Once again, cartoonist XKCD nails it.
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
Lol – I saw this the other day on the xkcd website.
Thought it was very funny. But it does highlight the risk that defining porn as being “for men”, or “for women” can confuse the issue.
What we really need is well made, positive porn (rather than misogynistic porn, or some tame PG rated thing that barely counts as arousing).
I’ve been criticised in the past for using the term “porn for women” and I can certainly see the point. It is a problematic phrase and some people take it to mean I’m being prescriptive about “what women like.” I’ve written long posts about this previously – the main one being this:
http://www.msnaughty.com/blog/2008/05/13/porn-for-women-the-backlash/
Put simply, I still use the term, even if it’s not perfect, because it’s how I create my space for straight women on the internet. And also because it’s the search term that so many women actually use when looking for female-friendly porn.
While I agree that the phrase “porn for women” may be problematic, I am continually struck by the fact that the hetero female gaze continues to be ignored. It is still assumed by numerous web sites that claim to be “sex-positive and feminist” that women are not visual. Call it a ‘naked-chic normativeness’ if you will. Fleshbot puts virtually all pictures of solo naked men under it’s “gay” flag. CarnalNation offers discussions on the word vagina, but only links to pictures of naked women or sites with “G-A-Y” at the top. I find more man-flesh offered to me on a daytime soap opera than I find on these sites. I live in a large city in the US, and I recently went shopping for a man-candy book for a female friend. I found virtually nothing of this sort at the local ‘feminist’ sex-shop or the locally owned ‘feminist’ bookstore. I went to a gay bookstore, however, and found an abundance of picture books full of hot naked guys! Interesting how the gay men are offering me hotness when most of my ‘feminists sisters’ are not! I applaud Ms. Naughty as being a feminist who ‘gets it.’ I just wish there were more out there like you!
For a short time Fleshbot did offer a “porn for women” tag but writer Lux Alpatrum was against it. So you end up with this weird dichotomy. “Straight” means “naked women” and “Gay” means “naked men”. Interesting that those who protest about the “porn for women” label don’t have much to say on that topic. I do think there needs to be wider use of the term “female gaze” as it’s probably a better way of describing the perspective we’re after. Some may say it sounds too academic for porn but it’s better than what we have now.
Well said Ms Naughty. We are all lucky to have you and others (like Anna Span) working to redress the balance.
It’s only when you have created awareness and achieved a little bit of balance again can nit-pickers like me come along and start worrying about the fine distinctions 🙂