HNT - Secret agency
It's always nice to be excerpted in a major online publication. It's even nicer to be mentioned in a discussion of the erotic presentation of straight men. So I'd really like to thank Rachel Kramer Bussel for quoting me in her article "Is There Such a Thing as "Porn for Women?" on the Huffington Post.
The first and second commenters on Rachel's article made the case that a) men are simple and women complex when it comes to porn and b) men can get off on a Sears catalog. Therefore, I guess, it's easy to make porn for men and hard to make it for women.
I've said before that I think the real problem is that most images of men in porn are made for men -- either directly for gay men or as foils/proxies/stand-in accessories to the women in straight porn. As such we're presented pretty differently than the way women prefer to see us.
In comments to Rachel's article Ms. Naughty proposes three criteria that distinguish women's porn from men's.
Porn is for women when it does 3 things:
1. It acknowledges that the audience is female and is aimed specifically at women, gay or straight
2. It depicts a woman's point of view and a woman's experience of sex.
3. It gives primacy to female pleasure.
Item #2 seems the most important to me. Women in male porn aren't shown as having a lot of agency, and I think being able to project yourself into imagery with agency is what rocks everybody's boats. If you can feel like you've got a choice of *being* there rather than simply being *put* there it just... works better for everybody.
Happy HNT (or Half-nekkid Thursday!)
Huh. Enlightening. Interesting. And true.
Love the belt on the chair. Nice touch. ;)
Happy HNT!
[Thanks, Vixen! Speaking of porn for women, everybody seems at a total loss that there's not a direct female equivalent of "T&A." (Several commenters on Rachel's article mention this as a problem.) But over and over people here say they like hands and arms, they like belts, they like zipped pants better not because it's more modest but because they like the idea of *unzipping it themselves.* That's different, but "different" isn't the same thing as "complicated." Thank you, Vixen! And happy HNT to you too. --fl]
Happy HNT to you. Hard to read the black-on-grey. Not complaining, just explaining.
[I've noticed that too. For some reason the CSS file can take an awfully long time to load. Hmm... I'll look into it right now. Thanks, Rob! --fl]
What is it about gay porn that's supposed to be unappealing to women? Is it that the intended audience is male, that there are no women depicted, or something completely different? I ask because I don't find it unappealing (quite the reverse actually). I notice that RKB makes a similar point, and I'd be curious to know what your female readers think.
Not that there shouldn't be better and more diverse porn for women, of course.
[I'm not saying gay porn isn't appealing to women -- not least because so many of you say it is! :-) Just that it's not *made* for women and, obviously, it doesn't represent *straight* men in an erotic light. Which might just be my own personal beef but, I think, speaks to a larger problem that virtually all porn is made for men and therefore there isn't much created intentionally for women's agency in porn. And I think a sense of agency for the viewer is the big key to appreciating it. Thanks, P. --fl]
interesting. A lot to consider.
HHNT in the meantime!
[Thanks, Zoely. Happy HNT to you too. --fl]
Interesting ideas on the porn issue. I've always felt it's quite true that what appeals to men usually doesn't do so much for women. Women want an actual plot, etc. Excellent points; excellent picture. Why is it that your arms are so sexy?
[I'm not sure what it is about my arms either, Bunny, but I'm really happy they work for people. Thank you. --fl]
yes ... it is the belt, innocent but so promising, threatening and delicious
*shiver*
HHNT!
[Mmm, shivers! Thank you, Me. And happy HNT to you too. --fl]
I included the following explanatory paragraph as an update of my post, If You Could Talk to the Animals:
I don't know if that program devoted to estrus-driven creatures would meet all three of Ms. Naughty's criteria. Perhaps this will serve as a litmus paper test for female arousal: years later, the images of those nuzzling beasts are a pleasure to recall. On the other hand, I would prefer to forget those scenes of harshly-lit contrived sex in those 1980's porn videos.
In reply to P. Burke's question, I think that the sensuality of two men having sex is very appealing to women. If not, why did so many straight women (as opposed to straight men) attend the movie, Brokeback Mountain?
