Grotesque Degradation, Carnivalization and Cyberporn

Grotesque Degradation: Globalization, Carnivalization,and CyberpornLauren Langman*

Portrayals of women in Internet pornography are often less than flattering. Infact, Internet pornography is sometimes downright grotesque. Lauren Langmanexamines the tendency to carnivalize the grotesque in Internet pornography andentertains social and cultural implications of these extreme expressions. How arewe to understand these unsavory and sometimes hostile expressions? Langmanprovides clues.

Depictions of the human body in general, and sexualityin particular, long preceded the advent of moderncivilization. Early carvings, pottery, statuary,paintings and even architectural ornaments ofantiquity have celebrated the human body and itssexual activity. So too has sexuality been a topic offolk tales, jokes, music, poetry, literature, and withthe advent of philosophy, speculative thought. Platoreserved leadership for older men, freed of sexualpassions—and then came Viagra. In some societies, thesexual, the passionate, and the Dionysian was extolled—as, for example, in temple prostitution, a clevermeans of ensuring folks came to church. In Apolloniansocieties, desire in general and sexuality inparticular was repressed in the name of harmony andorder, typically as a means of suppression by whichthe elites maintained control over the disciplined* Lauren Langman is a Professor of Sociology at Loyola University.He is primarily a social theorist writing in the tradition of theFrankfurt School. His substantive interests and research concernsare dialects of political economy, culture and identity,specifically concerning relations of consumerism, identity and thereproduction of domination. His work has explored the grotesque,body modification, and goth/punk subcultures. His next book is onthe carnivalization of the world.

Net.SeXXX

bodies of the masses. (This is still found insocieties where premarital and extra-marital sex ispunished by death.1)

Yet as Durkheim (1893) would suggest, even in asociety of saints there must be sinners to uphold thenorms—the very existence of norms creates pressurestoward deviance. In most societies there are“liminal,” in-between zones where inversion,transgression and resistance have been tolerated ifnot celebrated (Turner 1969). Thus portrayals of thebody and sexuality, especially as challenge andresistance to dominant norms, have long been pointswhere policed boundaries of the acceptable have facedcontestation, resistance and transgression. It isprecisely at these liminal spaces of transgressionthat one finds moral and political debates over whatis “beautiful” and “acceptable,” what is “grotesque”and “obscene” and “must” be controlled, if noteliminated. In one case we can talk about erotica asan art form for museums and galleries and waxeloquent; conversely, we can label those samedepictions as immoral, pornographic, vile, vulgar anddisgusting and mobilize efforts to erase such smutfrom society. Needless to say this has never workedeffectively and indeed it often happens that theintensity of repression fosters the very deviance itseeks to suppress. For example, nineteenth-centuryVictorianism witnessed flourishing bordellos andpornography. Meanwhile, Freud (1989) [AU: missingreference] told us how often that which was repressedmight be otherwise expressed and gratified insymptoms, dreams, fantasies or combinations thereof.

Two points are evident from the examples above.First, as genres of cultural expression, depictions ofpeople as sexual beings engaged in a variety of sexualacts, whether we call it erotica and/or pornography,have always been articulated through specific forms ofmedia. Secondly, like most other forms of culturalexpression, their meanings and interpretations must be

181

Grotesque Degradation, Lauren Langman

historically situated. A long tradition ofmedia/culture studies has argued, the form of the media,oral, scribal, print, radio, television, and nowInternet, have independent consequences (McLuhan 1964).Thus, in this essay I intend to explore cyberporn asan Internet-dependent media and interrogate theimpacts of globalization on computer basedcommunication.

It is well known that pornography is one of themost profitable aspects of e-commerce, with estimatesof over 80,000 websites ranging from the better known,such as Danni’s Hard Drive or the much largerCybererotica—by any standard, the pioneer of theInternet porn industry—to the amateurs who put awebcam in their bedroom, do not charge access, and notonly challenge norms of “propriety,” but the nature ofcommodification essential to capitalism. In variousways many, or perhaps most, representations and actsfound in cyberporn are hardly new, and indeed oftenconsist of photos, films, videotapes, CD-ROMS and evenlive action. What makes cyberporn different is less thecontent than the access, affordability and anonymity of logging onwhich allows many otherwise “respectable” citizens,opportunities to easily and cheaply gaze on thetransgressive (Cooper 1998). The use of the Internet,with its endless range of seeming choice, gives theviewer a vast spectrum of artistic, commercial andintellectual sites and even many varieties ofcyberporn as choices. Thus the Internet itselfprovides a realm of audio-visual pleasures grantingseeming empowerment and choice (Williams 1989).

In the short space of a single paper, one can saylittle about the wide gamut of pornography in general,or about cyberporn in particular. Rather, I willattempt to suggest that the rise of cyberporn has beenassociated with the growing popularity of a particulargenre that can be termed “grotesque degradation.” Aswill be argued, this degradation is not simply avariant of traditional sado-masochism (S/M) or

182

Net.SeXXX

bondage-domination (B/D). However “deviant,”transgressive or inverted, these practices revealtruths about sexuality, suggest a relationship, andperhaps even mutual pleasure, in that the masochist(the one who is bound, gagged, beaten or tortured) maywell find pleasure in submission. Rather, “grotesquedegradation” will be seen as moment of global capital,whose “truths” that are embedded in one of the majorcultural trends of our age, what can be called the“carnivalization of society.”

Reading CyberpornAcademic interest in cyberborn is scanty at best; thisis quite surprising when it seems that so many peopleconsume it. But the highly charged nature of sex ingeneral, and the marginal nature of pornography, withits popular image of men in black (as in raincoats)masturbating in seedy theaters, deters many fromserious consideration of cyberporn as genre ofculture. To the social critic, it soon becomes evidentthat there is a huge market for the many kinds ofcyberporn, and accordingly, various modes ofinterpretation by academics, moral critics and theaficionados themselves. Most of the viewers are male,but increasingly couples enjoy watching otherscopulate, sodomize or whatever. Of course the mosttypical depictions are heterosexual couples, but thereis a wide range of combinations, situations, bodytextures and particular acts. Thus one might choose tofind racialized Others engaged in typical oral,genital or anal penetrations. Then comedifferentiations by particular age groups, young women—including implications of virginity (as some sitesclaim things like, “tight virgin pussy gettingfucked”)—to “more experienced,” often-horny women(“neglected housewives looking for cock”), and evenolder “grannies.” These women might vary by attributesranging from breast size (tiny tits to huge jugs [AU:word choice]), to overall body size (skinny teens,“fat grannies”). Then we can often find pluralities

183


such as ménage à trios, group sex, multiple partners(and/or various penetrations including vegetableinsertions), fetish wear, S/M, B/D, animal sex, and soon.

There are a number of ways to understand cyberporn,ranging from the moralists that would condemn a barebreast to the libertarians who celebrate unfetteredfree speech and artistic expressions that challengethe acceptable. Perhaps the most fundamental critiqueof cyberporn has been the classical feminist view ofporn in general as patriarchal (if not misogynist)representations of women that degrade, objectify andrender women complacent (if not submissive) objects ofmale lust, reified by the male “gaze.” Moreover, pornis said to encourage rape and denigration of women.The moralism of Dworkin (1981) and Mackinnon (1987)was countered by Paglia (1990). Paglia argued thatpornography, stripping and prostitution are sites offemale empowerment; women as agenic guardians of therealm’s sexual secrets. Paglia’s viewsnotwithstanding, both moralistic positions have beenseen as dependent on essentialist notions of women,sexuality and desire. As will be argued, given thevast ranges of genres of cyberporn, there is no one reading.Yes, some of it does aim to degrade, but at the same time, itcan celebrate the erotic, challenge dominant, often repressive sexualcodes, and even reveal truths of the larger society. Moreover, aswill be seen, while this paper looks at degradation, Iam not suggesting all porn is degrading. Finally, aswill be argued, the unconscious gratifications ofviewing simulated degradation can stabilize theconscious life of some males.

