Figleaf has made an interesting post about porn for women here.
He’s suggesting that society thinks that most women aren’t really interested in sex – he’s calls it the “no-sex class” and that this is a reason why it may be difficult to define “porn for women.”
Advertisement
Support independent, ethically made, award-winning porn. Bright Desire features all of my erotic films and writing. A membership to Bright Desire gets you access to every movie I've ever made and lets me keep making female friendly porn!
Click here to find out more.
-------------------------------------------------------
I won’t do a big post here because I wrote a lengthy comment on his blog. I do think it’s an interesting idea and a corollary of the theory that “women aren’t visual.” The original theory behind “couples” films is that they’re for men to coax women into watching porn (and having sex), as opposed to something that a couple would willingly do together. So in essence a mainstream “couples” film casts women into the no-sex role.
Acknowledging that women like sex and like porn is a big step, really. It’s been a while since I’ve considered that beyond it being a given, but in truth vast numbers of people in the porn industry have yet to do that. The whole “reality” craze is built on the idea of tricking women into sex. And the constant use of the words “slut” and “whore” are essentially about that double standard, where porn celebrates women who have sex and yet derides them for doing so.
And porn that does acknowledge female desire is often more enjoyable. It’s certainly less offensive. Lots to think about here.