strong>on</strong>s’ refusal <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> cann<strong>on</strong> fodder.Large num<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs of women who were the same age as draftablemales identified with those who refused <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fight that war.Large num<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs of women, across the country, s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od by thoseyoung males who refused <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> go <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Vietnam <strong>and</strong> tirelesslylabored <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> bring that war <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> an end. Large num<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs of oldermen, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o—rather than reject those who had rejected militaryservice—admired those young men <strong>and</strong> encouraged them <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>resist.It was very nearly a new moment in the his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry of men <strong>and</strong>war: There might then have developed a general c<strong>on</strong>sciousnessam<strong>on</strong>g males that militarism is immoral, not simply thatparticular war in that particular country. There might then have
emerged an awareness of the <strong>sex</strong>ual politics of war, therelati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood <strong>and</strong> violence <strong>and</strong> the global <strong>sex</strong>classsystem. But that of course was not what happened.Instead, for young males, resistance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> military service came <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> viewed culturally as <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing c<strong>on</strong>sistent with c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>almasculinity: If a young <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> refused <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fight, his power <strong>and</strong>prerogative in the culture over women was completely intact—in the eyes of himself <strong>and</strong> in the eyes of enormous num<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs ofothers (“Girls say yes <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> men who say no” <strong>and</strong> “Make love notwar” were two popular slogans of the time). Thus maleresistance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the war in Vietnam <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came a new <strong>and</strong> acceptableopti<strong>on</strong> for <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing a real <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, instead of an occasi<strong>on</strong> forexamining the fundamental relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween militaris<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>d male supremacy.Then Abraham lifted up the boy, he walked with him byhis side, <strong>and</strong> his talk was full of comfort <strong>and</strong> exhortati<strong>on</strong>.But Isaac could not underst<strong>and</strong> him. He clim<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d MountMoriah, but Isaac unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od him not. Then for an instanthe turned away from him, <strong>and</strong> when Isaac again sawAbraham’s face it was changed, his glance was wild, hisform was horror. He seized Isaac by the throat, threw him<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ground, <strong>and</strong> said, “Stupid boy, dost thou thensuppose that I am thy father? I am an idolater. Dost thousuppose that this is God’s bidding? No, it is my desire.”—Søren Kierkegaard, Fear <strong>and</strong> TremblingGeorg shrank in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a corner, as far away from his fatheras possible. A l<strong>on</strong>g time ago he had firmly made up hismind <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> watch closely every least movement so that heshould not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> surprised by any indirect attack, a pouncefrom <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>hind or above.—Franz Kafka, “The Judgment”Why, his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rically, have fathers wanted s<strong>on</strong>s so much—<strong>and</strong>then why have fathers wanted s<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> go <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> war <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> killed?71
72 REFUSING TO BE A MANIt is also true that you hardly ever gave me a whipping.But the shouting, the way your face got red, the hastyundoing of the braces <strong>and</strong> laying them ready over theback of the chair, all that was almost worse for me.—Franz Kafka, Letter <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> His FatherIn every patriarchal family, there comes a time when theemerging <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>liness of the s<strong>on</strong> pitches the father in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a crisis ofambivalence: This young <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is the masculine progeny thefather wanted, yet this young <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is a youthful physical rivalhe wanted not at all. Violence is frequently a father’s futileattempt <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> bridge this distance <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween desire <strong>and</strong> dread. In theUnited States, as in other patriarchal nati<strong>on</strong>-states, there existsa class of “superfathers” —the military brass, men who declare<strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>age wars—who act in other fathers’ <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>half <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keeps<strong>on</strong>s mindful of the power of the father by threatening s<strong>on</strong>swith extincti<strong>on</strong>. It is boys who are sent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> war. It is aging, adultmen who send them. Their mothers <strong>and</strong> biological fathers maymourn when they die. But the setup—the war machine—keepsfather power in place. This is, at root, the psycho<strong>sex</strong>ualfuncti<strong>on</strong> of militarism am<strong>on</strong>g fathers <strong>and</strong> s<strong>on</strong>s: Thesuperfathers reinforce a cultural exaggerati<strong>on</strong> of father powerover life (progenitati<strong>on</strong>, d<strong>on</strong>e by penis) through maintainingthe cultural obscenity of father power over death (annihilati<strong>on</strong>,d<strong>on</strong>e by weap<strong>on</strong>s—<strong>and</strong> by s<strong>on</strong>s as extensi<strong>on</strong>s of weap<strong>on</strong>s/penises).When young males refused <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fight in Vietnam, they feeblyre<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lled against male power over their own lives <strong>on</strong>ly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ascertain dominance over the lives of women. They did nothave the courage <strong>and</strong> the visi<strong>on</strong>—or perhaps, indeed, the desire—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> renounce militarism completely by questi<strong>on</strong>ing theinstituti<strong>on</strong> of patriarchy <strong>and</strong> by disavowing the cultural powerattributed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fathers, in particular fathers’ power over s<strong>on</strong>sobtained through the ownership of women’s bodies. Instead thes<strong>on</strong>s made a deal—that they would not c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>t father powerhead <strong>on</strong>.
[T]he <strong>on</strong>ly way that the Oedipus Complex can make fullsense is in terms of power…. The male child, in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>save his own hide, has had <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ab<strong>and</strong><strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tray hismother <strong>and</strong> join ranks with her oppressor. He feels guilty.His emoti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward women in general are affected.Most men have made an all<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o-<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>autiful transiti<strong>on</strong> in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>power over others; some are still trying.—Shulamith Fires<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>neIn war, the fathers castrate the s<strong>on</strong>s by killing them. Inwar, the fathers overwhelm the penises of the survivings<strong>on</strong>s by having terrorized them, having tried <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> drownthem in blood.But this is not enough, for the fathers truly fear thepotency of the s<strong>on</strong>s. Knowing fully the <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rture cham<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rsof male imaginati<strong>on</strong>, they see themselves, legs splayed,rectum split, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rn, shredded by the sa<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r they haveenshrined.Do it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> her, they whisper; do it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> her, they com<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>d.—Andrea DworkinNo wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is ever guaranteed the right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> secure in her ownpers<strong>on</strong> against forcible violati<strong>on</strong> of her body rights. “Domesticsecurity” within the United States applies <strong>on</strong>ly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> men; it is ac<strong>on</strong>cept that has no real meaning in the lives of women. It doesnot mean, for instance, freedom for women from malepreda<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs who live here—or safety for women even insidetheir own homes. Unless a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is visibly in theproprie<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rship of a male, she is likely <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the victim ofhetero<strong>sex</strong>ual assault (for example, <strong>on</strong> any city street). Thatlikelihood is legitimatized by male-supremacist law, cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>m,<strong>and</strong> habit, which every normal American <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> has memorizedin his flesh. Many women c<strong>on</strong>tract their bodies in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> marriagefor safety (<strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause, ec<strong>on</strong>omically, they have no alternative).But the instituti<strong>on</strong> of marriage legally sancti<strong>on</strong>s the prerogativeof husb<strong>and</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> aggress against their private property, thebodies of their wives.73
74 REFUSING TO BE A MANEach <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, knowing his own deep-rooted impulse <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>savagery, presupposes this same impulse in other men<strong>and</strong> seeks <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> protect himself from it. The rituals of malesadism over <strong>and</strong> against the bodies of women are themeans by which male aggressi<strong>on</strong> is socialized so that a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> can associate with other men without the imminentdanger of male aggressi<strong>on</strong> against his own pers<strong>on</strong>.—Andrea DworkinWhen the superfathers of America speak of “nati<strong>on</strong>al security,”they take for granted that the body rights of men extend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>terri<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rial rights <strong>and</strong> property rights over the bodies of women<strong>and</strong> children. Defending these body rights is the basis of allrelati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween groups of men. Under patriarchy, males learnin their own bodies <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> eroticize aggressi<strong>on</strong>—that is, theirimpulse <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act in a way that owns, dominates, <strong>and</strong> violatesanother pers<strong>on</strong>’s body rights has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en indelibly c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>edaccording <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a cultural norm of how male eroticism is supposed<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel. Under patriarchy, normally acculturated males assume—correctly—that the same impulse <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ual violence exists inother males. They therefore endeavor <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> enter in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> homoerotictruces—n<strong>on</strong>aggressi<strong>on</strong> pacts c<strong>on</strong>tracted <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween men whotacitly agree <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> aggress against “others” (women, <strong>and</strong>sometimes weaker men, or men of other races) instead of <strong>on</strong>eanother. When a group of men shares power over “their”c<strong>on</strong>stituency of women, that sharing assuages their fears of <strong>on</strong>eanother’s potential for aggressi<strong>on</strong>. In their hearts, men grow upterrified of giving offense <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>, <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing attacked by, moreviolent males. Between men of different nati<strong>on</strong>s, armed(phallic) deterrence against forcible violati<strong>on</strong> of the terri<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rythey own (the country they own) is men’s first line of defenseagainst assault by other men. The military postures ofpatriarchal nati<strong>on</strong>s are modeled exactly <strong>on</strong> the psycho<strong>sex</strong>ualneeds of men <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> defend themselves against pers<strong>on</strong>al assault byother men, which can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od as eroticized violence<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween males exclusively, <strong>and</strong> therefore homo<strong>sex</strong>ual. Whenmale combat troops do aggress against the terri<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rial rights ofother men, their actual military strategy often involves hetero-
<strong>sex</strong>ual rape of the women <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>ging <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those men (for example,American soldiers in Vietnam). But the aggressi<strong>on</strong> men fear,<strong>and</strong> the fear up<strong>on</strong> which their “nati<strong>on</strong>al defense” is predicated,is aggressi<strong>on</strong> from other men—that is, homo<strong>sex</strong>ual attack.This country’s superfathers want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make certain that theUnited States will have the biggest cock in the world—that is,the greatest potency for sadism, euphemistically referred <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> as“deterrent” capability—but America faces stiff competiti<strong>on</strong>,preeminently from the Soviet Uni<strong>on</strong>. Nuclear arms are anextensi<strong>on</strong> of men’s potency for sadism. Nuclear arms are thecapability for the ultimate, masculinity-c<strong>on</strong>firming fuck. Thatcapability fills the imaginati<strong>on</strong>s of those who have it <strong>and</strong> thosewho d<strong>on</strong>’t. As cock power is reck<strong>on</strong>ed, it is in “lethality,” themaximum threat that men can imagine wielding against <strong>on</strong>eanother. To <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> perceived as militarily “weak” is by definiti<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> feminized—vulnerable <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> attack. To <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> perceived ashaving the greatest potency for sadism is, as men imagine, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> “secure” —hence the arms race <strong>and</strong> the obsessi<strong>on</strong> with thequantity of bombs prepared <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> dropped.At present, the superfathers of the U.S. <strong>and</strong> the U.S.S.R. areparties <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a precarious, tenuous homoerotic truce whereby thetwo supercocks:• endeavor <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ckpiles of bombs (cock power)balanced;• agree not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> aggress against each other’s satellite nati<strong>on</strong>s (themale owners of which are themselves in homoeroticalliances with a supercock for protecti<strong>on</strong>);• agree <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> respect each other’s right, within their respectiveboundaries, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> aggress against racial <strong>and</strong> ethnic minorities;<strong>and</strong>• agree <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> respect any <strong>and</strong> all nati<strong>on</strong>al policies prescribing thesubjugati<strong>on</strong> of women <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> men.The values that inhere <strong>on</strong> a “small” scale in homoerotictransacti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween men are the same values that inhere <strong>on</strong> agr<strong>and</strong>er scale in all transacti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween male-owned <strong>and</strong>male-supremacist nati<strong>on</strong>-states. The “all-male pack” is75
76 REFUSING TO BE A MANessentially c<strong>on</strong>temptuous of any<strong>on</strong>e who is female or who isc<strong>on</strong>strued as feminized, or not really <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ly. Between all-malepacks, their respective commitment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> perpetuate violenceagainst women is a <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ken <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween them of trustworthiness <strong>and</strong>truce. A male with a greater investment in eroticizedaggressi<strong>on</strong> can enlist the loyalty of a male with a lesserinvestment in it simply by offering a promise of “protecti<strong>on</strong>”from his sadism. The arms race cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> dis<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>tled withoutdis<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>tling the psycho<strong>sex</strong>ual structures of masculinity itself.The stated reas<strong>on</strong> for nuclear threat <strong>and</strong> counterthreat<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the supercocks is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> preserve <strong>and</strong> protect the politicalalignment of satellite nati<strong>on</strong>-states. But the real reas<strong>on</strong> is theneed for global allegiance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the existing political alignment ofthe <strong>sex</strong>es—<strong>and</strong> the need for an irrefutable imperative for themaintenance of the <strong>sex</strong>-class system. Imagine: the superfathers<strong>and</strong> supercocks of the world locked in nuclear threat <strong>and</strong>counter-threat as an ultimate deterrent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>-class re<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lli<strong>on</strong>.To advocate nuclear disarmament without an end <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> malesupremacy is simply <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ratify the rights of men <strong>and</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>enter in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> n<strong>on</strong>aggressi<strong>on</strong> pacts am<strong>on</strong>g themselves based up<strong>on</strong>their c<strong>on</strong>tinued aggressi<strong>on</strong> against all women.Nothing is more political <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a feminist than fucking—nothing is less an act of love <strong>and</strong> more an act ofownership, violati<strong>on</strong>; nothing is less an instrument ofecstasy <strong>and</strong> more an instrument of oppressi<strong>on</strong> than thepenis; nothing is less an expressi<strong>on</strong> of love <strong>and</strong> more anexpressi<strong>on</strong> of dominance <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trol than c<strong>on</strong>venti<strong>on</strong>alhetero<strong>sex</strong>ual relati<strong>on</strong>. Here the war mentality makes avisitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> our bodies <strong>and</strong> the phallic values ofaggressi<strong>on</strong>, dominance <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>quest are affirmed.—Andrea DworkinAs the formula of “fucking as c<strong>on</strong>quest” holds true, thec<strong>on</strong>quest is not <strong>on</strong>ly over the female, but over the male’sown fears for his masculinity, his courage, hisdominance, the test of erecti<strong>on</strong>.—Kate Millett
What is disarmament if it is not the end of male sadismal<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether, the end of male eroticized violence, the end of maleeroticized aggressi<strong>on</strong>? What is disarmament if it is not the endof patriarchy, the end of father right, the end of malesupremacy? What do males mean when they say they wantdisarmament if they have not made a commitment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> lay downthe dominance they wield over <strong>and</strong> against women? What, fora male, is n<strong>on</strong>-violent resistance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the superfathers ofpatriarchy if it is not repudiating <strong>and</strong> divesting himself of hisbirthright <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ar arms over <strong>and</strong> against women’s lives?77
THE FETUS AS PENIS: MEN’SSELF-INTEREST ANDABORTION RIGHTSMen, it is said, do not express their feelings—or if men do,they do so <strong>on</strong>ly with great difficulty. Both women <strong>and</strong> men<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that men are unemotive <strong>and</strong> unemoti<strong>on</strong>al, that insidemen’s tender psyches is a wellspring of feelings, s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>newalled<strong>and</strong> speechless. Men respect <strong>and</strong> fear other men whose feelingsare undisclosed <strong>and</strong> well defended. Women also respect <strong>and</strong>fear such men whose feelings lie dor<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>t <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>neath a permafros<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>f mastery. And women who live with them implore themprivately <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> emote just a little, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gging them <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say what theyare feeling, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gging them <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> warm. But men do not expresstheir feelings. Or so the s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry goes.In fact, throughout his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry, men as a class have alway<strong>sex</strong>pressed their feelings, eloquently <strong>and</strong> extensively: Men haveexpressed their feelings about women, death, <strong>and</strong> absentfathers <strong>and</strong> turned those feelings in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> religi<strong>on</strong>s. Men haveexpressed their feelings about women, wealth, possessi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong>terri<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry <strong>and</strong> turned those feelings in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> laws <strong>and</strong> nati<strong>on</strong>-states.Men have expressed their feelings about women, murder, <strong>and</strong>the masculinity of other men <strong>and</strong> from those feelings forgedbattali<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> de<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nable devices. Men have expressed theirfeelings about women, fucking, <strong>and</strong> female rage againstsubjecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> formed those feelings in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> psychiatry. Men haveinstituti<strong>on</strong>alized their feel ings, so that whether or not aparticular <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is feeling the feeling at a particular time, thefeeling is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing expressed through the instituti<strong>on</strong>s men havemade.
JOHN STOLTENBERG 79Today, men’s feelings about women’s increasing refusal <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>shore up men’s delusi<strong>on</strong>s of gr<strong>and</strong>eur are <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing expressed in abitter battle <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep women’s reproductive capacities withinmale c<strong>on</strong>trol. The dimensi<strong>on</strong>s of this battle are staggering.*According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a nati<strong>on</strong>wide study c<strong>on</strong>ducted by the Nati<strong>on</strong>alCenter for Health Statistics, <strong>on</strong>e fifth of all babies born in theUnited States—or a <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tal of 14 milli<strong>on</strong> people—would nothave <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en born if their mothers had given birth <strong>on</strong>ly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thosebabies they wanted at the time they got pregnant. 1 Currently,more than half a milli<strong>on</strong> women each year want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have anaborti<strong>on</strong> but cannot get <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the service is not available,so they have no choice but <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> birth a child. 2The warfare against reproductive self-determinati<strong>on</strong> forwomen is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing waged both overtly <strong>and</strong> covertly. In its overtform, poor women are denied aborti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they cannotafford them; 3 eight out of ten public hospitals refuse <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> performthe aborti<strong>on</strong> procedure; 4 federal <strong>and</strong> drug-company funding forc<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> research has plummeted; 5 <strong>and</strong> a growingrightwing/fundamentalist coaliti<strong>on</strong> has mobilized <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> writeembryos <strong>and</strong> zygotes in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> (through a so-calledhu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>-life amendment stating that “life <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gins at the momen<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>f c<strong>on</strong>cepti<strong>on</strong>,” which would make aborti<strong>on</strong> a crime <strong>and</strong>milli<strong>on</strong>s of women murderers)—<strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep women writtenout (by s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>pping ratificati<strong>on</strong> of the Equal Rights Amendment).The war is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing waged covertly in the form of men’s apathy<strong>and</strong> passivity in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong>, men’s privatepressures <strong>on</strong> women <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> carry <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> term pregnancies that thewomen did not want, <strong>and</strong> the resistance of men who claim theyendorse aborti<strong>on</strong> rights <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make women’s right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> choose apriority in their political activism.The women forced <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ar unwanted children are the POWsin this war. For most of them, after nine m<strong>on</strong>ths of labor, theirincarcerati<strong>on</strong> inside a diminished life has just <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gun.What are the statistical chances that a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> will need <strong>and</strong>get an aborti<strong>on</strong>? And what are the chances that a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>involved in a c<strong>on</strong>cepti<strong>on</strong> that is aborted? What, in other words,is the risk rate over a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s lifetime, <strong>and</strong> what is theresp<strong>on</strong>sibility rate over a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s? Given the current frequency
80 REFUSING TO BE A MANof aborti<strong>on</strong>s in the United States, it can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> predicted that overthe course of all American women’s lifetimes, two out of threewill have an aborti<strong>on</strong>. And the rate of involvement for men isthe same: Over the course of their lifetimes, two out of threemen will have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en resp<strong>on</strong>sible for impregnating a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>who subsequently decides <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> abort. 6The trend is that more <strong>and</strong> more women are deciding <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>terminate the pregnancies they do not want. Year by year, thenum<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of elective aborti<strong>on</strong>s has g<strong>on</strong>e up by about 15 percent.This year, over a milli<strong>on</strong> were performed, legally <strong>and</strong> safely—approximately <strong>on</strong>e aborti<strong>on</strong> for every three live births. 7But there is also a trend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward increasingly repressive <strong>and</strong>restrictive laws, increasing harassment <strong>and</strong> violence againstaborti<strong>on</strong> clinics, <strong>and</strong> an increasingly antipathetic medicalestablishment. For example, ordinances are <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing enacted <strong>on</strong>the city level across the country <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> require aborti<strong>on</strong> patients <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> shown pictures of fetal development <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld theymight have emoti<strong>on</strong>al problems if they go through with anaborti<strong>on</strong>. In some places, the fact that a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> has had anaborti<strong>on</strong> can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> used against her in a child-cus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dy trial asevidence that she is an unfit mother. In eight out of tencounties, mostly rural areas, there is not a single doc<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r orclinic that will provide the aborti<strong>on</strong> procedure. 8These two trends are <strong>on</strong> a collisi<strong>on</strong> course. And seething<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>neath the surface of this crisis is a mass of male feeling—resentful <strong>and</strong> punitive—now <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing instituti<strong>on</strong>alized <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore ourvery eyes. Men’s individual feelings are diverse <strong>and</strong> complex,but they can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od as having in comm<strong>on</strong> the fear thatwomen will cease <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sustain the <strong>sex</strong>ual identities of men, <strong>and</strong>the fear that therefore masculinity will cease <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> exist.One of the few surveys of men’s attitudes <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward aborti<strong>on</strong>was c<strong>on</strong>ducted in Philadelphia—a few years <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore the 1973Supreme Court decisi<strong>on</strong> legalizing aborti<strong>on</strong>—am<strong>on</strong>g 424 men* The statistics that follow reflect the time when I first gave thisspeech in 1978. The situati<strong>on</strong> in 1988 is no <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter, <strong>and</strong> in <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y waysworse.
JOHN STOLTENBERG 81who were heads of families, mostly men who were living withtheir wives <strong>and</strong> children. These men were asked the questi<strong>on</strong>“Do you favor or oppose aborti<strong>on</strong>?” under six hypotheticalcircumstances in which a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> might c<strong>on</strong>sider terminating apregnancy.• In the case of financial hardship where it would not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>possible <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> support an additi<strong>on</strong>al child, three out of four ofthese men opposed aborti<strong>on</strong>.• In the case of a pregnancy that would result in a child notwanted, four out of five of these men opposed aborti<strong>on</strong>.• In the case of a pregnancy that was due <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a failure in birthc<strong>on</strong>trol method <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing used, five out of six of these menopposed aborti<strong>on</strong>.These men’s feelings <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came clear: The <strong>on</strong>ly situati<strong>on</strong>s inwhich a majority would favor aborti<strong>on</strong> involved cases of awife’s bad health, a wife raped, or the possibility of a deformedchild 9 —in other words: spoiled goods.Men’s indifference <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> learning about c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>taking any resp<strong>on</strong>sibility for it is a theme that emerges from<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y reports of projects that have attempted, <strong>and</strong> failed, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>reach <strong>and</strong> educate men. One of the most successful programsof c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> educati<strong>on</strong> for men, a Planned Parenthoodproject in Chicago, ab<strong>and</strong><strong>on</strong>ed its attempts <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reach men overthe age of twenty-five when it was found that these men simplywould not participate, even when offered <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>er, s<strong>and</strong>wiches,free c<strong>on</strong>doms—<strong>and</strong> “stag” movies. 10 Instead, the projecttargeted a younger group, <strong>and</strong> as part of its research the projectc<strong>on</strong>ducted a survey of over a thous<strong>and</strong> men aged fifteen <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nineteen:• These young men were asked whether they agreed with thestatement “It’s okay <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> tell a girl you love her so that youcan have <strong>sex</strong> with her.” Seven out of ten agreed that it’sokay.
