Guilty pleasures
Feb. 19th, 2005 11:29 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
imomusThe Westerner's first reaction to Japan is that it's a bloody odd place with some strange attitudes to life. But the more time you spend here, the more that impression is replaced by its opposite: it's the West that's a bloody odd place with some strange attitudes to life.
Do you want an example? Okay, let's take guilty pleasures. Now, I've never seen food, books or sex advertised in Japan as a 'guilty pleasure'. A pleasure, yes. Guilty, no. But in the UK and the US (the "USUK zone", as I prefer to call it, when I'm not calling it "Angrael") it's an extremely common meme. I'll let MSNBC (a part of the empire of the puritan USUK billionaire Gates) define the concept:
Fashion and food can be guilty pleasures
"Ah, lifestyle guilty pleasures, a true catch-all for everything and anything we're just a wee bit embarrassed by. Shopping indulgences. Favorite junk-food treats. The cheap paperbacks we hide behind our college textbooks, pretending we're just saving them for that next airplane ride. Even the most straitlaced, politically correct vegan among us gives in to temptation from time to time. Guilty pleasures put color in life, and who are we to deny ourselves?"
There we have it. A consumer society needs us to consume. But a puritan culture demands that we feel guilty about sensual indulgence. Hence the centrality of the 'guilty pleasure' in the USUK zone, which is that unhappy and conflicted beast, a puritan consumer society. What I notice in the MSNBC definition is that it presents an entirely puritan continuum between the 'straitlaced, politically correct vegan' and the guilty embarrassed self-pleasurer, revelling momentarily in a lapse into self-indulgence. They're both puritans, but the vegan is a left wing self-denying puritan, the guilty self-pleasurer a right wing self-indulging puritan. At no point is it suggested that either the principled lefty or the selfish righty might indulge their pleasures freely in the manner of the Marquis de Sade, or a poor but happy Cuban musician. No, guilt is a constant.
Let us pass for our next example to Sainsburys Taste the Difference Quadruple Chocolate Cookies (thanks to Rhodri for this one. Oh, and thanks to puritan USUK billionaire Baron Sainsbury of Turville, gentech enthusiast, New Labour donor and Under-Secretary for Science in the House of Lords). The copy on this box of Sainsbury's "cookies" (it's odd, we used to call these biscuits, but USUK is all converged and amalgamated these days) reads:
"Decadently rich chocolate cookies, bulging with milk, white and dark chocolate chunks and finished with a base of smooth milk chocolate."
Rhodri was disturbed by the phrase "bulging with milk", but I found myself much more intrigued by "decadently rich", and commented: "It's a little odd when products are actually sold to us as something 'sinful" or "decadent", isn't it? What does it say about the Western psyche that pleasure has to be corrupt, unfair, destructive? Will this get worse over time, or will it look like a silly puritan anachronism soon? Will the biscuits of the future be labelled "murderous crispy shells filled with selfishly fondant racist chocolate"?"
You'd think consumer societies would at the very least be about sensual delight. You'd think that Epicureanism would have stolen a march on Christianity as a result of capitalism's emphasis on consumption, wouldn't you? That we'd have left behind the puritan belief that indulgence and gratification of the senses is unworthy, too earthly, sinful? That there could be adult, responsible, constructive pleasures that benefit not just our society, but other societies, rather than harming us and harming others in stupid, self-hating, adolescent ways? Well, apparently not. Apparently we cannot escape the clutches of guilt and the vicious circles it brings.
Far from abandoning guilt's shackles as we abandon Christianity, we in the USUK zone are getting more and more guilty, more and more convinced of our own sin. We have invented new, secular forms of sin and added them to the religious forms which are the legacy of our Protestantism. These new forms of guilt are based on a series of separations we know are wrong. We've increased the gap between rich and poor, the gap between slim and fat, the gap between public and private. This has made us harder and yet softer, but above all more deeply guilty. Our pleasures now come, visibly, at the expense of others; the excluded, the angry, those we have attacked with wars, those whose world we are in the process of polluting, depriving not just of their natural resources, but of basic essentials like soil, water and ozone. This is the way our world increasingly works, and our psychology has adapted to it. We know we are selfish and vile, and we consume in that knowledge. We squirm and flagellate ourselves as we consume. We don the hair shirt of guilt. We make token amends by adopting the chastened lingo of political correctness, itself nothing more than a codification of new sins. Sexism, mea maxima culpa. Racism, mea maxima culpa. Weightism, mea maxima culpa and pass the chocolate, father.