Thank you for the lovely photo, fl. That belt over the chair looks like a creature with a tale to tell. ;)
[First of all thank for the explanation for your post, Kochanie. I appreciated it for what it was but the context you give it adds quite a bit more to it. As to the Brokeback Mountain effect, a lot of people think porn is just about voyeurism but I think it's got more to do with being able to project yourself into the frame fantasy-wise. If that was so then I think it would explain why two women appeal to straight men and two men appeal to straight women -- from the point of view of your preference there's twice as much going on that you would enjoy doing yourself. In other words it's that agency thing again. Thanks! --fl]
Personally, #3 is the most important to me. It's why I find Beautiful Agony to be the most arousing thing to watch. All I need to see is a woman's face while she's climaxing and I'm going to want some of whatever she's getting;) And I love watching the build-up to orgasm, too. It's as though I can put myself there and feel every sensation as I'm watching it on the screen. Mmmmm.
I definitely don't get turned on by close-ups of cock-n-pussy shots or facials.
But everyone's different and we all have our kinks. I just wish there were more porn focused on female pleasure. It's certainly in the minority.
[I sort of shied away from #3 in this post because I felt like the wording subtly reinforces the 70's era (and earlier) supposition that women are to passively"be pleasured" during sex with men. That could just be my own personal association though, and everyone else recognizes that it really means "gives primacy to the women's *enjoyment* both receiving when she chooses to receive, and giving when she chooses to give." Thanks, Ruby. --fl]
love the belt added to the chair, makes it very naught potential
happy hnt
[Thank you, OFM! Happy HNT to you too. --fl]
The hottest “porn” I’ve seen can be found by searching for Tony Comstock video pod casts. These were done with real couples in documentary style. It’s the intimacy, the “love” if you will that is the turn on for me. I’ve also discovered that I could enjoy watching two gay men having sex (though the video was highly censured, which is silly). Two women having sex? No, I can’t go there and I’m not sure what that means. In regular porn the "stars" seem detached, fake and boredom quickly sets in for me. I just know that I'm going to regret clicking that post button today.
As always, great HNT shot Figleaf. The belt…oh yes, my brain fills in the blanks very nicely.
[I'm guessing watching two women doesn't work for you for the same reason two men don't work for me -- if we're motivated by agency and not passive receptivity then instead of being able to identify with both participants (who could be doing what we'd like to do) we're interested in neither (even though they're both *having done to them* what we might enjoy if it were *done* to us. *That's* what I mean by "agency" being a big factor in porn. (Presumably if either of us were significantly bisexual that wouldn't be an issue.) And yes, for the record I really enjoyed the Comstock's "Matt and Khym." Thanks, Cathy! p.s. I hope you're not sorry you clicked that button by the way. I think yours was an excellent comment and, um, I'm going to do a whole post based on it. --fl]
Very Nice...
HHNT
[Thank you, Ag. Happy HNT to you too. --fl]
damn... that is hottt
[Glad it works for you, Shibari. Thanks. --fl]
Part of the problem has to be that most porn makers are men, and with the best will in the world, their interpretation of what will turn a woman on can be wide of the mark. The first point from Ms Naughty then can't stand alone whereas points 2 or 3 possibly could. It's the usual thing though, there are probably as many different shades to the answer as people answering.
Your hand looks a little tense there Figleaf, but talking about projecting myself into imagery with agency, I'm more interested in what I would do with my own hands ....
[Now *that's* what I mean by viewer agency in imagery, A. As to porn, it's worth mentioning that at least in mainstream stuff women porn photographers produce the same old stuff. Of course it could be selection bias by editors -- independent women photographers and, obviously, HNT-style self-photographers are a different story. Thanks, A. --fl]
I have discovered from looking at all of your images, Figleaf, that my least favorite pose is with your legs spread. I don't know why that is - I can think of some nice things to do to a man with spread legs, and I love when my submissive boyfriend kneels, sitting back on his heels with his legs well spread. I'm curious if the (presumably gay) men who like your pictures like those better than the women do.
[Not sure why that is either, Tam. Thinking back on it, though, (I seem to get around ten times as many gay men as straight or straightish women over on Flicker) I don't think there's much difference. Interesting perspective though. I appreciate it. Thanks. --fl]
Not sure if I get it all... but will read it again in the morning... For now, just Happy HNT!
[Thank you, SeaRabbit. Happy HNT to you too. --fl]