This is a follow up post to Porn’s “new” market is women says CNBC, 40 years too late. In which I got a bit snarky about the way the mainstream media presents the concept of “porn for women”.
Slate now has a follow up article to CNBC’s piece called “What Is Porn For Women?“. It features an interview with New Sensations’ writer, director and publicist Jacky St. James and she has a lot of worthwhile things to say. I found this quote to be revealing:
I don’t like when people say “porn for women,” because as a woman, that’s not the kind of porn I watch. Our stuff is targeted toward couples who want to watch porn together, and women who might be a little intimidated or fearful of porn. When we say “adult films for women,” we’re still targeting men [my emphasis]. It’s just that most men are not picking out couples’ movies to masturbate to themselves—they’re finding them to watch with their wives.
The article is big on the idea that the phrase “porn for women” is flawed due to the idea of being all things to all people. Fair enough.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
But then we get Jacky revealing that New Sensations is not really catering to women at all. Rather, they’re following the tried-and-tested technique of selling “couples porn”. The mindset behind couples porn assumes that it’s still men making the decision about what to watch and that the female viewers are not really active participants or viewers; it’s for women who are new to porn, are turned off by the circus acts and are really only doing it to please their men. The couples porn video can’t have anything that might upset the heterosexual house of cards of the guy, like a solo male scene or two guys. But it can have two women, because that’s not gay or anything.
In this scenario, women don’t actually watch porn by themselves and women still aren’t acknowledged as a legitimate porn audience in their own right. And it’s that aspect that’s always been a vital part of “porn for women” to me. It’s the simple acknowledgement that you are catering to a female audience – and giving their fantasies and perspective priority. Never mind plot or soft focus or romance… if you are doing women the honour of acknowledging their agency and their desires, that’s porn for women.
Yes, the phrase is still very flawed and, as I’ve said before, we’ll probably stop using it one day. There are various issues with defining your porn according to audience which have been hashed over on this blog repeatedly. I guess I just need to repeat these things when the mainstream media start arguing over the term once again.
I should add, I do think New Sensations are to be congratulated for at least trying to include the desires of women in their couples films. They at least went out and did some research into what their target audience might want. And I don’t think couples porn is inherently bad; there’s nothing wrong with making porn that couples would watch together. I think my main issue is that the male perspective still gets priority in these films, even when they’re ostensibly catering to women.
By the way, one of the commenters on Slate said she wanted to see “Romantic, mostly light, deeply psychological BDSM. I have never seen a visual version of porn like this. It seems only to exist in literature.” In essence, where is the properly hot, thinking woman’s porn version of Fifty Shades?
I would love to make this kind of porn film. There’s a couple of issues. Firstly, money: I don’t have it. Secondly, how to invoke the psychological aspects of BDSM within the confines of a low-budget porn film using performers who aren’t necessarily actors? Tricky. It can be hard to set up all the intricacies of plot and character required; easy to do in a book, much harder to depict on film, especially when you need to take up a lot of it with sex scenes.
Still, maybe it’s time I sat down and wrote a script.
Also, I think I know what kind of couples scene I want to film next for Bright Desire.
Too what extent is this more about what men vs women will pay for – rather than what they like?
Twenty years ago I observed women being fussy about erotica but very reluctant to put money down. I’m not clear how much that has changed with generational shift
Second post (edited in by Ms Naughty)
Oops, I should probably clarify that when consumers stay out of a market it cannot drift to follow their preferences. An observation is that the situation seems more fluid on Tumblr, but there, there is both anonymity and zero cost.
Just curious: in what context 20 years ago did you observe women being “fussy about erotica”? What do you mean by “fussy”?
I think it’s important to mention the “chicken and egg” problem inherent in this: the porn industry believes that women won’t buy porn and thus doesn’t cater to them. Women aren’t impressed by what porn has on offer because it doesn’t cater to them or even acknowledge them as an audience so they don’t buy. Add onto that the cultural assumption that “women aren’t visual” and that women are less interested in sex in general and you have a gender gap in porn consumption.
In 2000 I started marketing porn to women like myself with the simple belief that there had to be other women out there who wanted something different. Me and the other female webmasters had no research to go on, only the example of Candida Royalle’s phenomenally successful films. But that was enough to create a very successful career for over a decade. I’ve always known that women are willing to pay for porn – if you offer them something better than the usual sexist shit served up by the rest of the industry.
Now the New Sensations Romance titles are selling extremely well which backs this up. Except there still seems to be an assumption that women don’t buy porn, even with this evidence right in front of them.
As to Tumblr and today’s porn surfers – almost all of them think it should be free, be they male or female. This is a problem that spans the entire industry. Making porn is expensive but if you can’t sell it, why bother? Of course, most of the free stuff is still shit… hence… please visit my new site Bright Desire!
