In my never ending quest to find the stupidest things ever written, I offer this book excerpt for your perusal. It seems there are those who think "chick flicks" and romance novels are pornography for women. They do so based on the immutable logic conveyed by ... a dictionary definition. Uhmm hum, you read that right. The dictionary says so.
Yet female pornography has for decades been an accepted pastime, sliding under the radar of the religious right and instead being promoted as an acceptable distraction from the worries of life. But what exactly is female porn? Is there a definition for this newly discovered blight on society? For the answer to this question, we need look no further than the honorable Mr. Webster and his infamous dictionary of words. How we overlooked this definition for years upon years we do not know. But we are here today to uncover the truth.
The truth, according to Webster's tome is this:
pornography – 3: the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction
I sit here with Webster's New World Dictionary before me (third college edition) and I find no such third definition of pornography. I'm not saying that the authors of this tripe made the definition up; I'm just positing that they keep using that word, and I don't think it means what they think it means. By that definition, professional wrestling is porn, modern dance is porn, and Disney films are porn. Now, if the definition had said "the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional erection" I might be on board with the argument. But applying obscure slang-wise or colloquial definitions of a word to imply greater truth is really kind of stupid.
Don't get me wrong; I do agree that some romance novels are indeed women's porn, based precisely on this definition from Webster:
1. Writings, pictures, etc. intended primarily to arouse sexual desire.
The excerpt then goes on to posit the very same arguments from feminist authors of the 1960s, that porn will leave you desperate and demeaned because people can't tell the difference between the ideal and the real. Folks, that argument has been debunked many times over. But I am terribly amused by the irony of the religious right adopting the stances of their hated enemy, the feminists.
When I started writing this post, I wanted to do a really thorough ass-kicking of this book's assumptions and those of its authors. But the more I read it, the more droll it becomes. Suffice to say that they posit women as weak minded, and desperation prone. They liken watching a romantic movie to receiving a high end decorating catalog. They make fools of themselves. Hopefully, however, you'll get a laugh out of it. Originally, I did.