I would like to suggest, following Kipnis (1999),Williams (1989), and Lillie (2002), that porn ingeneral, and cyberporn in particular, can be understood ascultural productions and discourses that both construct and interpretsexuality. We could also call them discourses aboutsexuality that interrogate cultural understandings.Thus cyberporn as cultural texts can be read (or

184

Net.SeXXX

decoded) as texts concerning not only sexuality, butdeconstructing the processes of coding and decodingthat illuminate society as a whole and the nature ofits constructions of gender identity. Thus varioustraditions of literary, cultural and film critique, rooted in Sade(1987), Freud (1930) Foucault (1978) and others mayreveal more about the cultural meanings of cyberporn than debatingover its morality or counting self-induced orgasms.

As a sociologist, I would suggest that culturalforms from pottery to pornography cannot be understoodapart from a historically specific social context.Within this framework, we must start with the natureof the economic system, both how it produces goods andservices and the distributions of wealth. There are atleast three dominant trends that contextualize ourpresent age: globalization, feminism and thecarnivalization of culture.

We have seen at least three profound changes in themodern world. Globalization, the economic reality ofthe present age, can be understood as the emergence ofan integrated world market, dominated bydeterritorialized economic actors, transnationalcorporations that have been decoupled from nationstates. They employ the most advanced, leading edgetechnologies of design and production, which hasradically impacted the nature of work, politics andculture. More specifically, when anything can be madeand shipped anywhere in the world, often by robots,there has been a massive restructuring of work in which traditionallywell-paid manufacturing jobs have declined and lower paying servicejobs have proliferated. Moreover, with the globalrestructuring of work and technological changes, weoften see that even many of the more educated andheretofore privileged workers face problematicfutures. Thus we have seen growing inequality in thedistributions of wealth and income, and growinginsecurities about economic prospects. As will beargued, one of the most salient aspects of these neweconomic realities has been the erosion of job

185


security and expectations of a stable, linear career.Marx’s (1972) discussion of alienation of industrialworkers seems especially apt today, and indeed mayapply to many other classes of workers. For Marx,alienation meant being powerless, being withoutrecognition of one’s humanity, one’s potentialsthwarted and finding life meaningless. And as will beargued, cyberporn, much like Marx said about religion,can be both a “wail of genuine suffering”, and apalliative, “an opiate for [some[of the people”. Bothoffer visions of redemption.

One of the most significant changes of the past fewdecades has been rise of feminism and in turn, themassive entry of women into the paid labor force,especially in the higher echelons. Today, almost halfof the students in law, medicine, architecture andgraduate programs in arts and sciences are women.Feminism has challenged traditional roles of gendernorms that present the male as the breadwinner, theauthority in the family, who likes violent games andsubmissive women. While glass ceilings still exist,they are slowly but surely being shattered, incomedisparities are waning, and women are gaining evermore political offices.

Along with newly found economic and politicalpower, women have become more independent in a widerange of activities, from buying homes and cars totaking increasing control over their own bodies andclaiming their own sexuality. But such changes inwomen’s roles, seemingly through usurpation of maleprerogatives, have also fostered (or at leastencouraged) changes in male behavior in whichtraditional male assertiveness and independence is nolonger as functional. One might also note theimportant role of Hugh Hefner and Playboy inchallenging definitions of masculinity, femininity andsexual morality. As Bordo (1993) has suggested, Hefnerwas as much a part of the sex and gender revolutionsas was Betty Friedan’s (1964) The Feminine Mystique. While

186

Net.SeXXX

feminists claimed that Hefner objectified sexualityand constructed women as passive, compliant dispensersof sexual favors, Gloria Steinem (1983) noted that thePlaymate was not a “fallen woman” or “evil temptress”,but the “girl next door.” [AU: missing Steinamreference]Thus for both men and women, traditionalsexual norms and moral values were interrogated. HelenGurley Brown (1962) announced it was ok for “nicegirls” to be sexual and enjoy it without shame orguilt. [AU: missing Brown reference] Thus the earlyground work for normalizing female sexuality wouldpave the way for female agency in a number of realms,not the least of which would be higher education andwork.

Today, many men face increasing conflicts betweentraditional notions of male dominance and privilegeand differening norms and expectations in school andon the job. Thus we can see that besides the economicfactors noted above, there are also growing feministchallenges to traditional masculine power andidentities that have led to a degree of uncertaintyand anxiety over what constitutes “manhood” in an erawhen men’s bathrooms increasingly come equipped withinfant changing tables.

Faced with what many men see as challenges to theirtraditional male roles—powerful, agenic, and deservingof deference—there have been a number of responses,including the embrace of conservative religions withessentialist notions of gender that enshrine andsacralize male power. Various moments of popularculture encourage, at least in the imaginary, “realmen” to be assertive and “do what real men gotta do”to salvage masculinity. This might include ratherchauvinist, misogynist forms of popular culture suchas the celebratory Man Show or the “boobs and farts”locker room humor of Howard Stern [AU: Stern’s lockerroom?], or as will be illustrated, escapes to theerotic imaginaries of cyberporn where real men arestuds with large and powerful genitalia, and women are

187


“sluts,” “whores,” and “cunts” whose primary role issubordinated sexual service where masculinity is neverinterrogated.2 As will be argued below, and informed bypsychoanalytic film theorists such as Mulvey (1989), Iwill suggest that economic insecurity on the one hand,and more assertive women on the other, has arousedboth castration anxiety and assaults to malenarcissism that certain forms of pornography assuageby re-inscribing an active assertive male vis-à-visthe passive, compliant, and most of all subordinated,female. Seeing the naked vagina (but a mouth or anuswill do), providing a direct or scoptophilicgratification, affirms that the male has the penis andthe power, while she, the castrated one, is powerless.But further, in what will be called “grotesquedegradation,” she is not only constructed as inferior,but is systematically degraded and punished for havingchallenged the power of the penis. Like a dream, suchdesires are fulfilled in the imaginary, and theystabilize the quotidian. Much like symbolic violencereduces actual violence, certain pornographic imagerymakes actual life easier—it is a “time out” thatusurps actual sexuality. But as will be argued,“grotesque degradation” is a central moment ofcommodified pleasures of the transgressive carnivalsthat are provided by the contemporary “cultureindustries.”

CarnivalizationThe carnivalization of society, one of the majorcultural trends of our age, has been a trend in whichthe culture industries have revived the medievalcarnival and transformed it into a commodity. Morespecifically, we have seen a variety of emergentsubcultures and mass mediated entertainment genres(from shock-jocks to shock-rock to professionalwrestling) that each, in their own way, valorize thegrotesque and celebrate a variety of forms oftransgression. While also, for example, goth, punk, orextreme body modification subcultures may well appear

188

Net.SeXXX

grotesque, and various patterns of sexuality, druguse, or fashions express resistance against thedominant values and standards of the society. As aresult of carnivalization, with transgressions as aform of resistance, the moral center of society hasshifted downward to embrace what is vile, vulgar anddisgusting—a profitable sector of global capital. Thusthe moral distance between what is acceptable and whatis pornographic has narrowed, and cyberporn can beconsidered a moment of this carnivalization.

For Bakhtin (1968), the medieval carnival was apopular celebration that stood opposed to the officialfeasts and tournaments that celebrated and secured thepower of the aristocratic elites.3 Carnival was alucid critique of the elites, their cultures andvalues. Typical patterns of hierarchy, deference anddemeanor were ignored (Bakhtin l968). It was a liminalsite of transgression, reversals of the quotidian,inversions of the dominant norms and standards ofpropriety. Restraints of everyday life waned, allforms of the prohibited were valorized. Moralboundaries of “decency” from the political to theerotic were transgressed—especially concerning thebody, bodily indulgence, orifices, excreta, theprofane, and the vulgar and obscene. Carnivalsexpressed the Dionysian that Nietzsche claimed wassuppressed by restrictive Apollonian domination.Celebrations often involved bodily excreta andsecreta; much of the critique of elite power tookscatological forms.