Hi,
Please know that im not trying to be a jerk here …but how exactly does the porno that is directed at men (which alot of us guys think is complete and utter vomit as many women do btw) differ? You gals are dick-size-obsessed these days so id think most of the fast-food rot gut pornography coming out of So Cal would be right up your alleys.I mean it is all about the cock right? The bigger the better right? Thats what we hear from women 90% of the time and the other 10% of the time we get a pass if we know “how to use our average-sized cranks” right? Lol,im serious.Just admit it its all about the dick to you chicks isn’t it?? Just keep watching all the tube site trash w/guys with baseball bats for dongs and you’re good.No need for romance porn or bdsm i mean hell at the end of the fucking day it is ALL ABOUT FAPPING OFF TO A BIG-DICK for women! Right? When is the last time you saw a porn with a guy with 6 inches or under? Seen any good smut with a dude with a 5 incher (non-amateur) lately ?? Thats what i thought.You wrote a post awhile ago about air-brushed and photoshopped vjs if i recall.Ok can i flip it on you?? Why is it that you see women (even in porn targeted at males) with varying boob size,varying looks,sometimes entire genres devoted to larger women,BBW and even obese women….? And alot of it pro-shot production values…but hmmm when it comes to men no sir.Big dick,above avg dick or NOTHING.No variation.No normal sized dudes (or rarely) Ive seen some feminist porn and yep guess what well endowed dudes throughout….im being somewhat sarcastic here but im serious why is that? Hell if anything id say that porn is straightaway-full-blown-misandry.No wonder so many guys have a size complex and hate themselves.Yet women take all the headlines and get the hourlong pity parties on Oprah lamenting how poorly their treated in this society….gimme a fucking break already.Women are fucking hypocrites.
OK, so I’m going to ignore your generalizations about what all women want and the generally aggressive tone of your comment and address your main point, because it is worth addressing. Namely, why does porn maintain the stereotype that women only want big dicks?
If we’re talking about mainstream porn, I guess it’s part of the “freak show” nature of the business. Going over-the-top gets attention and penis size is one of the ways to draw attention to your production. Perhaps it stems from the early days of porn when John Holmes became such a big name; I guess he became the “gold standard” of porn due to the fame he achieved due to the size of his cock. And I suspect penis size is one of three main factors that talent scouts use when choosing male talent; size, stamina and the ability to ejaculate on cue in front of complete strangers.
When it comes to feminist porn, I’ve seen a variety of penis sizes. I’m fairly certain that if I were to ask my friends who direct porn films, they’ll say it’s not a factor when choosing talent. If you are seeing large cocks, it may simply be that feminist porn is drawing on the same pool of male talent that mainstream porn uses. One of the problems we all encounter is finding good performers for your work; sometimes you just have to work with whoever you can find. When it’s like that, penis size is the least of your concerns.
Speaking from my own perspective, penis size is not a factor I care about when choosing male performers for my films. And the guys I’ve used have had a variety of sizes. One, Adam, was very large and I’ve mentioned this in my marketing because I thought his cock was nice. And it’s hard not to notice just how big it is. But we also talk about size in his interview and it’s quite revealing what he has to say about the issue; in essence, he wants women to notice his personality, not his dick.
Feminist porn by definition is not interested in only presenting big cocks. It celebrates diversity in body shapes and that includes penis size.
Do women only like big cocks? I can’t give you any definitive answer on this because firstly, there’s been no real research on it and secondly, you can’t make generalizations about “what all women want”. Some women DO like big cocks, they fantasize about them. Some porn caters to that fantasy, just as big boob porn caters to that particular fantasy. Others don’t care, they just want a nice guy who treats them well. I’m going to go out on a limb and say that I don’t think penis size is all that important to most women. If they had to choose between a guy who is nice to them and a guy with a giant cock… well, I’m pretty sure they’ll go for the nice guy.
And if the women you’re encountering are insisting that a big dick is the most important thing, don’t bother with them.
I recommend you watch the documentaries “My Penis and I” and “My Penis and Everyone Else’s”. They do a great job of discussing society’s obsession with penis size.
I find it odd that you interpret Jacky St. James’ perspective on this problem as somehow different from your own. Her admission that the Romance Series is targeting men is not some sort of slip-up that you “caught.” Her work for New Sensations has been characterized by CNBC as “porn for women”; she’s clarified the narrow group of men and women those films are truly targeting. She’s also made other films more in keeping with her own interests as a consumer. She doesn’t describe any of it as “porn for women,” but that doesn’t mean that it devalues the female perspective. I also find your distinction between “mainstream” media coverage of this issue and your own self-promotional blog dubious. I’ve previously written at length about the problem you’ve described here, but apparently the discussion is only relevant to you when you are leading it. Other media is “rehashing” this issue; you’re helpfully repeating it. It sounds like the real problem with these “mainstream” articles is that they are not promoting your own work.
