Most people think women don't like porn -- which isn't true at all. But I think mostly the problem is that a lot of porn involving women is ridiculously sexist and geared toward men.
It's hard to find women-friendly porn -- and that article seems to suggest that gay man porn is more humane? Just maybe, women are turned on by ACTUAL, REALISTIC HUMANE SEX, instead of the unrealistic scene where a woman is unmercifully banged by a man who only cares about his pleasure. Like, I know that doesn't turn me on at all. In fact, thinking about it kind of makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little bit.
I'll let Rann decide whether or not to post a link to their journal post of the reply that got munched trying to respond to this, but all I'll say is this:
The bit about "female oppression through porn" in the article? Yeah, I call bullshit on that. I'm sorry, but I've actually known (via the internet) a few real-world porn stars and ex-porn stars (all female, mind you), and each one said, when conversations got around to that, that she got into porn of her own free will, and was never forced or coerced into anything, except MAYBE by being bribed into something she'd not normally choose to do--like the one who rarely did anal, not out of a dislike for it, but because she didn't want to become seen as an "anal queen," or the one who did a scene or two with Ron Jeremy only after they agreed to pay her double her normal rate. (I think you can guess why the second one happened--she later got it written into her contract that she'd not have to do scenes with the Hedgehog again.)
The whole "pornography is the oppression of women" thing dates back to the early-70s militant feminism movement, and was full of shit even then--look up how Linda Lovelace, for example, was pressured and badgered into becoming the face of that claim, basically coerced by the movement to make claims of having been forced into it in the first place, and then forced into various acts in her films--despite the fact that there's documentation of her having done everything involved voluntarily.
Does pornography exploit women? No more than it exploits men, and all involved are well-compensated for their exploitation. Any porn star, male or female, will tell you that some of the positions and such involved are actually rather uncomfortable and not much fun, but it's not so that "the man who cares only about his pleasure" can "unmercifully bang" the woman; if that was the case, you'd see a lot more conventional positions. It's for camera access, pure and simple--if the positions of the bodies keep you from seeing what's happening, it defeats the point of pornography.
And if women are turned on by "ACTUAL REALISTIC HUMANE SEX" instead of the "unrealistic scene" seen in most pornography, then why is it that films written, directed, and produced by women (such as the high-budget ones made by Asia Carrera, or the vast array of output from Jenna Jameson's company) are very much the same as the output of the reputable porno companies like Vivid? (Yes, the output of "Extreme" porn companies, like Rob Black's stuff, is much rougher and quite degrading--but there's also a reason it's called "gonzo porn" and usually kept somewhat segregated on the store shelves.)
As for "you can't fake a hardon," I've got a few little words for you. Viagra. Cialis. Levitra. There's plenty of drugs out there that can induce an erection--in fact, Viagra has essentially eliminated the fluffer's job in the porn industry, as it's much cheaper to have the guy pop a little blue pill and wait twenty minutes than it is to pay someone to tease his dick into stiffness.
Even if it weren't for the presence of the drugs, that's a total non-starter argument anyway--any prosecutor will tell you, quite correctly, that physical arousal isn't a sign of consent. It's a purely physiological reaction to stimulus; even if a man is unconscious, or actively resisting, he'll first pop a boner, then eventually ejaculate as a result of penile stimulation.
tl;dr version: The article's full of shit from someone who has no knowledge of how porn--or male sexual response--works.
Porn is a very touchy subject, thus everyone will have different views on the subject. I'm not saying all porn is sexist, nor should it be completely banned. I understand that people choose to be in porn, like any other job, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not sexist. Men and women, alike, can be sexist too.
As for the rest of your post? I think you'll get a much better response if you post your reply on the comment section of the link provided in this entry. I didn't write the article, nor do I entirely agree with it.
