Black's Law Dictionary describes pornography as material that "the average person,

applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work taken as a whole
appeals to the prurient interest." Random House College Dictionary defines prurient in
part as "causing lasciviousness or lust," and lascivious as "arousing or inciting sexual
desire." So, pornography is about sex. Specifically, it is material that arouses sexual
desire by sexually objectifying individuals and acts.

Traditionally, we recognize only one form of prurient interest -- that having to do with
intercourse and orgasm. The problem with this is that it focuses almost entirely on the
male gender, on what most men feel they need from women: intercourse and orgasm.
Hence, we traditionally define pornography only in this context, with the result that we
ignore most female pornography.

Pornography objectifies individuals or acts within the context of gender expectations. If

men expect women to provide intercourse and orgasm, what do women, in the context of
gender, expect from men?

Most women at some time in their life, and some women all the time, expect the same
thing from men: intercourse and orgasm. But in our society, what most women expect
most of the time is for men to provide a home, financial support, and status within the
community. Hence, where male pornography focuses on female sex objects, female
pornography focuses on what Warren Farrell calls male success objects. (Why Men Are
The Way They Are, Berkley edition/September 1988, Warren Farrell, Ph.D., p 134)

Pornography for Men, Pornography for Women

Pop-feminists assert there is only pornography for men: "There can be no 'equality' in
porn, no female equivalent, no turning of the tables in the name of bawdy fun.
Pornography, like rape, is a male invention, designed to dehumanize women, to reduce
the female to an object of sexual access, not to free sensuality from moralistic or parental
inhibition." (Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller, pp 443) This is a myth they promote
to obscure that there are many ways to objectify someone.

Most pornography for men objectifies women sexually. Typically, you can't buy it at
your local grocery store. Most pornography for women, on the other hand, objectifies
men as "walking wallets," and women can buy it at their local market in the "steamy"
romance novel section, or straight off the magazine rack. What men call sex, they call
"romance":

Romance is used to sell women on almost every single product, from cars to food.
Romantic love makes the world turn on soap operas and in romance novels, two
hugely popular and profitable forms of entertainment that have almost half of
America mesmerized -- the female half. -- Women Who Love Men Who Kill,
Sheila Isenberg, p 125
By the millions, women consume female pornography: "Best-selling romance novels
reach an estimated 20 million people, most of them women." (Women Who Love Men
Who Kill, Sheila Isenberg, p 125)

What makes pornography for men so unacceptable? Why are so many women disgusted
by it? They say it is because the purpose is to ridicule and dehumanize women: "The gut
distaste that a majority of women feel when we look at pornography, a distaste that,
incredibly, it is no longer fashionable to admit, comes, I think, from the gut knowledge
that we and our bodies are being stripped, exposed and contorted for the purpose of
ridicule to bolster that 'masculine esteem' which gets its kick and sense of power from
viewing females as anonymous, panting playthings, adult toys, dehumanized objects to be
used, abused, broken and discarded." (Against Our Will, Susan Brownmiller, pp 442 -
443)

This inflammatory denunciation of male sexuality springs from the sexist assumption
men cannot feel sexually aroused without there being some element of ridicule or desire
to dominate. I remember getting into my father's Playboy collection as a boy during
puberty, and Worship would be a better description of what I felt than "ridicule." And the
millions purveyors of "phone sex" make catering to men's need for intimacy proves
"anonymous, panting playthings" have little to do with why men pay for porno.

Another reason pop-feminists oppose pornography for men is that, ostensibly, it

"degrades" women: "Strip clubs further the image of women as objects of pleasure for
men. Stripping may not degrade the women who do it for a living (who describe the
feeling of power and superiority they have over their audience) but it does degrade
women as a whole." (Women on Rape, Jane Dowdeswell, p 42) This completely
misstates the real issue -- pornography doesn't diminish women in general so much as it
increases their sexual competition.

Pop-feminists really oppose male pornography because it undermines the sexual power of
women. A man who can see naked women any time he finds it convenient is not a man
very vulnerable to the coy hint of cleavage beneath a woman's blouse. If he's seen so
many naked breasts that a woman who hides hers cannot use partial concealment to
arouse his interest and, thereby manipulate him, then she has less power over him.

