![\"Ms](\"\/blogpics\/msnaughty_ourbodiesourselves.jpg\")
\nI’ve sat on this post for two days now, hesitating on publishing it. Even now, I’ve cut out a fair bit that was a bit too ranty and controversial or wrong-headed. In any case, here it is:<\/p>\n
\nI’ve sat on this post for two days now, hesitating on publishing it. Even now, I’ve cut out a fair bit that was a bit too ranty and controversial or wrong-headed. In any case, here it is:<\/p>\n
It started when I discovered that Fleshbot has decided to do weekly posts<\/a> discussing porn that straight women might enjoy. I was surprised to discover this as that porn blog has never really acknowledged that this audience exists. Their categories are straight (naked women, girl-girl and standard hetero porn aimed at men) and gay (nude men and gay couples sex). They have occasionally featured news about female friendly porn but it’s often with a derisive comment about the very concept of “porn for women”. I’ve had a couple of brief discussions with editor Lux Alpatrum about it and she has said she doesn’t think the phrase is a good one. That’s fine. The only problem is, it’s meant that porn specifically created for straight women has either been ignored or lumped into either category. Until now.<\/p>\n I tweeted about this change and also put up some of the shots from our recent photo shoot. Then I had a brief exchange with @quietriot_girl about the idea of porn for women and the female gaze. <\/p>\n She said: “why is porn aimed at women so bloody soft-focussed and ‘sensual’ I like my men like I like my sex: ROUGH.” At this point I had to stop because you just can’t get into this topic in 140 characters. Nonetheless, I’ve spent quite a while now pondering the idea of not only not <\/em>using the phrase “porn for women” but also abandoning the phrase “the female gaze.” And it’s bugging me because I find both phrases incredibly useful and still relevant.<\/p>\n Quietriot_girl’s argument does have some merit. My recent interview with Jiz Lee has made me very aware that, for some people, gender is fluid and they are often left out of the binary language surrounding sex and gender. Discussing “the female gaze” may make assumptions about the sexuality of the audience, yes. So perhaps it is a flawed term.<\/p>\n Then again, those who are genderqueer aren’t necessarily interested as defining themselves as male or female. In terms of their “gaze” (their perspective taken into account when creating content), we would perhaps refer to it as the “genderqueer gaze” – in a similar way as you may also have the “gay gaze”, the “lesbian gaze”. The “female gaze” is perhaps a broader term and can encompass women of all sexualities – just as “porn for women” can.<\/p>\n Perhaps the problem is that I should be more specific with terms. So when it comes to the porn I myself enjoy and create, it is porn for straight<\/em> women and thus I’m trying to cater to the “straight female gaze.” I’m happy to accept that in theory because it makes sense.<\/p>\n Still, I’ll probably keep using my preferred terms for three reasons: firstly, straight women are in the majority and they’re my target market. Secondly, the majority of people make their own assumptions about what those phrases mean and it’s overwhelmingly associated with straight women. Thirdly, I’m a creature of the web and I deal in search terms. So whittling down my language can easily result in a whittling down of search engine traffic and, as you can imagine, I’m not so keen on that. What can I say, I’m an evil, capitalist pornographer.<\/p>\n No doubt we could then go into the other argument – that not all women are the same, that the “straight female gaze” is too prescriptive because it makes assumptions about “what women want.” I don’t think so. The subject matter of the gaze is not the issue. It really comes down to acknowledging that the audience is made of straight women and giving priority to their experiences and fantasies, whatever they may be. A single example of catering to a straight female gaze – e.g. the photos we shot last week – does not mean that it should apply to every woman or that it’s a “standard” of some sort. It’s not all-or-nothing here. Rather, it’s a matter of thinking: right, I want to appeal to a certain type of woman, this is what I think she might like and I’m not going to make any apologies to any other members of the audience if they don’t like it.<\/p>\n Beyond all that, I still feel agitated about the dismissal of the “female gaze” idea. And I wasn’t quite sure why. So I wrote the draft blog post and had a great email chat with Flexibeast who is poly, trans, genderqueer, kinky and… well vanilla too.<\/p>\n What I’ve realised is that I feel a little beseiged by these kinds of discussions. Sometimes I get the feeling that trying to promote and speak about porn for straight women is frowned upon by those who are more pansexual in their outlook. As though it’s a lost cause or inferior or something because sexual and gender fluidity renders the whole idea of straightness and femaleness as moot. I don’t really agree with that stance; I accept the diversity of gender and sexuality but I also know that there are plenty of women out there who simply identify as female and straight and I want to cater to them.