82 REFUSING TO BE A MAN• They were asked whether they agreed with the statement “Aguy should use birth c<strong>on</strong>trol whenever possible.” Eight ou<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>f ten disagreed <strong>and</strong> said a guy should not.• And when asked, “If I got a girl pregnant, I would want her<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have an aborti<strong>on</strong>,” nearly nine out of ten said no, theywould not want her <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have an aborti<strong>on</strong>.These teenage men agreed: Decepti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> obtain coital access isokay; male irresp<strong>on</strong>sibility in c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> is okay; butaborti<strong>on</strong> is not okay—“<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it’s wr<strong>on</strong>g.” 11Largely <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause of attitudes such as these, <strong>on</strong>e milli<strong>on</strong>teenage women—<strong>on</strong>e tenth of all teenage women—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comepregnant each year, <strong>and</strong> two thirds of their pregnancies are notwanted. 12The <strong>on</strong>e-<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>-<strong>on</strong>e reality is that men exert an overwhelminginfluence over the c<strong>on</strong>traceptive practices <strong>and</strong> child<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aringchoices of women. Nearly all men, in their day-<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>-day lives,c<strong>on</strong>trol the fertility of the women closest <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> them in the sameway they c<strong>on</strong>trol other aspects of women’s lives: byestablishing the boundaries within which she is “safe” from hisanger, which is backed up by force. Knowing that he can makeher life miserable if she transgresses, if she crosses him in anyway, she opts for a lesser misery. As she surrenders her will <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>his, it doesn’t make a lot of difference whether she does sogrudgingly, thinking, “He’s making me do this,” or whethershe does so completely brow<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aten, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieving, “This is what Iwanted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do anyway.” What matters is that he gets his way.Often as not, she carries an unwanted pregnancy <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> term ratherthan provoke her male partner’s threatening rage. It’s easier,she imagines, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> live with the screaming of a defenseless,unwanted child.On the postpartum floor of a large New York City hospital,Dr. Maria Boria-Berna interviewed 130 women who had justgiven birth <strong>and</strong> approximately 100 men who had impregnatedthem. She asked the men how they felt about their wife’s usingbirth c<strong>on</strong>trol. The majority of the men “did not like the idea atall.” She asked the women how they felt about using birthc<strong>on</strong>trol, <strong>and</strong> eight out of ten replied that they “favored
JOHN STOLTENBERG 83c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> without reservati<strong>on</strong>.” But about half of thewomen favoring c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> said that if their husb<strong>and</strong>objected, they would defer <strong>and</strong> not use any. At that rate ofdeference <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the determined will of husb<strong>and</strong>s, it is notsurprising that 48 percent of these new mothers reported thattheir pregnancy had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tally unplanned. 13Men as a class are devoted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <strong>sex</strong> act that deposits theirsemen in a vagina—“in situ” as men have so tellingly namedtheir target. And men as a class are firmly attached <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ideathat any issue resulting is proof positive they are <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ly.Men c<strong>on</strong>trol women’s reproductive capacities in part<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause men <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that fetuses are phallic—that theejaculated leavings swelling up in utero are a symbolic <strong>and</strong>material extensi<strong>on</strong> of the precious penis itself. This <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief isboth literal <strong>and</strong> metaphoric, both ancient <strong>and</strong> modern. Themythology of the fetus as a purely male substance harboredinside the body of a n<strong>on</strong>male host reaches back at least as faras fifth century B.C. Greece. In a classic statement of it, thetragedian Aeschylus has the male god Apollo declare:The mother is no parent of that which is called her child,but <strong>on</strong>ly nurse of the new-planted seed that grows. Theparent is he who mounts. A stranger she preserves astranger’s seed… 14Down through the ages, ranks of theologians <strong>and</strong> otherinfluential male thinkers have ratified this view. (And in atleast <strong>on</strong>e language, Old High Ger<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, the words for “penis”<strong>and</strong> “fetus” are related <strong>and</strong> nearly identical—faselt <strong>and</strong> fasel.)Freud, for instance, probably speaking for <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y men,projected <strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women his feelings about fetuses this way:The wish with which the girl turns <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> her father is nodoubt originally the wish for the penis which her motherhas refused her <strong>and</strong> which she now expects from herfather. The feminine situati<strong>on</strong> is <strong>on</strong>ly established,however, if the wish for a penis is replaced by <strong>on</strong>e for ababy, if, that is, a baby takes the place of a penis in
84 REFUSING TO BE A MANaccordance with an ancient symbolic equivalence…. Herhappiness is great if later <strong>on</strong> this wish for a baby findsfulfillment in reality, <strong>and</strong> quite especially so if the babyis a little boy who brings the l<strong>on</strong>ged-for penis withhim. 15The modern versi<strong>on</strong> of the mythology of the fetus as a penis isthe noti<strong>on</strong> that the fetus is a pers<strong>on</strong>. This noti<strong>on</strong> makes perfectsense if <strong>on</strong>e realizes that pers<strong>on</strong>hood itself is phallic bycultural definiti<strong>on</strong>: In this male-supremacist culture, authenticpers<strong>on</strong>hood accrues <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> men <strong>and</strong> not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause menhave a penis <strong>and</strong> women do not. To say that the fetus is apers<strong>on</strong> is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say that its civil rights supersede those of its host(who is not male <strong>and</strong> therefore not fully a pers<strong>on</strong>), which isanother way of saying that fetal matter has worth that <strong>on</strong>lypenile tissue can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>w. By c<strong>on</strong>trast, women’s actual liveshardly count at all. As Andrea Dworkin descri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>s it,The womb is dignified <strong>on</strong>ly when it is the reposi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry ofholy goods—the phallus or, since men want s<strong>on</strong>s, thefetal s<strong>on</strong>. To abort a fetus, in masculinist terms, is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>commit an act of violence against the phallus itself. It isakin <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> chopping off a cock. Because a fetus is perceivedof as having a phallic character, its so-called life isvalued very highly, while the wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s actual life isworthless <strong>and</strong> invisible since she can make no claim <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>phallic potentiality. 16The his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry of men’s ideas is the his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry of what men feel <strong>and</strong>the his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry of what men feel <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> real. As a class, men neverfeel more real than when their penises are erect <strong>and</strong> penetrating—<strong>and</strong> never feel less real than when their penises are flaccid.As a result, men’s ideas about what is real, what is objectivelyas real as themselves, tend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> utterly self-referential <strong>and</strong>almost entirely phallocentric. Rarely does a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s empathyextend <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>y<strong>on</strong>d what he <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieves can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> felt by other men,<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause if men do not feel something, the feeling is literallynot real. The war against reproductive self-determinati<strong>on</strong> for
JOHN STOLTENBERG 85women is a war <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> defend the reality of phallic power. In thisphallocentric culture, a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s unwillingness <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> admit a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s “<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood” <strong>and</strong> accept his proffered “seed” —or awo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s unwillingness <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> incubate the stuff—is felt at somelevel <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> an act of violence against men’s pers<strong>on</strong>-hood. Sincephallic pers<strong>on</strong>hood is c<strong>on</strong>tingent <strong>on</strong> female deference,nurturance, <strong>and</strong> sustenance all its life in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> differentiate<strong>and</strong> thrive, any female n<strong>on</strong>cooperati<strong>on</strong>—whether in fucking orbreeding—is perceived as an attack <strong>on</strong> men’s core selves.Many women decide <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have an aborti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> do not telltheir male partner anything about it. This was the decisi<strong>on</strong> of15 percent of the women in <strong>on</strong>e group of aborti<strong>on</strong> patientsinterviewed at a clinic in New York City. 17 Some womendecide <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have an aborti<strong>on</strong>, make an appointment, then changetheir minds <strong>and</strong> carry <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> term. A group of such women in NewHaven were asked six m<strong>on</strong>ths later what had made themchange their minds. The reas<strong>on</strong> given most often was“religious <strong>and</strong> moral objecti<strong>on</strong>s.” The reas<strong>on</strong> given sec<strong>on</strong>dmost often was that their partner desired a baby. 18Still other women decide <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> abort; but <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they arec<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ted in their pers<strong>on</strong>al lives with a c<strong>on</strong>spicuous lack ofsupport for their decisi<strong>on</strong> from their male partner, theiraborti<strong>on</strong> experience is particularly stressful. It is often allegedthat aborti<strong>on</strong> is in <strong>and</strong> of itself an emoti<strong>on</strong>ally devastatingexperience for women; antiaborti<strong>on</strong> agita<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs frequently warnwomen of its psychic perils. But a quite different pictureemerges from a study am<strong>on</strong>g 329 aborti<strong>on</strong> patients inPhiladelphia. While it was true that “most women experiencedtheir aborti<strong>on</strong>s with some degree of c<strong>on</strong>flicting emoti<strong>on</strong>s,” themajority reported their predominant feeling was “relief that theaborti<strong>on</strong> had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en performed.” Significantly, this study isolatedthe critical effect of men’s attitudes <strong>on</strong> how women felt abouttheir aborti<strong>on</strong> experience. According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the researcher, EllenFree<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, of the University of Pennsylvania School ofMedicine,Frequently, women were more c<strong>on</strong>cerned about theirrelati<strong>on</strong>ships with their male partners than with any other
86 REFUSING TO BE A MANaspect of the aborti<strong>on</strong>. They needed <strong>and</strong> tried <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> includetheir partners in the experience. In almost all instances inwhich resp<strong>on</strong>dents experienced substantial emoti<strong>on</strong>aldistress, it was <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they lacked emoti<strong>on</strong>al supportfrom their partners. 19There are, as of course there always are, excepti<strong>on</strong>s—men ofgood intenti<strong>on</strong>s, men actively <strong>and</strong> wholeheartedly attempting<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> give women support through their aborti<strong>on</strong> experience.When 171 aborti<strong>on</strong> patients were interviewed at <strong>on</strong>e New YorkCity clinic, half of them said their male partner wholeheartedlysupported the decisi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have an aborti<strong>on</strong>. 20 At anothertypical urban clinic, it was found that men accompanied abou<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ne out of ten of the women who arrived <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have an aborti<strong>on</strong>. Amajority of those men, when asked, expressed a str<strong>on</strong>g desire<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> there, a str<strong>on</strong>g feeling that “they should participatedirectly in preventing unwanted pregnancies,” <strong>and</strong> the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>liefthat both partners are resp<strong>on</strong>sible for the decisi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have anaborti<strong>on</strong>. Nevertheless, these men were found <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> generallyignorant about the type <strong>and</strong> safety of the medical procedure thattheir partner had come there <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have. And fully eight out of tenreported that the current unwanted pregnancy occurred <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>causeno c<strong>on</strong>tracepti<strong>on</strong> had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en used—<strong>and</strong> the reas<strong>on</strong> they gavemost often was “carelessness.” 21Why does reproductive self-determinati<strong>on</strong> for women soterrify men, threaten men, anger men? It is as if in someprimal, private part, men dread that if their mother really had achoice, they might not have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en born <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin with. And it isas if men—who <strong>on</strong> the whole age very badly, increasinglyobsessed with penile tumescence, increasingly estranged fro<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y other life, from any other flesh—also dread this: that ifwomen truly had a choice, men’s s<strong>on</strong>s would not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> born.I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that men as a class know that reproductive freedomfor women is not in men’s interest. Men know this in their guts.Men as a class know that if reproductive freedom for womenever <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came a reality, male supremacy could no l<strong>on</strong>ger exist.It’s as simple <strong>and</strong> logical as that; <strong>and</strong> men’s laws, men’sdollars, <strong>and</strong> men’s gods serve that knowledge. Men as a class
JOHN STOLTENBERG 87know that their social <strong>and</strong> cultural <strong>and</strong> ec<strong>on</strong>omic advantageover <strong>and</strong> against women depends absolutely up<strong>on</strong> thec<strong>on</strong>tinuance of involuntary pregnancy, involuntary gestati<strong>on</strong>,involuntary parturiti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> involuntary child rearing. Menknow that the very c<strong>on</strong>tinuity of their gender class—thec<strong>on</strong>tinuity of “masculinity” as a distinct <strong>and</strong> imperious genderidentity <strong>and</strong> the c<strong>on</strong>tinuity of “men” as a distinct <strong>and</strong> imperiouspower bloc—requires that every<strong>on</strong>e born without a penis liveher whole life palpably circumscri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>trolled by thewill of any<strong>on</strong>e born with a penis. Otherwise, the penis wouldlose its social meaning as the fundamental determinant of allsecular <strong>and</strong> sacred power. When that happens—when the merefact of a penis no l<strong>on</strong>ger entitles any<strong>on</strong>e <strong>on</strong> earth <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> unjustpower over any<strong>on</strong>e else’s life—then, in effect, men will nol<strong>on</strong>ger exist.I dare <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say I want that future <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> happen.
WHAT IS “GOOD SEX” ?I.What is the relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the waya <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> has <strong>sex</strong> <strong>and</strong> the way he acts the res<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>f the time?The questi<strong>on</strong> assumes that there is a relati<strong>on</strong>ship—<strong>and</strong> that a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s erotic life <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior have some c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theethics of all his acts, all the choices of acti<strong>on</strong> that he makes, allthe values expressed by all of his <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior. The questi<strong>on</strong>assumes that how a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> acts in <strong>sex</strong> <strong>and</strong> how he acts in generalare not separate spheres, but perhaps rather a unity, perhaps ac<strong>on</strong>tinuum, perhaps fundamentally the same problem. Thequesti<strong>on</strong> assumes that each <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> has a character—a way hecharacteristically makes choices having ethical meaning—<strong>and</strong>the questi<strong>on</strong> assumes that his singular character is expressed<strong>and</strong> can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> observed both in <strong>and</strong> out of explicitly <strong>sex</strong>ual c<strong>on</strong>texts.Needless <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say, this is not a popular way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> think about theway most men have <strong>sex</strong>—or the way most men live their lives.According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the vastly more comm<strong>on</strong> view, the values a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>expresses in the way he has <strong>sex</strong> are in fact circumscri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d bythe <strong>sex</strong>ual c<strong>on</strong>text <strong>and</strong> isolated there, such that “whateverhappens there happens there.” This more comm<strong>on</strong> view has itthat <strong>sex</strong> is <strong>sex</strong> <strong>and</strong> the rest is the rest. A great deal of <strong>sex</strong>ualshame both originates in this view <strong>and</strong> is neatly obscured bythis view. Think, for instance, of the shame <strong>and</strong> panic in a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>who is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uching another <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> in affecti<strong>on</strong> for the first time
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 89when up <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> that point, in the rest of his life, he had acted as ifthe values in that <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch were loathsome. Think, simultaneously,of the insular <strong>and</strong> insolent ease with which a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> can privately<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>h<strong>and</strong>le or humiliate or injure some<strong>on</strong>e else for his <strong>sex</strong>ualgratificati<strong>on</strong>, then just go <strong>on</strong> with his life as if the meanings ofwhat he had d<strong>on</strong>e <strong>and</strong> the fact that he had d<strong>on</strong>e it s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>pped at the<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rture cham<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r door—indeed as if the meaning of whateverhappens in private <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween two c<strong>on</strong>senting adults is not <strong>on</strong>lynobody else’s business; it’s not even the business of the peoplewho did it. Great quantities of various substances get ingestedin order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> erect a barricade around the <strong>sex</strong>ual arena secureenough <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> support this view, secure enough <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> blockadememory, secure enough <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> obliterate shame. It’s calledreleasing inhibiti<strong>on</strong>s. What it means is getting wrecked enough<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> able <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that what happens in <strong>sex</strong> is separate. Agreat deal goes <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween people in <strong>sex</strong> that remainsincomprehensible—sometimes suffocatingly <strong>and</strong> woundinglyinaccessible <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> later reflecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> integrati<strong>on</strong>—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause of thisnoti<strong>on</strong> that how a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> acts in <strong>sex</strong> is unrelated <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> how he actsall the rest of the time (<strong>and</strong> anyway, “Who do you think youare questi<strong>on</strong>ing what happened <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween us last night? We hadgreat <strong>sex</strong>, didn’t we?” ). Such repressi<strong>on</strong> of so <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y rawfeelings, so <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y c<strong>on</strong>tradic<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry, unsorted-out emoti<strong>on</strong>s; somuch repressi<strong>on</strong> of c<strong>on</strong>sciousness—this is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rating; this is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> freedom; this is <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>facilitate <strong>and</strong> culminate in the having of good <strong>sex</strong>.II.What is good <strong>sex</strong>?And what kind of a questi<strong>on</strong> is that? I suggest, first of all, thatit is a philosophical questi<strong>on</strong> in the classical sense: animportant questi<strong>on</strong>, a profound questi<strong>on</strong>, may<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> even anunanswerable questi<strong>on</strong>, but a questi<strong>on</strong> that neverthelessde<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ds we meet it with all our powers of imaginati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>comprehensi<strong>on</strong>. Classically, the questi<strong>on</strong> could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e of eitheraesthetics or ethics: Is good <strong>sex</strong> good <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it is aestheticallysatisfying—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>autiful <strong>and</strong> pleasing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the senses? or is good <strong>sex</strong>
90 JOHN STOLTENBERGgood ethically, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause of the ethical values in the way thepartners act <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward each other, how they treat each other—perhaps the <strong>justice</strong> <strong>and</strong> equality <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween them <strong>and</strong> theirempathy <strong>and</strong> respect for each other’s bodily integrity? In myown experience, good <strong>sex</strong> has both an aesthetic <strong>and</strong> an ethicalaspect: The erotic pleasure deepens in <strong>and</strong> depends <strong>on</strong> a c<strong>on</strong>tex<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>f acting that is mutually respecting, mutually good for <strong>and</strong>good <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward each other; while at the same time the sensoryexchange of physical pleasure expresses an ethic in therelati<strong>on</strong>ship’s his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry that is mutually valued <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it isc<strong>on</strong>siderate <strong>and</strong> just. In my own view, when you ask thequesti<strong>on</strong> “What is good <strong>sex</strong>?” philosophically, you are in effectasking two questi<strong>on</strong>s merged as <strong>on</strong>e: You are asking about therelati<strong>on</strong>ship in <strong>sex</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween pleasurable sensati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>principled acti<strong>on</strong>.When you ask the questi<strong>on</strong> “What is good <strong>sex</strong>?” you are alsoasking, I suggest, a questi<strong>on</strong> that is profoundly political,<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause its answer requires an inquiry in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> structures of powerdisparity <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween people—political structures based primarily<strong>on</strong> gender <strong>and</strong> also <strong>on</strong> race, m<strong>on</strong>ey, <strong>and</strong> age. Is <strong>sex</strong> perceived<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> good ultimately with reference <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those categories?—forinstance, does a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> perceive <strong>sex</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> good <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause heexperiences it as enhancing his hold <strong>on</strong> the status of hisgender; through the act of fucking, for instance, does he feelpolitically empowered, sensorially attached <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his mem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rshipin a superior <strong>sex</strong> caste; does he therefore perceive fucking perse as good <strong>sex</strong>? Or is <strong>sex</strong> good <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the extent that it transcendspower inequities—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the extent that <strong>sex</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween twoindividuals mitigates the power disparity that they bring withthem from the social c<strong>on</strong>text? In theory, two people mightapproach a particular <strong>sex</strong>ual encounter either as a ritualcelebrati<strong>on</strong> of the social power differences <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween people ingeneral <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween them in particular or as a pers<strong>on</strong>al act ofrepudiating all such power inequities. Some<strong>on</strong>e whose<strong>sex</strong>uality has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come committed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> celebrating the politicalstatus quo would c<strong>on</strong>sider <strong>sex</strong> good <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the extent that itsscenario achieves actual <strong>and</strong> lasting physical sensati<strong>on</strong>s ofpower inequity—through dominance, coerci<strong>on</strong>, force,
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 91sadomasochism, <strong>and</strong> so forth. But some<strong>on</strong>e who chose actively<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> resist the political status quo would c<strong>on</strong>sider <strong>sex</strong> good <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theextent that it empowers both partners equally—<strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theextent that they succeed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether in keeping their intimacyuntainted by the cultural c<strong>on</strong>text of <strong>sex</strong>ualized inequality. Thepolitical questi<strong>on</strong> is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ugh, but it’s important <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> remem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r thatit is a political questi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> that “What is good <strong>sex</strong>?” is aquesti<strong>on</strong> about the relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the social structure <strong>and</strong>the particular <strong>sex</strong> act.So-called <strong>sex</strong>ual li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rati<strong>on</strong> has not provided a c<strong>on</strong>ceptualvocabulary that is very useful for discerning whatever is goodabout good <strong>sex</strong> either philosophically or politically. There is alot of mindless jarg<strong>on</strong> in the air (“‘Sex positive’ is good; ‘<strong>sex</strong>negative’ is bad.” “Pro<strong>sex</strong>—any kind of <strong>sex</strong>—is good; anti<strong>sex</strong>is very bad” ) combined with a kind of <strong>sex</strong>ual-orientati<strong>on</strong>chauvinism (“All gay <strong>sex</strong> is good; no gay <strong>sex</strong> is bad” or, as thecase may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>, “All straight <strong>sex</strong> is good; no straight <strong>sex</strong> is bad” )that results in a near-<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tal obfuscati<strong>on</strong> of the actual values inparticular <strong>sex</strong>ual encounters. In the so-called <strong>sex</strong>ualli<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rati<strong>on</strong>istframe of reference, the questi<strong>on</strong> “What is good<strong>sex</strong>?” gets answered pretty quantitatively—in terms oferecti<strong>on</strong>s, orifices, ejaculati<strong>on</strong>s, orgasms, hunkiness, hotness—<strong>and</strong> in terms of how far the ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mical experience can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>removed from any c<strong>on</strong>text of social meaning. In the <strong>sex</strong>ualli<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rati<strong>on</strong>istframe of reference, any other noti<strong>on</strong> of good <strong>sex</strong> iscaricatured as “goody-goody,” “correct,” “puritan,” “vanilla.”This frame of reference is derived from the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief that laws,parents, the church <strong>and</strong> the state, <strong>and</strong> women in general wereall forces of repressi<strong>on</strong> keeping men from having as <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>youtlets as they pleased for their so-called <strong>sex</strong>ual tensi<strong>on</strong>. But<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day there is no way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ask the questi<strong>on</strong> “What is good <strong>sex</strong>?”merely in terms of <strong>sex</strong>ual-li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rati<strong>on</strong>ist rhe<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ric. Today thequesti<strong>on</strong> must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> asked looking at a social structure that isessentially male supremacist <strong>and</strong> looking at the functi<strong>on</strong> of<strong>sex</strong>ual <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior in that structure—at how <strong>sex</strong>ual acti<strong>on</strong> inprivate can reflect <strong>and</strong> keep intact larger social structures ofdominance <strong>and</strong> submissi<strong>on</strong>, at how hatred of “the other” can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>sex</strong>ualized until it no l<strong>on</strong>ger feels like hate <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it feels so
92 JOHN STOLTENBERGmuch like <strong>sex</strong>. And there is no way anymore that any<strong>on</strong>e cananswer the questi<strong>on</strong> “What is good <strong>sex</strong>?” without in somesense expressing either a reacti<strong>on</strong>ary or a revoluti<strong>on</strong>arypolitical positi<strong>on</strong>—an opini<strong>on</strong>, a point of view, about the malesupremacy of the social order: whether it should stay the same…or whether it should not.III.Which <strong>sex</strong> is <strong>sex</strong> “<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter” with?Ultimately it is not possible <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> support <strong>on</strong>e’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief in genderpolarity (or “<strong>sex</strong> difference” ) without maintaining genderhierarchy (which in our culture is male supremacy). Clinging<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> “<strong>sex</strong> difference” is clinging <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> male supremacy. And our“<strong>sex</strong>ual orientati<strong>on</strong>” is <strong>on</strong>e of the ways we’ve learned <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> cling.To <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> “oriented” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward a particular <strong>sex</strong> as the object of<strong>on</strong>e’s <strong>sex</strong>ual expressivity means, in effect, having a <strong>sex</strong>ualitythat is like target practice—keeping it aimed at bodies whodisplay a particular <strong>sex</strong>ual definiti<strong>on</strong> above all else, picking outwhich <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> want, which <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get, which <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have. Selfc<strong>on</strong>sciousnessabout <strong>on</strong>e’s “<strong>sex</strong>ual orientati<strong>on</strong>” keeps the issueof gender central at precisely the moment in hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> experiencewhen gender really needs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come profoundly peripheral.Insistence <strong>on</strong> having a <strong>sex</strong>ual orientati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>sex</strong> is aboutdefending the status quo, maintaining <strong>sex</strong> differences <strong>and</strong> the<strong>sex</strong>ual hierarchy; whereas resistance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ual-orientati<strong>on</strong>regimentati<strong>on</strong> is more about where we need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> going.The sensuality that may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> occasi<strong>on</strong>ed by intimacy, trust,<strong>and</strong> fairness is quite unlike that <strong>sex</strong>uality which is driven <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>n a particular gender embodiment. The sensuality that arisesin a relati<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>text of actual people <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether <strong>and</strong>actually <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing themselves—not st<strong>and</strong>-ins for a gender type—isradically different from that <strong>sex</strong>uality which requires that the“other” not deviate from a particular st<strong>and</strong>ard of <strong>sex</strong>edness.Such a sensuality may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> deeply satisfied with givingexpressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> meeting a mutually felt resp<strong>on</strong>siveness. It maynot necessarily <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> driven <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> culminate in any particularana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mical completi<strong>on</strong>. The resoluti<strong>on</strong> it seeks may simply <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 93the offered <strong>and</strong> received <strong>and</strong> thoroughly resp<strong>on</strong>ded-<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>expressi<strong>on</strong>, which may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> experienced in a particular relati<strong>on</strong>alc<strong>on</strong>text as a transient release from gender al<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether. (Thissensual possibility is what explains why some<strong>on</strong>e who has anostensible <strong>sex</strong>ual orientati<strong>on</strong> may nevertheless, in a particularrelati<strong>on</strong>ship, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> quite <strong>sex</strong>ually expressive <strong>and</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>sive withsome<strong>on</strong>e who is not apparently the “object” of that orientati<strong>on</strong>.This sensual possibility may also occur <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween people whomight seem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e another’s “appropriate” gender choice butwho—despite that—have actually come <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether aswhole individuals with a particular relati<strong>on</strong>al his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry, not asemblems of a gender.)IV.What is the relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween good <strong>sex</strong><strong>and</strong> commercial representati<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>sex</strong>?Explicit representati<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>sex</strong> in commercial films <strong>and</strong> videosreflect <strong>and</strong> influence what <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y men imagine <strong>and</strong> perceive <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> “good <strong>sex</strong>.” Seen <strong>on</strong> the screen, the <strong>sex</strong> in <strong>sex</strong> filmsepi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mizes the kinds of <strong>sex</strong>, <strong>and</strong> the values in that <strong>sex</strong>, that menas a class (or at least as a c<strong>on</strong>sumer market) aspire <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>. To view<strong>sex</strong> acts through the medium <strong>and</strong> technology of film or video istherefore like looking through a window at what milli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong>milli<strong>on</strong>s of men <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve is the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>st <strong>sex</strong> there is: <strong>sex</strong> thatpurports <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> good—or “great,” as the case may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>.Gay male <strong>sex</strong> films offer a particularly focused view of whatmen <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that other men experience when they’re havinggood <strong>sex</strong>. Of course gay male <strong>sex</strong> films do not necessarilyoffer a paradigm of good <strong>sex</strong> object—most men would in factprobably find gay <strong>sex</strong> films repellent <strong>on</strong> that score. Buthowever distasteful gay male <strong>sex</strong> films might <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> men whodo not participate in the gender-specific objectificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>fetishism for which the films are intended, the filmsthemselves reveal a great deal about the relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween amale viewer <strong>and</strong> the idealized male <strong>sex</strong>ual subject—the <strong>on</strong>ewho is shown in the throes of presumably good (for him) <strong>sex</strong>.Like almost all <strong>sex</strong> films, gay male <strong>sex</strong> films represent <strong>sex</strong> that
94 JOHN STOLTENBERGhas no past (the couplings are his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ryless), no future (therelati<strong>on</strong>ships are commitmentless), <strong>and</strong> virtually no present (itis physically functi<strong>on</strong>al but emoti<strong>on</strong>ally alienated). In a realsense, gay male <strong>sex</strong> films cross over the “<strong>sex</strong>ual orientati<strong>on</strong>”line <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they epi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mize those qualities of voyeurism <strong>and</strong>self-involvement in <strong>sex</strong> that straight men also aspire <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>.Gay male <strong>sex</strong> films are typically composed of explicit <strong>sex</strong>scenes, frequently <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween strangers, often with a sound trackc<strong>on</strong>sisting solely of music <strong>and</strong> dub<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d-in groans. During these<strong>sex</strong> scenes there is almost always an erect penis filling thescreen. If the camera cuts away from the penis, the camera will<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> back within ten sec<strong>on</strong>ds. Scenes are set up so that closeupsof penises <strong>and</strong> what they are doing <strong>and</strong> what is happening <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>them show off <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>st advantage. Most of the closeups ofpenises are of penises fucking in <strong>and</strong> out of asses <strong>and</strong> mouths,<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing blown, or <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing jacked off.*A penis that is not erect, not<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing pumped up, not in acti<strong>on</strong>, just there feeling pretty good,is rarely <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> seen: you wouldn’t know it was feeling if itwasn’t in acti<strong>on</strong>; <strong>and</strong> in the world of gay male <strong>sex</strong> films,penises do not otherwise feel anything.Curiously, there is a great deal of repressi<strong>on</strong> of affect in gaymale <strong>sex</strong> films—a studied impassivity that goes <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>y<strong>on</strong>damateur acting. The blankness of the faces in what isostensibly the fever pitch of passi<strong>on</strong> suggests an unrelatednessnot <strong>on</strong>ly <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween partners but also within each partner’s ownbody. This is <strong>sex</strong> labor that is alienated, these dead faces seem<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say.The film edits go by quickly. A few sec<strong>on</strong>ds at <strong>on</strong>e angle.Then a few sec<strong>on</strong>ds over there. The camera <strong>on</strong> the cock.Almost always <strong>on</strong> the cock. The cock almost always hard <strong>and</strong>pumping. No moments in <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween anything. How did they getfrom that <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> this? Quick cut <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the cock. Wait, in <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween there,wasn’t there a moment <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween them when they just briefly—?Cut. Cut. The rhythms of the <strong>sex</strong> film are the stacca<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>s of<strong>sex</strong>ual disc<strong>on</strong>necting; they are not the rhythms of any crediblesequence of <strong>sex</strong>ual communi<strong>on</strong>—those moments of changingpace, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uching base, remem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ring who you’re with,expressing, resp<strong>on</strong>ding. All of that is cut out. All of that
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 95doesn’t show. All that shows is “the acti<strong>on</strong>” : the progress ofthe cock, the status of the cock. (You know when you’rehaving <strong>sex</strong> with a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who learned how from watching <strong>sex</strong>films: no transiti<strong>on</strong>s.)Most of the <strong>sex</strong> acts are acts of detaching. In typical suckingshots, for instance, there the two men are, with a blow jobgoing <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween them, <strong>and</strong> they might as well <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> at a gloryhole. The <strong>sex</strong> acts in gay <strong>sex</strong> films have the illusi<strong>on</strong> of forginga c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>, in the sense of hooking up plumbing; but theyseem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> experienced as acts of abstracting-apart, of gettingoff by going away someplace, of not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing there withanybody. (Which reminds me I <strong>on</strong>ce asked a gay male friendwhat was the greatest num<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of people he had ever had <strong>sex</strong> withat <strong>on</strong>e time. His answer: “Five-eighths.” )The <strong>sex</strong> that is had in gay male <strong>sex</strong> films is the <strong>sex</strong> that isshowable. And what is shown about it is the fetishized penis.When the obliga<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry cum shot comes, you see it in slowmoti<strong>on</strong>, perhaps pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphed from several anglessimultaneously, the penis pulled out of its orifice just for theoccasi<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing pumped away at, squirting, may<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> some<strong>on</strong>etrying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> catch it in his mouth. There’s no way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> show howorgasm feels, <strong>and</strong> the difference <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the reality <strong>and</strong> therepresentati<strong>on</strong> is nowhere more striking than in the cum shot—a disembodied spurt of fluid <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> certify the <strong>sex</strong> is “real.”All that is shown in gay male <strong>sex</strong> films is presented asc<strong>on</strong>spicuously male, of course; imputati<strong>on</strong>s about optimumfemale <strong>sex</strong>ual functi<strong>on</strong>ing are lacking. Hetero<strong>sex</strong>ualpornography c<strong>on</strong>structs a mythology about female will <strong>and</strong>desire, always showing the wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> as <strong>sex</strong> object with aninsatiable craving for subordinati<strong>on</strong>. Much less cinematicattenti<strong>on</strong> is paid <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the male <strong>sex</strong>ual subject—for two reas<strong>on</strong>s,* At the time I wrote this, late 1982, no gay male <strong>sex</strong> films had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>enproduced that <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ok in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> account what was <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> emerge as the AIDScrisis. Although I have made extensive revisi<strong>on</strong>s in my original text, Ihaven’t changed its “pre-AIDS” frame of reference in my descripti<strong>on</strong>sof filmed <strong>sex</strong> acts, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the gay male <strong>sex</strong> film market is still <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>daymuch the same
96 JOHN STOLTENBERGpresumably: (1) The straight male viewer wants <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> imaginehimself in the <strong>sex</strong> scenes <strong>and</strong> he does not particularly care <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>distracted by the phallic competiti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> (2) the straight maleviewer prefers not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> unnerved by his own potential <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>sex</strong>ually objectify other men’s bodies. Hence, the emphasis inhetero<strong>sex</strong>ual pornography is <strong>on</strong> the female as object—<strong>and</strong> herslavish lust for whatever men want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> her <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> put her down—so that the male viewer can project himself <strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> her debasedbody <strong>and</strong> get off.Gay male <strong>sex</strong> films characteristically depict the male bodyas <strong>sex</strong> object, but insofar as they also display the male bodyfuncti<strong>on</strong>ing prominently as <strong>sex</strong>ual subject, gay male <strong>sex</strong> filmspresent a distillati<strong>on</strong> of what nearly all men <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve enviable<strong>sex</strong> in an ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mically male body might <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> like if they wereever <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have endless quantities of it themselves. As artifacts ofa hetero<strong>sex</strong>ist culture that is rigidly polarized by gender, gaymale <strong>sex</strong> films exhibit the apotheosis of male <strong>sex</strong>ualfuncti<strong>on</strong>ing as imagined by men who, not unlike straight men,dread the taint of feminizati<strong>on</strong>.So what exactly are we <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld in gay male <strong>sex</strong> filmsabout the way male bodies ought <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> subjectively experience<strong>sex</strong>? Even leaving aside the rough stuff of gay malepornography—the scenes of forced fellatio, assault <strong>and</strong>molestati<strong>on</strong>, humiliati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> exploitati<strong>on</strong>, chaining <strong>and</strong>b<strong>on</strong>dage, the violence often interlarded am<strong>on</strong>g the allegedlyn<strong>on</strong>coercive sucking <strong>and</strong> fucking as if <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> tip us off that in allthis <strong>sex</strong> we are seeing there really is an undercurrent of force<strong>and</strong> dominati<strong>on</strong>—even leaving aside all of that, what exactly isthere in the merely explicit <strong>sex</strong> scenes that recommends itselfas good <strong>sex</strong>? What are we <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld that <strong>sex</strong> can mean<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween people, if anything? What are we <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld aboutwhat men must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have what looks likeblockbuster <strong>sex</strong>? What are we <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do with the rest ofourselves?—what are we <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> lop off from ourselves<strong>and</strong> the his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry of our relati<strong>on</strong>ships with <strong>on</strong>e another <strong>and</strong> ourresp<strong>on</strong>sibilities <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e another in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel at li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rty <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have<strong>sex</strong> at all?