The carnival, as a site of resistance apart fromeveryday life and subservience to the elite landownersand clergy, celebrated the disgusting and grotesque.Transgression, as resistances to elite power, rejecteddominant authority and its morals. Typical practicesincluded parody, mockery, satire, humiliation, andhectoring of kings and queens, priests and bishop.Above all, laughter stood as a rebuke to the elites.But however transgressive carnival may have been,

189


whatever hope and freedom it provided, as a form ofcultural resistance in lieu of political action,served to sustain the structural arrangements in whichland owning dynasties were legitimated by the clericalelites. A central moment of contemporary mass culturehas been the resurrection of the carnival. The“culture industries” have packaged the grotesque andcommodified the transgressive to secure huge profitsand at the same time, insure the reproduction of thesystem.

The GrotesqueThe grotesque stood in direct opposition to medievalforms of high art and literature. It was a realm offreedom that spoke truths of the system. The grotesque—often seen in masks or representations of faces withgreatly exaggerated and distorted features and shapes,bulging eyes, protruding nose, and so on—stood ascritiques of the dominant order, while forms ofresistance as freedom, repudiated elite domination,norms, values and practices. For Bakhtin (1968), oneof the most important aspects of “grotesque realism”is its function of degradation: bringing something orsomeone down to earth to create something better. AsBakhtin (1968:21) explains:

To degrade is to bury, to sow, and to kill simultaneously,in order to bring forth something more and better. Todegrade also means to concern oneself with the lower stratumof the body, the life of the belly and the reproductiveorgans; it therefore relates to acts of defecation andcopulation, conception, pregnancy, and birth. Degradationdigs a bodily grave for a new birth; it has not only adestructive, negative aspect, but also a regenerating one.To degrade an object does not imply merely hurling it intothe void of nonexistence, into absolute destruction, but tohurl it down to the reproductive lower stratum, the zone inwhich conception and a new birth take place. Grotesquerealism knows no other lower level; it is the fruitful earthand the womb. It is always conceiving.

190

Net.SeXXX

The grotesque—that which was vile, vulgar anddisgusting—stood as a challenge to the dominant socialorder, a critique of its lifestyles and values. Thegrotesque stood as an inversion, a reversal thatrevealed truths behind the elites and their system.“Grotesque degradation” not only reveals truths aboutsexuality, but stands as a critique of global capitalthat produces alienation, and denies agency anddignity. As will be argued, “grotesque degradation,”as a genre of cyberporn, serves compensatoryfunctions. The reduction of the person to a naked,sexual being defined by their genitalia fosters amigration of subjectivity from political economy andthe problematic nature of work to an erotic imaginarywherein “grotesque degradation” provides highlypleasurable gratifications absent from other arenas ofsocial life. And thus observing the sexual degradationof women offers fantasized gratifications ofcompensatory masculinity for those impacted by globaleconomic factors whose male identities facechallenges. But at the same, there is a disavowal ofhis degradation as it is projected upon the passive,degraded, woman, the economic degradation becomesdisplaced to the Other, the “not me”. Finally, likethe Slave in Hegel’s (1807) analysis, the subornedOther, in her compliance, as the recipient of hisdebasement, grants him the recognition of selfhoodthat he cannot otherwise glean. And while it may wellseem as if it is primarily a degradation of women, aswill be argued, [AU: clarify] Both identify with thedegraded sex object and at the same time, disavow thatidentity and assume the position of the dominant male.

Cyberporn, the Carnivalesque and DegradationFor Freud (1915), the “vicissitudes of instincts”meant that desire could be articulated in “disguised”ways; it could assume other, especially symbolic,forms of expression. Sexual desire might thereforetake non-sexual forms such as slips of the tongue,dream symbols, or symptoms. Repression could cloak

191


desire within sublimated forms of aestheticproduction. At the same time, the plasticity of desirewas such that sexuality itself might serve otherfunctions such as power, if not domination,narcissism, self-abasement (masochism), and so on.Thus, certain genres of pornography that I would label“grotesque degradation” serve compensatory functions,providing encapsulated realms for securing particularforms of traditional masculine identities and/oreasing transitions to new forms of masculine identityin the face of economic factors as well as the growthof feminism. The transgressive eroticism of “grotesquedegradation” is much like Freud’s (1912) observationson “psychic impotence,” where [male] sexual potencyrequires “debasement in the act of love.” His analysiswas based on the difficulty of fusing affection andrespect (of the idealized object) with lust andpassionate sexuality—as it was only with “debased” sexobject, either the whore or his denigration of hispartner, that the man could overcome psychic impotenceand find complete satisfaction. While his explanationrested on Oedipal dynamics, in a very similar way ifthe conditions of political economy render the manoccupationally impotent and his agency attenuated,then transgressive sexuality with a debased Other—the“slut,” “whore,” “bitch” or “cunt”—restores his“potency.” When this takes place in the eroticimaginaries of cyberspace, the carnivalesque“cyberpornotopias”, the “restored” agency of the malegaze and imaginary does not actually impact the socialnor political. Indeed, there is a conservative aspectthat preserves social relationships. Nor might therelationship with actual love objects, who might notmuch enjoy degradation, be impaired. But in thecommodied fantasies of cyberporn, the realms of the“frenzy of the visible” (Williams 1989), imaginedassaults on male privilege and masculinity are“redeemed”, injustice is avenged and indeed eroticgratifications are fantasized, in not gained through

192

Net.SeXXX

masturbation, when that “slut” moans with pain as agiant cock first goes up her ass, in her mouth andthen spews ejaculate on her face. Citing the Marxistphilosopher Alan Soble, Williams (1989) argues:

that contemporary pornography offers compensatory fantasiesdesigned to make up in the domain of sexuality the powerthat is denied men in their work and political lives. As hesees it, the contemporary increase in pornographicconsumption can be accounted for by male loss of power inthe wake of feminism and women’s new unwillingness toaccommodate their pleasures to those of men. (Williams 1989:163).

She then argues that pornography can be seen as a signof men giving up the struggle for real economic and/orerotic power, and instead, finding symbolicalternatives in an erotic imaginary.

In cinematic hard core we encounter a profoundly ‘escapist’genre that distracts audiences from the deeper social orpolitical causes of the disturbed relations between thesexes; and yet paradoxically, if it is to distracteffectively, a popular genre must address some of the realexperiences and needs of its audience. (Williams 1989: 154-5)

More specifically, I am arguing that the growth of“grotesque degradation,” of cyberporn, as a centralmoment of the carnivalization of society, reveals acentral truth of advanced capital. It disempowers andhumiliates many men long used to the rewards ofpatriarchy. At the same time, it reveals how the“erotic culture industries” provide various genres(see below) of cyberporn that would symbolicallyassuage pain and humiliation through the degradation,disempowerment and dehumanization of someone evenlower in the social hierarchy. Indeed the “sluts,”“whores,” and “cunts” are not even located in thosehierarchies. Cyberspace offers commodified sexualutopias, dream worlds of erotic gratification to thosewho live in real worlds of deprivation and insecurity.

193


Nevertheless, these commodified gratifications andersatz identities move discontent from the politicaleconomy to the cultural, where discontent isneutralized and hegemony is secured, reproducing theconditions of their own genesis.

More specifically, in face of macro-economicchanges due to globalization—that directly impinge onwork roles and economic security and thetransformations of everyday life in which changinggender norms and expectations have challengedtraditional notions of masculinity—“grotesquedegradation” provides fantasy realms ofhypermasculinity in which women are not simply objectsof male lust, but systematically degraded asretaliation for their assertiveness.4 Identities arenot simply self-referential narratives or scripts ofsubjectivity, but deeply held, essential moments ofself. Therefore, challenges to identity foster a greatdeal of stress, strain and intense emotions, from fearto anxiety. More specifically, assaults to identitiesthat can be regarded as shameful and/or humiliating,yet denied or unacknowledged can dispose anger andrage (Scheff 1994). This anger can be neutralizedthrough expressions in fantasy and thus, as will beargued, “grotesque degradation” provides fantasticrealms of empowered male identities who find agency inaggressive degradation and humiliation of the femaleOther. In the medieval carnivals, the elites were theobjects of parody and degradation. But today, forthose men rendered insecure by global capital, forthose ashamed of their economic fragility andhumiliated by challenges by new forms of genderidentities and relationships, the “culture industries”insure that degradation is transmitted downward.