...yeah, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to come off like that was all aimed at you. When I get going on a rant, it can kind of take on a life of its own. (I went off on *two* rants within two hours this morning... so I was in a ranty mood, apparently.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-29 04:19 am (UTC)It's hard to find women-friendly porn -- and that article seems to suggest that gay man porn is more humane? Just maybe, women are turned on by ACTUAL, REALISTIC HUMANE SEX, instead of the unrealistic scene where a woman is unmercifully banged by a man who only cares about his pleasure. Like, I know that doesn't turn me on at all. In fact, thinking about it kind of makes me want to throw up in my mouth a little bit.
Just my .02.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-29 01:04 pm (UTC)The bit about "female oppression through porn" in the article? Yeah, I call bullshit on that. I'm sorry, but I've actually known (via the internet) a few real-world porn stars and ex-porn stars (all female, mind you), and each one said, when conversations got around to that, that she got into porn of her own free will, and was never forced or coerced into anything, except MAYBE by being bribed into something she'd not normally choose to do--like the one who rarely did anal, not out of a dislike for it, but because she didn't want to become seen as an "anal queen," or the one who did a scene or two with Ron Jeremy only after they agreed to pay her double her normal rate. (I think you can guess why the second one happened--she later got it written into her contract that she'd not have to do scenes with the Hedgehog again.)
The whole "pornography is the oppression of women" thing dates back to the early-70s militant feminism movement, and was full of shit even then--look up how Linda Lovelace, for example, was pressured and badgered into becoming the face of that claim, basically coerced by the movement to make claims of having been forced into it in the first place, and then forced into various acts in her films--despite the fact that there's documentation of her having done everything involved voluntarily.
Does pornography exploit women? No more than it exploits men, and all involved are well-compensated for their exploitation. Any porn star, male or female, will tell you that some of the positions and such involved are actually rather uncomfortable and not much fun, but it's not so that "the man who cares only about his pleasure" can "unmercifully bang" the woman; if that was the case, you'd see a lot more conventional positions. It's for camera access, pure and simple--if the positions of the bodies keep you from seeing what's happening, it defeats the point of pornography.
And if women are turned on by "ACTUAL REALISTIC HUMANE SEX" instead of the "unrealistic scene" seen in most pornography, then why is it that films written, directed, and produced by women (such as the high-budget ones made by Asia Carrera, or the vast array of output from Jenna Jameson's company) are very much the same as the output of the reputable porno companies like Vivid? (Yes, the output of "Extreme" porn companies, like Rob Black's stuff, is much rougher and quite degrading--but there's also a reason it's called "gonzo porn" and usually kept somewhat segregated on the store shelves.)
As for "you can't fake a hardon," I've got a few little words for you. Viagra. Cialis. Levitra. There's plenty of drugs out there that can induce an erection--in fact, Viagra has essentially eliminated the fluffer's job in the porn industry, as it's much cheaper to have the guy pop a little blue pill and wait twenty minutes than it is to pay someone to tease his dick into stiffness.
Even if it weren't for the presence of the drugs, that's a total non-starter argument anyway--any prosecutor will tell you, quite correctly, that physical arousal isn't a sign of consent. It's a purely physiological reaction to stimulus; even if a man is unconscious, or actively resisting, he'll first pop a boner, then eventually ejaculate as a result of penile stimulation.
tl;dr version: The article's full of shit from someone who has no knowledge of how porn--or male sexual response--works.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-30 12:11 am (UTC)Umm....
Porn is a very touchy subject, thus everyone will have different views on the subject. I'm not saying all porn is sexist, nor should it be completely banned. I understand that people choose to be in porn, like any other job, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not sexist. Men and women, alike, can be sexist too.
As for the rest of your post? I think you'll get a much better response if you post your reply on the comment section of the link provided in this entry. I didn't write the article, nor do I entirely agree with it.
For convenience: http://www.lesbilicious.co.uk/community/why-do-lesbians-love-gay-man-porn/
no subject
Date: 2009-04-30 12:24 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-04-30 12:37 am (UTC)