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 97The values in the <strong>sex</strong> that is depicted in gay male <strong>sex</strong> films arevery much the values in the <strong>sex</strong> that gay men tend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have; theyare very much the values in the <strong>sex</strong> that straight men tend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>have; they are very much the values that male supremaciststend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have: taking, using, estranging, dominating—essentially, <strong>sex</strong>ual powerm<strong>on</strong>gering.Many men c<strong>on</strong>sume <strong>sex</strong> films <strong>and</strong> videos <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause watchingthese media makes them feel like having <strong>sex</strong> when they d<strong>on</strong>’tparticularly feel like having <strong>sex</strong>—<strong>and</strong> men d<strong>on</strong>’t like thefeeling of not feeling like having <strong>sex</strong>. There’s a fairly comm<strong>on</strong>compulsi<strong>on</strong> am<strong>on</strong>g men <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel they should feel like having <strong>sex</strong>even when they d<strong>on</strong>’t. It’s as if men d<strong>on</strong>’t really feel their maleidentity unless they’re experiencing their own body in a waythat is explicitly, culturally, <strong>sex</strong>ually phallic. Commercialrepresentati<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>sex</strong> help men over those unpleasant littlehurdles when their <strong>sex</strong>ual apparatus is not especially raring <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>go. Such media help men feel real more of the time by helpingmen feel like wanting <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have <strong>sex</strong> more often. In combinati<strong>on</strong>with drugs, which in various ways induce a heightened senseof <strong>sex</strong>edness, commercial representati<strong>on</strong>s of <strong>sex</strong> prop up men’s<strong>sex</strong>ual identities <strong>and</strong> keep men in <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch with an ideal ofsolipsistic masculinity—quite out of <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch with any<strong>on</strong>e else.Moreover, <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y men tend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have the kind of <strong>sex</strong> thatpeople having <strong>sex</strong> for a camera tend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have. Men learn from<strong>sex</strong> films how <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have the kind of <strong>sex</strong> that is observable fromwithout, not necessarily experienceable from within.“Showable” <strong>and</strong> “performable” <strong>sex</strong> is not particularlyc<strong>on</strong>ducive <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> communicating what is going <strong>on</strong> emoti<strong>on</strong>ally<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween two people in <strong>sex</strong>, the values in it, how this <strong>sex</strong>ualencounter is related <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the rest of their lives, <strong>and</strong> so forth. Thephysical expressi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> sensati<strong>on</strong>s that carry this kind ofinformati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween people do not pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graph well, if at all.What a camera can see is not remotely equivalent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> what apers<strong>on</strong> can express <strong>and</strong> perceive with another pers<strong>on</strong> during<strong>sex</strong>. But if what a camera can see <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s operati<strong>on</strong>alst<strong>and</strong>ard for “good <strong>sex</strong>” —if a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> models his <strong>sex</strong>ual <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>haviorafter that which is displayable <strong>on</strong> a screen <strong>and</strong> if, in additi<strong>on</strong>,he <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes like a camera in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the pers<strong>on</strong> he is with—
98 JOHN STOLTENBERGthen a crucial potential for erotic communicati<strong>on</strong> has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>enoccluded. Many men experience the values in explicit <strong>sex</strong>films as syn<strong>on</strong>ymous with the values they most desire in theirown <strong>sex</strong> life <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the medium’s form <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tent—voyeurism, detachment, objectificati<strong>on</strong>, absence of inneremoti<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>tinuity <strong>and</strong> sensati<strong>on</strong>—are c<strong>on</strong>gruent with theirown habituated <strong>sex</strong>uality. Once a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s ideal of <strong>sex</strong>ualexperience has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en mediated by pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphic technology, hemay <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come unable <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> experience <strong>sex</strong> other than as amachinelike voyeur who spasms now <strong>and</strong> then. And since therelati<strong>on</strong> of voyeur <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> viewed is implicitly a power imbalance,such a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come unable <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> perceive “good <strong>sex</strong>” wherethere is no implied dominati<strong>on</strong>.V.How can any<strong>on</strong>e ever learn what good <strong>sex</strong>really is if they haven’t ever had it?At this point, afici<strong>on</strong>ados of pornography will perhaps protest:But <strong>sex</strong> films are still emerging as a communicati<strong>on</strong>s mediu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>d they have yet <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reach their full, “artistic” potential. So ofcourse the <strong>sex</strong> films need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> improved, with enhancedproducti<strong>on</strong> values, more <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lievable s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry lines, upgradedacting…you know…<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter lighting. The soluti<strong>on</strong>, some willsay, is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> change the way that <strong>sex</strong> films are made.Frankly, I d<strong>on</strong>’t think that will do. The soluti<strong>on</strong>, I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve, isreally <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> change the way that <strong>sex</strong> is had. Here’s what I mean:Let’s assume that there exists an authentic erotic potential<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>s such that mutuality, reciprocity, fairness, deepcommuni<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> affecti<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tal body integrity for bothpartners, <strong>and</strong> equal capacity for choice-making <strong>and</strong> decisi<strong>on</strong>makingare merged with robust physical pleasure, intensesensati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> brimming-over expressiveness. Let’s say thatsome people have actually already experienced that eroticpotential <strong>and</strong> some people have never. Let’s say, further, thatthe experience of this erotic potential occurred quite against theodds—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause given the prevailing social values about <strong>sex</strong>, itcould not have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en predicted that two people would ever find
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 99out that this erotic potential exists. Everything about thecultural c<strong>on</strong>text would seem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> predict that <strong>sex</strong>ual meetingswould <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> tainted with or steeped in shame <strong>and</strong> guilt, hierarchy<strong>and</strong> dominati<strong>on</strong>, c<strong>on</strong>tempt <strong>and</strong> repulsi<strong>on</strong>, objectificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>alienati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>sex</strong>ually crippling incidents from childhood, orsimply emoti<strong>on</strong>al absence from each other. But as luck wouldhave it, a few folks happen up<strong>on</strong> an erotic potential that isactually rooted in the same values that bring kindness <strong>and</strong>exu<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rance <strong>and</strong> intimacy <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the rest of their life. So then thequesti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes: How does any<strong>on</strong>e pass al<strong>on</strong>g theirknowledge of that potential <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> other folks <strong>on</strong> the planet—howdo they express it, show it, communicate it—without having <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>sleep with every<strong>on</strong>e?Some cultural artifacts will of course <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> necessary <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get theword out—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> attempt <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>vey <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> people what can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> goodabout <strong>sex</strong> <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> help people disentangle their <strong>sex</strong>ual his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>riesfrom the social norms that keep <strong>sex</strong> from <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing good. Therewill need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> expressi<strong>on</strong>s in the form of <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y kinds ofmessages—words, pictures, perfor<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ces, combinati<strong>on</strong>s.Informati<strong>on</strong> will need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> shared, but I imagine that thiscommunicati<strong>on</strong> would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> very different from most <strong>sex</strong>uallyexplicit media that now exist, which are essentially thingsmade for c<strong>on</strong>sumers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have a <strong>sex</strong>ual relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Thewhole point of communicating about this hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> eroticpossibility is that people <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> whole people <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e another—notparts, not things, not objects, not c<strong>on</strong>sumables. Obviously,then, the media appropriate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> such communicati<strong>on</strong> cannotitself <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> produced <strong>and</strong> marketed as things <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have <strong>sex</strong> with—as“orgasm <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tems” —which would merely reinforce <strong>sex</strong>ualrelating <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> people as things.But the hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> has <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin am<strong>on</strong>g us. Thehu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> communicati<strong>on</strong> cannot wait <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> mediated.What I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve needs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> happen is a radical reexaminati<strong>on</strong> ofthe values in the kinds of <strong>sex</strong> we are having. We need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> makea commitment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>sibility <strong>and</strong> resp<strong>on</strong>siveness in <strong>sex</strong>. Weneed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make a pers<strong>on</strong>al commitment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> stay c<strong>on</strong>scious during<strong>sex</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> stay alert <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> what is going <strong>on</strong> even as it is going <strong>on</strong>, acommitment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing ethically awake instead of doped. As
100 JOHN STOLTENBERGindividuals, <strong>and</strong> perhaps as friends (I d<strong>on</strong>’t <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve there is anyreadiness for this in any existing movement), we need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gin<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> underst<strong>and</strong> more about what is going <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween us whenwe have <strong>sex</strong>, the values in it, how it is related <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the rest of ourlives, how it is related <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> how we treat people, <strong>and</strong> how it isrelated <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> political change—<strong>and</strong> we need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> talk about it all,face <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> face, <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore, during, <strong>and</strong> after.Our bodies have learned <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y lies. If we dare <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ruthlessly h<strong>on</strong>est, we can perhaps recover truth.
PART IIIPORNOGRAPHY AND MALESUPREMACY
THE FORBIDDENLANGUAGE OF SEXFor a panel <strong>on</strong> pornography, at a writers’ c<strong>on</strong>gressThe language of <strong>sex</strong> that is forbidden used <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> languagelike this:Cal’s huge, lust-bloated mem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r sliced viciously in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> herhotly clasping pussy, <strong>and</strong> every time his hot swollenballs slapped against her ass she let out a deep groan ofun<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>arable pleasure. 1The language of <strong>sex</strong> that is forbidden used <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> language likethis:“Bitch,” he snapped, pulling away from her, yanking hisdick out of her mouth. “You’re trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make me come<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore I’m ready. You know I like <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fuck your ass<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore I come! You inc<strong>on</strong>siderate bitch!” he spat,knowing how she ate up that kind of talk. 2The language of <strong>sex</strong> that is forbidden used <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> language likethis:“Take it, you cunt, take your punishment,” he growled,whirling the whip around his head <strong>and</strong> cracking it down
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 103against my but<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>cks. “You take your punishment, bitch,you take all of it, you slut!”The whip lashed in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> my thighs <strong>and</strong> I screamed in theexquisite grip of ag<strong>on</strong>y as it burned me with a w<strong>on</strong>derfulalmost fire-like passi<strong>on</strong>. He cracked the vicious <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>olagainst my legs another time, laughing almost wildlywith every blow….“Ohh, God, Martin, yes, yes,” I wailed, twisting <strong>and</strong>turning <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> meet his attack. “Again, Martin, hit me again!I love it, I need it, harder, harder, harder!”He <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>re in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> me even more viciously than <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore….He was <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>side himself with pleasure now, just rainingthe blows down up<strong>on</strong> me with a cruel, vicious delight.He didn’t care about anything then, expect [sic] thescreams that <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>re from my lips <strong>and</strong> echoed, delightfully,in his ears.“Ahh, yeah, bitch, take it, take my discipline,” hegrowled, crashing the whip in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> me over <strong>and</strong> over again.“I know you love it, cunt, I know you do!” 3The language of <strong>sex</strong> that is forbidden used <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> language likethis:“Shut up, you bitch you!” I said. “It hurts does it? Youwanted it, didn’t you?” I held her tightly, raised myself alittle higher <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get it in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the hilt, <strong>and</strong> pushed until Ithought her womb would give way. Then I came—rightin<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> that snail-like mouth which was wide open. She wentin<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a c<strong>on</strong>vulsi<strong>on</strong>, delirious with joy <strong>and</strong> pain. Then herlegs slid off my shoulders <strong>and</strong> fell <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the floor with athud. She lay there like a dead <strong>on</strong>e, completely fuckedout. 4Not l<strong>on</strong>g ago, language like that was the language of politicalradicalism: it gave offense <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> entrenched powers, it wasdangerous, it sought <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> overthrow an oppressive system of<strong>sex</strong>ual repressi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> so it had <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>pped. The struggleover the permissibility of such language was waged am<strong>on</strong>g
104 JOHN STOLTENBERGfacti<strong>on</strong>s of men—men publishers, men legisla<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs, men jurists,men lawyers—for the rights of men writers <strong>and</strong> men readers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>produce <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sume it, wherever <strong>and</strong> whenever they wanted.Today the language of <strong>sex</strong> that is forbidden has changed.Today’s forbidden language of <strong>sex</strong> gives offense <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the <strong>sex</strong>ualegos of men as a gender class. It challenges the force <strong>and</strong>objectificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>tempt <strong>and</strong> violence in male <strong>sex</strong>ual<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior <strong>and</strong> identifies that <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior as the root <strong>and</strong> paradigmof male supremacy; it challenges the systematized <strong>sex</strong>ualhatred by which men c<strong>on</strong>struct <strong>and</strong> defend their <strong>sex</strong> class—both socially <strong>and</strong> in private. Today’s forbidden language of <strong>sex</strong>speaks of male-over-female <strong>sex</strong>ual dominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> wants itdead. Today’s forbidden language of <strong>sex</strong> analyzes what <strong>sex</strong> isas men have defined it <strong>and</strong> as men as a class want it <strong>and</strong> asmen as a class have it. Today’s forbidden language of <strong>sex</strong> isdiscourse about the meaning of the formerly forbiddenlanguage of <strong>sex</strong>.Today’s forbidden language of <strong>sex</strong> is dangerous <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> malesupremacy, so of course it must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>pped. That is the centralreas<strong>on</strong> the feminist critique of pornography is under attack—primarily by writers <strong>and</strong> edi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs <strong>and</strong> publishers. They say thatfeminist discourse <strong>on</strong> the meaning of pornography is anti<strong>sex</strong><strong>and</strong> prudish <strong>and</strong> moralizing, <strong>and</strong> it leaves no room for thepassi<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> the warfare that are said <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the stuff of mutualhetero<strong>sex</strong>ual desire. They say that the feminist movementagainst pornography is mistaken <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause pornography isfantasy not acti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> just as victimless as prostituti<strong>on</strong>. Theysay that feminist organizing against the degrading <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>istvalues in pornography <strong>on</strong>ly serves the interests of the far Right<strong>and</strong> will bring down state censorship, probably <strong>on</strong> feministsfirst. They say the problem is the quality of the pornography,<strong>and</strong> feminists who d<strong>on</strong>’t like it should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> busy producing goodporn <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> drive out the bad. They say, simply, “I am a realwo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, I want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> taken, I like <strong>sex</strong> hostile, so get off mycase.” And in the face of a ten-billi<strong>on</strong>-dollar-a-yearpornography industry with links <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> organized crime, forcedprostituti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>sex</strong>ual slavery, <strong>and</strong> this writers’ c<strong>on</strong>gress,* someof them, women writers <strong>and</strong> edi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs <strong>and</strong> publishers, say, “You
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 105feminists against pornography are more of a threat <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> me, moreof an infringement <strong>on</strong> my freedom, than the pornographers.” Itis not necessary for the male-supremacist state, its laws <strong>and</strong>repressive machinery, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> silence the new forbidden language of<strong>sex</strong>. Writers, edi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs, <strong>and</strong> publishers already do it—bydis<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rting, <strong>and</strong> discrediting, <strong>and</strong> disavowing the radicalfeministcase against male-supremacist <strong>sex</strong>uality.Over the past ten or twelve years, radical feminists havedeveloped a c<strong>on</strong>tent analysis of pornography. At the core ofthat analysis is a new way of looking at pornography: as awindow in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> acculturated male <strong>sex</strong>uality: what it is, what itdesires, what it does, <strong>and</strong> why. The picture pornographyexposes is not a pretty <strong>on</strong>e; pornography reveals in the<strong>sex</strong>uality of the men for whom it is made an addicti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> force<strong>and</strong> coerci<strong>on</strong> for arousal, eroticized racial hatred, a despisal ofthe female, a fetishizing of erecti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> devoti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>penetrati<strong>on</strong>, an obsessi<strong>on</strong> with interpers<strong>on</strong>al powerdifferentials, an eroticized commitment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> violence—<strong>and</strong>through it all an ugly striving <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> assert masculinity over <strong>and</strong>against women. About the <strong>on</strong>ly aspects of male <strong>sex</strong>uality tha<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ne can’t discern by studying pornography are those that havenot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en acculturated <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> resp<strong>on</strong>d <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pornography—whateverthose variati<strong>on</strong>s might <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>. But apart from that, pornography isabout the most reliable evidence that we have about male<strong>sex</strong>ual identity <strong>and</strong> the <strong>sex</strong>uality that reinforces it <strong>and</strong> thevalues that c<strong>on</strong>struct it.There used <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a clearer awareness about the relati<strong>on</strong>ship<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween pornography <strong>and</strong> male <strong>sex</strong>ual arousal. Nowadays, thatrelati<strong>on</strong>ship is more hidden, less talked about, even though thepornography is more visible. It is almost as if the pornographyindustry <strong>and</strong> its defenders are truly embarrassed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> admit thatsome of the stuff they turn out could c<strong>on</strong>ceivably excite some<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> somewhere <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ual arousal. So pornography is defendedas “speech,” as “art,” as the workings of a free press, as theproduct of free enterprise, as the symbol of a free society, as* Which had accepted a $3,000 grant from the Playboy Foundati<strong>on</strong>.
106 JOHN STOLTENBERG“li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rated” <strong>sex</strong>—meanwhile what is left unsaid is that the<strong>sex</strong>uality of men as a class is ravenous for the stuff, <strong>and</strong> thatwhat sells sells <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it creates <strong>and</strong> feeds men’s <strong>sex</strong>ualappetites. All pornography exists <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it c<strong>on</strong>nects <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> some<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s <strong>sex</strong>uality somewhere. There’s no other reas<strong>on</strong>.Many men—knowing intimately the corresp<strong>on</strong>dence<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the values in their <strong>sex</strong>uality <strong>and</strong> in pornography—share the anxiety that the feminist antipornography movementis really an attack <strong>on</strong> male <strong>sex</strong>uality. These nervous <strong>and</strong> angrymen are quite correct: The feminist antipornographymovement really does hold men accountable for thec<strong>on</strong>sequences <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> real women of their <strong>sex</strong>ual proclivities. Thefeminist antipornography movement really is a refusal <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s divine right is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> force <strong>sex</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> use anotherpers<strong>on</strong>’s body as if it were a hollow cantaloupe, a slap of liver,<strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> injure <strong>and</strong> debilitate for the sake of his gratificati<strong>on</strong>.When <strong>on</strong>e looks at any pornography, <strong>on</strong>e sees what helpssome <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> somewhere feel aroused, feel filled with maleness<strong>and</strong> devoid of all that is n<strong>on</strong>male. When <strong>on</strong>e looks atpornography, <strong>on</strong>e sees what is necessary <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sustain the socialstructure of male c<strong>on</strong>tempt for female flesh whereby menachieve a sense of themselves as male. When <strong>on</strong>e looks atpornography, <strong>on</strong>e sees what men as a class need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel <strong>sex</strong>ed;<strong>on</strong>e sees what men as a class need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel real.Pornography tells lies about women. But pornography tellsthe truth about men.