<\/p>\n And I feel that in the rush to embrace the diversity of queer and genderqueer porn, the straight women are being sidelined. That we’re dismissed as hedgemonic from the queer side but then also ignored by the mainstream which is still dominated by porn aimed at straight men. <\/p>\n It may just be paranoia but it’s something that I’ve been feeling for a while<\/a>. And perhaps I’ll attract some abuse for saying that, though it’s not meant to be anything other than an exploration of a vague frustration I have.<\/p>\n I think my frustration also occurs because decrying terms like “porn for women”, “female friendly” and “the female gaze” (however flawed they are) can have the effect of denying straight women their own space in the pornosphere. As I said in this post<\/a> two and a half years ago, these phrases are about creating a space in an overwhelmingly male-dominated industry. They’re about putting up a flag so that it’s easier for straight women to wade through the crap and find something different. I’ve been making porn for ten years and I’m still one of only a handful of people who are legitimately trying to offer erotic content to straight women. Sure, the big porn companies have lately started to make an effort but they’re not very good at it.<\/p>\n So in the teeming city of the porn industry, there’s still only a small shack on the outskirts that consciously labels itself as meant specifically for straight women. And the sign on the front door, right or wrong, says “porn for women.” Because that’s the most obvious and easiest thing to write.<\/p>\n Women can, of course, visit any other building in the city if they want. Sure, those skyscrapers are all run and populated by men who often like to use the term “stupid bitch” and they don’t have any ladies toilets, but if that’s what they like, there’s nothing stopping them.<\/p>\n In the meantime, someone decides that you can’t have that sign on the door of the shack because it can’t possibly describe everything inside (and, there is an awful lot inside). There’s no other pithy suggestions as to what the sign should say so the shack stays unidentified. Meanwhile, lots of straight women start complaining that there’s nothing in the city that they like. Sure, there’s a new building called “queer” that looks nice and all but they don’t really feel at home there. And the one labelled “couples” looks pretty much like the rest of the skyscrapers but with nicer plastic plants.<\/p>\n OK, I’ll stop labouring this metaphor.<\/p>\n I guess the ultimate conclusion is that labels are problematic but, for me, useful. And that maybe it’s personal: I’m a straight woman, I want to offer porn to straight women like me who like the things I do. But sometimes I feel that arguments over labels suggest that what I’m doing isn’t legitimate or politically correct or wrong somehow. And I know that what I do IS worthwhile. Because boring old married vanilla-type straight chicks like me do like porn and I think we deserve our space at the table as much as anyone else.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" I’ve sat on this post for two days now, hesitating on publishing it. Even now, I’ve cut out a fair bit that was a bit too ranty and controversial or wrong-headed. In any case, here it is: It started when I discovered that Fleshbot has decided to do weekly posts discussing porn that straight women might enjoy. I was surprised to discover this as that porn blog has never really Read More …<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,15],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-featured","category-pornforwomen"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/msnaughty.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/msnaughty.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/msnaughty.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/msnaughty.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/msnaughty.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2185"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/msnaughty.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2185\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/msnaughty.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/msnaughty.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/msnaughty.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nI said: “‘Porn for women’ doesn’t have to always be sensual. Tristan Taormino’s Rough Sex series is female-friendly
\nShe said: “Rough can be arty too! I don’t really know what ‘female friendly’ means. My favourite porn is gay porn.”
\nI said: “The pics we like at forthegirls.com are varied but I’m a fan of sensuality and arty stuff, not really into rough.” and “The term “porn for women” is broad. I always take it to mean that it is catering to the female gaze, not 1 particular type of content.”
\nShe said: “but what is the ‘female gaze’ my gaze enjoys things that many men do. I don’t think the ‘female gaze’ exists.”
\nI said: “It’s not the subject, its the assumption about the audience.”
\nShe said: “But ‘the female gaze’ and ‘women’s porn’ also makes assumptions about the audience regarding gender\/sexuality”<\/p>\n