Power, however, is not the reason they give because to admit it would undermine their
efforts. Instead, they try to persuade us that, rather than being a symptom of larger
problems, pornography is a primary source of problems: "Pornography implies that a
woman's inherent seductiveness justifies any sadistic and/or sexual act a man wishes to
commit against her." (Men Who Hate Women & The Women Who Love Them,
Bantam Books 1988 edition, Dr. Susan Forward and Joan Torres, p 122)

Women have no more inherent seductiveness than men do. Is makeup part of their
inherent seductiveness? Is perfume? Are the thousands of different hairstyles and the big
dollar industry of high-fashion all a part of their inherent seductiveness?
Men obsess about women's sex because generations of women have set themselves up as
sellers of scarce female sexuality.

How do women commonly attract men? With their sexuality and sensuality. Take this
away, and they would have to work to attract men with their personality and intelligence.
This, as men well know, is a tough arena in which to compete for the attention of another.
Easier by far for women to maintain their ability to employ the sexual sell by outlawing
pornography for men.

Pop-feminists need to oppose male pornography not because men see women as sex
objects, but to increase women's value as sex objects.

June 26, 1995: I am walking out of "The Bridges of Madison County," wiping my tears
and searching for my Kleenex. I feel in awe of Meryl Streep's acting and feel empathy for
her character's disappointed dreams.

But the light of day--or was it the darkness of night?--makes me wonder whether I've
crossed that bridge in only one direction. Here is a married woman (Francesca) having an
affair and I am calling it a romance; when a married man has an affair, don't we call it
infidelity?

In 25 years of research, I've also seen many men's marriages continue amid dashed
dreams and disappointed hopes. But when they have an affair, their pain is not
communicated to the world; in contrast, they are condemned as womanizers, users and
jerks before millions of women in the courts of Oprah, Donahue and Sally.

As an author, I got to thinking about publishers--could "Bridges" have ever even found a
publisher if the sexes were reversed? Let us say a young man from a rural town in Italy
had dreams of coming to America. So he marries an American woman who owns lots of
land. Would he be seen as a user? Would his story sell as a romance novel to men? Not.
It would sell to no one.

Would we empathize with him more if he refused to join his loving wife and their
children for a four-day weekend at the county fair to support his daughter's hope for a
prize? And then, only minutes after his wife took the children, a fantasy woman dropped
by out of nowhere and he had a mad, passionate love affair with her, and then packed his
bags to desert his wife and children?

Or, would our empathy for him increase if we knew how this man's affair--in rural,
religious Iowa--would have led to his whole family being ostracized had anyone detected
it, yet he flagrantly spent hours with this woman on a bridge over which many townsfolk
crossed: a bridge of Madison County?

Perhaps, though, since he was sleeping with a roving photographer who had affairs all
over the world, he would just have given his wife a good case of VD. Would I have then
left the theater crying with empathy for him? Not.
Now suppose this father were portrayed as recording every detail of the affair in four
diaries that his wife could easily have discovered. But when she didn't, imagine this
father leaving the diaries in his will for his children to read, altering the children's view of
their dad without the opportunity for dialogue. Would I have left the theater with the
impression of him as a devoted father?

The issue, of course, is not "The Bridges of Madison County" per se, but the popularity
of the genre, its portrayal of men, why it is the equivalent of male pornography, how it
romanticizes the separation of passion from marriage (the female equivalent of men's
Madonna/whore dichotomy), and why male pornography gets censored while female
pornography gets celebrated.

In 25 years of research, I've also seen many men's marriages continue amid dashed
dreams and disappointed hopes. But when they have an affair, their pain is not
communicated to the world; in contrast, they are condemned as womanizers, users and
jerks before millions of women in the courts of Oprah, Donahue and Sally.

As an author, I got to thinking about publishers--could "Bridges" have ever even found a
publisher if the sexes were reversed? Let us say a young man from a rural town in Italy
had dreams of coming to America. So he marries an American woman who owns lots of
land. Would he be seen as a user? Would his story sell as a romance novel to men? Not.
It would sell to no one.

