(E&A) Nit-Picky Reading (2)

I jumped over to Adams' essay, in light of my previous entry. This particular view intrigues me, mostly because I just don't get it. The connections drawn seem far-fetched -- not necessarily without any merit whatsoever, but odd enough that I have to stop and think, and debate.


“The Rape of Animals, the Butchering of Women” - Carol J. Adams

p. 209 -- “Language thus contributes even further to animals’ absences.” -- I do not think that language alone is responsible for the contribution, rather than the intent of the speaker. With respects to the Adams’ context, ‘meat’ inherently has the underlying themes of butchery and death; we cannot have meat without “violently depriving [it] of all feeling” (210). Is it then that random person X does not immediately associate the meat in the grocery store with a live cow? If I asked that same person: ‘Where did this beef come from?’, the most likely answer would be: ‘A cow’. And if I continued: ‘How did it go from cow to meat?’, I am sure that I’d get a reasonably short answer, like ‘it’s killed’. So the ignorance is not of the origin of the meat, nor the means of getting the meat, but a lack of conscious awareness of the process -- the process is not immediately associated with pre-packaged meat. But Adams maintains that the word ‘meat’, understood as an absent referent, allows us to imagine a dinner plate of food rather than an independent entity. This is true -- until a follow-up question is asked of the person (‘How does a cow become meat?’), at which point they are consciously aware of what, exactly, this meat was. So, I can partially concede to Adams’ point -- specifically that people are not consistently consciously aware of the process of getting meat. “The absent referent is both there and not there” (210).

p. 210 -- “These terms recall woman’s experiences, but not women.” -- This begs two questions. 1) Is she saying that rape only happens to women? 2) I do not understand how the people who have had these horrendous experiences are ‘divorced’ from the idea of ‘rape’, no matter the context -- the word itself carries a graven connotation of forced dominance. While I do not know the face of every single woman (and man and child) that has ever been raped, I do not think that having a face directly attached to the idea of ‘rape’ is necessary for the full understanding of what the verb imports. And I do not think that the word alone is divorced from the victims, collectively or individually. I do not understand how Adams thinks the term has been kidnapped.

p. 210 -- bondage equipment “suggests the control of animals”. -- This seems to be to be a surface understanding of bondage, by which Adams continues the idea of forced dominance, seemingly having not researched the sub-culture (pun intended) to which she is making the analogy. Strictly looking in from the outside, the scene looks like forced dominance of one person over another... but such a view is severely limited in what takes place in a bondage scene.

1) The top does not always have to be a man -- hence Dom/me (‘Dom’ - man, ‘Domme’ - female). So, the violence is not always done to a woman (porno or not).

2) a) Bondage is about respect and trust, beyond the obvious hedonism. The Dom/me respects the submissive in their set boundaries on the scene, and trusts the submissive to tell them if something is wrong. The submissive respects the Dom/me’s decisions about the scene, and (rather explicitly) trusts the Dom/me to allow them control (to whatever agreed upon extent).

b) The Dom/me, assuming all things good and equal, CANNOT exert any control without the submissive’s permission -- thus, all control lies with the sub. You cannot be controlled if you do not give that control, period. Indeed, the key phrase that Adams doesn’t understand is ‘willing victim’ -- the submissive willingly places him/her-self at the mercy of the Dom/me. Nothing is (or should be) forced...

c) The act of bondage is (supposed to be) a consensual contract between the two people -- literally, an agreed upon contract over what can, or cannot, happen during a scene. Thus, if violence is committed, it’s because both parties agreed that such actions are allowed. Likewise, if the submissive is overtly treated like an animal, it’s because the submissive allows or wants that particular behavior to happen; if the submissive does not, then the Dom/me is going beyond the agreed upon bounds, and submissive may immediately hault the scene.