In classical studies of authoritarianism, those whowere subject to authority from above demandeddeference and respect from those below. Degradation ispsychologically similar; those who feel degraded,indeed “screwed,” may find recompense in controlling,

194

Net.SeXXX

degrading and “screwing someone beneath them, someoneweak and powerless.” Who better to fill that role thana woman—or at least the compliant woman who seeks,enjoys and “deserves” her degradation for usurping thepower of the male. The castrating “bitch” gets whatshe deserves. As we shall see, her comeuppance is amouthful of cum or giant cock in her ass, or loss ofprivacy. Notwithstanding the commodification oftransgression in general, and the mass marketing ofcyberporn, for the typically male viewer there is aninterweaving of “pleasure, desire and [compensatory]identity produced through relations of power andmechanisms of this technology of sexuality” (Lillie2002: 8). In other terms, the production of cyberporncan be seen as the means by which a technology ofpower—the computer and Internet—creates discoursesthat discipline the erotic body. Meanwhile, theidentity of viewer, constructed through his (and it ismostly his) gaze, reaps pleasure in viewing the eroticbody, which becomes integrated into a number offantasies and fantasized gratifications, that are lesserotic, per se, but provide alternative realms ofdignity, respect and agency (see Sennett 1972, 2003).

For example, let us consider the readership ofHustler compared to Playboy. Hustler readers are morelikely blue-collar, while Playboy readers are moreupwardly mobile, and upper middle class. Surely, maleblue-collar workers have perceived their economicinsecurities due to women “taking their jobs”—when infact the jobs have been exported or automated. Now,even more educated affluent workers face economicinsecurities and, while more open to feminism, at thesame time they too face the ambiguities of gendernorms. In both cases, for some people, certain kindsof cyberporn not only put women in their place, but“fuck them hard”—which secures and repairs, infantasy, eroding concepts of masculinity (much thesame can be said about audiences of Howard Stern or

195


Rush Limbaugh; no matter how different in ideology,they share a common misogynist stance).

In the face of rapidly changing social and economicrealities of the present age, a typical way ofpreserving “traditional” identities has been throughfundamentalism—especially those forms that celebratethe biologically based essentialisms of male power andinstrumentality as opposed to female submission andaffectivity. Thus, ironically enough, the same socialfactors that can sometimes lead to radicallyconservative religious fundamentalism, can also leadto the consumption of the “grotesque degradation” ofcyberporn. Why do different individuals opt fordifferent choices? While this is beyond the presentscope, the carnivalization of our culture in generalhas led to the narrowing of the differences betweenmainstream erotica/sexuality and “marginal” cyberporn.Indeed most “mainstream” movies have at least onetorrid love scene where the performers are nude-andthat often includes some frontal nudity for the woman.[AU: clarify- incomplete sentence]Those alreadydisposed to pornography find the freedom and anonymityof the Internet alluring. (And surely as seems thecase, many conservative, religious leaders arethemselves aficionados of the same porn they condemnfrom the pulpits.) PUT Endnote here

A long tradition in psychoanalytic theory and clinical cases hasargued that the stronger the desire, the stronger the repression. Thishas also long been a theme in literature from the God fearing butadulterous clergyman such as Rev. Dimmesdale in Hawthorne’s’ ScarletLetter or Alfred Davidson, the moralistic preacher who rapes inSomerset Maugham’s Rain. And let us not forget the hellfire andbrimstone sermons of Jimmy Swaggert, condemning the lures of the flesh,yet arrested for photographic prostitutes masturbating. And poor JimBaker, he just couldn’t resist Jessica Hahn.

[AU: do we “know” this?]Psychoanalytic theory—noting the central role of

sexual desire, as well as repression that wouldattempt to keep it in check—charted the many ways the

196

Net.SeXXX

ego defended itself against impulses, the demands ofreality, and a demanding superego. At the same time,the impulses often took disguised forms to “sneak”past the ego and find gratification. Among thesedefenses were projection and disavowal: the capacityto deny that one has a particular desire and, at thesame time, find gratification of that desire byidentifying with another person who does gain thatgratification. This insight has been central topsychoanalytic film theory. People flock to cinema,watch television, and/or log on to the Internet tofind symbolic gratifications through viewing another.Love for the lonely, power for the powerless,adventure for the bored, aggression for meek, andrecognition for the ignored can all be found on onescreen or another. (This is not to ignore the uniqueaspects of the Internet, not the least of which arethe vast ranges of choice, the anonymity and seemingempowerment.)

Thus visual media provides unique fascinations.“Part of the fascination then, comes from the factthat while it allows for the temporary loss of ego(the spectator becomes someone else) it simultaneouslyreinforces the ego. In a sense, the film viewer bothloses him/herself and re-finds him/herself—over andover—by continually reenacting the first fictivemoment of identification and establishment ofidentity” (Flitterman-Lewis 1992: 214). Therefore,insofar as the fantastic realms of cyberporn exist asencapsulated worlds of an erotic imaginary of therealization of aspects of selfhood—real or imagined—“we are what we view.” We might well enjoy thecarnivalesque, especially “grotesque degradation,” inways that stabilize and “repair” the larger self. Muchlike a joke that allows an aggressive or eroticimpulse gratification in symbolic form, viewingcyberporn allows the construction of a moment ofselfhood, through identification with therepresentations, where the unpleasant or otherwise

197


denied can be both acknowledged and repudiated. Assuch, cyberporn, like much of popular culture, allowsthe displacement of anger and resentment toward globalcapital and its neutralization. Similarly, insofar aswomen today may be seen as threatening male identitiesand/or demanding new patterns of interaction, their“grotesque degradation” in cyberporn serves to enablethe splitting of the ambivalence and so neutralizeresentment. Thus the self that is constructed inviewing cyberporn—as momentary, episodic, encapsulatedarticulations—serves to sustain other, more typical,more public notions of self.

Based on the previous arguments, I would like toanalyze five basic ideal typical expressions ofcarnivalized cyberporn as “grotesque degradation” inwhich a wounded male identity can find imaginaryrepair and solace in erotic imaginaries that standapart from the realities and insecurities of a globaleconomy with its many assaults on dignity and respect.“Cum Guzzling Sluts”Among the most obvious example of “grotesquedegradation” can be found in the various sites thatfeature “cum guzzling sluts.” The visible expressionof the man's pleasure, his ejaculation, “the moneyshot” became a central moment of modern pornography(Williams 1989). As was noted, the excreta and secretaof the body—especially the lower body—was a centralmoment of the medieval carnival. The “grotesquedegradation” in cyberporn is not much different. Thebasic theme of the “cum guzzler” is that she swallowsthe man/men’s ejaculate (either directly, or from aglass that may well be overflowing from thecontributions of many men). In one variation, aJapanese practice called bukkake, a large number of menejaculate upon the woman’s naked body. In anothervariation, the man, or often the men, ejaculate allover the woman’s face, in what is called a “facial”,or on her neck/breasts, called a “pearl necklace.”

198

Net.SeXXX

This is not the place for an extensive examinationof oral sex practices between lovers in which thesexual relationship is the central element. Oral sextends to be a matter of personal taste. Thus whileoral sex is a quite common practice, and whether ornot the fellator swallows is dependent on the qualityof the relationship, the meaning of swallowing(acceptance of the other, more polite than spitting),and the extent to which the fellator accepts/enjoysthe taste of semen. However, in the cyberpornotopiasof “grotesque degradation,” with the total anonymityof the participants, there is no relationship with heras a person, she is degraded, disempowered anddehumanized—much as Marx described the alienation ofthe wage laborer.