Much of this 'guilty pleasure' advertising is aimed at women, for whom excess weight has become a venal new form of sin. Western feminism has sold the idea of the 'superwoman' who's able to be both feminine and masculine, to raise kids as well as kick ass in the careers market, to both be and not be a sexual object; for those who fail to live up to these titanic and contradictory ideals, "guilty pleasure" is a codeword for recidivism, for some small sugary compensation for one's almost-inevitable failure; a reversion to type, a collapse back into a simple sensuality which has been declared small, weak, feminine.
Guilty pleasures are not just things like cookies and candies, junk food, cheap exploitative pop music, cigarettes, glossy Prozac-like magazines, airport novels, luxury goods snatched duty free on the way to a cheap holiday in some poor developing nation... they're also, of course, sexual. The Enjoying Guilty Pleasures DVD is, according to the Amazon blurb, "a delightfully erotic sampler of "kinky" sex acts that are actually healthy, imaginative and fun. Renowned experts Dr. Herb Samuels and Louise Andre-Saulnier address myths about S&M, "taboo" subjects like anal eroticism, and the guilt often associated with some "forbidden" fantasies. Learn firsthand how expanding the limits of lovemaking can be a hot and wholesome way to enhance trust within a committed relationship. In explicit sexual encounters, real couples demonstrate a variety of taboo treats that add spice to their sexual lives.. Indulge your pleasures and feel guilty no more! With sex, just as with food, some cravings are simply irresistible."
I'm slightly confused by that blurb, because it seems to be suggesting that we banish guilt, while at the same time saying that taboo "adds spice to sexual lives". Do Drs. Herb and Louise intend to drop the word "kinky" from future editions of their DVD? Or do they perhaps intend to drop the inverted commas they've placed around it? Will sex get more or less "kinky", more or less "taboo", more or less "guilty" in the future? And what if, taking away the guilt, we found we'd taken away the sex too? Well, I suppose there'd always be Viagra for sex, and gentech for babies. Billionaire puritan Baron Sainsbury of Turville would get richer, even if our lives would all be poorer.
(There are no pictures in today's entry because you simply don't deserve them. But I can sell you some if you promise to look at them with a strong sense of guilt.)
Do you want an example? Okay, let's take guilty pleasures. Now, I've never seen food, books or sex advertised in Japan as a 'guilty pleasure'. A pleasure, yes. Guilty, no. But in the UK and the US (the "USUK zone", as I prefer to call it, when I'm not calling it "Angrael") it's an extremely common meme. I'll let MSNBC (a part of the empire of the puritan USUK billionaire Gates) define the concept:
Fashion and food can be guilty pleasures
"Ah, lifestyle guilty pleasures, a true catch-all for everything and anything we're just a wee bit embarrassed by. Shopping indulgences. Favorite junk-food treats. The cheap paperbacks we hide behind our college textbooks, pretending we're just saving them for that next airplane ride. Even the most straitlaced, politically correct vegan among us gives in to temptation from time to time. Guilty pleasures put color in life, and who are we to deny ourselves?"
There we have it. A consumer society needs us to consume. But a puritan culture demands that we feel guilty about sensual indulgence. Hence the centrality of the 'guilty pleasure' in the USUK zone, which is that unhappy and conflicted beast, a puritan consumer society. What I notice in the MSNBC definition is that it presents an entirely puritan continuum between the 'straitlaced, politically correct vegan' and the guilty embarrassed self-pleasurer, revelling momentarily in a lapse into self-indulgence. They're both puritans, but the vegan is a left wing self-denying puritan, the guilty self-pleasurer a right wing self-indulging puritan. At no point is it suggested that either the principled lefty or the selfish righty might indulge their pleasures freely in the manner of the Marquis de Sade, or a poor but happy Cuban musician. No, guilt is a constant.