PORNOGRAPHY ANDFREEDOMThere is a widespread <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief that <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom is an ideawhose time has come. Many people <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that in the last fewdecades we have gotten more <strong>and</strong> more of it—that <strong>sex</strong>ualfreedom is something you can carve out against the forces of<strong>sex</strong>ual repressiveness, <strong>and</strong> that significant gains have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>enw<strong>on</strong>, gains we dare not give up lest we backslide in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<strong>sex</strong>ual dark ages, when there wasn’t <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom, there was<strong>on</strong>ly repressi<strong>on</strong>.Indeed <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y things seem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have changed. But if you lookclosely at what is supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom, you can<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come very c<strong>on</strong>fused. Let’s say, for instance, you underst<strong>and</strong>that a basic principle of <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom is that people should<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> free <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>and</strong> that <strong>on</strong>e way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> guarantee that freedomis <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make sure that <strong>sex</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> free from imposed restraint. That’snot a bad idea, but if you happen <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> look at a magazinepho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graph in which a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is bound <strong>and</strong> gagged <strong>and</strong> lasheddown <strong>on</strong> a plank with her genital area open <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the camera, youmight well w<strong>on</strong>der: Where is the freedom from restraint?where’s the <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom?Let’s say you underst<strong>and</strong> that people should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> free <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>and</strong> that <strong>on</strong>e way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> guarantee that freedom is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> makesure people can feel good about themselves <strong>and</strong> each other<strong>sex</strong>ually. That’s not a bad idea. But if you happen <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> readr<strong>and</strong>om passages from books such as the following, you could<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> quite perplexed:
108 REFUSING TO BE A MAN“Baby, you’re g<strong>on</strong>na get fucked <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>night like you ain’tnever <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en fucked <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore,” he hissed evilly down at heras she struggled fruitlessly against her b<strong>on</strong>ds. The <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>wanted <strong>on</strong>ly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> abuse <strong>and</strong> ravish her till she was <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tallybroken <strong>and</strong> subservient <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him. He knelt <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween herwide-spread legs <strong>and</strong> gloated over the cringing littlepussy he was about <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> ram his cock in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>. 1And here’s another:He pulled his prick out of her cunt <strong>and</strong> then grab<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>dhis <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lt from his pants. He seemed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> in a wild frenzyat that moment. He slapped the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lt in the air <strong>and</strong> thenthe leather ripped through the girl’s tender flesh. “Sir,just tell me what it is you want <strong>and</strong> I’ll do it.” “Fuck you,you little two-bit whore! I d<strong>on</strong>’t need nothin’ from awhore!” The <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lt sliced across her flesh again <strong>and</strong> thenshe screamed, “I’m willing!” “That’s just it! You’rewilling! You’re a whore <strong>and</strong> you are an abominati<strong>on</strong>…” 2Passages such as these might well make you w<strong>on</strong>der: Whereare the good feelings about each other’s body? where’s the<strong>sex</strong>ual freedom?Let’s say you underst<strong>and</strong> that people should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> free <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>and</strong> that <strong>on</strong>e way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> guarantee that freedom is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> makesure people are free from <strong>sex</strong>ualized hate <strong>and</strong> degradati<strong>on</strong>. Butlet’s say you come up<strong>on</strong> a passage such as this:Reaching in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his pocket for the knife again, Ike steppedjust inches away from Burl’s outstretched body. He slidthe knife under Burl’s cock <strong>and</strong> balls, letting the sharpedge of the blade lightly scrape the underside of Burl’snutsack. As if <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reassert his power over Burl, Ikegrab<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d <strong>on</strong>e of the bound <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s tautly stretched pecs,clamping down hard over Burl’s tit <strong>and</strong> muscle, latching<strong>on</strong> as tight as he could. He pushed <strong>on</strong> the knife, pressingthe blade in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Burl’s skin as hard as possible withoutcutting him. “Now, you just let us inside that tight blackasshole of yours, boy, or else we’re g<strong>on</strong>na cut this off<strong>and</strong> feed it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the cattle!” 3
JOHN STOLTENBERG 109After reading that, you might well ask: Where’s thefreedom from hatred? where’s the freedom from degradati<strong>on</strong>?where’s the <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom?Let’s say you underst<strong>and</strong> people should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> free <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ual<strong>and</strong> that <strong>on</strong>e way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> guarantee that freedom is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make surepeople are not punished for the individuality of their <strong>sex</strong>uality.And then you find a magazine showing page after page ofbodies with their genitals garroted in baling wire <strong>and</strong> leatherth<strong>on</strong>gs, with their genitals tied up <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rtured, with heavyweights suspended from rings that pierce their genitals, <strong>and</strong> thesurrounding text makes clear that this mutilati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>punishment are experienced as <strong>sex</strong> acts. And you mightw<strong>on</strong>der in your mind: Why must this pers<strong>on</strong> suffer punishmentin order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> experience <strong>sex</strong>ual feelings? why must this pers<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>humiliated <strong>and</strong> disciplined <strong>and</strong> whipped <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aten until hebleeds in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have access <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his homoerotic passi<strong>on</strong>? whyhave the Gr<strong>and</strong> Inquisi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r’s most repressive <strong>and</strong> sadistic <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rturetechniques <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come what people do <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> each other <strong>and</strong> call <strong>sex</strong>?where’s the <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom?If you look back at the books <strong>and</strong> magazines <strong>and</strong> moviesthat have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en produced in this country in the name of <strong>sex</strong>ualfreedom over the past decade, you’ve got <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> w<strong>on</strong>der: Why has<strong>sex</strong>ual freedom come <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> look so much like <strong>sex</strong>ual repressi<strong>on</strong>?why has <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom come <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> look so much like unfreedom?The answer, I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve, has <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do with the relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tweenfreedom <strong>and</strong> <strong>justice</strong>, <strong>and</strong> specifically the relati<strong>on</strong>ship <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween<strong>sex</strong>ual freedom <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>justice</strong>. When we think of freedomin any other sense, we think of freedom as the result of <strong>justice</strong>.We know that there can’t truly <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> any freedom until <strong>justice</strong> hashappened, until <strong>justice</strong> exists. For any people in his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry whohave struggled for freedom, those people have unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od thattheir freedom exists <strong>on</strong> the future side of <strong>justice</strong>. The noti<strong>on</strong> offreedom prior <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>justice</strong> is unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> meaningless.Whenever people do not have freedom, they have unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>odfreedom <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> that which you arrive at by achieving <strong>justice</strong>. Ifyou <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld them they should try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have their freedom withoutthere <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <strong>justice</strong>, they would laugh in your face. Freedom
110 REFUSING TO BE A MANalways exists <strong>on</strong> the far side of <strong>justice</strong>. That’s perfectlyunders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od—except when it comes <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>.The popular c<strong>on</strong>cept of <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom in this country hasnever meant <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>justice</strong>. Sexual-freedom advocates havecast the issue <strong>on</strong>ly in terms of having <strong>sex</strong> that is free fromsuppressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> restraint. Practically speaking, that has meantadvocacy of <strong>sex</strong> that is free from instituti<strong>on</strong>al interference; <strong>sex</strong>that is free from <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing c<strong>on</strong>strained by legal, religious, <strong>and</strong>medical ideologies; <strong>sex</strong> that is free from any outsideinterventi<strong>on</strong>. Sexual freedom <strong>on</strong> a more pers<strong>on</strong>al level hasmeant <strong>sex</strong> that is free from fear, guilt, <strong>and</strong> shame—which inpractical terms has meant advocacy of <strong>sex</strong> that is free fromvalue judgments, <strong>sex</strong> that is free from resp<strong>on</strong>sibility, <strong>sex</strong> that isfree from c<strong>on</strong>sequences, <strong>sex</strong> that is free from ethicaldistincti<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>sex</strong> that is essentially free from any obligati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>take in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> account in <strong>on</strong>e’s c<strong>on</strong>sciousness that the other pers<strong>on</strong>is a pers<strong>on</strong>. In order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> free <strong>sex</strong> from fear, guilt, <strong>and</strong> shame, itwas thought that instituti<strong>on</strong>al restricti<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong> <strong>sex</strong> needed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>overthrown, but in fact what needed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> overthrown was anyvestige of an interpers<strong>on</strong>al ethic in which people would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> real<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e another; for <strong>on</strong>ce people are real <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e another, thec<strong>on</strong>sequences of <strong>on</strong>e’s acts matter deeply <strong>and</strong> pers<strong>on</strong>ally; <strong>and</strong>particularly in the case of <strong>sex</strong>, <strong>on</strong>e risks perceiving thec<strong>on</strong>sequences of <strong>on</strong>e’s acts in ways that feel bad <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause theydo not feel right. This entire moral-feeling level of <strong>sex</strong>uality,therefore, needed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> und<strong>on</strong>e. And it was und<strong>on</strong>e, in theguise of an assault <strong>on</strong> instituti<strong>on</strong>al suppressi<strong>on</strong>.Sexual freedom has never really meant that individualsshould have <strong>sex</strong>ual self-determinati<strong>on</strong>, that individuals should<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> free <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> experience the integrity of their own bodies <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>free <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act out of that integrity in a way that is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tally withintheir own right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> choose. Sexual freedom has never reallymeant that people should have absolute sovereignty over theirown erotic <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing. And the reas<strong>on</strong> for this is simple: Sexualfreedom has never really <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en about <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>justice</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tweenmen <strong>and</strong> women. It has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en about maintaining men’s superiorstatus, men’s power over women; <strong>and</strong> it has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en about<strong>sex</strong>ualizing women’s inferior status, men’s subordinati<strong>on</strong> of
JOHN STOLTENBERG 111women. Essentially, <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en about preservinga <strong>sex</strong>uality that preserves male supremacy.What makes male supremacy so insidious, so pervasive,such a seemingly per<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ent comp<strong>on</strong>ent of all our preciouslives, is the fact that erecti<strong>on</strong> can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>ed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it. Andorgasm can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> habituated <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it. There’s a car<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>on</strong>; it’s fromPenthouse: A <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> are in <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d. He’s <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p, fuckingher. The capti<strong>on</strong> reads: “I can’t come unless you pretend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>unc<strong>on</strong>scious.” The joke could as well have taken any num<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r ofvariati<strong>on</strong>s: “I can’t get hard unless—I can’t fuck unless—Ican’t get turned <strong>on</strong> unless—I can’t feel anything <strong>sex</strong>ual unless—…” Then fill in the blanks: “Unless I am possessing you.Unless I am superior <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> you. Unless I am in c<strong>on</strong>trol of you.Unless I am humiliating you. Unless I am hurting you. Unless Ihave broken your will.”Once <strong>sex</strong>uality is stuck in male supremacy, all the forms ofunjust power at the heart of it <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come almost physicallyaddictive. All the stuff of our primitive fight-or-flight reflexes—a pounding heart, a hard sweat, heaving lungs—these are allthings the body does when it is in terror, when it is lashing outin rage, <strong>and</strong> these are all things it is perfectly capable of doingduring <strong>sex</strong> acts that are terrifying <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong> acts that arevengeful. Dominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> subordinati<strong>on</strong>—the very essence ofin<strong>justice</strong> <strong>and</strong> unfreedom—have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come culturally eroticized,<strong>and</strong> we are supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that giving eroticizeddominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> subordinati<strong>on</strong> free expressi<strong>on</strong> is the fullestflowering of <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom.Prepu<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>scent boys get erecti<strong>on</strong>s in all kinds of apparentlyn<strong>on</strong><strong>sex</strong>ual situati<strong>on</strong>s—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing terrified, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing in physicaldanger, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing punished, moving perilously fast, simply <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ingcalled <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> recite in class. A boy’s body’s dilemma, as hegrows older, as he learns more about the cultural powersignified by the penis <strong>and</strong> how it is supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> functi<strong>on</strong> inmale-supremacist <strong>sex</strong>, is how <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> produce erecti<strong>on</strong>s reliably inexplicitly hetero<strong>sex</strong>ual c<strong>on</strong>texts. His body gets a great deal ofhelp. All around him is a culture in which rage <strong>and</strong> dread <strong>and</strong>hazard <strong>and</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> are made aphrodisiacs. And women’sbodies are made the butt of whatever works <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get it up.*
112 REFUSING TO BE A MANThe <strong>sex</strong>uality of male supremacy is viscerally committed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>dominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> subordinati<strong>on</strong>, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause those are the terms <strong>on</strong>which it learned <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel anything <strong>sex</strong>ual at all. Its heartpounds <strong>and</strong> its blood rushes <strong>and</strong> its au<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nomic nervous systemsurges at the thought <strong>and</strong>/or the acti<strong>on</strong> of forced <strong>sex</strong>, bullying<strong>sex</strong>, violent <strong>sex</strong>, injurious <strong>sex</strong>, humiliating <strong>sex</strong>, hostile <strong>sex</strong>,murderous <strong>sex</strong>. The kind of <strong>sex</strong> that puts the other pers<strong>on</strong> intheir place. The kind of <strong>sex</strong> that keeps the other pers<strong>on</strong> other.The kind of <strong>sex</strong> that makes you know you’re in the presence ofsome<strong>on</strong>e who is palpably a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.Some of us know how male-supremacist <strong>sex</strong>uality feels<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter than do others. Some of us know how that <strong>sex</strong>uality feelsinside <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause we do it, or we have d<strong>on</strong>e it, or we would like <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>do it, or we would like <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do it more than we get a chance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>.It’s the <strong>sex</strong>uality that makes us feel powerful, virile, in c<strong>on</strong>trol.Some of us have known how that <strong>sex</strong>uality feels whensome<strong>on</strong>e else is doing it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> us, some<strong>on</strong>e who is having <strong>sex</strong> withus, some<strong>on</strong>e whose body is inhabited by it, some<strong>on</strong>e who i<strong>sex</strong>periencing its particular imperative <strong>and</strong> having malesupremacist<strong>sex</strong> against our flesh. And some of us d<strong>on</strong>’t reallyknow this <strong>sex</strong>uality directly; in fact our bodies haven’t adapted<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> male supremacy very successfully at all—it is not the<strong>sex</strong>uality that moves us, that <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uches us, that comes anywherenear feeling as good as we imagine we want our <strong>sex</strong>ualfeelings <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel. We d<strong>on</strong>’t recognize a l<strong>on</strong>ging for anything likeit in our own bodies, <strong>and</strong> we’ve <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en lucky so far—very lucky—not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have experienced it against our bodies. N<strong>on</strong>etheless,we know that it exists; <strong>and</strong> the more we know aboutpornography, the more we know what it looks like.Pornography <strong>and</strong> Male SupremacyMale-supremacist <strong>sex</strong>uality is important <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pornography, <strong>and</strong>pornography is important <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> male supremacy. Pornographyinstituti<strong>on</strong>alizes the <strong>sex</strong>uality that both embodies <strong>and</strong> enacts* See “Sexual Objectificati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> Male Supremacy” pp. 44–46.
JOHN STOLTENBERG 113male supremacy. Pornography says about that <strong>sex</strong>uality,“Here’s how” : Here’s how <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act out male supremacy in <strong>sex</strong>.Here’s how the acti<strong>on</strong> should go. Here are the acts that imposepower over <strong>and</strong> against another body. And pornography saysabout that <strong>sex</strong>uality, “Here’s who” : Here’s who you should doit <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> here’s who she is: your whore, your piece of ass,yours. Your penis is a weap<strong>on</strong>, her body is your target. Andpornography says about that <strong>sex</strong>uality, “Here’s why” : Becausemen are masters, women are slaves; men are superior, womenare subordinate; men are real, women are objects; men are <strong>sex</strong>machines, women are sluts.Pornography instituti<strong>on</strong>alizes male supremacy the waysegregati<strong>on</strong> instituti<strong>on</strong>alizes white supremacy. It is a practiceembodying an ideology of biological superiority; it is aninstituti<strong>on</strong> that both expresses that ideology <strong>and</strong> enacts thatideology—makes it the reality that people <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve is true,keeps it that way, keeps people from knowing any otherpossibility, keeps certain people powerful by keeping certainpeople down.Pornography also eroticizes male supremacy. It makesdominance <strong>and</strong> subordinati<strong>on</strong> feel like <strong>sex</strong>; it makes hierarchyfeel like <strong>sex</strong>; it makes force <strong>and</strong> violence feel like <strong>sex</strong>; it makeshate <strong>and</strong> terrorism feel like <strong>sex</strong>; it makes inequality feel like<strong>sex</strong>. Pornography keeps <strong>sex</strong>ism <strong>sex</strong>y. It keeps <strong>sex</strong>ismnecessary for some people <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have <strong>sex</strong>ual feelings. It makesreciprocity make you go limp. It makes mutuality leave youcold. It makes tenderness <strong>and</strong> intimacy <strong>and</strong> caring make youfeel like you’re going <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> disappear in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a void. It makes <strong>justice</strong>the opposite of erotic; it makes in<strong>justice</strong> a <strong>sex</strong>ual thrill.Pornography exploits every experience in people’s lives thatimpris<strong>on</strong>s <strong>sex</strong>ual feelings—pain, terrorism, punishment, dread,shame, powerlessness, self-hate—<strong>and</strong> would have you <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lievethat it frees <strong>sex</strong>ual feelings. In fact the <strong>sex</strong>ual freedomrepresented by pornography is the freedom of men <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act<strong>sex</strong>ually in ways that keep <strong>sex</strong> a basis for inequality.You can’t have authentic <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom without <strong>sex</strong>ual<strong>justice</strong>. It is <strong>on</strong>ly freedom for those in power; the powerlesscannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> free. Their experience of <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes
114 REFUSING TO BE A MANbut a delusi<strong>on</strong> borne of complying with the de<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ds of thepowerful. Increased <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom under male supremacy hashad <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> mean an increased <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lerance for <strong>sex</strong>ual practices that arepredicated <strong>on</strong> eroticized in<strong>justice</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween men <strong>and</strong> women:treating women’s bodies or body parts as merely <strong>sex</strong>ual objectsor things; treating women as utterly submissive masochistswho enjoy pain <strong>and</strong> humiliati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> who, if they are raped,enjoy it; treating women’s bodies <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ualized <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ating,mutilati<strong>on</strong>, b<strong>on</strong>dage, dismem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rment…. Once you have<strong>sex</strong>ualized inequality, <strong>on</strong>ce it is a learned <strong>and</strong> internalizedprerequisite for <strong>sex</strong>ual arousal <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>ual gratificati<strong>on</strong>, thenanything goes. And that’s what <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom means <strong>on</strong> thisside of <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>justice</strong>.Pornography <strong>and</strong> HomophobiaHomophobia is absolutely integral <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the system of <strong>sex</strong>ualizedmale supremacy. Cultural homophobia expresses a wholerange of antifemale revulsi<strong>on</strong>: It expresses c<strong>on</strong>tempt for menwho are <strong>sex</strong>ual with men <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they are <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>“treated like a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>” in <strong>sex</strong>. It expresses c<strong>on</strong>tempt forwomen who are <strong>sex</strong>ual with women just <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they arewomen <strong>and</strong> also <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they are perceived <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a rebuke <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>the primacy of the penis.But cultural homophobia is not merely an expressi<strong>on</strong> ofwo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> hating; it also works <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> protect men from the <strong>sex</strong>ualaggressi<strong>on</strong> of other men. Homophobia keeps men doing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>women what they would not want d<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> themselves. There’snot the same <strong>sex</strong>ual harassment of men that there is of women<strong>on</strong> the street or in the workplace or in the university; there’s notnearly the same extent of rape; there’s not the same demeanedsocial caste that is <strong>sex</strong>ualized, as it is for women. And that’sthanks <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> homophobia: Cultural homophobia keeps men’s<strong>sex</strong>ual aggressi<strong>on</strong> directed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward women. Homophobia keepsmen acting in c<strong>on</strong>cert as male supremacists so that they w<strong>on</strong>’t<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> perceived as an appropriate target for male-supremacist<strong>sex</strong>ual treatment. Male supremacy requires homophobia inorder <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep men safe from the <strong>sex</strong>ual aggressi<strong>on</strong> of men.
JOHN STOLTENBERG 115Imagine this country without homophobia: A wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> rapedevery three minutes <strong>and</strong> a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> raped every three minutes.Homophobia keeps that statistic at a “<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ageable” level. Thesystem is not foolproof, of course. There are boys who have<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en <strong>sex</strong>ually molested by men. There are men who have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>enbrutalized in <strong>sex</strong>ual relati<strong>on</strong>ships with their male lovers, <strong>and</strong>they <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o have a memory of men’s <strong>sex</strong>ual violence. And thereare <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y men in pris<strong>on</strong> who are subject <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the same <strong>sex</strong>ualterrorism that women live with almost all the time. But for themost part—happily—homophobia serves male supremacy byprotecting “real men” from <strong>sex</strong>ual assault by other real men.Pornography is <strong>on</strong>e of the major enforcers of culturalhomophobia. Pornography is rife with gay-baiting <strong>and</strong>effemiphobia. Portrayals of allegedly lesbian “scenes” are astaple of hetero<strong>sex</strong>ual pornography: The women with eachother are there for the male viewer, the male voyeur; there isnot the scantest evidence that they are there for each other.Through so-called men’s-sophisticate magazines—the “skin”magazines—pornographers outdo <strong>on</strong>e another in their attacksagainst feminists, who are typically derided as lesbians—“sapphic” at <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>st, “bulldykes” at worst. The innuendo that a<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is a “fairy” or a “faggot” is, in pornography, a kind of dareor a challenge <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> prove his cocks<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ship. And throughoutpornography, the male who is perceived <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the passiveorifice in <strong>sex</strong> is tainted with the disdain that “normally” <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>gs<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women.Meanwhile gay male pornography, which often appears <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>present an idealized, all-male, superbutch world, also c<strong>on</strong>tainsfrequent deroga<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry references <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women, or <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feminizedmales. In order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> give vent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> male <strong>sex</strong>ual aggressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>sadism in homo<strong>sex</strong>ual pornography <strong>and</strong> also <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> circumvent thecultural stigma that ordinarily attaches <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> men who are “treatedlike a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>” in <strong>sex</strong>, gay male pornography has developedseveral specific “codes.” One such code is that a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who is“capable” of withst<strong>and</strong>ing “discipline” —extremely punishingb<strong>on</strong>dage, humiliati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> fistfucking, for instance—is deemed<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have achieved a kind of supermasculinity, almost as if the<strong>sex</strong>ual violence his body ingests from another <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> enhances
116 REFUSING TO BE A MANhis own <strong>sex</strong>ual identity as a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. (This is quite the reverse inhetero<strong>sex</strong>ual pornography, where <strong>sex</strong>ual sadism against awo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> simply c<strong>on</strong>firms her in her subordinate status.) Anothercode comm<strong>on</strong> in gay male pornography, <strong>on</strong>e found frequentlyin films, is that if a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is shown <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing assfucked, he willgenerally <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> shown assfucking some<strong>on</strong>e else in tum—this <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>avoid the c<strong>on</strong>notati<strong>on</strong> that he is at all feminized by <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ingfucked. Still another code in gay male pornography is thatdepicti<strong>on</strong>s of mutuality are not sustained for very l<strong>on</strong>g withoutan intimati<strong>on</strong> or explicit scene of force or coerci<strong>on</strong>—so youd<strong>on</strong>’t go limp out of boredom or anxiety that you’ve <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ensuckered in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a scene where there’s no raw male powerpresent.There is, not surprisingly, an intimate c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tweenthe male supremacy in both hetero<strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>and</strong> homo<strong>sex</strong>ualpornography <strong>and</strong> the wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> hating <strong>and</strong> femiphobia in themboth as well. That c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> is male-supremacist <strong>sex</strong>—thesocial power of men over women acted out as eroticizeddominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> subordinati<strong>on</strong>. The difference is that gay malepornography invents a way for men <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the objects of malesupremacist<strong>sex</strong> without seeming <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> its victims. In its ownspecial fashi<strong>on</strong>, gay male pornography keeps men safe frommale-supremacist <strong>sex</strong>—by holding out the promise that you’llcome away from it more a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.Needless <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say, for hetero<strong>sex</strong>ual men who d<strong>on</strong>’t buy this,it’s repellent <strong>and</strong> a crock. Needless <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say, for homo<strong>sex</strong>ual menwho do buy in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> this, it can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come a really important part of<strong>on</strong>e’s <strong>sex</strong>ual identity as a gay <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. Because if you think theproblem facing you is that your masculinity is in doubt <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>causeyou’re queer, then the promise of gay male pornography lookslike forgiveness <strong>and</strong> redempti<strong>on</strong>. Not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> menti<strong>on</strong> what it feelslike: communi<strong>on</strong> with true virility.Pornography <strong>and</strong> MenNow this is the situati<strong>on</strong> of men within male supremacy:Whether we are straight or gay, we have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en looking f or a<strong>sex</strong>ual freedom that is utterly specious, <strong>and</strong> we have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en
JOHN STOLTENBERG 117looking for it through pornography, which perpetuates the verydominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> subordinati<strong>on</strong> that st<strong>and</strong> in the way of <strong>sex</strong>ual<strong>justice</strong>. Whether we are straight or gay, we have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en lookingfor a noti<strong>on</strong> of freedom that leaves out women; we have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>enlooking for a <strong>sex</strong>uality that preserves men’s power overwomen. So l<strong>on</strong>g as that is what we strive for, we cannotpossibly feel freely, <strong>and</strong> no <strong>on</strong>e can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> free. Whatever <strong>sex</strong>ualfreedom might <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>, it must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> after <strong>justice</strong>.I want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> speak directly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those of us who live in malesupremacy as men, <strong>and</strong> I want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> speak specifically <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those ofus who have come <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> underst<strong>and</strong> that pornography does make<strong>sex</strong>ism <strong>sex</strong>y; that pornography does make male supremacy<strong>sex</strong>y; <strong>and</strong> that pornography does define what is <strong>sex</strong>y in termsof dominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> subordinati<strong>on</strong>, in terms that serve us as men—whether we buy it or not, whether we buy in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it or not—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it serves male supremacy, which is exactly what it isfor.I want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> speak <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those of us who live in this setup as men<strong>and</strong> who recognize—in the world <strong>and</strong> in our very own selves—the power pornography can have over our lives: It can makemen <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that anything <strong>sex</strong>y is good. It can make men<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that our penises are like weap<strong>on</strong>s. It can make men<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve—for some moments of orgasm—that we are just likethe men in pornography: virile, str<strong>on</strong>g, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ugh, may<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> cruel. Itcan make men <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that if you take it away from us, wew<strong>on</strong>’t have <strong>sex</strong>ual feelings.But I want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> speak also <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those of us who live in this setupas men <strong>and</strong> who recognize the power that pornography has overthe lives of women: <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it can make us <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that womenby nature are whores; <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it can make us <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve thatwomen’s body parts <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> us—separately, part by part—instead of <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a whole real other pers<strong>on</strong>; <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it can make us<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that women want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> raped, enjoy <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing damaged byus, deserve <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> punished; <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it can make us <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve thatwomen are an alien species, completely different from us sothat we can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> completely different from them, not as hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>as us so that we can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, not as real as us so that we can<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> men. I want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> talk <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those of us who know in our guts that
118 REFUSING TO BE A MANpornography can make us <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve all of that. We know <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>causewe’ve watched it happen <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> men around us. We know <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>causeit has happened in us.And what I want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say is simply this: We’ve got <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> aboutmaking some serious changes, <strong>and</strong> we’ve got <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get busy <strong>and</strong>act. If we sit around <strong>and</strong> d<strong>on</strong>’t do anything, then we <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comethe <strong>on</strong>es who are keeping things the way they are. If we sitaround <strong>and</strong> all we do is intellectual <strong>and</strong> emoti<strong>on</strong>al dithering,then we stay in the ranks of those who are the passiveenforcers of male supremacy. If we d<strong>on</strong>’t take seriously the factthat pornography is a radical political issue <strong>and</strong> an issue aboutus <strong>and</strong> if we d<strong>on</strong>’t make serious progress in the directi<strong>on</strong> ofwhat we’re going <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do about it, then we’ve just g<strong>on</strong>e over <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>the wr<strong>on</strong>g side of the fight—the morally wr<strong>on</strong>g, his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ricallywr<strong>on</strong>g side of a struggle that is a ground swell, a grass-rootspeople’s movement against <strong>sex</strong>ual in<strong>justice</strong>.We’ve got <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> telling our s<strong>on</strong>s that if a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> gets off byputting women down, it’s not okay.We’ve got <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> telling merchants that if they peddle women’sbodies <strong>and</strong> lives for men’s c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> entertainment, it’snot okay.We’ve got <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> telling other men that if you let thepornographers lead you by the nose (or any other body part)in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieving that women exist <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> tied up <strong>and</strong> hung up <strong>and</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aten <strong>and</strong> raped, it’s not okay.We’ve got <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> telling the pornographers—Larry Flynt <strong>and</strong>Bob Gucci<strong>on</strong>e <strong>and</strong> Hugh Hefner <strong>and</strong> Al Goldstein <strong>and</strong> all therest—that whatever they think they’re doing in our names asmen, as entertainment for men, for the sake of some delusi<strong>on</strong>of so-called <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood…well, it’s not okay. It’s not okay with us.Freedom <strong>and</strong> EqualityHis<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rically, when people have not had <strong>justice</strong> <strong>and</strong> whenpeople have not had freedom, they have had <strong>on</strong>ly the materialreality of in<strong>justice</strong> <strong>and</strong> unfreedom. When freedom <strong>and</strong> <strong>justice</strong>d<strong>on</strong>’t exist, they’re but a dream <strong>and</strong> a visi<strong>on</strong>, an abstract ideal<strong>on</strong>ged for. You can’t really know what <strong>justice</strong> would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> like
JOHN STOLTENBERG 119or what freedom would feel like. You can <strong>on</strong>ly know how itfeels not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have them, <strong>and</strong> what it feels like <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hope, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>imagine, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> desire them with a passi<strong>on</strong>. Sexual freedom is anidea whose time has not come. It can’t possibly <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> trulyexperienced until there is <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>justice</strong>. And <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>justice</strong> isincompatible with a definiti<strong>on</strong> of freedom that is based <strong>on</strong> thesubordinati<strong>on</strong> of women.Equality is still a radical idea. It makes some people veryangry. It also gives some people hope.When equality is an idea whose time has come, we willperhaps know <strong>sex</strong> with <strong>justice</strong>, we will perhaps know passi<strong>on</strong>with compassi<strong>on</strong>, we will perhaps know ardor <strong>and</strong> affecti<strong>on</strong>with h<strong>on</strong>or. In that time, when the integrity within every<strong>on</strong>e’sbody <strong>and</strong> the whole pers<strong>on</strong>hood of each pers<strong>on</strong> is celebratedwhenever two people <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch, we will perhaps truly know thefreedom <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ual in a world of real equality.According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pornography, you can’t get there from here.According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> male supremacy, you should not even want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>try.Some of us want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> go there. Some of us want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> there.And we know that the struggle will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> difficult <strong>and</strong> l<strong>on</strong>g. Butwe know that the passi<strong>on</strong> for <strong>justice</strong> cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> denied. Andsomeday—someday—there will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> both <strong>justice</strong> <strong>and</strong> freedomfor each pers<strong>on</strong>—<strong>and</strong> thereby for us all.