Most often, the male ejaculates as a result of hismasturbation—though there may have been intercourse orfellatio prior to his orgasm. Her very selfhood iserased as her face/body is covered with his manhood.Her entire body becomes the receptacle for ejaculate.The whole of the woman's identity becomes equated withwhat is between her legs. She becomes a giant vaginaat best, or at worst, she becomes little more than atowel or Kleenex—a towel or tissue that is degraded inthe act of receiving the evidence of his pleasure. Heronly function is to bring him to orgasm through herown degradation. Moreover, not only does she bearfirst hand witness to his ecstatic pleasure, but allshe gets is his taste or stain. There is norelationship. The Other, the female, is “alwaysalready”—a denigrated, sexualized other—a “slut”devoid of all subjectivity or dignity. Painful AnalIn Leviticus 18:22, God says: "Thou shalt not lie withmankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. Accordingto most people, sodomy, anal intercourse, widelypracticed among the people of Sodom , was a “crimeagainst nature,” [AU: reference?] which led to itsdestruction. More. There are some questions as to

199


whether or not it homosexuality, anal sex, or perhapsoral sex that was ) [AU: homosexuality does not equalanal sex- some gay men do not even engage in it atall] indeed the sin for which Sodom was destroyed5.But in and of itself, anal penetration, typicallyassociated with male homosexuality, is ipso factotransgressive by most religious codes and a muchpopular sentiment. But all homosexuals do not practiceanal sex; indeed many heterosexual couples enjoy it.The basic point is that it is transgressive hedonism.Anal sex, like oral sex, is purely erotic in that itcannot lead to conception.6 It typically assumes thepenetrater is the empowered agent, the recipient ispassive—although in many cases some recipients quiteenjoy anal eroticism and might even initiate anal sex.

The relationship of anal penetration and penispower has a long history, clearly going back to theGreco Roman eras. As Freidman (2001: 28-29) notes:

The penis was so much the symbol of Roman strength and powerthat some believe the architectural centerpiece of theEmpire, the Forum of Augustus, may have been designed toresemble one. Though the building has never been fullyexcavated, a surviving blueprint shows a long hall flankedat the bottom by two hemispheres. When viewed from above,this plan suggests the grandest fascinum ever built. Thisseems fitting, considering the rites of power andmasculinity that took place there. It was at the Forum thatRoman males came to exchange the robe of boyhood, the togapraetexta, with its purple stripe and bulla (the locketcontaining a replica of an erect penis) for the all-whitetoga virilis. The Forum was where emperors set up theirtribunals, where the Senate declared war, and wheretriumphant generals dedicated their victories to the godMars. The Forum of Augustus was a monument to masculinity, aproving ground and place of honor for powerful men ofpenetrating vision. Why wouldn’t it be designed as a penis?

Insofar as the typical mode of anal intercourseassumes the recipient is bent over, standing on herknees, turning her backside to the penetrater, she isin a position that is a universal signal among

200

Net.SeXXX

primates that the subordinate has shown properdeference. Thus anal sex connotes transgression aswell as the submissiveness and passivity of the onewho is penetrated and thusly degraded. Again returningto the Romans, “[A Roman’s] idea of manhood wasmeasured by the power dynamic of sex. A Romanpenetrated others with his penis; he was neverpenetrated by someone else’s penis. A man who allowedthat to happen endured muliebria pati, ‘a woman’sexperience.’ That man was no longer a real man”(Friedman 2001: 24-25).

While many people quite enjoy anal sex—withadequate lubrication and relaxation—in it “grotesquedegraded” form, it is assumed to inflict pain upon therecipient who is “ripped wide open,” whose “asshole isfucked raw.” As such, the genre is termed “painfulanal.” A typical caption might read: “these sluts willmoan with pain as they are ripped apart,” or “ourwhores will take you up their asses and then lick theshit off your dick” (a variant of cum guzzlers aboveand excreta below). The important trope is that thosewho are passive get “fucked up the ass”; that may wellbe the most apt metaphor of how global capital hasrendered people hurt, economically passive andpolitically enfeebled. The victims of neo-liberalcapital, whose jobs, benefits, pensions, and insuranceare now all problematic, are indeed getting “fucked upthe ass.” The symbolism of male masochism is blatant.The viewer, in the guise of the agent who penetrates,who is in the superior position of standing andpenetrating, gains pleasure; yet at the same time,part of the viewer is identified with the penetratedand attempting to disguise/deny through disavowal hispassivity, his own fear of anal penetration , vis-à-vis global capital. Psychoanalytically, this can beseen as an attempt to transform passivity intoactivity rather than experience powerlessness and/orshame. Thus the anger to the “butt-fucked bitch” is a

201


displacement from the economy and, in turn, disavowsone’s own denigrated, butt-fucked self. Giant CocksIn the erotic imaginary of cyberporn, size does matter—especially favored are large breasts and “giantcocks.” “A large penis was Roman power become flesh:it was respected, sometimes feared, always coveted”(Friedman 2001: 28). In this imaginary, size mattersinsofar as it is both a sign of masculine power andtheoretically an indication of being able to providethe woman with greater pleasure—notwithstanding mostof her pleasure receptors are found in the clitoris,labia, and front of the vagina while the deeperregions are far less innervated and responsive topenile length. The giant penis becomes a visual markerof male empowerment; its erect protrusion is clearlyvisible and dramatically marks his differentiationfrom the woman who, “castrated”, lacking an externalsex organ, is the powerless one. (And conversely, herbreasts, more often implants, become the complimentaryvisible marker of a difference that is valorized assubordinate.) In a world where the social aspects ofgender are ever more ambiguous, the massive,protruding penis as well as the large, if not huge,protruding breast become evident visual signsof valorized difference8.

The appeal of cyberporn is to the erotic imaginary;the “giant cocks”, as grotesque exaggerations andelements of male fantasy, demonstrate and celebratephallic power as compensatory masculinity. For thosethreatened by economic insecurities, possession ofanatomical masculinity is a fall-back position ofagenic power vs castration and impotence—the femalerecipients. The recipients of giant cocks areportrayed as either wildly orgasmic and appreciative,or writhing with excruciating pain. To the eroticimaginary of cyberporn, what matters is not her(typical) response of pleasure or pain, but that thereis a powerful response; a granting of recognition and,

202

Net.SeXXX

hence, a validation of the power of the wielder of thegiant penis. The giant cock calls forth the woman'sacknowledgement of male superiority and power. Muchlike the struggle for recognition between the Masterand the Slave, his selfhood, masculine self-consciousness and narcissism requires the subordinateto respond and recognize him in order for him to seehimself as powerful. In this case, it matters notwhether her response is ecstatic orgasm or unbearableagony; what matters is that “powerful manhood” isrecognized and deferred to at least the eroticimaginary, if not found in the quotidian of work andfamily (see Hegel 1967).

This mechanism, the appeal to symbolic patriarchalpower with the penis as its emblem, long antedatescyberporn—indeed, it is a typical pattern. From thearchitechture and mentality of Rome to the teemingslums of many inner cities, when few males have decentjobs, the compensating stance is machismo, especiallyas evidenced in large numbers of sexual partners andeven larger numbers of children. Lower class men gainstatus and prestige through plural seductions. In anadversarial world of lawyers, DNA evidence andsympathetic juries, realities of macho-masculinityface limits, especially for the better educated. Butin the cyberporn imaginary, the possessor of agrotesque, giant cock elicits a strong response fromthe degraded; he finds agency and recognition; hedisavows his passivity and humiliation by projectingit to the one who gets “fucked.” In other words, inpsychoanalytic terms the possessor of the giant cockturns passivity into activity. Shit on me“They treat us like shit in this place.” Almost anysociologist who does occupational research has heardthis statement over and over again. Save for well-paidcorporate elites and/or highly skilled professionals,people in many fields complain they are mistreated—overworked and underpaid, little appreciated and

203


easily discarded. As was earlier noted, for Bakhtin(1969), central elements of carnivalesque grotesqueand transgression included bodily excreta and secreta.Much of the degradation and parody of the elites tookhighly scatological forms. Among the cyberpornotopiasare sites of scatological “grotesque degradation”where the primary concern is urination and/ordefecation. Although some of these sites that featureelimination shade into the next category (voyeurism),the essential theme is that the woman is degraded bybeing urinated upon, drinking urine and/or coveringherself with urine. Much the same can be said aboutdefecation, being defecated upon, eating excrement(coprophagia) or covering oneself with it. While suchbehaviors can be easily understood psychoanalyticallyfrom the victim’s point of view (e.g., a need fordebasement, punishment and even call for attention ifnot rescue), what might the viewer gain from viewingthis? As I have argued, certain segments of cyberpornarticulate in the symbolic erotic form the real orimagined degradation that people experience. But thishumiliation is disavowed—it is not part of the selfbut is projected to the subordinated woman. As she isdegraded by excreta, she displaces the shame and angerof the workplace from the self to the “not me.”

