I stumbled across the site for Canadian feminist sex toy store WomynsWare today. Aside from a strong fair trade ethos and a swathe of warnings about heaps of common sex toys, the site also describes why the store doesn’t stock porn videos.
They theorise that most porn is designed for men and thus “most women dislike videos made for men without consideration of women as potential viewers.” I’d agree with them there.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------
And then they tell the rather intriguing story about a plan to create their own adult videos for women:
“We had everything together: a talented female director, female screen writers. And the next thing you know, we had this cigar-chomping, Florida-based attorney wanting to co-opt the whole thing. We ended up having to bring our own lawyer in because the guy was trying to enforce a joint venture agreement that he said we had by just initiating discussions with us. We discovered quickly that we’d have a hard time even getting distribution because distribution is controlled by the mainstream porn makers. It just wasn’t worth the heartache and besides, they told me, women aren’t even really sure what it is they want to see.”
Sounds like a lost opportunity. And a shame that the ladies at WomynsWare were so quick to believe what “they” say about “what women want”. It would be like saying “men aren’t really sure what they want to see” because men like so many things in porn. Ah well.
Hey, Ms. Naughty, well, at first i thought perhaps the cigar chewing individual could have been a woman, after all, there are many women, elders in particular, in cultures of the Caribbean, who thoroughly enjoy a good cigar! Well, anyway, your point is well taken, and, yes, i too, wonder at the brazenness and pomposity of Womyn’s Ware appointing themselves up as the guardians and gatekeepers of “Womyn’s” sexuality. I mean, really, the Vatican does the same thing with how we carry on our relationship with “god” too, doesn’t it? As to their “own” lawyer, here’s a link to a blog that might be interesting to you and your blog readers:
http://vancouveriste.wordpress.com/2006/03/23/perversion-purveyors-prosecution-ceases-and-desists/
I was a little hesitant to approve this comment, especially as it links to a blog that calls a sex toy shop “perversion purveyors”. But I thought the tradmark issue with Dorrie Ratzlaff was of interest.
It looks as thought Womyns Ware have hit the intersection between ideology and capitalist business interests and it got a bit messy. I can sympathise with them. It can be hard to find a middle ground sometimes.
It’s good that the case was dropped. I think Dorrie makes her case well on her website.
i am sure the use of the word “perversion” is meant to be ironic rather than actually describing WW.
Hello,
I just caught wind of your site’s concern with my use of “perversion” in the post you’ve referenced.
Yes, I used perversion in an ironic way, and did not mean to be judgemental.
In Vancouver a BDSM club changed its name from “Betty Page” to “Body Perve” Social Club a few years ago, and used the “p” word in that spirit.