Let us pass for our next example to Sainsburys Taste the Difference Quadruple Chocolate Cookies (thanks to Rhodri for this one. Oh, and thanks to puritan USUK billionaire Baron Sainsbury of Turville, gentech enthusiast, New Labour donor and Under-Secretary for Science in the House of Lords). The copy on this box of Sainsbury's "cookies" (it's odd, we used to call these biscuits, but USUK is all converged and amalgamated these days) reads:
"Decadently rich chocolate cookies, bulging with milk, white and dark chocolate chunks and finished with a base of smooth milk chocolate."
Rhodri was disturbed by the phrase "bulging with milk", but I found myself much more intrigued by "decadently rich", and commented: "It's a little odd when products are actually sold to us as something 'sinful" or "decadent", isn't it? What does it say about the Western psyche that pleasure has to be corrupt, unfair, destructive? Will this get worse over time, or will it look like a silly puritan anachronism soon? Will the biscuits of the future be labelled "murderous crispy shells filled with selfishly fondant racist chocolate"?"
You'd think consumer societies would at the very least be about sensual delight. You'd think that Epicureanism would have stolen a march on Christianity as a result of capitalism's emphasis on consumption, wouldn't you? That we'd have left behind the puritan belief that indulgence and gratification of the senses is unworthy, too earthly, sinful? That there could be adult, responsible, constructive pleasures that benefit not just our society, but other societies, rather than harming us and harming others in stupid, self-hating, adolescent ways? Well, apparently not. Apparently we cannot escape the clutches of guilt and the vicious circles it brings.
Far from abandoning guilt's shackles as we abandon Christianity, we in the USUK zone are getting more and more guilty, more and more convinced of our own sin. We have invented new, secular forms of sin and added them to the religious forms which are the legacy of our Protestantism. These new forms of guilt are based on a series of separations we know are wrong. We've increased the gap between rich and poor, the gap between slim and fat, the gap between public and private. This has made us harder and yet softer, but above all more deeply guilty. Our pleasures now come, visibly, at the expense of others; the excluded, the angry, those we have attacked with wars, those whose world we are in the process of polluting, depriving not just of their natural resources, but of basic essentials like soil, water and ozone. This is the way our world increasingly works, and our psychology has adapted to it. We know we are selfish and vile, and we consume in that knowledge. We squirm and flagellate ourselves as we consume. We don the hair shirt of guilt. We make token amends by adopting the chastened lingo of political correctness, itself nothing more than a codification of new sins. Sexism, mea maxima culpa. Racism, mea maxima culpa. Weightism, mea maxima culpa and pass the chocolate, father.
Much of this 'guilty pleasure' advertising is aimed at women, for whom excess weight has become a venal new form of sin. Western feminism has sold the idea of the 'superwoman' who's able to be both feminine and masculine, to raise kids as well as kick ass in the careers market, to both be and not be a sexual object; for those who fail to live up to these titanic and contradictory ideals, "guilty pleasure" is a codeword for recidivism, for some small sugary compensation for one's almost-inevitable failure; a reversion to type, a collapse back into a simple sensuality which has been declared small, weak, feminine.
Guilty pleasures are not just things like cookies and candies, junk food, cheap exploitative pop music, cigarettes, glossy Prozac-like magazines, airport novels, luxury goods snatched duty free on the way to a cheap holiday in some poor developing nation... they're also, of course, sexual. The Enjoying Guilty Pleasures DVD is, according to the Amazon blurb, "a delightfully erotic sampler of "kinky" sex acts that are actually healthy, imaginative and fun. Renowned experts Dr. Herb Samuels and Louise Andre-Saulnier address myths about S&M, "taboo" subjects like anal eroticism, and the guilt often associated with some "forbidden" fantasies. Learn firsthand how expanding the limits of lovemaking can be a hot and wholesome way to enhance trust within a committed relationship. In explicit sexual encounters, real couples demonstrate a variety of taboo treats that add spice to their sexual lives.. Indulge your pleasures and feel guilty no more! With sex, just as with food, some cravings are simply irresistible."