Meanwhile, otherwise denied agency, empowerment anddignity is experienced through identification with themale fellatee with a giant cock, who also anallypenetrates. So, too, may he defecate or urinate uponthe women—an almost universal expression of disdainand humiliation—as is mooning, a necessary prelude todefecation. The dynamic of “shit on me” is quitesimilar to “painful anal.” It is possible that “shiton me” is a less literal and more symbolic form ofwhat is unambiguously portrayed in “painful anal.”Indeed, from one point of view, “shit on me” issomething of a synthesis of “cum guzzling sluts” and“painful anal.” In “painful anal” she is fucked in the

204

Net.SeXXX

ass; in “shit on me” she is wiped with his ass (andlikes it).9

Peek-a-Boo, I See You—The “Intrusive Gaze”In most cyberporn, photos, film (videos) or even liveperformances, the participants are clearly performingin front of a camera for an intended audience. Many ofthe self-presentations (simulations) suggest theactors enjoy showing off their bodies anddemonstrating their sexuality to the cameras—if notultimate viewers. There are to be sure a number ofsites where the viewers are “invited” to watch what“really happens” in certain places. The spaminvitations may read, “I’m Angela (or Christy, Dawnand even Lauren), cum and watch me and my friends getreal nasty.” In sites such as VoyeurDorms, theparticipants know they are being observed. The viewershave the “privilege” of entering a private realm andwatching a “show” seemingly just for the viewer. Insome websites, the subscriber can enter commands forperformer(s) to enact. (Don’t ask what is asked)

But in other cases, the observer is hidden and thegaze intrudes into the private realms that would beotherwise hidden, safe from scrutiny were it not forthe placement of the webcam, the “panopticon ofcyberspace” that disciplines the observed, and perhapsthe observer as well. There are myriad places andsituations where the viewer can gain “special” accessto the “backstages” of personal/sexual life that areseemingly free of observation. This might includebathrooms watching women pee (perhaps viewed from webcams placed in the toilet bowl), shower, or changetampons; dressing rooms where they change clothes;bedrooms or coed dorms where people may be having sex;or doctor’s offices (a subgenre is gyniporn wherewebcams are inserted in the vagina). Webcams aresometimes placed in floors to catch “upskirt” shots ofthe underwear of women walking by (remember 3rd

grade?). A common theme is “anonymous” women beingpropositioned on the street—seemingly 100% comply, and

205


are soon “secretly” taped having sex, often as soon asthey get in the car. In one variant, “Street Blowjobs,” awebcam is supposedly hidden in the fellatee’seyeglasses to catch a “bird’s eye” view of the action.A closely related genre of cyber-voyeurism consists of“celebrities” in the buff—for example Jennifer Lopez,Brittney Spears, Pamela Anderson, Angelina Jolie,Nicole Kidman, Christina Aguilera, and so on—thatgives the viewer a privileged “gaze” that de-privileges the “star” (or her simulation) by revealingjust who and what she is when naked/having sex (thePamela and Tommy Lee, Paris Hilton and Rick Solomontapes are infamous.) To paraphrase Adorno, the “starsare brought down to earth.” To which we add: “andseemingly elevate the viewer.”

What is the appeal of the “intrusive gaze” in acontext where some might argue there is an element ofvoyeurism in all cyberpornography? For Freud,voyeurism was a sexually gratifying form ofscopophilia found in the act of gazing at people whocannot look back or don't know they're being watched.The “intrusive gaze” is more specific in that ittypically involves seeing nudity and/or body functionsfrom elimination to sexual activity, from masturbationto group sex. The fundamental point is not so muchwhat is seen, and indeed the naked body and sexualityrevealed by the “intrusive gaze” differs litte fromother cyberporn. Rather, the viewer is seeminglyunbeknownst to the observed and as such, violating herprivacy and destroying her dignity. Degrading theobserved empowers the observer.

To understand this, we must first note that privacyand its relation to sexuality is a historicalconstruction that emerged with the rise of marketsociety. As Aries (1962), Elias (1978) or Zaretsky(1976) have argued, the construction of theindividualistic, autonomous, self controlled Westernnotion of subjectivity was dependent on the prioremergence of privacy—a relatively unique cultural

206

Net.SeXXX

moment of freedom. We recall that in the late Frenchcourts, official business was often conducted whilethe king was either in bed—the leve (morning) or couche(night time)—or upon his chamberpot. Following theseparation of the household from the economy, and thecreation of “private realms,” the modern, bourgeoisself emerged as its body functions (from eliminationto bathing to masturbation to sexuality) were madeshameful and were shielded from an uninvited gaze.Indeed there is a reason genitalia are often called“privates” or “private parts,” as the socialization ofshame shields them from view. Likewise, outhouses areoften called privies.

Slowly but surely, as a moment of the “civilizingprocess”, with the “invention of childhood” came theinculcation of manners and development of a sense ofshame over exposure of the body’s “private parts,”excretory functions and/or sexual activities. Thus formodern people, to have one’s privacy invaded orintruded upon is a violation, a disempowering assaultupon one’s dignity and the integrity of the self. Thissame sense of shame was mobilized in bourgeois schoolsto foster learning.

What then is the appeal of the “the intrusivegaze”? The simple answer was noted: as a form of“grotesque degradation” it grants the viewer a senseof empowerment. This takes place at both structuraland personal levels. In his classical analysis of the“look,” Sartre (1943) noted how the Other captured hisfacticity by his glance. The “look” rendered the selfa powerless subject, constructed by the gaze of theOther. Similarly, for Foucault, the move from publictorture to private incarceration ever subject to thewarden’s “gaze,” “subject-ed” the prisoner andinscribed his/her subjectivity and disciplined thesoul; surveillance itself enabled “discursive power”the ability to control by defining the personobserved. The prisoner never knew when he was beingobserved from the panopticon; he might be sleeping,

207


using his chamber pot, picking his nose ormasturbating—but at no time did he have privacy and arealm of personal freedom, agency and choice ofaction. Thus the power of the gaze disempowered theperson, though in this case, for the sake of reforminghis/her soul.

In the “backstages” of personal life, what Goffman(1971) has called the “territories of the self,” [AU:reference?] one may prepare and rehearse self-presentations or hide other aspects of self fromassault and critique. Goffman refers to some of theserealms as “stalls”—the implication of bathrooms isevident (Waskul 2003). There is freedom, safety and anauthenticity in which one’s actions are spontaneouslygiven rather than given off to an audience for anintended reason. The erasure of the boundaries ofprivacy where one is protected from assault to theself destroys one’s dignity and defiles his/hersubjectivity. The “intrusive gaze” does not allow theOther to manage her impressions, her “secrets” areexposed, she is degraded, her “dignity” assaulted andshe is rendered powerless. When the private realm isexposed, and the difference between back stageauthenticity and overt self presentation is evident,if not discrepant, the person is subject todegradation, shame and humiliation and must undergoreparations such as self denigrations—elevating thestatus of the observer. Thus for example in theinverted worlds of the cyberpornotopias, Houston[AU:??] boasts with great pride how she consecutivelytook on 620 guys and invites the viewer/payer to watchthe action—for a fee at various websites such asKara’s http://www.karasxxx.com/guests6/index.shtml?ouzbt1. But when the “intrusive gaze” of the webcamshows the “girl next door” masturbating, fornicating,fellating, urinating or defecating, her status wanes,her dignity is rent, and the viewer is empowered.