Nevermind that I’m fairly certain that in some (read: at least one) culture, ropes and chains were used for other purposes (raising and lowering a drawbridge, hauling back wood or food to the camp/village, et cetera) than solely for the control of animals. So I cannot agree with this particular claim on any front.


p. 210 -- “Similarly, in images of animal slaughter, erotic overtones suggest that women are the absent referent. ... The impact of a seductive pig relies on an absent but imaginable, seductive woman...” -- .....what movies/images has she seen??? I’m a fan of ‘blood, guts and gore’ movies... I even managed to sit through ‘Earthlings’ (which had its moments) -- I cannot think of a single image of animal slaughter that actually tried to be (even remotely) erotic... I’m willing to admit that I might not be thinking of fleshy women when I look at a pig, since I am a woman; but this seems to border on absurdity. (Or, is this in reference to the idea of a bondage scene as a man using ‘animal-controlling-tools’ on a woman?)



p. 212 -- “Linda Lovelace claims that when presented to Xaveria Hollander for inspection, “Xaveria looked me over like a butcher inspecting a side of beef.” When one film actress committed suicide, another described the dilemma she and other actresses encounter: “They treat us like meat.” Of this statement Susan Griffin writes: “She means that men who hire them treat them as less than human, as matter without spirit.” -- Curiously, Adams does not elaborate on these womens’ careers. However, my guess is that these quotes are from women working in the acting and/or modeling business, something that demands ‘visual perfection’. Lovelace’s word-choice of ‘inspection’ belies my point: In these particular cases, the women were (willing) subjects of a visual form; actresses must look the part -- that’s their job. The subject must be inspected -- not necessarily meant as a derrogatory or condescending gesture towards the woman (although I’m sure that at least one person embraces the exception), but as a mere function of the (visual) business. I wonder if these same women would have thought or felt the same if the director had been female? Would they have guaged ‘the look’ differently simply because of the director’s gender? There’s no surrounding context to these quotes, so it’s difficult to guage the full extent of possible overt ‘objectification’.

p. 213 -- “In The American Heritage Dictionary the definition of ‘lamb’ is illustrated not by an image of Mary’s little one but by an edible body divided into ribs, loins, shank, and leg.” -- This is disparaging, and rather depressing. My Oxford American Dictionary has 3 defintions: 1) a young sheep; 2) its flesh as food; 3) (informal) a gentle or endearing person. It seems imperative to point out that the dictionary that Adams quotes is from 1969, and the OAD was printed in 1979/80 -- quite a shift in 10 or 11 years -- ‘young sheep’ comes first, and inadvertantly presents the violent process of animal-to-food.

p. 214 -- quote from William Hazlitt in 1826 -- “Animals that are made of as food should either be so small as to be imperceptible, or else we should ... not leave the form standing to reproach us with our gluttony and cruelty.” -- I’ve no idea who Hazlitt is -- if he was a person speaking out for animal rights (did they do that back then?), or if he was, as Adams says, “honestly admitting” the truth about the psychologically necessary(?) step of emotional distancing oneself from the animal who becomes one’s meal. Considering the last sentence in his quote, “I hate to see a rabbit trussed, or a hare brought to the table in the form which it occupied while living”, it seems apparent that he was not raised on a farm, and is (I’m guessing) middle class. He realizes the violent process of animal-to-food, and would rather be ignorant of it.


It’s strange to me -- people have morbid fascinations that are socially acceptable (crashes at car races, car accidents in general, the latest craze of funny-because-it’s-not-you Jackass episodes and movies, et cetera), but these are kept at a distance -- the car crash involves someone that you don’t know, or has immediate medical attention and hopefully a spectacular explosion, the wars overseas have casualties that never have faces. Some enjoy ‘blood, guts, and gore’ movies that reveal the anatomy in grusome ways; but even this is at a distance -- the faces are unknown, the situation is a picture or a movie, and no matter the amount of gore, it’s in the form of a picture or a movie, which automatically creates a fictitious air (whether it’s actually fiction or not).

Viewing the dead can be taboo (a la gore flicks), or socially acceptable (funerals). But in either situation, it’s only when you consciously think of someone dying that it hits home. Or, your viewing can remain fictitious if the moment is not personalized, so that the momento mori is lost.