I'm slightly confused by that blurb, because it seems to be suggesting that we banish guilt, while at the same time saying that taboo "adds spice to sexual lives". Do Drs. Herb and Louise intend to drop the word "kinky" from future editions of their DVD? Or do they perhaps intend to drop the inverted commas they've placed around it? Will sex get more or less "kinky", more or less "taboo", more or less "guilty" in the future? And what if, taking away the guilt, we found we'd taken away the sex too? Well, I suppose there'd always be Viagra for sex, and gentech for babies. Billionaire puritan Baron Sainsbury of Turville would get richer, even if our lives would all be poorer.
(There are no pictures in today's entry because you simply don't deserve them. But I can sell you some if you promise to look at them with a strong sense of guilt.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: cont.
Date: 2005-02-22 11:15 am (UTC)Ever thought something might be wrong in your thinking?
I don't believe that the West has any right to project its values onto the East. But what you, my friend, are forgetting is that it's still sexist and that not all Japanese women, or men for that instance, like sexism.
That's a contradiction. First you "don't want to project western values" but then "it's sexist". Sexism is a western value judgement. In fact it is worst than that, it is a politically-correct value judgement. As western and american as it gets.
Come on, haven't you heard anything of the Japanese expatriate movement?
And this proves what exactly? That people fleeing Japan don't like the Japanese ways? Duh!
Keep in mind that the original posting was about how Japanese people don't associate pleasure with guilt (at least in their advertising).
Even if sexism has anything to do with this, the burden of proof is on you.
Re: cont.
Date: 2005-02-22 05:40 pm (UTC)Concerning sexism, I'm not particularly clear why sexism doesn't apply to Japan. Of course it's a Western value judgement, but you would think the past two hundred years of Japanese acceptance of Western culture, values, and philosophy would introduce some notions of equality-- and indeed it has. Look here (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=japan+sexism&btnG=Google+Search) and you'll notice that the majority of these articles are about sexism in Japan from a Japanese perspective. Of course that would get in the way of your sexual lust towards an exotified, objectified culture, so I don't expect you to actually read any of the articles. I'd also suggest you take a look at Male Colors, a brief history of homosexuality and general sexuality in Japan before you go off making assertions about a culture you are only vaguely familiar with through anime and Momus' posts.
That also leads me to question your qualifications in determining whether the Japanese people are comfortable with their own sexism. Have you studied Japanese history? Language? Sexuality? Anything? Or do you merely ascertain what you will through the American filter which you seem so ready to condemn?
Concerning the original posting, I think you'll notice that this thread has gone in a different direction. Since you're so adept at viewing things in their own context, however, I'm sure you already knew that. Right?
p.s. Why are you so ready to defend a person you've never even met? Unless, of course, you're actually him just under a hidden trolling account-- your lack of information and entries seems to suggest as much.
Re: cont.
Date: 2005-02-22 06:13 pm (UTC)"*General* negatives" and "*minute* positive" is your judgement.
I'm not asking you to hate any culture, but simply to consider both sides. In that method, you can't really insist my method of thinking is incorrect. As far as there being contradictions in my speech, I don't think that 1. it matters at all in a postmodern context and 2. it's really no different from the way you praise Japan without acknowledgeing, say, its sexism or the rape of Nanking.
What does the rape of Nanking has to do with anything?
Should I now refer to the rape of Hiroshima and Nagashaki,
the slaughter of Dresden, the support of fascists regimes in
latin america, the invasions on Vietnam, Iraq et al, agent
orange, etc?
Has anyone argued that japanese fascism and nationalism never
existed or that it was positive?
What was argued was whether the lack of puritanic "guilty pleasures"
as evident in their advertising is a positive thing or not.
Of this you have been quiet.
Concerning sexism, I'm not particularly clear why sexism doesn't apply to Japan. Of course it's a Western value judgement, but you would think the past two hundred years of Japanese acceptance of Western culture, values, and philosophy would introduce some notions of equality-- and indeed it has. Look here and you'll notice that the majority of these articles are about sexism in Japan from a Japanese perspective.