CONFRONTINGPORNOGRAPHY AS A CIVIL-RIGHTS ISSUEHow can we end the in<strong>justice</strong> that is based <strong>on</strong> <strong>sex</strong>? How canthere <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>justice</strong>?There are <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y necessary ways <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> achieve <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>justice</strong> insociety. The law ought <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> an important <strong>on</strong>e. Justice, afterall, is supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> am<strong>on</strong>g the law’s primary functi<strong>on</strong>s. Butthe law has had a very sorry record <strong>on</strong> that score. His<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rically,laws have served <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> perpetuate in<strong>justice</strong>—slavery, for example—as often as, or more often than, they have served <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> undo it.And laws about <strong>sex</strong> have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en especially unhelpful, for theytend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> serve the interests of the powerful <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tray those whoare powerless. Rape laws, for instance, have maintained theright of husb<strong>and</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rape. Obscenity laws have perpetuated a<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief in the vileness of women’s bodies <strong>and</strong> protected menfrom their <strong>sex</strong>ual shame in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> other men. Sodomy lawshave legitimized the persecuti<strong>on</strong> of those whose very existenceis felt <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> jeopardize men’s hold <strong>on</strong> the superior status of their<strong>sex</strong>. If anything, law has functi<strong>on</strong>ed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> defend male supremacy,<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reinforce <strong>sex</strong>ual in<strong>justice</strong>.In the fall of 1983, in the city of Minneapolis, a new legaltheory was invented that might actually defy male supremacy<strong>and</strong> materially effect some <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>justice</strong>. This legal theory wasc<strong>on</strong>tained in antipornography legislati<strong>on</strong> developed by radicalfeminists that would permit civil lawsuits againstpornographers <strong>on</strong> the grounds that pornography is a violati<strong>on</strong> ofwomen’s civil rights—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause pornography subordinateswomen as a class <strong>and</strong> thereby creates <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong>.*I ‘mgoing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> explain—step by step—how this civil-rights approach
JOHN STOLTENBERG 121<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pornography would work: how <strong>and</strong> why this legislati<strong>on</strong> wasdeveloped, what it would <strong>and</strong> wouldn’t do, <strong>and</strong> how it differs—both legally <strong>and</strong> politically—from obscenity law.A Brief BackgroundThe idea of c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting pornography as a civil-rights issue didnot fall from the sky. It grew out of the outrage <strong>and</strong> frustrati<strong>on</strong>of over a decade of grass-roots feminist activism againstpornography. The definitive his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry of this influentialmovement has yet <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> written—but here’s a sketch:Activism in the women’s movement <strong>on</strong> the issue ofpornography can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> traced back <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Septem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r 1968, whenwomen, led by a group called New York Radical Women, first“zapped” the Miss America Pageant in Atlantic City, with aday of s<strong>on</strong>gs, chants, <strong>and</strong> guerrilla theater protesting thec<strong>on</strong>test’s <strong>sex</strong>ist <strong>and</strong> racist celebrati<strong>on</strong> of women as objects. 1 Arash of dem<strong>on</strong>strati<strong>on</strong>s against Hugh M. Hefner’s Playboyempire so<strong>on</strong> followed—at Playboy Clubs across the country.One group of protesters, the Mountain Moving Day Brigade,challenged Hefner’s hegem<strong>on</strong>y in these words:We sisters join <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fight you, your Playboyempire <strong>and</strong> everything you represent, <strong>and</strong> we shall buildinstead a society in which women <strong>and</strong> men are free <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>relate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> each other as equal hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ings of dignity <strong>and</strong>worth. Until you no l<strong>on</strong>ger oppose this, you shall have nopeace. 2Hefner, for his part, issued an in-house memo that gotleaked <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the nati<strong>on</strong>:These chicks are our natural enemy…It is time we dobattle with them…What I want is a devastating piecethat takes the militant feminists apart. They areunalterably opposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the ro<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>tic boy-girl society that* See “Selected Bibliography: The Civil-RightsAntipornography Ordinance” pp. 195–198.
122 REFUSING TO BE A MANPlayboy promotes…Let’s go <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it <strong>and</strong> make it a realwinner. 3It was all-out war: the pornographers against women, womenagainst the pornographers. In the next several years, there were<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> scores of scattered feminist antipornography acti<strong>on</strong>s,including, for the first time, civil diso<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>dience: In the spring of1970, militant feminists seized <strong>and</strong> barricaded the executiveoffices of the avant-garde, Left/li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral Grove Press in NewYork City, partly as a protest against its publicati<strong>on</strong>s thatdegraded women. 4The year 1976 marks a sort of flash point in the feministanti-pornography movement. In February, a first-run theater inNew York City’s Times Square opened a movie called Snuff,which purported <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> show the actual murder of a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> for<strong>sex</strong>ual entertainment. Hundreds of women <strong>and</strong> some menpicketed the theater night after night. In the movie, a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> killsthen disembowels a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> holds up her uterus as heappears <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have an orgasm. Eventually, the gore was revealed<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> simulated; but hoax or not, the movie sent out a messageabout women that was all <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o real. When Snuff rolled out in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nati<strong>on</strong>al distributi<strong>on</strong>, it galvanized feminists <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> form localgroups against pornography across the United States—thelargest of which, Women Against Violence in Pornography<strong>and</strong> Media (WAVPM), was based in San Francisco.In June 1976, Atlantic Records erected a billboard in LosAngeles <strong>on</strong> Sunset Strip showing a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> bound <strong>and</strong> bruisedsaying “I’m ‘Black <strong>and</strong> Blue’ from The Rolling S<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nes—<strong>and</strong> Ilove it!” A group called Women Against Violence AgainstWomen (WAVAW) protested <strong>and</strong> got the billboard takendown, then joined with California NOW in calling a nati<strong>on</strong>alboycott against Atlantic, Warner Bros., <strong>and</strong> Elektra/Asylumrecords, de<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ding an end <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> these companies’ violent <strong>and</strong>wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>-hating album covers. 5When the June 1978 issue of Larry Flynt’s Hustler magazinehit newsst<strong>and</strong>s, it triggered another outburst of feministprotests coast-<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>-coast: Billing itself an “all-meat issue,” thecover showed a naked wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing shoved head-first in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a
JOHN STOLTENBERG 123meat grinder—<strong>and</strong> extruded at the other end as rawhamburger.The first feminist c<strong>on</strong>ference <strong>on</strong> pornography c<strong>on</strong>vened inSan Francisco in Novem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r 1978, sp<strong>on</strong>sored by WAVPM, <strong>and</strong>it launched the first Take Back the Night March—down SanFrancisco’s pornography row in North Beach. A few m<strong>on</strong>thslater, in Oc<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r 1979, over 5,000 women <strong>and</strong> men marchedagainst pornography in Times Square, organized by WomenAgainst Pornography, originally a WAVPM spinoff. In theyears thereafter, Take Back the Night marches <strong>and</strong> rallies have<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come an annual event in hundreds of cities <strong>and</strong>communities. Dozens of WAVAW chapters <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y othergroups sprang up in local protests against record-album jackets,pornography retailers, <strong>and</strong> other forms of media exploitati<strong>on</strong><strong>and</strong> violence against women. In additi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>on</strong> hundreds ofcampuses, there were sp<strong>on</strong>taneous dem<strong>on</strong>strati<strong>on</strong>s againstfraternity <strong>and</strong> film-society showings of pornographic films, thesale of pornographic magazines in campus books<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>res, <strong>and</strong>pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphers soliciting for women <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pose for Playboy.This burge<strong>on</strong>ing grass-roots activism was accompanied by asurge of feminist writings that analyzed pornography as <strong>sex</strong>ist,degrading, demeaning images <strong>and</strong> as wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>-hatingpropag<strong>and</strong>a. 6 As feminists spoke out, more <strong>and</strong> more womencame forward <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld how men’s use of pornography had<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en directly involved in their pers<strong>on</strong>al his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ries of incest,child <strong>sex</strong>ual abuse, marital rape, battery, <strong>and</strong> other forms of<strong>sex</strong>ual victimizati<strong>on</strong>, or how pornography had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en used <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>“seas<strong>on</strong>” them in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a life of prostituti<strong>on</strong>. By the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ginning ofthe 1980s, a new political analysis was emerging: a real-lifebased comprehensi<strong>on</strong> of pornography as <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing somehowcentral <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women’s inferior social status—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether with asense of <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing utterly powerless against the resources of thehuge pornography industry <strong>and</strong> its callous civil-li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rtari<strong>and</strong>efenders.In additi<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> this background of feminist antipornographyactivism, the thinking <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>hind the civil-rights antipornographylaw was influenced by:
124 REFUSING TO BE A MAN• The increased distributi<strong>on</strong> of pornography, due in part <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>technologic advances such as cable TV <strong>and</strong> the home videomarket.• The wider availability of more <strong>and</strong> more violent <strong>and</strong> sadisticpornography. Acts were <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphed <strong>and</strong> sold thatwere here<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore unimaginable: <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rture, mutilati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>sex</strong> withanimals, vaginal penetrati<strong>on</strong> by knives, <strong>and</strong> so forth.Pornography producti<strong>on</strong> seemed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> racing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep aheadof the satiati<strong>on</strong> effect in c<strong>on</strong>sumers—trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> deliver a <strong>sex</strong>kick <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sated would-<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> satyrs through more <strong>and</strong> morebrutality against women.• Social-science research designed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> test hypothesessuggested by feminists’ analysis of pornography. C<strong>on</strong>trolledexperiments were c<strong>on</strong>ducted with groups of “normal”college-age men, screened <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> eliminate “rape-pr<strong>on</strong>e” <strong>and</strong>“high-hostile” types. The experiments showed that in theseaverage good joes, exposure <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> certain types of pornographyproduced significant effects such as increased levels ofaggressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> hostility, increased callousness <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>wardwomen, <strong>and</strong> increased self-reported likelihood <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rape ifthey thought they would not get caught. 7• The escape of “Linda Lovelace,” whose real name is LindaMarchiano. In her au<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>biography, the wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who starred inDeep Throat, the world’s highest-grossing pornographicfilm, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld how she had in fact <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en intimidated, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aten, <strong>and</strong>brutally bullied in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> performing for pornography by herpimp/husb<strong>and</strong>—sometimes at gunpoint. 8 For several yearsMarchiano tried <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get some<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> help her take her case <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>court, but no <strong>on</strong>e in the successi<strong>on</strong> of male lawyers sheappealed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thought anything could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> d<strong>on</strong>e. Then,<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ginning in June 1980, when Linda Marchiano joined withWomen Against Pornography in calling for a nati<strong>on</strong>wideboycott of Deep Throat, Andrea Dworkin, the radicalfeminist writer, <strong>and</strong> Catharine A. MacKinn<strong>on</strong>, at the time afeminist lawyer teaching at Yale Law School, attempted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>help Marchiano take legal acti<strong>on</strong> against the gross in<strong>justice</strong>she had experienced. The statutes of limitati<strong>on</strong> in the crimesof abuse that had happened <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> her had by now expired—as
JOHN STOLTENBERG 125indeed they usually do <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> so <strong>sex</strong>uallyvictimized can recover enough emoti<strong>on</strong>ally <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> able <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>cope with a prosecuti<strong>on</strong>. Meanwhile the film of her coercedperfor<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ce c<strong>on</strong>tinued <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> earn its owners <strong>and</strong> distribu<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rsmilli<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> milli<strong>on</strong>s of dollars. 9• The backlash reacti<strong>on</strong> against feminist antipornographyactivists from pornographers <strong>and</strong> defenders of porno graphy.Feminists who had organized <strong>and</strong> written againstpornography during the seventies had had no idea just howcentral pornography was <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the system of men’s socialpower over <strong>and</strong> against women. But the misogyny <strong>and</strong>vehemence with which their movement <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>denounced <strong>and</strong> reviled, in pornography magazines <strong>and</strong>elsewhere, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came a tangible tip-off that in c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>ting the<strong>sex</strong>ual dominati<strong>on</strong> of women in pornography they hadunwittingly hit the jugular vein—or perhaps, moreaccurately, the nerve center—of male supremacy.Quite coincidentally, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, there wasanother his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry of activism against pornography going <strong>on</strong>. Thiswas not a feminist-inspired movement; it was, rather, acoaliti<strong>on</strong> of neighborhood groups that were organizing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>t the way the pornography industry was operating intheir city. These citizens were angry about the fact that “adult”book <strong>and</strong> video s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>res were <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing located mostly in poor areas<strong>and</strong> in communities where blacks, Native Americans, <strong>and</strong>other people of color lived, saturating these neighborhoodswith pornography, with a resulting increase in crime <strong>and</strong>deteriorati<strong>on</strong> of the neighborhood. For them pornography wasa community issue, a class issue, <strong>and</strong> a racial issue: Theywanted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p pornography’s erosi<strong>on</strong> of the quality of theirlives, the l<strong>and</strong> values where they lived, <strong>and</strong> their physicalsecurity. Local citizens groups had tried for over seven years <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tackle the problem of pornography in neighborhoods throughz<strong>on</strong>ing laws. But these z<strong>on</strong>ing laws had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en struck down asunc<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>al, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause, as a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> judge <strong>on</strong> the Minnesotastate supreme court opined, they inc<strong>on</strong>venienced any<strong>on</strong>e whowanted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> buy the stuff; he’d have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> travel <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o far, which
126 REFUSING TO BE A MANwould <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a nasty incursi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> his First Amendment rights. Soby the fall of 1983, the Minneapolis City Council was in theprocess of deli<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rating <strong>on</strong> a new z<strong>on</strong>ing law—<strong>on</strong>e that wouldcircumvent this judge’s ruling by establishing eight “adultbooks<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>re” z<strong>on</strong>es h<strong>and</strong>ily dispersed throughout the city. Theissue for neighborhood organizers, however, remained thesame: In<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whose neighborhood would the pornography <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>z<strong>on</strong>ed?At the time of these deli<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rati<strong>on</strong>s, Andrea Dworkin <strong>and</strong>Catharine A. MacKinn<strong>on</strong> just happened <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> inMinneapolis coteaching a course <strong>on</strong> pornography <strong>and</strong> law atthe University of Minnesota Law School. The two were aformidable team:• Catharine A. MacKinn<strong>on</strong>—a feminist lawyer, teacher,writer, <strong>and</strong> activist—is the c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>al-law scholar whopi<strong>on</strong>eered the legal theory that defined <strong>and</strong> established<strong>sex</strong>ual harassment as a legal term of art <strong>and</strong> an acti<strong>on</strong>ableform of <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong>. 10 Before coming <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Minnesota asassociate professor teaching <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>al law, she had taught at Yale, Harvard, <strong>and</strong>Stanford law schools.• Andrea Dworkin—at the time a visiting professor inwomen’s studies <strong>and</strong> law at the University of Minnesota—is a feminist writer, activist, <strong>and</strong> impassi<strong>on</strong>ed public speakerwho had addressed scores of Take Back the Night rallies<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ginning with the first, in San Francisco. She hadpublished extensively about pornography as a women’s issuesince 1974 11 <strong>and</strong> had spoken at colleges <strong>and</strong> dem<strong>on</strong>strati<strong>on</strong>sin the late seventies <strong>on</strong> “Pornography: The NewTerrorism.” 12 Pornography plays a role in both causing <strong>and</strong>justifying all forms of <strong>sex</strong>ual abuse, she <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieved, <strong>and</strong>therefore it plays a role in creating <strong>and</strong> maintaining the civilinferiority of women. 13 “Simply put,” according <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Dworkin,“if raping women is entertainment, what are women’s livesworth?”
JOHN STOLTENBERG 127In Oc<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r 1983, the Neighborhood Pornography Task Forcec<strong>on</strong>vinced Dworkin <strong>and</strong> MacKinn<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> appear <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore theMinneapolis City Council Z<strong>on</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> Planning Committee <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>testify about the new z<strong>on</strong>ing ordinance. They testified that theywere opposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the z<strong>on</strong>ing approach—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it didabsolutely nothing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> remedy the real injury that pornographydoes. Speaking first, Dworkin broached a feminist legalanalysis that “[p]ornography is an abuse of the civil rights ofwomen. It is an absolute repudiati<strong>on</strong> of our right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> equalityunder the law <strong>and</strong> as citizens of this country.” 14 ThenMacKinn<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld the committee, “I suggest that you c<strong>on</strong>sider thatpornography, as it subordinates women <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> men, is a form ofdiscriminati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the basis of <strong>sex</strong>” 15 <strong>and</strong> proposed that insteadof z<strong>on</strong>ing pornography—which indicates, said Dworkin, “thatproperty matters <strong>and</strong> property values matter but that womend<strong>on</strong>’t” 16 —the city could deal with pornography through anamendment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> its laws prohibiting <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong>. Quiteimprobably <strong>and</strong> unexpectedly, the z<strong>on</strong>ing committeeunanimously moved <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> direct the city at<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rney <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pursue thiscivil-rights approach. Within weeks, the City of Minneapolishired Dworkin <strong>and</strong> MacKinn<strong>on</strong> as c<strong>on</strong>sultants—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> draft a lawrecognizing that pornography violates women’s civil rights <strong>and</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> organize public hearings that would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come a legislativerecord showing how women’s rights are violated by theproducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> of pornography.The law they drafted was an amendment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the MinneapolisCivil Rights Ordinance. Essentially it would give the victimsof pornography a chance <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fight back: For the first time inhis<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry, this law would allow a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> prove that shehad <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en injured by having pornography forced <strong>on</strong> her, by<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing coerced in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a pornographic perfor<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ce, or <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>causepornography was used in some <strong>sex</strong>ual assault <strong>on</strong> her. It wouldalso allow a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sue traffickers in pornography <strong>on</strong> thebasis of the harm pornography does <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the civil rights ofwomen as a class. This law, which <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came widely known asthe Dworkin/MacKinn<strong>on</strong> Civil-Rights AntipornographyOrdinance, was “based <strong>on</strong> the idea—like the principleunderlying the Fourteenth Amendment—that women have
128 REFUSING TO BE A MANrights <strong>and</strong> that those rights are abrogated by systematic <strong>sex</strong>ualsubordinati<strong>on</strong>.” 17In Decem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of 1983, there were two days of publichearings <strong>on</strong> the proposed Ordinance in Minneapolis.Researchers testified; victims testified; people who workedwith victims of rape, battery, <strong>and</strong> child <strong>sex</strong>ual assault testified.It was the first time in his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry that any legislative body had everlistened <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> real people’s experience of their victimizati<strong>on</strong>through pornography. 18 The hearings transcript includes thetestim<strong>on</strong>y of Linda Marchiano, who as “Linda Lovelace” was<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aten <strong>and</strong> forced in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> performing in the film Deep Throat.Here is part of her testim<strong>on</strong>y. At the time of the filming, shewas married <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> named Chuck Traynor, whom she callsMr. Traynor.During the filming of Deep Throat, actually after thefirst day, I suffered a brutal <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ating in my room forsmiling <strong>on</strong> the set. It was a hotel room <strong>and</strong> the wholecrew was in <strong>on</strong>e room, there was at least twenty peoplepartying, music going, laughing, <strong>and</strong> having a good time.Mr. Traynor started <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> bounce me off the walls. I figuredout of twenty people, there might <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ingthat would do something <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> help me <strong>and</strong> I was screamingfor help, I was <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aten, I was <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing kicked around<strong>and</strong> again bounced off the walls. And all of a sudden theroom next door <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came very quiet. Nobody, not <strong>on</strong>epers<strong>on</strong> came <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> help me.The greatest complaint the next day is the fact thatthere was bruises <strong>on</strong> my body. So <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y people say thatin Deep Throat I have a smile <strong>on</strong> my face <strong>and</strong> I look asthough I am really enjoying myself. No <strong>on</strong>e ever askedme how those bruises got <strong>on</strong> my body. 19At another point in her testim<strong>on</strong>y, Linda Marchianosaid:Mr. Traynor suggested the thought that I do films witha D-O-G <strong>and</strong> I <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld him that I wouldn’t do it. I suffered abrutal <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ating, he claims he suffered embarrassment<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause I wouldn’t do it.