Would we empathize with him more if he refused to join his loving wife and their
children for a four-day weekend at the county fair to support his daughter's hope for a
prize? And then, only minutes after his wife took the children, a fantasy woman dropped
by out of nowhere and he had a mad, passionate love affair with her, and then packed his
bags to desert his wife and children?

Or, would our empathy for him increase if we knew how this man's affair--in rural,
religious Iowa--would have led to his whole family being ostracized had anyone detected
it, yet he flagrantly spent hours with this woman on a bridge over which many townsfolk
crossed: a bridge of Madison County?

Perhaps, though, since he was sleeping with a roving photographer who had affairs all
over the world, he would just have given his wife a good case of VD. Would I have then
left the theater crying with empathy for him? Not.

Now suppose this father were portrayed as recording every detail of the affair in four
diaries that his wife could easily have discovered. But when she didn't, imagine this
father leaving the diaries in his will for his children to read, altering the children's view of
their dad without the opportunity for dialogue. Would I have left the theater with the
impression of him as a devoted father?
The issue, of course, is not "The Bridges of Madison County" per se, but the popularity
of the genre, its portrayal of men, why it is the equivalent of male pornography, how it
romanticizes the separation of passion from marriage (the female equivalent of men's
Madonna/whore dichotomy), and why male pornography gets censored while female
pornography gets celebrated.

Let's start with popularity. A total of 25 million American women read an average of 20
romance novels a month. Romance novels constitute 40% of all paperback book sales in
America.

On pornography: How is it that when a woman, even if married, treats a strange man as a
sex object, it's called romance, but when a man, even if single, treats a strange woman as
a sex object, it's called pornography?

Do these romance novels help women who have the affairs bring their newly discovered
passions and potential back into the marriage? Hardly. In "Bridges," after Francesca
discovers her repressed passion and her loving husband and children return from the
county fair, she kisses them, but not him. She makes not a single attempt in any form to
bring into her marriage the part of herself she had discovered in her affair.

Thus the romance novel reinforces the division between marriage and romance. No, it's
worse than that. The psychological destruction of her husband is often a central theme of
the romance novel--even in those of the respected Danielle Steel.

For example, in Steel's "To Love Again," Isabella "finds herself in love with a man who
wants to destroy all she has left of her husband." In Steel's "Crossings," the heroine's love
for a steel magnate destroys her "devotion" to her husband. (And then the reader searches
her women's magazine for articles on why men are afraid of commitment.)

Romance novels rarely make heroes of the sensitive man. She attracts, resists; he
performs, persists. The novels are called "Sweet Savage Love," not "He Stopped When I
Said No."

This confuses some men: When she says "no" and doesn't mean it, it's a romance novel if
he persists. When she says "no" and means it, it's sexual harassment if he persists.

In brief, when he guesses right, it's called courtship; when he guesses wrong, it's called
harassment. And if the courtship works it's called a marriage with her picture in the
paper; if the courtship fails, it's called a court case with his picture in the paper.

Romance novel readers are not just stay-at-home moms: 71% have jobs outside the home.
When Harlequin Romances discovered this and modified their formula to appeal to the
working woman, their net earnings in 10 years went from $110,000 to $21 million.
In the Harlequin romance, a working woman is often "swept away" by an exciting,
wealthy man. The man's wealth allows her the freedom to work by option, not by
obligation; to work if she wants, at what she wants. It is the portrayal of him as wealthy
while ignoring the pressures he endures to create that wealth that turns him into an object.
A success object. And that objectification gives her psychological permission to never
even consider how she will use her wealth to reduce his pressures.

I call romance novels female pornography because I define pornography as that which
objectifies. In male pornography, women are sex objects; in female pornography, men are
success objects. (Unless the woman is already married to a man who is successful--then
she also fantasizes a sex object.)

This holds true even when the romance novels are romance movies. If, as in "Bridges,"
the heroine has already gotten her success object, she fantasizes her sex object; if, as in
"Flashdance" or "Pretty Woman," she is not successful, she fantasizes her success object.

In the romance novel what does she do for him? The fantasy is that her mere existence--
her soul, her integrity, her spirit--are so superior to his that she does not need to do
anything for him, she just needs to be. No wonder 25 million women read 20 romance
novels a month while there were never more than half a million women who read one
Ms. magazine per month. Will the real women's movement please step forward?