The long history of psychoanalysis has explored theunconscious dynamics of voyeurism—how desire can be

208

Net.SeXXX

aroused and fulfilled though seeing others in eroticways, undressed, partially dressed (especially inunderwear), or engaged in sex acts—but in the case ofvoyeur porn, however, the gratifications are not onlyerotic, but also create a “desiring self.” Unlike thedream where the erotic is “hidden from the self,” in“grotesque degradation,” which is more narcissisticthan erotic, the “hidden” if not disavowed self of theviewer is realized in seeing what is typicallydisavowed, hidden, yet occurs in the “private” realm;we all sit on toilets, take showers (most of us)and/or have sex with others (or sometimes our selves).While the unbeknownst voyeuristic gaze cast upondegraded Other may seem to provide the viewer witherotic gratifications, the actual gratification ismore narcissistic, reparative of an injured ego whosegrandiosity is restored by his imaginary power overthe degraded Other who serves as his self object.

The seemingly “erotic” gratifications from theunbeknownst intrusion that demystify the Other,repairs an injured ego by providing a sense ofnarcissistic grandiosity via the denigrated of theOther rendered a self object. [AU: clarify] In otherwords, the intrusion empowers the subjectivity of theviewer/voyeur by eroding the boundaries of privacy,assaulting and degrading the Other, who is seen in“compromising ways,” powerless to negotiate herimpressions. But indeed it is the voyeur who remains

ConclusionsBefore the modern age, feudal societies were ruled bydynastic elites whose authority claims were based onGod’s will, or so the elite bishops told the people.Absent literacy or communication beyond the immediate,peasants could neither understand their own situationnor much communicate with other peasants. How did theydeal with their domination and subjugation? FollowingBakhtin (1968), we noted how the carnival emerged as aliminal site where transgression, inversion, andreversals of norms were celebrated; where, through

209


transvaluation and inversion, the grotesque,especially the grotesque body and/or the lower bodyand its excreta and secreta were valorized as arepudiation of the elites, who were ridiculed,parodied and hectored. But the grotesque was not justrepugnant; it revealed the truth of the society inwhich the wealthy enjoyed comfort while peasant lifewas short, nasty and brutish. For the otherwisedominated subalterns, during carnival, resistance,expressed as symbolic degradations of the elites,often in scatological forms, gave them encapsulatedrealms of agency and empowerment, of dignity,recognition and respect.

In much the same way, pornography in general, andcyberporn in particular, are more than displays ofbodies often involved in various sexual acts. For manypeople, there is genuine enjoyment in the“polymorphous perverse” that Freud so disdained. Whileit may be many things—an alternative to loneliness,explorations of ones’ sexuality, or even a sharedactivity—for the present purposes, as transgression,it tells us much about society, its hypocrisies andthe repressions that Freud, Weber and Elias suggestmaintained Western civilization. To which we note,following Reich and Marcuse, civilization was equatedwith its capitalist form in which repression at thelevel of the psychic economy served to maintain thepolitical economy, albeit at the cost of personal painand suffering. For some people, pornography and theerotic cyberpornotopias alleviate some of thatsuffering. Thus “polymorphous perversion” has anemancipatory moment, as both a critique of capital anda challenge to repressive norms of sexual life.

But this essay was not concerned with cyberporn ingeneral, only the genres of “grotesque degradation”that Bakhtin saw as essential elements of the carnivalof critique and resistance. “Grotesque degradation”reveals truths about the hidden side of neoliberalglobalization. While it perhaps may be a critique of

210

Net.SeXXX

the ways workers are treated, as a commodity, itassuages a damaged (male) self, and it provides escapeand distraction that serves to sustain larger systemsof domination. Williams notes, “In cinematic hard corewe encounter a profoundly ‘escapist’ genre thatdistracts audiences from the deeper social orpolitical causes of the disturbed relations betweenthe sexes; and yet paradoxically, if it is to distracteffectively, a popular genre must address some of thereal experiences and needs of its audience” (Williams2002, 154-5.). It is not the powers that be—the elitesof global capital—who are degraded, but the sex“partners” (sex objects) rendered “sluts,” “whores,”and “cunts” who serve as little more than orifices andbodies. There is a qualitative difference between“grotesque degradation” and traditional S/M and B/D,while they do overlap. The sadist and masochist have arelationship with each other and the infliction ofpain can be a source of pleasure and arousal to theone pained. Indeed any adult “toy” shop has a widerange of “torture” devices such as clamps for genitalsand nipples, as well as paddles, gags, handcuffs, andso on. Quite often, these are bought by couples whoare, presumably, in a loving and erotic relationship.

In “grotesque degradation,” the “sluts” do not findsuch pleasure: there is nothing but pain, shame,suffering and degradation-or at least simulations.They are commodified symbolic representations ofsubordination and powerlessness located between thenodules of globalization and the cyberpornotopianfantasies of the Internet where they function aserotized scapegoats whose plight illustrates the priceof globalization that treats people like shit andfucks them over—if not up the ass—and discards themwhen no longer useful. Such cyperpornographicrepresentations of degradation provide realms ofcompensatory masculinity, granting symbolicempowerment and recognition apart from the “realworld” of economic anxiety and insecurity. Insofar as

211


the symbolic representations of exploitation takeplace in the erotic imaginary, they foster and rewardthe migration of consciousness from political economyto a cultural site where privatized hedonismneutralizes political action. Almost 40 years ago,Marcuse (1964) [AU: missing reference] termed this“repressive de-sublimation.”

It is of course ironic that the same technologiesof production and control that have so adverselyimpacted working conditions and job security, amongthe white-collar as well as blue-collar workers, alsomediates the ameliorations for insecurities, anxietiesand anger. The same technologies provide alternativecompensations to wounded egos through the degradationof the Other and/or grotesque expressions ofmasculinity. While cyberporn in general usestechnologies of Internet power to construct subjects,as was argued, it also constructs and/or affirms theidentities of the viewer. “Grotesque degradation”provides and sustains compensatory masculinity inencapsulated realms where submissive, degraded,masochistic women—“deserving” of pain and humiliation—allow the viewer to split off and project his ownpains and humiliations of degradation. In identifyingwith the degraded, pained woman, he can bothexperience and deny his own degradation and indirectlyacknowledge his masochism. The “cum guzzling slut,”painfully split open by a giant cock in her ass, andpissed and shat upon, is indeed the everyman in aglobal society. But at the same time, in the privacyof his own home, with the anonymity of the screen, theviewer, through projective identification with theaggressor—the possessor of the powerful, giant cock—can find a space for a simulated masculine identitythat provides performative agency, dignity and respectotherwise denied.

As was argued, between globalization and theerosion of job stability and promises of a stablesecure career, together with feminist challenges to

212

Net.SeXXX

traditional male identities—for segments of thepopulation—the reaction has been both shame-engenderedrage and disavowed masochism. As Uebel (2000) put it:

Cyberporn offers nothing less than a fantasy scene for self-flagellation, wherein men, having internalized, howeverpartially or imperfectly, feminist modes of recognition, tryto defeat their own aggressive impulses. Cyberpornographicmasochism is thus an expression of eroticized historical andsocial guilt. The question here is: what has happened to menthat they feel compelled to behave in non threatening, evennonheroic, ways?…I would suggest provisionally that it hasto do with an ideal image of masculinity to which men feelconstant pressure to measure up and from which they feelincreasingly alienated. It also involves an ideal image manymen experience as imperiled by the punitive regime of technocapitalism…These masochistic mentalities are accommodated incyberporn, as nowhere else on a mass-cultural scale. Menexposed to 30 or so years of the discourse and politicaleffects of feminism are men who, for one reason or another,know it is unacceptable to evince the outrightpatriarchalism that was part and parcel of American sociallife until feminism asserted itself. What results is atension between the “enlightened” consciousness of theAmerican male at the end of the 20th century and apatriarchal sedimentation so old it is indissoluble. Thistension is then reconciled fantasmically through a masochismthat, on the face of it, seems to involve a forfeiture ofdominance, but that in fact is nothing other than acompensatory mechanism, one that, at the level of fantasy,allows for the restoration and consolidation of masculinepower.

