a little of everyday

not a few of my friends and i have asked and discussed about the idea of the "body" and how it should be figured in this module. from another module that i have done, we were told that sex and human sexuality has always been the site for power contention throughout history. the dominant elites of any civilisation would therefore be the ones who have won in this power struggle. think, for instance, of the Islamic sanction for men to take on more than one wife under special circumstances. it is no coincidence that the religious elites are predominantly males. but how do we get from sexuality to the body? perhaps it is best bridged by an extract from Ann Rosalind Jones' article, albeit the opinion is not quite what the author supports: "if women are to discover and express who they are, to bring to the surface what masculine history has repressed in them, they must begin with their sexuality. And their sexuality begins with their bodies, with their genital and libidianl difference from men."

to think of that would make definitions, as well as the ability to define, tools of power. yet, this can only be possible if you can articulate/speak what you are, and what you speak is heard and understood by others. something like Louis Althousser (and his idea of interpellation or the act of hailing) and the Patriarch working together to rule the world.

so now we know why a woman wear the things (or the lack of things) she wears and to what ends she wears them. indeed, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and what the men want to see in women are the defining features of beauty they have constructed - high-heels, halter-tops, micro-minis - never mind that they hurt and itch and make you breathless.

i was listening to the radio the other day, and the DJ mentioned that studies have shown that while men look for physical attributes like bust-size and the buttocks in their potential partners, women tend to look at non-bodily attributes like handphones, watches, and (esp) car keys. i think that this is very interesting when related back to the whole idea of definitions and who gets to define the "body" in today's society. because men in patriarchies get to decide what is beautiful and pleasurable to their eyes, and because this happens to be visually stimulating "images" of the Woman, women are made to identify with and play out these images by assuming them themselves. so who says all's fair in love and the mating game?

the other interesting thing is how women are willing to overlook the "flaws" in their male partners. (or should we even be calling them flaws in the first place? think about the character lines on men's faces which are mysteriously transformed into wrinkles - unforgivable wrinkles - on a woman's.) perhaps they are "conned" into thinking that a paunch on a man symbolises wealth. but yet it may have some truth. Helen Fisher in her book The Anatomy of Love came up with a solid argument which explains why men are polygamous while women are generally for monogamy. the former is merely acting out his biological urge to sire as many children as he can; for the latter, it has got to do with sercurity for her offsprings and a conducive environment for the kids to grow up in. in today's context, this may translate into status markers like watches and car keys. so apart from the social (mis)definition of beauty there may also be a fundamental, biological motivation behind women's criteria for choosing her partner.

unless you are talking about a tai tai with enough wealth to suffocate you...

i suppose there you would see a shift of power and definitions (of beauty). i leave the rest up to your fertile imagination.