You’re right Amanda, I’m happy to admit that I am jealous about the coverage given to Jacky St. James. I’d love that kind of promotion. I’m just an indie webmistress and filmmaker without the large PR arm of your average huge porn company so it would be fabulous to be mentioned in a mainstream media article. Instead I have to make do with my own self-promoting blog. Welcome, I’m glad you visited.
Jacky’s perspective that she doesn’t like it when people say “porn for women” is different to me because I still use that phrase, especially in my marketing. I have a very broad definition of the term; I think that if porn is still primarily “for men” then there’s going to be a space where porn “for women” can exist – whatever that porn may look like. So that’s a philosophical difference there. Jacky rejects the term because she sees it as being content-prescriptive and makes assumptions. That’s fine because I understand the reasons for that rejection and have discussed them on this blog many times in the past.
As I said in the post, I thought what Jacky had to say was interesting and I think it’s good that New Sensations is at least attempting to cater to women.
The main point of this blog post is the issue I have with “couples porn”, namely that it still gives priority to the male audience. Jacky rejects the term “porn for women” then goes on to say that the company is still mainly interested in selling porn to men. This ongoing dismissal of the autonomous female consumer by so many in the porn industry is what I’m drawing attention to here.
And I’ve been writing about this subject for a very long time. I keep seeing the same articles as the CNBC one repeated every year or so; there’s no deeper analysis, no discussion of the growth of feminist porn, no acknowledgement of queer women. Yet these are the articles that gain a lot of attention and shape people’s attitudes. They build the public perception about what porn is and what it means. So I respond here on my self-promoting blog from my own perspective, discussing what I personally find relevant. That’s what blogs are for.
By the way, I also promote a lot of other feminist and female-friendly porn on my blog (and my other sites). I am happy to support anyone that is trying to make a different or more positive type of porn.
By the way Amanda, you said “I’ve previously written at length about the problem you’ve described here, but apparently the discussion is only relevant to you when you are leading it.” I’m not really sure what you mean by that. I write about articles when I find them; if I don’t see them, I don’t write about them. This might be because I’m working on something else, or away, or not in the mood for blogging.
Can you point me to where you wrote at length about this issue, I would like to read it.
Sure. I quote Jacky in this piece, too, where I expand on the idea of “porn for couples” being coded as “porn for women” in the mainstream porn industry. One of the main issues for young women accessing porn, in my view, is that they’re eagerly looking for porn, but they end up accessing the very mainstream (male-oriented) stuff and trying really valiantly to find what can satisfy them there. That’s for a couple reasons—it’s because that’s what’s most readily accessible for free, but also because they’re looking to engage with porn on the same cultural level that their male friends are, and mainstream male-targeted porn is the porn those guys are watching. It’s not that feminist porn or porn targeted to women doesn’t exist, it’s that it hasn’t become mainstream enough (read: accepted by men) to pop up directly on the tube sites or be sent around by their friends. And unfortunately, vocal female interest in porn hasn’t necessarily swayed the mainstream porn producers to alter their content to be more gender-neutral or woman-centric, even when they’re suffering from contracted sales and even when they’re presented with this female interest. One of the main things I hear from young women is that they’d like to see straight porn that allows both men and women to get off without categorizing either as an obscure niche—we have sex with one another, so why can’t we get off on the same stuff? As porn increasingly becomes a part of the popular culture, I think it’s really important that we can share that culture.
http://www.good.is/posts/what-women-want/
Thanks for the link. I remember reading it and the other James Deen-related articles at the time but I was away shooting so didn’t get around to blogging about it.
You’re probably right about the way younger women are approaching porn and Dr Clarissa Smith’s research seems to suggest it too. Maybe they’re more accepting of mainstream porn’s tropes, certainly more accepting than what I was when I started doing this (and my expectations haven’t really changed).
Perhaps I’m just too old now 🙂 But I do suspect I’m not alone.
My dissatisfaction with standard “couples porn” remains. I still find it frustrating that, while films by New Sensations offer interesting plots, the sex is still so formulaic; the guys still get cut out of the frame, the women still leave their shoes on, the focus is always on them and it always has to end with a cumshot. The plots and the high production values still feel like window dressing when the sex is pretty much the same as every other porn film. It’s an ongoing personal gripe of mine.
Nica Noelle showed that you can mix it up, you can show the women coming last, use vibes, do things differently and still have hot sex that guys like to watch. I just wish more porn offered that. I wouldn’t need to make my own.
And I completely agree that we need straight porn that can cater to both sexes. It’s where I’m going with my new site. I’ve tried to stay away from labels and I’ve made the decision to include the straight solo guys in with the solo women, no “gay” firewalls. So far, I’m getting a lot of guys signing up to the site, maybe a ratio of 2/3 guys, 1/3 women. I do think there are plenty of men who are looking for this kind of inclusiveness, not just women.