JOHN STOLTENBERG 129We then went <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> another porno studio, <strong>on</strong>e of thesleaziest <strong>on</strong>es I have ever seen, <strong>and</strong> then this guy walkedin with his animal <strong>and</strong> I again started crying. I startedcrying. I said I am not going <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do this <strong>and</strong> they were allvery persistent, the two men involved in making thepornographic film <strong>and</strong> Mr. Traynor himself. And Istarted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> leave <strong>and</strong> go outside of the room where theymake these films <strong>and</strong> when I turned around there was allof a sudden a gun displayed <strong>on</strong> the desk <strong>and</strong> having seenthe coarseness <strong>and</strong> the callousness of the people involvedin pornography, I knew that I would have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en shot <strong>and</strong>killed.Needless <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say the film was shot <strong>and</strong> still is <strong>on</strong>e of thehardest <strong>on</strong>es for me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> deal with <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day. 20The Four Causes of Acti<strong>on</strong>The Civil-Rights Antipornography Ordinance is a civil law,unlike obscenity laws, which are criminal. Under a criminallaw, some<strong>on</strong>e can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> tried <strong>and</strong> sentenced <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> go <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> jail if theycommit a crime. But under a civil law, some<strong>on</strong>e can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> sued<strong>and</strong> ordered <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pay m<strong>on</strong>ey (which is called damages) or <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>pdoing something that they’re doing (which is called aninjuncti<strong>on</strong>).The antipornography ordinance would allow a pers<strong>on</strong> access<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the local hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>-rights commissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> the civil court if theyhave a complaint under any of four causes of acti<strong>on</strong>. One ofthese causes of acti<strong>on</strong> is called coerci<strong>on</strong> in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pornography.This cause of acti<strong>on</strong> is <strong>on</strong>e that Linda Marchiano could useeven though the film Deep Throat was made <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y years ago,<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the Ordinance would apply <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the last “appearance orsale” of the film made of her coerced perfor<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ce <strong>and</strong> DeepThroat is still for sale just about everywhere. Linda Marchianotestified in Minneapolis that “every time some<strong>on</strong>e watches thatfilm, they are watching me <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing raped.” 21 The movie is ineffect a filmed document of her coerced perfor<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ces of <strong>sex</strong>acts.
130 REFUSING TO BE A MANToday, any movie may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> made of any rape <strong>and</strong> then sold <strong>on</strong>the market as <strong>sex</strong>ual entertainment. The rape, if the victim isvery lucky, could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> prosecuted, but the movie is c<strong>on</strong>sidered“protected speech” under current law. In the last several years,rape-crisis centers have increasingly encountered rapes thathave <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphed, <strong>and</strong> the pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphs are <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing sold.Under current law, nothing can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> d<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> remove thepho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphs from sale. But the Civil-Rights AntipornographyOrdinance is written so that a pers<strong>on</strong> whose rape ispho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphed or who is coerced in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> performing forpornography has the right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> file a complaint with a hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>rightscommissi<strong>on</strong> or bring a civil suit in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> court. If theysuccessfully prove their case, they could collect m<strong>on</strong>eydamages from the whole chain of profit, <strong>and</strong> that pers<strong>on</strong> couldalso get the pornography made from their coerci<strong>on</strong> off themarket in the locality where the Ordinance is in force.If you know what happens <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women victims in rape trials,you have some idea how difficult it is for any wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> provethat she did not c<strong>on</strong>sent <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> an act of forced <strong>sex</strong>. So imagine thedifficulty of proving that you were coerced in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> performing forpornography when what you were forced <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do was <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act as ifyou were thoroughly enjoying what was happening <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> you.Recognizing that <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y women trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> use the coerci<strong>on</strong> causeof acti<strong>on</strong> would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> up against serious pretrial challenges,Dworkin <strong>and</strong> MacKinn<strong>on</strong> wrote in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Ordinance a list of“facts or c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s” that cannot in <strong>and</strong> of themselves <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> usedby the pornographers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get a coerci<strong>on</strong> case dismissed. This listincludes “that the pers<strong>on</strong> is or has ever <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en a prostitute,”<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause, am<strong>on</strong>g other reas<strong>on</strong>s, it is virtually impossible for aprostitute <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get a rape c<strong>on</strong>victi<strong>on</strong>. The list also includes “thatthe pers<strong>on</strong> is c<strong>on</strong>nected by blood or marriage <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> any<strong>on</strong>einvolved in or related <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the making of the pornography” ;“Linda Lovelace,” for example, was married—by force—<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> who was her pimp <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rturer. The list also includes“that the pers<strong>on</strong> signed a c<strong>on</strong>tract…” ; as Andrea Dworkin hassaid, “If you can force some<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fuck a dog, you can forcethem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sign a c<strong>on</strong>tract.” The complete list includes thirteen
JOHN STOLTENBERG 131items, a virtual catalog of smears used against women’sveracity in court:Proof of <strong>on</strong>e or more of the following facts or c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>sshall not, without more, preclude a finding of coerci<strong>on</strong>:a. that the pers<strong>on</strong> is a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>; orb. that the pers<strong>on</strong> is or has <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en a prostitute; orc. that the pers<strong>on</strong> has attained the age of majority; ord. that the pers<strong>on</strong> is c<strong>on</strong>nected by blood or marriage <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>any<strong>on</strong>e involved in or related <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the making of thepornography; or that the.pers<strong>on</strong> has previously had, or <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>enthought <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have had, <strong>sex</strong>ual relati<strong>on</strong>s with any<strong>on</strong>e, includingany<strong>on</strong>e involved in or related <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the making of thepornography; orf. that the pers<strong>on</strong> has previously posed for <strong>sex</strong>ually explicitpictures with or for any<strong>on</strong>e, including any<strong>on</strong>e involved in orrelated <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the making of the pornography; org. that any<strong>on</strong>e else, including a spouse or other relative, hasgiven permissi<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> the pers<strong>on</strong>’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>half; orh. that the pers<strong>on</strong> actually c<strong>on</strong>sented <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a use of aperfor<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ce that is then changed in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pornography; ori. that the pers<strong>on</strong> knew that the purpose of the acts or eventsin questi<strong>on</strong> was <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make pornography; orj. that the pers<strong>on</strong> showed no resistance or appeared <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>cooperate actively in the pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphic sessi<strong>on</strong>s or events thatproduced the pornography; ork. that the pers<strong>on</strong> signed a c<strong>on</strong>tract, or made statementsaffirming a willingness <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> cooperate in the producti<strong>on</strong> of thepornography; orl. that no physical force, threats, or weap<strong>on</strong>s were used inthe making of the pornography; or that the pers<strong>on</strong> was paid orotherwise compensated. 22This list was mistakenly interpreted by some opp<strong>on</strong>ents ofthe bill as implying that women cannot ever c<strong>on</strong>sent. That’snot what this list means at all. In a civil trial for coerci<strong>on</strong>, theburden of proof is <strong>on</strong> the plaintiff, who must prove that shewas actually coerced; <strong>and</strong> the defendants (the pornographers)can use every means at their disposal <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> prove that the plaintiffparticipated willingly. But the legal meaning of this list is that
132 REFUSING TO BE A MANjust <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> is a prostitute or married <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the produceror signed a release <strong>and</strong> so forth, that’s not grounds for throwinga case of alleged coerci<strong>on</strong> out of court <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore it can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> tried.Many people d<strong>on</strong>’t realize how pornography actuallyfuncti<strong>on</strong>s in the lives of its victims. They think of pornographyas simply some pictures that some l<strong>on</strong>ely guy masturbates <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>now <strong>and</strong> then. But that’s not entirely accurate. In fact there are<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y women <strong>on</strong> whom pornography is forced, sometimes byhusb<strong>and</strong>s, boyfriends, or lovers, <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y women who areassaulted in such a way that pornography is directly involvedin the assault. For instance, in a r<strong>and</strong>om survey of women inSan Francisco, 23 10 percent of the women interviewed saidthey had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en upset by a husb<strong>and</strong> or lover who was pressuringthem in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> doing something that they had seen in pornographicpictures, movies, or books. These are some of the things theysaid their husb<strong>and</strong>s or boyfriends had asked them <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do:It was physical slapping <strong>and</strong> hitting. It wasn’t a turn-<strong>on</strong>;it was more a feeling of <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing used as an object. Whatwas most upsetting was that he thought it would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> aturn-<strong>on</strong>.My husb<strong>and</strong> enjoys pornographic movies. He tries <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>get me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do things he finds exciting in movies. Theyinclude twosomes <strong>and</strong> threesomes. I always refuse. Also,I was always upset with his ideas about putting objects inmy vagina, until I learned this is not as deviant as I used<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> think. He used <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> force me or put whatever he wantedin<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> me.He forced me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> go down <strong>on</strong> him. He said he’d <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>engoing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> porno movies. He’d seen this <strong>and</strong> wanted me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>do it. He also wanted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pour champagne <strong>on</strong> my vagina. Igot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>at up <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause I didn’t want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do it. He pulled myhair <strong>and</strong> slapped me around. After that I went ahead <strong>and</strong>did it, but there was no feeling in it.This guy had seen a movie where a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> was <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ingmade love <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> by dogs. He suggested that some of hisfriends had a dog <strong>and</strong> we should have a party <strong>and</strong> set thedog loose <strong>on</strong> the women. He wanted me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> put a muzzle
JOHN STOLTENBERG 133<strong>on</strong> the dog <strong>and</strong> put some sort of stuff <strong>on</strong> my vagina sothat the dog would lick there.My old <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> I went <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a show that had lots of tyingup <strong>and</strong> anal intercourse. We came home <strong>and</strong> proceeded<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make love. He went out <strong>and</strong> got two <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lts. He tied myfeet <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether with <strong>on</strong>e, <strong>and</strong> with the other he kind of <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>atme. I was in the spirit, I really went al<strong>on</strong>g with it. Butwhen he tried <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> penetrate me anally, I couldn’t take it, itwas <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o painful. I <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>aged <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>vey <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him verbally <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>quit it. He did s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p, but not so<strong>on</strong> enough <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> suit me. Then<strong>on</strong>e time, he br<strong>and</strong>ed me. I still have a scar <strong>on</strong> my butt. Heput a little wax initial thing <strong>on</strong> a hot plate <strong>and</strong> then stuckit <strong>on</strong> my ass when I was unaware.My boyfriend <strong>and</strong> I saw a movie in which there wasmasochism. After that he wanted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> gag me <strong>and</strong> tie meup. He was s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ned, I was not. I was really shocked at his<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior. I was nervous <strong>and</strong> uptight. He literally tried <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>force me, after gagging me first. He snuck up <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>hind mewith a scarf. He was hurting me with it <strong>and</strong> I startedgetting upset. Then I realized it wasn’t a joke. Hegrab<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d me <strong>and</strong> shook me by my shoulders <strong>and</strong> brough<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ut some ropes, <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> relax, <strong>and</strong> that I wouldenjoy it. Then he started putting me down about myfeelings about <strong>sex</strong>, <strong>and</strong> my inhibitedness. I started crying<strong>and</strong> struggling with him, got loose, <strong>and</strong> kicked him in thetesticles, which forced him down <strong>on</strong> the couch. I ran ou<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>f the house. Next day he called <strong>and</strong> apologized, but thatwas the end of him. 24As mounting testim<strong>on</strong>y from pornography victims makesclear, the distincti<strong>on</strong> often made <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween “fantasy” <strong>and</strong>real <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior simply doesn’t st<strong>and</strong> up in the world ofpornography. If some<strong>on</strong>e forces their fantasy <strong>on</strong> you, thefantasy is no l<strong>on</strong>ger an abstract mental event; <strong>and</strong> if some<strong>on</strong>eacts out their fantasy of assaulting you, something reallyhappens. Often such “fantasies,” modeled after pic<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rialpornography, are modeled after what really happened <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thereal wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> in the pornography.
134 REFUSING TO BE A MANIn the Civil-Rights Antipornography Ordinance there is asec<strong>on</strong>d cause of acti<strong>on</strong> called forcing pornography <strong>on</strong> apers<strong>on</strong>. As this cause of acti<strong>on</strong> is defined, any pers<strong>on</strong> who isforced <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> watch pornography at home, in a place of work oreducati<strong>on</strong>, or in public is having their civil rights violated. Thepers<strong>on</strong> can sue the perpetra<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r <strong>and</strong> any instituti<strong>on</strong> that lets theabuse occur (just as in cases of <strong>sex</strong>ual harassment). Theimportance of this cause of acti<strong>on</strong> is obvious if you think aboutbattery: There is more <strong>and</strong> more testim<strong>on</strong>y coming frombattered women <strong>and</strong> from women working in batteredwomen’sshelters about the amount of <strong>sex</strong>ual abuse that isgenerated in marriages by men who are using pornography.There is also increasing testim<strong>on</strong>y about a growing incidence ofpornography-linked sadism in the home, including rape byanimals, br<strong>and</strong>ing, <strong>and</strong> maiming.A third cause of acti<strong>on</strong> is called assault or physical attackdue <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pornography. This provisi<strong>on</strong> enables any<strong>on</strong>e who has<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en raped or injured directly as a result of the use of a specificpiece of pornography <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sue the perpetra<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of the assault fordamages. The victim of the assault can also sue any<strong>on</strong>e whomade or sold the specific pornography for m<strong>on</strong>ey damages <strong>and</strong>for an injuncti<strong>on</strong> against further sale of it in the locality wherethe law is in force.A fourth cause of acti<strong>on</strong> is called trafficking inpornography. A kind of “class acti<strong>on</strong>” cause of acti<strong>on</strong>, it isbased <strong>on</strong> the noti<strong>on</strong> that pornography is a practice of <strong>sex</strong>discriminati<strong>on</strong> in <strong>and</strong> of itself. The trafficking provisi<strong>on</strong>basically says that if material meets the definiti<strong>on</strong> ofpornography in the law, it is <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong> by definiti<strong>on</strong>;<strong>and</strong> any wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, acting in <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>half of all women, can sue <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> haveit removed from the marketplace <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause of its impact <strong>on</strong> thecivil status of all women. (But no material may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> removedfrom sale under the trafficking provisi<strong>on</strong> without a trial de novo—a full court trial.) There is now a body of proof in the formof clinical evidence, social studies, research studies, <strong>and</strong> victimtestim<strong>on</strong>y that pornography produces hostility, bigotry,<strong>and</strong> aggressi<strong>on</strong> against women, <strong>and</strong> also attitudes <strong>and</strong>
JOHN STOLTENBERG 135<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>haviors of <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong>. The words of the preface <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>the Ordinance summarize these findings:Pornography is a systematic practice of exploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>subordinati<strong>on</strong> based <strong>on</strong> <strong>sex</strong> that differentially harms <strong>and</strong>disadvantages women. The harm of pornographyincludes dehu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>izati<strong>on</strong>, psychic assault, <strong>sex</strong>ualexploitati<strong>on</strong>, forced <strong>sex</strong>, forced prostituti<strong>on</strong>, physicalinjury, <strong>and</strong> social <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>ual terrorism <strong>and</strong> inferioritypresented as entertainment. The bigotry <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>temptpornography promotes, with the acts of aggressi<strong>on</strong> itfosters, diminish opportunities for equality of rights inemployment, educati<strong>on</strong>, property, publicaccommodati<strong>on</strong>s, <strong>and</strong> public services; create public <strong>and</strong>private harassment, persecuti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> denigrati<strong>on</strong>;promote injury <strong>and</strong> degradati<strong>on</strong> such as rape, battery,<strong>sex</strong>ual abuse of children, <strong>and</strong> prostituti<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> inhibitjust enforcement of laws against these acts; exposeindividuals who appear in pornography against their will<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tempt, ridicule, hatred, humiliati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong>embarrassment <strong>and</strong> target such women in particular forabuse <strong>and</strong> physical aggressi<strong>on</strong>; demean the reputati<strong>on</strong>s<strong>and</strong> diminish the occupati<strong>on</strong>al opportunities ofindividuals <strong>and</strong> groups <strong>on</strong> the basis of <strong>sex</strong>; c<strong>on</strong>tributesignificantly <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> restricting women in particular from fullexercise of citizenship <strong>and</strong> participati<strong>on</strong> in the life of thecommunity; lower the hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> dignity, worth, <strong>and</strong> civilstatus of women <strong>and</strong> damage mutual respect <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the<strong>sex</strong>es; <strong>and</strong> undermine women’s equal exercise of rights<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> speech <strong>and</strong> acti<strong>on</strong> guaranteed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> all citizens under the[C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>s] <strong>and</strong> [laws] of [place]. 25Under the trafficking provisi<strong>on</strong> of the Ordinance, any wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>has a cause of acti<strong>on</strong> acting against the subordinati<strong>on</strong> ofwomen as a class through the sale <strong>and</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> of particularpornography. In additi<strong>on</strong>, any <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, child, or trans<strong>sex</strong>ual canalso sue under this cause of acti<strong>on</strong>. They must prove that thepornography has the same impact <strong>on</strong> their civil status that it
136 REFUSING TO BE A MANhas <strong>on</strong> the civil status of women. This would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> easy forchildren, whose powerlessness in society is closely related <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>that of women. It would also <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> theoretically possible for blackmen <strong>and</strong> homo<strong>sex</strong>ual men, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause there exists pornographyabout them that <strong>sex</strong>ualizes the same kind of hatred <strong>and</strong>violence that are involved in lynching <strong>and</strong> gay-bashing.The following words are from a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> named Chuck, who,when he was twenty, after two painful years of marriage,separated from his wife <strong>and</strong> daughter <strong>and</strong> felt enormous rage<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward women for a year. His words expose the greatdifference <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the world that women live in <strong>and</strong> the worldthat men live in—<strong>and</strong> how pornography <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>ual violencekeep the civil status of those worlds different <strong>and</strong> unequal:Then <strong>on</strong>e night about a year after I split from my wife, Iwas out partyin’ <strong>and</strong> drinkin’ <strong>and</strong> smokin’ pot. I’d shotup some heroin <strong>and</strong> d<strong>on</strong>e some downers <strong>and</strong> I went <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> aporno books<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>re, put a quarter in the slot, <strong>and</strong> saw thisporn movie. It was just a guy coming up from <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>hind agirl <strong>and</strong> attacking her <strong>and</strong> raping her. That’s when Istarted having rape fantasies.When I seen that movie, it was like somebody lit afuse from my childhood <strong>on</strong> up. When that fuse got <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theporn movie, I exploded. I just went for it, went out <strong>and</strong>raped. It was like a little voice saying, “It’s all right, it’sall right, go ahead <strong>and</strong> rape <strong>and</strong> get your revenge; you’llnever get caught. Go out <strong>and</strong> rip off some girls. It’s allright; they even make movies of it.” The movie was justlike a big picture st<strong>and</strong> with words <strong>on</strong> it saying go out<strong>and</strong> do it, everybody’s doin’ it, even the movies.So I just went out that night <strong>and</strong> started lookin’. I wentup <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> this wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> grab<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d her breast; then I gotscared <strong>and</strong> ran. I went home <strong>and</strong> had the shakes real bad,<strong>and</strong> then I started likin’ the feeling of getting even withall women.The sec<strong>on</strong>d <strong>on</strong>e was at a college. I tried <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> talk <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thisgirl <strong>and</strong> she gave me some off-the-wall s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry. I chasedher in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a bathroom <strong>and</strong> grab<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>d her <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ld her that if
JOHN STOLTENBERG 137she screamed, I’d kill her. I had <strong>sex</strong> with her that lastedabout five minutes. When I first attacked her I wasn’teven turned <strong>on</strong>; I wanted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> dominate her. When I sawher get scared <strong>and</strong> hurt, then I got turned <strong>on</strong>. I wantedher <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel like she’d <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en drug through mud. I wantedher <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel a lot of pain <strong>and</strong> not enjoy n<strong>on</strong>e of it. Themore pain she felt, the higher I felt….I pulled out of her when I was about <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> come <strong>and</strong> I shotin her face <strong>and</strong> came all over her. It was like I pulled agun <strong>and</strong> blew her brains out. That was my fantasy…. 26The PenaltiesThe Civil-Rights Antipornography Ordinance has absolutelynothing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do with police acti<strong>on</strong>, a morals squad, or acensorship board; it would functi<strong>on</strong> entirely in the form ofcomplaints <strong>and</strong> civil suits brought by individual plaintiffs, notthrough prosecuti<strong>on</strong>s brought by the state. Under theOrdinance, a plaintiff could not get any<strong>on</strong>e arrested or put in jail,the police could not c<strong>on</strong>duct a raid, <strong>and</strong> there could not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> acriminal prosecuti<strong>on</strong>. The <strong>justice</strong> a plaintiff could get could takethese forms, depending <strong>on</strong> cause of acti<strong>on</strong>:• Under the coerci<strong>on</strong> provisi<strong>on</strong>, a pers<strong>on</strong> could sue for m<strong>on</strong>eydamages from the makers <strong>and</strong> distribu<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs of thepornography—the product of the coerci<strong>on</strong>—<strong>and</strong> a pers<strong>on</strong>could also sue for a court-ordered injuncti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get thepornography in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> which the pers<strong>on</strong> was coerced off themarket in the place where the Ordinance is law.• Under the provisi<strong>on</strong> about forcing pornography <strong>on</strong> some<strong>on</strong>e,a pers<strong>on</strong> could sue for m<strong>on</strong>ey damages from the perpetra<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r<strong>and</strong>/or the instituti<strong>on</strong> under whose authority the forcingoccurred, <strong>and</strong> for a court-ordered injuncti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>p anyfurther forcing of the pornography <strong>on</strong> the plaintiff.• Under the assault provisi<strong>on</strong>, a pers<strong>on</strong> could sue theperpetra<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>r of the assault for m<strong>on</strong>ey damages; in additi<strong>on</strong>,the assault victim could sue the makers <strong>and</strong> sellers of thepornography that was used in the assault both for m<strong>on</strong>ey
138 REFUSING TO BE A MANdamages <strong>and</strong> for an injuncti<strong>on</strong> against further sale of itwhere the Ordinance is in effect.• Similarly, under the trafficking provisi<strong>on</strong>, a pers<strong>on</strong> couldsue for m<strong>on</strong>ey damages from the makers, sellers,distribu<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs, <strong>and</strong> exhibi<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs <strong>and</strong> for removal of thepornography from sale in the designated city or area<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the pornography is <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong>. Under thetrafficking provisi<strong>on</strong>, a pers<strong>on</strong> couldn’t sue simply <strong>on</strong> thebasis of isolated passages in something, <strong>and</strong> any injuncti<strong>on</strong>could not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> enforced without a full court trial.Coerci<strong>on</strong>, force, assault, <strong>and</strong> trafficking are self-evidently not“speech” ; they are acts, <strong>and</strong> they must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> proven real <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>foreany<strong>on</strong>e can obtain relief under the Ordinance. The Ordinancerequires proof of everything—under st<strong>and</strong>ard rules of evidence—including whether there was actual coerci<strong>on</strong>, actual force,actual assault, actual trafficking, <strong>and</strong> whether the material inquesti<strong>on</strong> actually meets the statu<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry definiti<strong>on</strong>. The <strong>on</strong>ly thingthe Ordinance does not require proof of is whether these actsc<strong>on</strong>stitute <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong>. Essentially, the Ordinance says,if as a matter of fact such-<strong>and</strong>-such happened, then as a matterof law what happened was <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong>.Enforcement of penalties would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> by court order, <strong>and</strong>any<strong>on</strong>e found not complying with the order could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> found inc<strong>on</strong>tempt of court through a separate proceeding. Under theCivil-Rights Antipornography Ordinance, there are nopenalties for mere possessi<strong>on</strong> of any material, even if it meetsthe definiti<strong>on</strong> of pornography in the Ordinance <strong>and</strong> even if acourt orders an injuncti<strong>on</strong> against sale of it.The Statu<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry Definiti<strong>on</strong> of PornographyWhen a case is brought under any of the four causes of acti<strong>on</strong>,the plaintiff would have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> prove, am<strong>on</strong>g other things, that thealleged pornography is in fact pornography as defined in theOrdinance. The statu<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry definiti<strong>on</strong> is a very specific, narrow,<strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>crete <strong>on</strong>e compared with most definiti<strong>on</strong>s in law. It waswritten based <strong>on</strong> a thorough study of what is actually made,
JOHN STOLTENBERG 139bought, <strong>and</strong> sold <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day; it accurately descri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>s the materialactually produced by the ten-billi<strong>on</strong>-dollar-a-year pornographyindustry. It does not resemble definiti<strong>on</strong>s in an obscenity law inany way.Basically, the Ordinance says, something is pornography if<strong>and</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly if it meets four specific tests. Whether any givenmaterial meets the four tests is a matter that must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> proved asa finding of fact—by a hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>-rights commissi<strong>on</strong> or a court, ina trial, in an adversarial proceeding; <strong>and</strong> the burden of proof is<strong>on</strong> the plaintiff. Rules of evidence would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the same as in anycivil proceeding; <strong>and</strong> depending <strong>on</strong> how the Ordinance wasadopted in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> local civil-rights law, a judge, a jury, or in somecases the local hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>rights commissi<strong>on</strong> would decide thefactual questi<strong>on</strong>. If it cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> proved that the material meetsall four tests, then no cause of acti<strong>on</strong> involving it can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>sustained. The four tests are:1. It must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> graphic. This means, essentially, that it must<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> unambiguous—not merely implied or suggested.And:2. It must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>ually explicit. The words “<strong>sex</strong>uallyexplicit” are not defined within the Ordinance <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>causeaccumulated case law has given them a meaning—specificgenital acts, sadomasochism, <strong>and</strong> so forth—that courts havealready found <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> clear. Hence the Ordinance excludesanything that is merely <strong>sex</strong>ually suggestive or anything inwhich <strong>sex</strong>ual activity is simply implicit, not explicit <strong>and</strong>graphically shown.And:3. It must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> the subordinati<strong>on</strong> of women. The word“subordinati<strong>on</strong>” is used exactly in its ordinary dicti<strong>on</strong>arymeaning: the act of subordinating; the act of placing in a lowerorder, class, or rank; the act of making subject or subservient,<strong>and</strong> so forth. (This happens <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a paraphrase of Webster’sThird New Internati<strong>on</strong>al, though other dicti<strong>on</strong>aries are prettysimilar.) Crucially, the word “subordinati<strong>on</strong>” as used in theOrdinance is a noun specifying an act (or, as Dworkin <strong>and</strong>MacKinn<strong>on</strong> have often called it, a practice). Thus, in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>meet the statu<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry definiti<strong>on</strong> of pornography, something may
140 REFUSING TO BE A MANnot merely advocate or express the subordinate status ofwomen; but rather, it must itself actively subordinate women—<strong>and</strong> there must <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> proof (in court, in a trial) that it does so.Because the word “subordinati<strong>on</strong>” is unfamiliar in thisparticular legal c<strong>on</strong>text, it has provoked a lot of c<strong>on</strong>tro versy<strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong>; yet the idea of subordinati<strong>on</strong> has a clearprecedent in <strong>sex</strong>-discriminati<strong>on</strong> law. What is original in theOrdinance is the c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> it makes <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the harm <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> aclass of people (women) through <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong> that takesthe particular form of pornography. This unique approach no<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nly defines materials that do harm <strong>on</strong> the basis of that harm;it also defines these materials according <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a particular type ofharm (that is, <strong>sex</strong> discriminati<strong>on</strong>), <strong>and</strong> thus it creates a claimunder civil-rights law. This legal innovati<strong>on</strong> profoundlydistinguishes the civil-rights approach from the his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry ofobscenity litigati<strong>on</strong> in this country, which has never <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en based<strong>on</strong> a showing of actual harm <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> any actual people.The definiti<strong>on</strong> of pornography in the Ordinance is bothgender-specific <strong>and</strong> gender-inclusive. The definiti<strong>on</strong> firstenumerates what the pornography does according <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the waysit uses women, but then a separate clause extends the definiti<strong>on</strong><str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> encompass material that actively subordinates men,children, <strong>and</strong> trans<strong>sex</strong>uals in the same way that women aresubordinated in pornography.And:4. It must include at least <strong>on</strong>e from a list of specificscenarios listed in the Ordinance. The Minneapolis versi<strong>on</strong>of the law listed nine scenarios. A later versi<strong>on</strong> of theOrdinance was passed in Indianapolis that c<strong>on</strong>densed this list<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> six <strong>and</strong> focused <strong>on</strong> more overtly violent pornography. First,here is the Minneapolis versi<strong>on</strong>:a. women are presented dehu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ized as <strong>sex</strong>ual objects,things or commodities; orb. women are presented as <strong>sex</strong>ual objects who enjoy pain orhumiliati<strong>on</strong>; orc. women are presented as <strong>sex</strong>ual objects who experience<strong>sex</strong>ual pleasure in <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing raped; or
JOHN STOLTENBERG 141d. women are presented as <strong>sex</strong>ual objects tied up or cut up ormutilated or bruised or physically hurt; ore. women are presented in postures of <strong>sex</strong>ual submissi<strong>on</strong>; orf. women’s body parts—including but not limited <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>vaginas, breasts, <strong>and</strong> but<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>cks—are exhibited, such that womenare reduced <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those parts; org. women are presented as whores by nature; orh. women are presented <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing penetrated by objects oranimals; ori. women are presented in scenarios of degradati<strong>on</strong>, injury,abasement, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding,bruised, or hurt in a c<strong>on</strong>text that makes these c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s<strong>sex</strong>ual. 27Here is the Indianapolis list of scenarios:a. women are presented as <strong>sex</strong>ual objects who enjoy pain orhumiliati<strong>on</strong>; orb. women are presented as <strong>sex</strong>ual objects who experience<strong>sex</strong>ual pleasure in <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing raped; orc. women are presented as <strong>sex</strong>ual objects tied up or cut up ormutilated or bruised or physically hurt, or as dismem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>red ortruncated or fragmented or severed in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> body parts; ord. women are presented <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing penetrated by objects oranimals; ore. women are presented in scenarios of degradati<strong>on</strong>, injury,abasement, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rture, shown as filthy or inferior, bleeding,bruised, or hurt in a c<strong>on</strong>text that makes these c<strong>on</strong>diti<strong>on</strong>s<strong>sex</strong>ual; [or]f. women are presented as <strong>sex</strong>ual objects for dominati<strong>on</strong>,c<strong>on</strong>quest, violati<strong>on</strong>, exploitati<strong>on</strong>, possessi<strong>on</strong>, or use, or throughpostures or positi<strong>on</strong>s of servility or submissi<strong>on</strong> or display.[Note: Material that meets <strong>on</strong>ly this sixth criteri<strong>on</strong> wouldnot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> acti<strong>on</strong>able under the Indianapolis trafficking provisi<strong>on</strong>—an excepti<strong>on</strong> that came <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> called “the Playboy exempti<strong>on</strong>.” ] 28Material has <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> meet all the parts of the statu<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry definiti<strong>on</strong>or else a lawsuit involving it cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> brought for any reas<strong>on</strong>—not coerci<strong>on</strong>, not forcing it <strong>on</strong> some<strong>on</strong>e, not assault, <strong>and</strong> nottrafficking. For example, material that is <strong>sex</strong>ually explicit butpremised <strong>on</strong> equality could never fall under this law. The law