From a "japanese perspective" or from a western-fied japanese perspective?
Plea-uh-ease, stop trying to help other parts of the world with their
problems. You have done enough damage already, as a nation, if not
as a person.
That also leads me to question your qualifications in determining whether the Japanese people are comfortable with their own sexism.
You are begging the question, don't you think?
Concerning the original posting, I think you'll notice that this thread has gone in a different direction. Since you're so adept at viewing things in their own context, however, I'm sure you already knew that. Right?
What I noticed is how the original point made was lost, replaced with
an all too common "see both sides" plea to offset the charges.
That doesn't mean I have to take part in this.
p.s. Why are you so ready to defend a person you've never even met?
Did it ever occured to you that I am defending an opinion, and not a
person?
Isn't this one of the definitions for integrity? What were you thinking, that one
should only defend his pals?!
Unless, of course, you're actually him just under a hidden trolling account-- your lack of information and entries seems to suggest as much.
I thought I could argue with you. But one cannot argue with a tin-foil hat.
Re: cont.
Date: 2005-02-22 06:40 pm (UTC)"*General* negatives" and "*minute* positive" is your judgement.
Negative such as sexism, racism, etc. are general ills of a society that neither you nor momus seem to want to address. You ask what the rape of Nanking has to do with anything, and it's this: Momus replied to my post with a "the US has done atrocities, so it's bad to criticize Japanese society!" Well, no, it's not bad. If you're going to be critical of one, you should be critical of the other- instead of turning a blind eye to any society's shortcomings.
Concerning your questions about Japanese fascism, you might be surprised to note that some schools still fly the rising sun flag, students aren't taught about most of the nastier things the Japanese empire did, MPs refuse to give reparations to comfort women, etc. etc. Take a look at deadbatteries' post above.
Concerning guilty pleasures, I can't say I really know enough about the issue to argue it--and that's why I didn't address it. What bothered me was the way Momus put himself as an authority of the issue without criticizing some negative aspects of Japanese society (and without even knowing Japanese). I dislike how he turns a blind eye to everything negative in Japanese culture while simultaneously lambasting the West. You don't know me, and I don't know you, but this entire thread was begun out of the frustration of my girlfriend and I about how Momus uses this particular method of thinking-- so you really don't have any right to tell me that my "see both sides" plea was some kind of excuse to avoid Momus' questions. If you notice, Momus is more ready to skirt questions than I am-- to the point that he's completely stopped responding. Again, I suggest you look at the entire thread.
I also take note with this: "From a "japanese perspective" or from a western-fied japanese perspective?" Since you're so exacting about how we need to leave the East alone, why don't you follow your own advice and accept that Japanese who have adopted what you call a "western" mindset are critical of its culture? You seem to want to think Japan as a completely separate entity from the rest of the world-- what I mean is that Western culture is now part of Eastern culture, just as Eastern culture is now part of Western culture. Since Japanese are criticizing their culture from a "Western" perspective, that perspective becomes distinctly Eastern. They're not mutually exclusive-- so let the Japanese criticize themselves instead of criticizing them for being "Westernified."
I'm also not entirely sure what you mean by trying to fix other parts of the world. I don't, that I'm aware of, belong to any kind of organization that is promoted to defacing sexism in Japan. Nor have I ever expressed these views with anyone other than my girlfriend or within this forum. As far as the global "white man's burden" thing goes, my hands are clean.
Also, I am begging the question. I'd like to know your qualifications. I'm not assuming I'm an expert, nor have I taken Japanese history or language courses. However, I do have a reliable source for a majority of this that I doubt you could defend yourself against.
Finally, I don't really see you defending aginst my original point-- that Momus should view both sides (or, moreover, that sexism is not present in Japan, nor is it protested by Japanese). Instead, you've given me quick responses that don't really pertain to the original issue (since that, to you, is what's important).
p.s. I included the trolling question as a post-script because I knew it was rather silly and had nothing to do with the argument.