Carnivalization in general, and contemporary genresof carnivalesque cyberporn that celebrate “grotesquedegradation,” sustains domination and by letting offmale steam (if not semen), and serves to reproduce thesocial order. But at the same time, there is, incyberpornotopias, a moment that functions as bulwarksagainst the general conservative trends of the presentand confronts the established norms, codes and imagesof a world of erotic pleasure in face of domination.Is cyberporn a form of “repressive desublimation” thatsecures domination, or do the polymorphous perversions

213


of grotesque degradation stand as a critique, a callto arms and a vision of a truly emancipated societywhere gender hierarchies are absent and cyberporn isnot needed as a compensatory balm, but rather becomesa catalyst that allows humanity to realize thwartedpleasures?

EpilogueIronically, the “grotesque degradation” genres ofcyberporn serve conservative ends. It reproduces theneoliberal system, despite its inequality,insecurities and assaults on the masculine identity.As was earlier noted, there have emerged a number ofcultural products from misogynist televisionprogramming, shock rock, wrestling, football and autoracing that each in their own way provide symbolicrepairs to male egos under assault. It would even seemas if some of the support for politicians such asBush, Schwartznegger or Clark comes from their imagesas tough men who can get things done. That is trulyobscene.

AcknowledgementsThe author wishes to express a great deal of thanks toDennis Waskul for his help in developing this paper,his suggestions have been invaluable. Further, GaryFine’s comments on parts of the manuscript are muchappreciated. Meghan Burke’s editorial help wasindispensable.

Notes1. This was, of course, Freud’s (1930) argument: civilization

was founded on repression. Similarly, Reich (1970) would argue that it was capitalism, not civilization per se that demanded such suppression, an argument later developed by Marcuse (1964).

2. This needs qualification, there are some works of pornography (or perhaps sexually explicit mainstream productions) in which questions are raised about the nature of gender identities in a changing world. Perhaps the best example might be the classic Wanda Does Wall Street where the intelligent, ambitious secretary—using her seductive charms—manages to rise in the hierarchy to become CEO of a Wall

214

Net.SeXXX

Street brokerage house. While this may reinforce the image of the woman who screws her way to the top, nevertheless, she does assert her agency through sexuality—much as men have done since the dawn of civilization.

3. Surely we might trace its roots earlier to the cults of Dionysus or the Saturnalia.

4. This is often a common theme in other genres as well. Consider horror movies: the strong, assertive women are typically the victims. The moral is that a woman ought to stay home and be compliant or she may have throat slit.

5. Jewish tradition, including the prophets, does not refer to the sexuality of Sodom, but to its cruelty, xenophobia, or perhaps gang rape. God never mentions homosexual sex. See http://www.uahc.org/ask/homosexuality.shtml

6. In some cultures/subcultures, the value of virginity is so strong that couples often practice anything but, which meansprimarily butt.

7. Often found in many of the genres of “grotesque degradation”is the “tit fuck”, where the penis, giant or otherwise, stimulated between breasts, ejaculates on the face/body of the woman and thus dramatizes and celebrates the valorized difference between male and female.

8. I have elsewhere argued that the popularity of professional football can be seen as a celebration of masculinity, in which the highly angled and muscled male players are juxtaposed with rounded, female cheerleaders whose choreography serves to foster bouncing breasts. And if they are not easily noticed, pom-poms become their symbolic exaggerated representation. (See Langman, 2003)

9. This interpretation was suggested by Dennis Waskul, to whom the author is very grateful.

ReferencesAries, P. 1962 . Centuries of childhood. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Bakhtin, M. 1968. Rabelais and his world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Bordo, S. 1993. Reading the male body. Michigan Quarterly Review.

32:696-735.Brown, H.G 1962. Sex and the Single Girl. New York: Random HouseCooper, A. 1998. Sexuality and the Internet: Surfing into the

new millennium. CyberPsychology & Behavior. 1(2):24-28.Durkheim, E. [1893] 1984. The division of labor in society. New York, NY:

The Free Press.Dworkin, A. 1981. Pornography: Men possessing women. New York : Perigee

Books[AU: city? Please check date]

Elias, N. 1978. The civilizing process. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

215


Flitterman-Lewis, S. 1992. Psychoanalysis, film, and television.In Channels of discourse (Television & contemporary criticism, 2nded.). R. C. Allen, ed. Chapel Hill, NC: University of NorthCarolina Press.

Foucault, M. 1978. History of sexuality: An introduction vol. 1. New York, NY:Vintage.

Freud, S. 1930. Civilization and its discontents. New York, NY: WW Norton &Company.

_____. [1917]. 1989 Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, New York, NY:WW Norton & Company.

———. [1915] 1974. Instincts and their vicissitudes. In The standardedition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud, vol. 14. J. Strachey,ed. and trans. London: Hogarth Press———. [1912] 1974. On the universal tendency to debasement in the

sphere of love. In The standard edition of the complete psychological works ofSigmund Freud, vol. 11, J. Strachey, ed. and trans. London: HogarthPress.

Friedan, B. 1964. The feminine mystique. New York, NY; Norton.Friedman, D. 2001. A mind of its own: A cultural history of the penis. New York,

NY: Penguin Books.Goffman. E. 1971 Relations in Public. New York: Basic BooksHegel, G. F. [1807] 1967. The phenomenology of the mind. New York, NY:

Harper and Row.Kipnis, L. 1999. Bound and gagged. Duke University Press.Langman, L. 2003. Culture, identity, and hegemony: The body in a

global age. International Sociology, Volume 18(4).Lillie, J. 2002. Sexuality and cyberporn: Toward a new agenda for

research. Journal of Sexuality Culture, Spring.MacKinnon, C. 1987. Feminism unmodified. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.Marcuse, H. 1964. One-dimensional man : Studies in the ideology of advanced

industrial society. Beacon Press; 2nd edition (January 1992).Marx, K. 1972. The economic and philosophic manuscripts of 1844. In

The Marx-Engles reader, Tucker, ed. New York: W. W. Tucker and Co.McLuhan, M. 1964. Understanding media: The extensions of man. Cambridge,

MA: MIT Press.Mulvey, L. 1989 Visual and other Pleasure, Bloomington: Indiana

University Press. Paglia, C. 1990. Sexual personae: Art and decadence from Nefertiti to Emily

Dickinson. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.Reich, W 1970. The mass psychology of fascism. New York, NY, Farrar,

Straus & Giroux.Sade, M. 1987. The 120 days of Sodom and other works. New York, NY: Grove

Press

216

Net.SeXXX

Sartre, J. P. 1943. The look, section IV. In Being and nothingness: A phenomenological essay on ontology. pp. 228–278. Secaucus, New Jersey: The Citadel Press. (1956/1974).

Scheff, T. 1994. Bloody revenge: Emotions, nationalism, and war. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Sennett, R. 2003. Respect in a world of inequality. New York, NY: WW Norton.

Sennett, R., and J Cobb. 1972. The hidden injuries of class. New York, NY: Knopf.

Stienem, G.[1963] 1989. I Was a Playboy Bunny, reprinted in Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions. New York: Henry Holt and Co.

Turner, V. 1969. The ritual process: Structure and anti-structure. Ithaca, NY:Cornell University Press.

Uebel, M. 2000. Toward a symptomatology of pornography.http://muse.jhu.edu/ journals/theory _&_ event/toc/tae3.4.html

Waskul, D. 2003. Self-games and body-play: Personhood in online chat and cybersex.New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Williams, L. 1989. Hard core: Power, pleasure, and the “frenzy of the visible.” Berkeley: University of California Press.

Zaretsky, E. 1976. Capitalism, the family and personal life: New York, NY: Harper and Row.

217

Documents

Grotesque Degradation, Carnivalization and Cyberporn