142 REFUSING TO BE A MANdoes not proscri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> graphic nudity by itself, graphic <strong>sex</strong>ualexplicitness by itself, any particular graphic c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong> ofsimilar or different genitals, or any material such as <strong>sex</strong>istadvertising that might arguably subordinate women but that isnot <strong>sex</strong>ually explicit, or anything else that is not pornographyas defined: “the graphic <strong>sex</strong>ually explicit subordinati<strong>on</strong> ofwomen.”The Civil-Rights Approach versusObscenity LawThe statu<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry definiti<strong>on</strong> defines pornography in terms of whomit harms—those whom it causes injury <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> by putting down.Obscenity laws do not even menti<strong>on</strong> the word “pornography” ;they are criminal laws against obscenity, which is often definedin very vague words like “lewd” <strong>and</strong> “lascivious” (<strong>and</strong> whichcase law talks of as “morbid” <strong>and</strong> “depraved” ). The SupremeCourt has decided that material is obscene <strong>and</strong> therefore illegalif it meets the so-called Miller test. One part of this testrequires that “the average pers<strong>on</strong>, applying c<strong>on</strong>temporarycommunity st<strong>and</strong>ards, would find that the work, taken as awhole, appeals <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the prurient interest.” In effect, this definesobscenity in terms of whom it turns <strong>on</strong>.The Civil-Rights Antipornography Ordinance definespornography that is acti<strong>on</strong>able in terms of injury <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> victims—either <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> individual victims or <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> victims as a class. Obscenitylaws, however, are written <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> outlaw material that offendspublic morals. A sec<strong>on</strong>d clause in the Miller test, for instance,defines material as criminally obscene if “the work depicts ordescri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>s, in a patently offensive way, <strong>sex</strong>ual c<strong>on</strong>ductspecifically defined by the state law.” This refers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the factthat <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y state obscenity laws specifically prohibit depicti<strong>on</strong>sof certain <strong>sex</strong> acts, including any same-<strong>sex</strong> <strong>sex</strong> acts.A third part of the Miller test permits an obscenity ban if“the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic,political, or scientific value.” This part of obscenity laws hasallowed pornographers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> wrap the exploitati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong>
subordinati<strong>on</strong> of women inside high-<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ned intellectual articles<strong>and</strong> peddle the product for astr<strong>on</strong>omical profit.Obscenity laws are inherently subjective <strong>and</strong> arbitrary intheir applicati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they criminalize a noti<strong>on</strong> ofindecency that does no real harm. There’s no evidence tha<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>bscenity causes any harm. But there’s a lot of evidence thatpornography—as defined in the civil-rights Ordinance—isharmful.These two lists summarize the differences <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the useof a civil-rights approach <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>fr<strong>on</strong>t pornography <strong>and</strong> the useof obscenity law.CIVIL-RIGHTS APPROACHA civil lawComplaint or lawsuitinitiated by plaintiff with acause of acti<strong>on</strong>Adjudicated by hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>-rightscommissi<strong>on</strong> or tried in civilcourtRemedies for violated civilrights: m<strong>on</strong>ey damages <strong>and</strong>/or injuncti<strong>on</strong>Pornography definedaccording <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> harmClaim based <strong>on</strong> jury <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> victimJOHN STOLTENBERG 143OBSCENITY LAWA criminal lawState prosecuti<strong>on</strong> triggeredby police officer with apercepti<strong>on</strong> of moral offenseTried in criminal courtPunishment for violati<strong>on</strong> ofstatute: impris<strong>on</strong>ment, fine,censorshipObscenity defined by arousalCrime based <strong>on</strong> offense <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>public moralsClass injury: subordinati<strong>on</strong> Community offense:“indecency”The Civil-rights Antipornography Ordinance was drafted <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>address this central harm: the subordinati<strong>on</strong> of women. Theradical-feminist underst<strong>and</strong>ing that women are subordinated, inpart, through <strong>sex</strong> itself is pivotal <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the underst<strong>and</strong>ing thatdeveloped this Ordinance, although it specifically does notaddress private <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>havior—it addresses <strong>on</strong>ly the subordinati<strong>on</strong>
144 REFUSING TO BE A MANof women that is tied <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the producti<strong>on</strong>, distributi<strong>on</strong>, sale, <strong>and</strong>c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> of pornography.Ir<strong>on</strong>ically, the emergence of the Civil-RightsAntipornography Ordinance has brought out of the closetunusually widespread support for obscenity laws. Decisi<strong>on</strong>swritten <strong>on</strong> it so far by both district- <strong>and</strong> appeals-court judgeshave cited obscenity laws reverentially, of course. But evenoutside the judiciary, every<strong>on</strong>e from the pornographers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theirACLU fr<strong>on</strong>t people now seems <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> think obscenity laws are justd<strong>and</strong>y. The pornographers routinely budget legal defense as acost of doing business, a few of their lawyers get hefty fees, notmuch stuff ever gets prosecuted <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the laws d<strong>on</strong>’t workvery well anymore, even less gets taken off the market,organized crime c<strong>on</strong>tinues <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> profit from pornographyenormously, <strong>and</strong> no <strong>on</strong>e who’s actually hurt has any rights <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>recover diddly squat.In fact the most cogent legal <strong>and</strong> political critique ofobscenity laws <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day is coming from radical-feministantipornography activists. Most notably, for instance, AndreaDworkin has argued vehemently against obscenity laws forfive specific reas<strong>on</strong>s: 291. Obscenity laws have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come the formula for makingpornography. According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> present law, so l<strong>on</strong>g as the <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rturedbodies of women are marketed in a socially redeeming wrapper—some literary, artistic, political, or scientific value—itdoesn’t matter what the pornographers do <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women.2. The prurient-interest test of obscenity is irrelevant <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thereality of what is happening <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women in pornography. In fact,this test has probably c<strong>on</strong>tributed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the producti<strong>on</strong> of more <strong>and</strong>more sadistic pornography, since the more repulsive thematerial, the less likely a jury would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lieve that anaverage pers<strong>on</strong> would find it <strong>sex</strong>ually arousing. Moreover, theSupreme Court has recently “clarified” the prurient-interesttest by taking two syn<strong>on</strong>yms, “lust” <strong>and</strong> “lasciviousness,” <strong>and</strong>saying that they mean different things, which now means thatthis criteri<strong>on</strong> is even more meaningless <strong>and</strong> mind-boggling.3. The community-st<strong>and</strong>ards test is also irrelevant <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whatpornography does <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women. What do community st<strong>and</strong>ards
JOHN STOLTENBERG 145mean in a society where violence against women is virtuallythe norm, where battery is the most comm<strong>on</strong>ly committedviolent crime, where fewer than <strong>on</strong>e out of every ten womenever makes it through her lifetime unharassed <strong>and</strong> unassaulted<strong>sex</strong>ually? 30 For that matter, what do community st<strong>and</strong>ardsmean given the power of pornography <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> change how muchviolence <strong>and</strong> callousness <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ward women that people willc<strong>on</strong>d<strong>on</strong>e, a power that social-science research hasdem<strong>on</strong>strated time <strong>and</strong> time again? And as Dworkin says, “Whatwould community st<strong>and</strong>ards have meant in the segregatedSouth? What would community st<strong>and</strong>ards have meant as weapproached the atrocity of Nazi Ger<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y? What arecommunity st<strong>and</strong>ards in a society where women are persecutedfor <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing women <strong>and</strong> pornography is a form of politicalpersecuti<strong>on</strong>?” 314. Obscenity laws are completely inadequate <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the reality of<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day’s technology. They were drafted in an age whenobscenity was c<strong>on</strong>strued <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> essentially writing <strong>and</strong> drawing,but now there is the mass producti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> of realpho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graphic documentati<strong>on</strong>s of real people <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing hurt.Meanwhile obscenity laws are c<strong>on</strong>structed <strong>on</strong> the presumpti<strong>on</strong>that it is women’s bodies that are dirty, that women’s bodiesare the filth, which is also a major pornographic theme <strong>and</strong>which completely misses the point of what happens <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> realwomen in <strong>and</strong> through pornography.5. Obscenity laws are <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>tally useless for interrupting thebigotry, hostility, aggressi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>ual abuse thatpornography creates against women. The <strong>on</strong>ly thing obscenitylaws have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en able <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do, at the discreti<strong>on</strong> of police <strong>and</strong>prosecu<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs, is occasi<strong>on</strong>ally <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep a few items out of thepublic view. But these laws have had virtually no effect <strong>on</strong> theavailability of pornography <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> men in private, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> individualmen, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> all-male groups. Pornography is still used in private aspart of <strong>sex</strong>ual abuse. The pornography itself is still producedthrough blackmail, through coerci<strong>on</strong>, through exploitati<strong>on</strong>; <strong>and</strong>the pornography industry is thriving, making more <strong>and</strong> morem<strong>on</strong>ey over more <strong>and</strong> more women’s dead or near-dead bodies.
146 REFUSING TO BE A MANThe Legislative <strong>and</strong> Judicial Progress ofthe OrdinanceThe original Civil-Rights Antipornography Ordinance asauthored by Dworkin <strong>and</strong> MacKinn<strong>on</strong> was passed by theMinneapolis City Council for the first time Decem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r 30, 1983.Needless <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say, what happened in Minneapolis <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came anati<strong>on</strong>al as<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nishment. Shock waves went out. Many allegedlyprogressive people had a basic problem with the Ordinance: It<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ok a st<strong>and</strong> against eroticized dominati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> subordinati<strong>on</strong>;it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ok a st<strong>and</strong> against male-supremacist <strong>sex</strong>; it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ok a st<strong>and</strong>against the very <strong>sex</strong>ual c<strong>on</strong>duct that makes in<strong>justice</strong> feel <strong>sex</strong>y.There was a rather widespread horror at the noti<strong>on</strong> that awo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, a mere wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, might ever enter a courtroom <strong>and</strong>possibly prove—through cum<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rsome <strong>and</strong> expensive litigati<strong>on</strong>—that a particular <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ifestati<strong>on</strong> of male supremacist <strong>sex</strong> hadinjured her <strong>and</strong> that her injury had specifically <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do with thefact that she was a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>. The new law would let a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>prove that a particular instance of male-supremacist <strong>sex</strong> hadd<strong>on</strong>e what male-supremacist <strong>sex</strong> is after all supposed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do:make her inferior <strong>and</strong> harm her, make her subordinate, makeher suffer the <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom of men. So it <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>came a questi<strong>on</strong>of community st<strong>and</strong>ards, of how much <strong>justice</strong> a city could<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lerate.Opp<strong>on</strong>ents raised an issue of freedom of speech that wasreally an issue about freedom of <strong>sex</strong>. Their argument wasreally an argument for the <strong>sex</strong>uality that feels its freedom mostexquisitely when it is negating some<strong>on</strong>e else’s freedom. It wasabout wanting <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep safe the style of <strong>sex</strong>ual subordinati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>which they had <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come accus<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>med, the <strong>sex</strong>ual freedom thatabhors <strong>sex</strong>ual <strong>justice</strong>, the <strong>sex</strong>uality that can get hard <strong>and</strong> come<strong>on</strong>ly when it is oblivious <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> another pers<strong>on</strong>’s hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> rights.And it was an argument <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep off the public record anyacknowledgement that male-supremacist <strong>sex</strong> is dangerous,especially <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women.Perhaps most profoundly, the antipornography Ordinancewould help make victims c<strong>on</strong>scious of their civil rights. Theexistence of the Ordinance would have an important effect
JOHN STOLTENBERG 147symbolically in terms of helping carve out socialc<strong>on</strong>sciousness about what equal rights for women really mustmean. Just as the existence of laws against marital rape has a“ripple effect” <strong>on</strong> people’s minds—sending out the messagethat women are not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> raped in marriage, even <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> those whod<strong>on</strong>’t use the laws against it—this Ordinance would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> acommunity’s declarati<strong>on</strong> that women have civil rights thatpornography may not trample <strong>on</strong>. And that would have aradical effect: That would shake male supremacy <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> its core—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the pleasure of subordinating a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>sex</strong>uallydepends <strong>on</strong> men’s social certainty that she is civilly if notphysically powerless <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fight back. But if she can genuinelyfight back <strong>and</strong> get <strong>justice</strong>, the subordinati<strong>on</strong> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ps feeling so<strong>sex</strong>y.On January 5, 1984, the Ordinance was ve<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed by MayorD<strong>on</strong>ald M. Fraser—an ostensibly li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral <strong>and</strong> progressivepolitician who is active in Amnesty Internati<strong>on</strong>al protestingpolitical <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rture abroad. He said the Ordinance abridged theFirst Amendment.The bill was passed again by a newly elected city council inJuly 1984, <strong>and</strong> again the mayor ve<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed it, this time <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause hesaid it would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>o expensive <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> defend in the courts against asuit that the ACLU had promised <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> bring if the city passed thelaw. At the same time that he ve<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ed the civil-rightsantipornography bill, he signed a new criminal obscenity law,which was more misogynistic <strong>and</strong> homophobic than the law itwas replacing, <strong>and</strong> which the ACLU voiced no objecti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>.He also signed a criminal law requiring opaque covers <strong>on</strong>pornography. In Minneapolis, both city councils that passedthe Ordinance were primarily li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral; the sec<strong>on</strong>d city councilwas almost entirely Democratic.Meanwhile, a slightly modified versi<strong>on</strong> of the law—with thedefiniti<strong>on</strong> of pornography narrowed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> focus <strong>on</strong>ly <strong>on</strong> overtlyviolent pornography—was passed by the Indianapolis CityCouncil in April 1984. Indianapolis mayor William H. HudnutIII readily signed it in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> law, but he <strong>and</strong> the city were suedwithin an hour by a group called the Media Coaliti<strong>on</strong>, analliance of trade groups including booksellers <strong>and</strong> video sellers
148 REFUSING TO BE A MAN<strong>and</strong> magazine distribu<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs, with backing from the ACLU.Unfortunately the City of Indianapolis was sued for passingthis law <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore any pers<strong>on</strong> could file a complaint under it,<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause enforcement was enjoined, again <strong>on</strong> First Amendmentgrounds. This meant that the Media Coaliti<strong>on</strong> suit was a “paperchallenge,” <strong>and</strong> the district court was asked <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> judge the lawwithout a real case of a real hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing alleging that her civilrights have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en injured <strong>and</strong> trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> use the law <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get some<strong>justice</strong>. In Novem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r 1984, District Court Judge Sarah EvansBarker issued her opini<strong>on</strong> that the Ordinance wasunc<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>al. The Ordinance, as she acknowledged, poses ac<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>flict “<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween the First Amendmentguarantees of free speech, <strong>on</strong> the <strong>on</strong>e h<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> the FourteenthAmendment right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> free from <strong>sex</strong>-based discriminati<strong>on</strong>, <strong>on</strong>the other h<strong>and</strong>.” 32 But Judge Barker, a Reagan appointee,decided that <strong>sex</strong>-discriminati<strong>on</strong> interests never outweigh FirstAmendment interests—despite Supreme Court rulings <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thec<strong>on</strong>trary. 33 Barker’s decisi<strong>on</strong> was full of naïve peculiarities,such as this: “Adult women generally have the capacity <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>protect themselves from participating in <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing pers<strong>on</strong>allyvictimized by pornography” —<strong>and</strong> therefore, she argued, “theState’s interest in safeguarding the psychological well-<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing ofwomen…[is] not so compelling as <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sacrifice the guaranteesof the First Amendment.” 34 Also, Judge Barker’s decisi<strong>on</strong>seemed not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> based <strong>on</strong> any familiarity with very muchpornography itself. Take, for example the pictures in theDecem<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>r 1984 Penthouse showing Asian women hung fromtrees, tied up in bundles like heaps of dead flesh, with roughhemp ropes bound through their bare genitals, their faceshidden <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>hind masks. Penthouse publisher Bob Gucci<strong>on</strong>e, in aletter <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> The New York Times, defended those pictures as“cultural illustrati<strong>on</strong>.” 35 But it was real acti<strong>on</strong> that producedthese pictures. Real things were d<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> real women. Thewomen had <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> abused <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get the pictures of women <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ingabused. According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Gucci<strong>on</strong>e, they are mere illustrati<strong>on</strong>s.According <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> Judge Barker, there is <strong>on</strong>ly speech there:protected speech <strong>and</strong> no lack of freedom. Apparently, <strong>on</strong>e c<strong>and</strong>o anything <strong>on</strong>e wants <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women so l<strong>on</strong>g as there’s a
JOHN STOLTENBERG 149pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>grapher taking pictures <strong>and</strong> so l<strong>on</strong>g as <strong>on</strong>e owns themeans <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> sell those pictures far <strong>and</strong> wide.Vowing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> take the Ordinance all the way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the SupremeCourt, the City of Indianapolis next appealed Judge Barker’sruling <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals inChicago. The decisi<strong>on</strong> written for that court by Judge FrankEsterbrook acknowledged that pornography does “perpetuatesubordinati<strong>on</strong>” of women <strong>and</strong> that” [t]he subordinate status ofwomen in turn leads <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> affr<strong>on</strong>t <strong>and</strong> lower pay at work, insult<strong>and</strong> injury at home, battery <strong>and</strong> rape <strong>on</strong> the streets.” However,Esterbrook, like Barker a Reagan appointee, declared that “thissimply dem<strong>on</strong>strates the power of pornography as speech” <strong>and</strong>therefore, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause this harm <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women is d<strong>on</strong>e through speech,the C<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> protects it. 36Appealing finally <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the Supreme Court, at<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rneys forIndianapolis argued:The legislative record shows that the pornographyindustry produces verbal <strong>and</strong> visual <strong>sex</strong>ual entertainmentmade from coerci<strong>on</strong>, rape, ex<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rti<strong>on</strong>, exploitati<strong>on</strong>,intimidati<strong>on</strong>, fraud <strong>and</strong> unequal opportunities. Thismaterial then engenders coerci<strong>on</strong>, rape, ex<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rti<strong>on</strong>,exploitati<strong>on</strong>, intimidati<strong>on</strong>, fraud <strong>and</strong> unequalopportunities through its c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong>. Pornography, asdefined [in the Ordinance], <strong>and</strong> when coerced, forced <strong>on</strong>individuals, the cause of assault, or actively trafficked, isinseparable from aggressi<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> terror, crimes, <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rts, <strong>and</strong>unspeakable indignities. Although men are alsovictimized <strong>and</strong> also covered [by the Ordinance], women<strong>and</strong> children are [pornography’s] primary targets <strong>and</strong>victims.Having accepted this reality, each [lower] court ruledthat s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>pping this in<strong>justice</strong> is not as important <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theC<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong> as inflicting it…. To assign such a lowvalue <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women’s rights, without weighing them againstthis means of <strong>sex</strong>-specific victimizati<strong>on</strong>, is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> legitimize<strong>sex</strong> inequality. 37
150 REFUSING TO BE A MANFinally, in February 1986, the Supreme Court voted six <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>three not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hear oral arguments in the case <strong>and</strong> affirmed JudgeEsterbrook’s appeals-court decisi<strong>on</strong>, which had said, in effect,that a legislative excepti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the First Amendment cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>made based <strong>on</strong> a showing of social harm—at least <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women—which is simply not true as a matter of law. By affirming thisbroad appeals-court ruling, the Supreme Court effectivelyshielded the harms d<strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women by pornographers in a waythat could seriously undercut <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y other legal efforts <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>balance the rights of injured parties against those who aredoing the injury in part through speech—such as anti-Klanwork. Because Esterbrook’s ruling was at pains <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> reach backin<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry <strong>and</strong> provide a sweeping First Amendmentprotecti<strong>on</strong> for even “Hitler’s orati<strong>on</strong>s [, which] affected howsome Ger<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>s saw Jews,” 38 some in the radical-feministantipornography movement called it “a progenocide decisi<strong>on</strong>.”Catharine A. MacKinn<strong>on</strong>, a coauthor of the IndianapolisOrdinance, said that the Supreme Court vote <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> affirmEsterbrook’s decisi<strong>on</strong> shows “women’s rights are a joke.” 39And coauthor Andrea Dworkin called the decisi<strong>on</strong> outrageous:“It shows that the legal system protects the pornographyindustry <strong>and</strong> anything that the pornography system does <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>women is all right…. I d<strong>on</strong>’t underst<strong>and</strong> how it is that a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing cut up with knives is an expressi<strong>on</strong> of a point of viewthat gets First Amendment protecti<strong>on</strong>.” 40The Ordinance <strong>and</strong> the First AmendmentThe particular legal <strong>and</strong> moral issue <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing raised aboutpornography <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day by radical feminists is about howpornography in particular works, what pornography inparticular does, <strong>and</strong> the particular way that in pornographyspeech <strong>and</strong> acti<strong>on</strong> are meshed.The issues <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing raised about pornography by radicalfeminists are legally <strong>and</strong> politically original—they arecompletely different, for instance, from social-purity crusades.The issue of pornography, as raised by radical feminists, turns<strong>on</strong> whether pornographers should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> able <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hide <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>hind
JOHN STOLTENBERG 151claimed First Amendment rights in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> promote hostility,bigotry, aggressi<strong>on</strong>, <strong>and</strong> assault against individual women <strong>and</strong>women as a class.Casting the issue this way results in social-policy questi<strong>on</strong>ssuch as these:• How much abuse should the First Amendment shield?• To what extent does the First Amendment immunize <strong>sex</strong>ualexploitati<strong>on</strong>?• To what extent is the state’s ostensible interest in ending <strong>sex</strong>discriminati<strong>on</strong> compatible with the pornographers’ec<strong>on</strong>omic incentive <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> perpetuate it?• Does the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equalprotecti<strong>on</strong> apply <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women who are injured in or throughpornography?• If harm is d<strong>on</strong>e in part through speech—if there is, forinstance, an injury <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> an individual in the producti<strong>on</strong> of theso-called speech, or if something called speech is used <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hurtsome<strong>on</strong>e thous<strong>and</strong>s <strong>and</strong> thous<strong>and</strong>s of times over—does thefact that speech is involved mean that the injury may not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>redressed?There are already <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y existing excepti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> FirstAmendment protecti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause certain forms of expressi<strong>on</strong>cause harm, especially harm that cannot <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> redressed orund<strong>on</strong>e by more speech:• Child pornography, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause of a recent Supreme Courtdecisi<strong>on</strong>, is criminally banned. (Both the Media Coaliti<strong>on</strong><strong>and</strong> the ACLU, incidentally, opposed any law against childpornography, arguing that it must+protected speech.)• Obscenity, legally, is not even c<strong>on</strong>sidered speech—eventhough it exists in words <strong>and</strong> pictures.• Li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l <strong>and</strong> group li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l are still prohibited, even though thereis much c<strong>on</strong>fusi<strong>on</strong> about how the laws should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> applied<strong>and</strong> interpreted.• “Fighting words” are not protected—for instance, a pers<strong>on</strong>cannot walk up <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> you <strong>on</strong> the street <strong>and</strong> call you a “fascist,”
152 REFUSING TO BE A MAN<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause the presumpti<strong>on</strong> is that the insult will provokeviolence, <strong>and</strong> therefore it is not protected.• Incitement <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> violence is not protected.• Blackmail <strong>and</strong> bri<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry are crimes d<strong>on</strong>e through words thatdo not have First Amendment protecti<strong>on</strong>.The harm of pornography is not identical <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the harm causedby any of these unprotected types of speech, yet there are <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ysimilarities in how these excepti<strong>on</strong>s have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en argued legally.But <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause women have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en systematically excluded fromhu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>rights c<strong>on</strong>siderati<strong>on</strong>s, there is not yet a clear-cutprecedent for legal arguments for new law that addresses theeffects of pornography <strong>on</strong> women: civil inferiority <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>ualabuse. That’s why a major part of the effort <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> pass the Civil-Rights Antipornography Ordinance is <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> bring in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the legalsystem feminist legal arguments that take the reality ofwomen’s lives seriously.There is a more radical First Amendment issue that theCivil-Rights Antipornography Ordinance brings up as well.The First Amendment protects those who have already spokenfrom state interference. But women <strong>and</strong> blacks, in particular,have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en systematically excluded from public discourse bycivil inferiority, ec<strong>on</strong>omic powerlessness, <strong>and</strong> violence. Rightnow, the First Amendment protects those who can buycommunicati<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> allows them <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> use communicati<strong>on</strong> as aclub against the powerless.Pornography—the making, the selling, <strong>and</strong> the use of it—often silences women <strong>and</strong> makes women afraid <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> st<strong>and</strong> up fortheir rights as equal hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ings; meanwhile the richpornography industry spends milli<strong>on</strong>s of dollars <strong>on</strong> lawyers <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>protect its right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> keep saying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> women, in effect: “You arenothing but a whore <strong>and</strong> men should <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> able <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do anythingthey want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> you.”The First Amendment can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a bulwark of freedom <strong>on</strong>lywhen it is used <strong>and</strong> unders<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>od <strong>and</strong> h<strong>on</strong>ored in c<strong>on</strong>juncti<strong>on</strong>with rights of equality, in particular the principles underlyingthe Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protecti<strong>on</strong>under law. One of the main reas<strong>on</strong>s there needs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> this Civil-
JOHN STOLTENBERG 153Rights Antipornography Ordinance is that <strong>sex</strong>ual abuse <strong>and</strong>civil worthlessness silence women—<strong>and</strong> in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> havedemocratic discourse, <strong>on</strong>e must have women’s speech.Strangely, <strong>on</strong>e hears some of the most dire warnings abouthow this Ordinance could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> abused from people in theprogressive legal community, those same folks who, undervirtually every other circumstance of in<strong>justice</strong>, look <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> everypossible innovative applicati<strong>on</strong> of the law for redressing actualharm <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> actual individuals. But in the case of pornography,they seem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make an excepti<strong>on</strong> a mile wide. “No,”this progressive legal community seems <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> say, “the harm d<strong>on</strong>eby pornography ought not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> redressed through anyc<strong>on</strong>ceivable applicati<strong>on</strong> of the law.” On the issue ofpornography, there exists an apparent c<strong>on</strong>vergence of legalopini<strong>on</strong>, from “li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ral” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> “c<strong>on</strong>servative,” <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the effect that thelaw can <strong>on</strong>ly “protect” if it is protecting the rights of theexploiters. Even more as<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>nishing is all these lawyers’apparent failure even <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> imagine that the law might weigh <strong>and</strong>balance the rights of the exploiters <strong>and</strong> the rights of the harmed.Their implicit distrust in the law as an instrument of effecting<strong>justice</strong> here is truly staggering.What the Civil-Rights Approach WouldAchieveThe Ordinance would definitely hurt the pornography industry.Pornographers could not operate with impunity anymore.They would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> hurt ec<strong>on</strong>omically; they would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> at risklegally; <strong>and</strong> they would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> hurt in their social legitimacy,which they very much want. Ec<strong>on</strong>omically, the Ordinancewould, as its drafters have suggested, “take the profit motiveout of rape.” The threat of civil liability would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> an ec<strong>on</strong>omicdisincentive <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> actively subordinate women through theproducti<strong>on</strong> <strong>and</strong> distributi<strong>on</strong> of materials that do that. Also,through the use of discovery moti<strong>on</strong>s in civil trials, informati<strong>on</strong>about pornographers’ financial dealings <strong>and</strong> other matterscould <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> obtained. This informati<strong>on</strong> could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> used, as Dworkin
154 REFUSING TO BE A MANhas suggested, 41 <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> develop prosecuti<strong>on</strong>s against organizedcrimeinvolvement in the industry.But just as significantly, the Ordinance would empowervictims; it would empower the exploited <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fight back againstthe exploiters.This would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a feminist law, designed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> bring the feministanalysis of women’s inequality through <strong>sex</strong>ual exploitati<strong>on</strong>in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the center of public policy <strong>and</strong> c<strong>on</strong>stituti<strong>on</strong>aljurisprudence. This is a law that would increase civil li<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>rties—extend the right of speech <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y who are now part of asilent, powerless victim class—people who have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en hurt <strong>and</strong>who have no legal way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> fight back for <strong>justice</strong>.And essentially, this would <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> an equality law, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause itwould attack <strong>sex</strong> inequality <strong>and</strong> the civil inferiority of womenhead <strong>on</strong>: by de<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ding hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> rights for women, byde<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ding hu<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> dignity for women, by de<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ding an end <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>the buying <strong>and</strong> selling of women’s bodies <strong>and</strong> <strong>sex</strong>uality <strong>and</strong> anend <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the profit from <strong>sex</strong>ual abuse that is presented asentertainment.
PART IVACTIVISM AND MORAL,SELFHOOD
FEMINIST ACTIVISM ANDMALE SEXUAL IDENTITYFor a panel about what directi<strong>on</strong> “the men’s movement” should takeAt issue: reproductive freedom.Pregnant poor women,denied dignity,denied integrity,denied a safe home.Now their lives hang in the balanceagainst a gob of cells.Now the superfathers of America saythat gob of cells deserves more dignity,that gob of cells has more integrity,that gob of cells has a paramount right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>a safe home.Pregnant teenagers, children <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aringchildren,<strong>on</strong>e milli<strong>on</strong> every year.Now the superfathers of America say,“Stay chaste or else.”Now the superfathers of America say,“The paramount right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> life resides inyour uterus,not in you.”Now the superfathers of America say,“Go knock up your daughters,your stepdaughters,
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 157your nieces,go <strong>on</strong>;that gob of cells has a paramount right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>lifeAs if there was a questi<strong>on</strong>what men of c<strong>on</strong>science should do.At issue: rape.Penetrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> de<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>d.Penises engorged with rage.Tender, vulnerable organ—with a little help it gets hard.With a little help from fists,knives,force,c<strong>on</strong>tempt.With a little help from friends:two <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e,three <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e,ten <strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong>e…Tender, vulnerable organs all wantinginall wantingfun.Penetrati<strong>on</strong> <strong>on</strong> de<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>d.Surefire fail-safe proof the guy’s a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>.As if there was a questi<strong>on</strong>what men of c<strong>on</strong>science should do.At issue: marital rape.The right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rape that comes with thewedding cake.His c<strong>on</strong>jugal right.Her c<strong>on</strong>nubial duty.Whenever he gets hungry,he gets his piece of cake.Lip-smacking good.
158 JOHN STOLTENBERGShe’s his.His piece.Can’t say no now.Can’t ever say no.She said a per<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ent yes <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e penisforever.Forever is a l<strong>on</strong>g time.Forever is anytime.Now the legisla<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs of America know agood thingwhen they see <strong>on</strong>e. Now they see couplesby the milli<strong>on</strong>sjust shacking up, not getting a license,living outside the sacred b<strong>on</strong>dage.No matter, say the legisla<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rs. They’repassinglaws across the l<strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make the right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>rapelegal in cohabitati<strong>on</strong>,<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> make the right <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rape legalif she ever said yes <strong>on</strong>ce—yes <strong>on</strong>ce <strong>on</strong> a date,yes <strong>on</strong>ce three years ago,yes <strong>on</strong>ce just <strong>on</strong>ce:a yes <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> any penis is per<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ent,say these clever new laws.Extend the marriage c<strong>on</strong>tract <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> theunmarried,<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the roommates,<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the date.Skip the cake.Get down <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the business of devouringfemale lives.As if there was a questi<strong>on</strong>what men of c<strong>on</strong>science should do.At issue: battery.She walked in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a door.
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 159She fell down some stairs doing thelaundry.Her dark glasses are prescripti<strong>on</strong>.She limps from a slight sprain.She went <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the hospital <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> visit a friend.Her screaming was all in fun,it was laughing,hysterical laughing,you know how women are.Fashi<strong>on</strong>s change.The look <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>day is abused.Clothing that looks slit by a knife.Faces made up like flesh bruised from<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ating.Around the haunted, deep-set eyes:black <strong>and</strong> blue.On the temples <strong>and</strong> cheekb<strong>on</strong>es:purplish-magenta welts,brushed <strong>on</strong> or <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>aten <strong>on</strong>,in a patch the size of a fist,broken blood vessels pancaked over.It takes a lot of pancake <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> cover damagedgoodsCheck out the street.The abused look is in.Men like their women <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>autiful.They see <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>auty in women’s pain.Go <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> your corner drugs<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>re,check it out,Get your pers<strong>on</strong>al bruise kitin the latest, chic-est shades.Or just go home.The <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>auty of pain is within the reachof every wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>within a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s reach.As if there was a questi<strong>on</strong>what men of c<strong>on</strong>science should do.At issue: child <strong>sex</strong>ual assault.
160 JOHN STOLTENBERGThey calculate the age at whichthe diameter of a child’s vaginacan accommodate a grown <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>’s penis.They think it’s eight.Orthey d<strong>on</strong>’t bother <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> calculate.The infants go <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the hospitalwith g<strong>on</strong>orrhea down their throats.They pick up children <strong>and</strong> drug them.When the children are passed out,they get it <strong>on</strong>.Orthey pick up children <strong>and</strong> keep themc<strong>on</strong>scious.They pho<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>graph them—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing pissed <strong>on</strong>,perhaps, orspread open,poor <strong>and</strong> pimply,in Polaroid.They pressure their daughters <strong>and</strong> nieces<strong>and</strong> stepdaughters <strong>and</strong> little sistersin<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> secret <strong>sex</strong>ual intimacies.Sim<strong>on</strong> says diddle diddle dumpling,little miss muffin,Sim<strong>on</strong> says red rover red roverwants <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> come over <strong>and</strong> over.Andthey make the girls promise not <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> tell.The girls keep the promise:They grow up unable <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> speak.As if there was a questi<strong>on</strong>what men of c<strong>on</strong>sdence should do.At issue: pornography.The ropes cutting in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> her breastsgive him pleasure.The gag stuffed in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> her mouthmakes him feel full <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> bursting.The black leather hood over her face
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 161makes him feel radiant,hot.The chains around her ankles <strong>and</strong> wristsmake him feel str<strong>on</strong>g,like an ox ready <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> gore.The pincers ripping her nipplesmake his penis swell.The way she spreads her labiamakes him feel like fucking herraw.He imagines her.He has her.He uses her.He possesses her.As if there was a questi<strong>on</strong>what men of c<strong>on</strong>science should do.What Men of C<strong>on</strong>science Will Be Doing inthe Next DecadePREDICTION: Many men of c<strong>on</strong>science will do very little ornothing.PREDICTION: Many men of c<strong>on</strong>science will prefer <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>discuss their feelings.PREDICTION: Many men of c<strong>on</strong>science will do <strong>on</strong>ly thatwhich makes them feel <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter about themselves. If somethingdoes not make them feel <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter about themselves, they will <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>unlikely <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do it. Discussing their feelings will make them feel<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter about themselves.PREDICTION: Many men of c<strong>on</strong>science, if they notice theyare doing nothing, will want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> spend hours <strong>and</strong> hoursstruggling with the questi<strong>on</strong> of what is politically correct forthem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do as men. As men: the two most paralyzing words inthe vocabulary of the so-called <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> of c<strong>on</strong>science. He w<strong>on</strong>’tdo anything until it is clear <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> him how it affects him <strong>and</strong> hisbrethren as men. He w<strong>on</strong>’t do anything unless it is clear <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> himin what sense he can do it with other men as men, unless theiracti<strong>on</strong> particularly matters <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause they are doing it as men,
162 JOHN STOLTENBERGunless the acti<strong>on</strong> makes them all feel much <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter aboutthemselves as men. As men. Words <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> live by. Words <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> d<strong>on</strong>othing by.PREDICTION: Many men of c<strong>on</strong>science, if they notice theyare doing nothing, will want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> spend hours <strong>and</strong> hoursjustifying their inertia. They are waiting for women’sleadership, they may say. They d<strong>on</strong>’t want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do anything rash;they want it all spelled out for them exactly, step-by-step. Andthey have not yet received precise instructi<strong>on</strong>s from the centralfeminist organizing committee. All women have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do is ask,they may say. All women have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do is hold their h<strong>and</strong>, is whatthey mean.PREDICTION: Many men of c<strong>on</strong>science will spend moretime shopping for <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>fu than they spend reading the feministpress.PREDICTION: Many men of c<strong>on</strong>science will turn out for<strong>on</strong>e feminist dem<strong>on</strong>strati<strong>on</strong> every twelve m<strong>on</strong>ths. They willraise their voices in shout. They will shout louder, in fact, thanall the women combined. They will even get in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> a scuffle withsome other men, any other men, hostile byst<strong>and</strong>ers, the police:They will make a noble scene; they will stage a cockfight.Then they will go home <strong>and</strong> try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get in <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>uch with theirfeelings for another year.PREDICTION: Many men of c<strong>on</strong>science will allythemselves publicly with a wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> of feminist credentials.They may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> friends or lovers, hetero<strong>sex</strong>ual or homo<strong>sex</strong>ual,married or single, living <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether or apart—it doesn’t matter;what matters is their public alliance. She will provide him withcredentials of his own: a plastic-laminated wallet card that says“I have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en approved by a feminist wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>” <strong>and</strong> it will have<strong>on</strong> it her good name. He will flash the card when it suits him.He will keep it in his pocket when he buys pornography. Whenhe visits her home he will leave a mess.PREDICTION: Many men of c<strong>on</strong>science, when their wifesays good-bye, when their live-in maid says clean your ownpiss around the <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ilet, when their politically astute feministcomradein-arms says “I no l<strong>on</strong>ger trust you” <strong>and</strong> s<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ps wanting<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hang out <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>gether—when their pers<strong>on</strong>al c<strong>on</strong>duit <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feminist
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 163c<strong>on</strong>sciousness leaves them—<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y men of c<strong>on</strong>science will<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come less <strong>and</strong> less like men of c<strong>on</strong>science <strong>and</strong> more <strong>and</strong>more like ordinary men. They will turn their attenti<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>political issues that d<strong>on</strong>’t blatantly remind them of the fact thatmen like themselves oppress women like her. Nuclear energy.Wars in foreign l<strong>and</strong>s. Food coops. Rent strikes. Importantissues, not unimportant issues. It’s just that they’re <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter thanalcohol or drugs when your heart is broken <strong>and</strong> you want it <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>harden.Some Questi<strong>on</strong>s Often Asked aboutFeminist Activism <strong>and</strong> Male SexualIdentityQUESTION: If it’s true that men are the doers, theagents of his<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>ry, the performers, the active <strong>on</strong>es,how come men are so passive?QUESTION: Can a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> have a feministc<strong>on</strong>sciousness if he doesn’t c<strong>on</strong>sistently act <strong>on</strong> it?QUESTION: Can high c<strong>on</strong>sciousness exist in a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>who is more or less inert? How high canc<strong>on</strong>sciousness go <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>fore the fact that it exists in alump <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>comes a political embarrassment <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> thelump?QUESTION: Is there a way <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> seem <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> offine feminist <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ners when you’re trying <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> impresspeople <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> whom it matters while at the same timekeeping open your opti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hobnob with wo<str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>haters?QUESTION: Which of the following is the mostc<strong>on</strong>vincing pretext for not doing anything about<strong>sex</strong>ist in<strong>justice</strong>: (a) self-hatred, (b) guilt, (c) morepressing political priorities, or (d) “Can’t you see I’mtrying?” Are some women more taken in by somepretexts than by others? How can I tell thedifference? Where can I meet the women who areeasy?QUESTION: If men are so evil, what’s the use?
164 JOHN STOLTENBERGANSWER: Was that pretext (e)?QUESTION: D<strong>on</strong>’t we first have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> work out someserious <strong>and</strong> pers<strong>on</strong>al questi<strong>on</strong>s about when <strong>and</strong> how<strong>and</strong> whether we’re going <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> have <strong>sex</strong>?—I mean,what’s in this for me <strong>and</strong> my penis?QUESTION: What happens when a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> takesfeminism utterly seriously, in every area of his life,in every moment of everything he does? Does hestill stay a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>?—or does he turn in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> somethingelse?QUESTION: Why is it so difficult <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> hold <strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> mysense of maleness in the company of women? Whydoes <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing in large groups of mostly womenprotesting <strong>sex</strong>ist in<strong>justice</strong> make me feel like shit?Why do I need a gaggle of men around me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feel<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter? Why is it so difficult <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> get a gaggle of men <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>clear their calendars so they can gather around me<strong>and</strong> help me feel <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tter? Does penis size matter? AmI getting off the subject? What is the subject?ANSWER: Feminist activism <strong>and</strong> male <strong>sex</strong>ualidentity.QUESTION: How can I always know I am male <strong>and</strong>not female <strong>and</strong> not in <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween, how can I alwaysknow I <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the male <strong>sex</strong> <strong>and</strong> not the other <strong>on</strong>e,how can I always want there <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> a male <strong>sex</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g><str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>, how can I know it’s always okay <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>g<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it, how can I always feel good about myself as a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g><strong>and</strong> feel truly male at the same time, how can Ialways enjoy the company of other men? How doyou expect me <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> identify with women’s struggle for<strong>justice</strong>? D<strong>on</strong>’t you see that my aloofness is politicallynecessary? D<strong>on</strong>’t you see that gender in<strong>justice</strong> isnecessary so I can feel good as a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>? D<strong>on</strong>’t you seethat <strong>sex</strong>ism is necessary so I can have a <strong>sex</strong>?Some Closing ThoughtsMale <strong>sex</strong>ual identity is not a “role.”
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 165Male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity is not a set of ana<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>mical traits.Male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity—the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief that <strong>on</strong>e is male, the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>liefthat there is a male <strong>sex</strong>, the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>lief that <strong>on</strong>e <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>l<strong>on</strong>gs <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> it—is apolitically c<strong>on</strong>structed idea.This means that masculinity is an ethical c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>: Wec<strong>on</strong>struct it through our acts, through the things we choose <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>do <strong>and</strong> not do, through the acts we commit that are “male”things <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do. Most of our choice making has <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do withchoosing <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do acts that will make the idea of our malenessreal <strong>and</strong> that will keep far away the idea that, really, thisdividing up of the species in<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> two separate <strong>and</strong> distinct <strong>sex</strong>classes may <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> utterly specious after all. Most of our choicemaking has <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do with dissociating from all that is coded <strong>and</strong>stigmatized “female.” Most of our choice making has <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> dowith disidentifying with women. Most of our choice makingcreates our <strong>sex</strong>edness.So l<strong>on</strong>g as we c<strong>on</strong>tinue <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act in ways that keep us still“men,” we are doomed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> paralysis, guilt, self-hatred, inertia.So l<strong>on</strong>g as we try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act as men, in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>tinue <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> men,in order <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> do our bit in the social c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong> of the entitythat is the <strong>sex</strong> class men, we doom women <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> in<strong>justice</strong>: thein<strong>justice</strong> that inheres in the very idea that there are two <strong>sex</strong>es.Male <strong>sex</strong>ual identity is c<strong>on</strong>structed through the choices wemake <strong>and</strong> the acti<strong>on</strong>s we take. We cannot c<strong>on</strong>tinue <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> c<strong>on</strong>structit <strong>and</strong> give ourselves fully <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> feminist activism. One cannotcling <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong>e’s gender as the core of <strong>on</strong>e’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> of usein the struggle. One must change the core of <strong>on</strong>e’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing. Thecore of <strong>on</strong>e’s <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>ing must love <strong>justice</strong> more than <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>hood.
OTHER MENSome of us are the other men that some of us are very wary of.Some of us are the other men that some of us d<strong>on</strong>’t trust. Yetsome of us are the other men that some of us want <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> close<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>and</strong> hang out with. Some of us are the other men that someof us l<strong>on</strong>g <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> embrace.The world of other men is a world in which we live <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>hind abarrier—<str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause we need <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> for safety, <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause we underst<strong>and</strong>there is something about other men that we know we have <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>protect ourselves from. The world of other men is also a worldin which we know we are sized up by other men <strong>and</strong> judged byother men <strong>and</strong> sometimes threatened by other men. The worldof other men can <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>, we know, a scary <strong>and</strong> dangerous place.I have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>en obsessed with other men for a l<strong>on</strong>g, l<strong>on</strong>g time. Ihave lived years of my life ag<strong>on</strong>izing about how different I feltfrom other men. I have wanted more than anything <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> morelike other men than I could ever hope <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>. At the same time Ihave harbored a terror of other men: afraid that they would seethrough my attempts <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> act like a <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>, afraid that I would notmeasure up, not fit in, not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> right. Many of the men I talk withare also in various ways obsessed with other men. We d<strong>on</strong>’ttalk about it readily; we d<strong>on</strong>’t really have the vocabulary for it.But always the issue is there, within us <strong>and</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween us—theissue of how <strong>on</strong>e identifies <strong>on</strong>eself in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> other men, thekinds of accommodati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>and</strong> compensati<strong>on</strong>s <strong>on</strong>e makesdepending <strong>on</strong> how <strong>on</strong>e rates <strong>on</strong>eself <strong>on</strong> some imaginary scale ofmasculinity: If you think you rate relatively high, or if youthink you rate relatively low, you make certain choices in your
REFUSING TO BE A MAN 167life, you choose the <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>st deal you can get with the quantity ofmaleness you feel you can muster. And always other men arethe measure of the <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g> you try <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>.As individuals <strong>and</strong> as a profeminist men’s movement, weneed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> underst<strong>and</strong> what this issue is—why the issue is what itis—<strong>and</strong> how <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> think about the issue so that we can dosomething about it in our lives.What the Issue IsOne of the reas<strong>on</strong>s I started <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> care about radical feminism asmuch as I did was <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>cause it seemed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> resolve for me a certaindilemma about myself in relati<strong>on</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> other men. I had alwaysfelt irremediably different—even when no <strong>on</strong>e else noticed, Iknew; I knew I wasn’t really <strong>on</strong>e of them. When I first <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>gan<str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> come in c<strong>on</strong>tact with the ideas of radical feminism, thoseideas seemed <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> put <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> rest that certain trouble. Radicalfeminism helped me imagine a gender-just future, a noti<strong>on</strong> of apossibility that men need not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> brutish <strong>and</strong> loutish, thatwomen need not <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g> cutesy <strong>and</strong> coy. It was a visi<strong>on</strong> thatenergized me. It helped me view the whole male-supremaciststructure of gender as a social c<strong>on</strong>structi<strong>on</strong>, not as a finaljudgment <strong>on</strong> our natures—<strong>and</strong> not as a final judgment <strong>on</strong>mine. Radical feminism helped me h<strong>on</strong>or in myself thedifferences that I felt <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>tween myself <strong>and</strong> other men; radicalfeminism helped me know my c<strong>on</strong>necti<strong>on</strong>s <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> the lives ofwomen, with whom I had not imagined I would ever find amodel for who I could <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>. And it’s also true—<strong>and</strong> not easy <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g>admit—that radical feminism helped provide me with a form inwhich <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> express my anger at other men—an anger that in mencan run very deep, as <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>y of us know. I think that for <str<strong>on</strong>g>man</str<strong>on</strong>g>ymen who have <str<strong>on</strong>g>be</str<strong>on</strong>g>come anti<strong>sex</strong>ists over the past several years,their anti<strong>sex</strong>ism has had meaning <str<strong>on</strong>g>to</str<strong>on</strong>g> them for similar reas<strong>on</strong>s.In various ways, feminism has blown like a gust of fresh airthrough a lifetime spent ag<strong>on</strong>i