The "no-sex" class: The whole entire secret to porn for women
Much has been made of the question "how do you make porn for women?" As if it were unfathomable. My answer comes in the form of another question:
Don't ask yourself "what would I like to show?" Ask "what would they like to see?"
Your answer might be right, and it might be wrong. It might even be really, really, really wrong. But you'd at least be trying to answer the right question.
If you don't believe women have an innate interest in sex that's not dependent on an external provider it might not occur to you to ask. That "how do you make porn for women" seems to have such an elusive answer suggests to me that the "no-sex" class paradigm exists.
while i don't consider myself sufficiently versed in the subject, i'm not sure that the label "no-sex class" is quite apt. there's a difference in between believing that there isn't an interest in sex and versus an interest in a different kind of sex.
i don't think that it's novel to claim that there is a certain power associated with (the having of) sex, since once you've fucked someone, it does change the power dynamics between you; you've seen them in a different setting.
given the aforementioned power, i am tempted to think that it's a lot easier to view the party whom you've just fucked as the "no-sex" class because if you were to allot them a different label - say the same label you've given yourself - then you'd have to share that power with them, thus rendering it impotent.
as for why it's supposedly hard to make porn for women, i gather it's the same reason cosmetics firms find it hard to sell beauty products to men.
in the case of women - who supposedly aren't turned on by visuals as much as words - i suppose it is hard to make porn. granted, i've never seen a porn movie that did anything to me other than make me laugh, but then again i've only seen porn on television (haven't specifically purchased any, as i've always liked real sex with a live human being much much much better).
[For the record I chose the "no-sex" label as an alternative to the very similar radical feminist "sex class" theory. I agree that either way there are large power considerations. I just happen to believe that men are going to be more amenable to change away from that construction since, especially early on, it appears to have more benefit for them. It actually benefits *everybody,* but while maybe we might end up having sex more often to boot, shifting away from the dominant paradigm won't turn culture into an end-to-end episode of girls-gone-wild. As for porn for women, the biggest problem isn't that women aren't visual. Instead it's that we keep *telling ourselves* women aren't visual -- against *considerable evidence* to the contrary! (That we keep telling ourselves something that just ain't so is yet another body of evidence that the "women are the no-sex class" paradigm is dominant.) Thanks, Kermit. --fl]
I think it's total hooey that women are not turned on by visuals. We like looking at lots of things, just not always the same things as men. I think, for instance, that men's bare genitals do much less for us than a woman's bareness does for a man.
Male-oriented mainstream porn is, for me, like rat's blood to a vampire. It will do in a pinch, but is a pale imitation of what I want.
Remember that Diet Coke Break commercial from the 90s? They were on to something. Red Shoe Diaries was another good start, although personally I would have liked to have seen them continue more into hardcore and kink.
What turns me on in porn is the same thing that turns me on with a partner: I want to see the same strength and desire that makes a man a man and not a rutting bull.
[I'm hoping that this week's HNT (a video this time) works for you then, Spinster. I *know* women get turned on, which makes finding what works way, way easier. Since I know to look. Thanks! --fl]
Invisible Spinster seems to have the right of it to me. Show me pictures of the right sort of things and woosh. Though I found Red Shoe Diaries boring. Too much not very good story.
Not quite sure how to articulate this, but here goes. Judging from main stream porn (which is admittedly risky), men seem to get off on a woman wanting to have sex or being available for sex anyway. Thus nudity in and of itself is good. But it's not enough for me for a man to want to have sex ... for it to be a real turn on, rather than just an idle appreciation of the masculine form, he needs to be doing a reasonably convincing job of seeming to want to have sex with *me* or my proxy in the pornography.
I think this is sometimes expressed by saying women want there to be a relationship between the people having sex, and that is usually interpreted to mean romantic relationship. Thus bad porn films with bad romantic stories aimed at "couples". But I am not talking about a romantic relationship, or even anything other than raw sexual desire. I just want that desire to be desire for a particular person -- me! (or the proxy) -- rather than generic desire for a woman, any woman.
Fig's own pictures work for me because they (a) show us more than just some genitalia -- not that genitalia aren't wonderful, but so are hands and arms and thighs and the teasing of not actually seeing everything in every shot; (b) allow one to imagine that this is about you.
[I'm so glad to hear you say that, E. I'm working to create imagery along the lines you describe, for the reasons you lay out. Again it doesn't mean I'll get it right every time, but I know enough to try. --fl]
I've had this page open for hours because there wasn't any comment yet and I wasn't sure about what my opinion was exactly. Now, with the prior comments, I have some thoughts to build my comment on.
I am absolutely turned on by porn. I've had my best solo sex when I was 13 - 14 and one of the tv channels showed soft porn every now and then. Now I'm older and luckily have digital tv with a lot of hardcore porn channels.
Seeing people naked isn't enough, nor is some sad romantic story. I think Invisible Spinster and E tell it exactly the way it is: I need the men to be really manly, not just pathetic guys following their dick, but really passionate, strong, slightly dominant. Overwhelming. So you can almost actually feel them.
I also like the idea of the men actually wanting sex with a certain woman, not just any woman. This gives it a feeling of real desire which is irresistible in a man. It may sound pathetic and corny but there's still no better turn on than a guy (preferably my own guy) telling me, with his eyes slightly shut and his mouth a little open "I just so much want to..., need to..., fuck you.."
[Oh this is so great, Cecile! It really helps. Thank you. On about ten different levels. --fl]
Figleaf, it's interesting that you pose the question "what would they like to see?" In my various readings and discussions on this subject, I invariably meet with protestations from women who are annoyed at the whole idea of "porn for women" because they think it's creating a narrow, stereotypical definition of "what women want."
So asking "what would they like to see?" leads to problems because *they* - being women - are hard to define. Tastes are varied, and you can't please everyone. Which is why I've always defended my version of porn for women by saying it's what I want to see. What I want to show. I've based a business on the idea that other women feel the same way and want to see the same things (and they do).
I've heard the "you can't define what women want" argument so often that it's interesting (and refreshing) to see you promote the idea. And it's not without merit. You can't attempt to create something for a target group without trying to identify their needs. Perhaps the trick is not to talk about "women" as a group, but rather "some women."
Of course, I understand where you're coming from with this post, examining the societal idea that women as a whole don't really like sex (and therefore don't like porn). If that assumption is your starting point in creating women's porn (and I suspect the people making Silicone Valley "couples" films have this mentality) then you will fail.
E - I feel the same way about seeing a guy in porn. I've got a million nude men photos but they're only idle appreciation. Interaction between sex partners - that's the thing. And it's funny how often porn leaves this out. One of my prerequisites in choosing existing hardcore content is to make sure the couple actually look at each other. Smiles, murmurs, kisses, interaction. That to me makes a sex scene more believeable and hot.
OK, this is a bit of a ramble, from the viewpoint of an evil pornographer :) Figleaf, your pics are fab, as usual.
[I agree with you on multiple levels, MN, but I'm going to push a little further forward on a couple of your points. First: I went out on a limb a little bit and said "what would they like to see," not "what do they *suggest* they'd like to see." Because for suggestions to work I think there has to be some sort of acceptable ground state to start improving from and there's... just... not a lot! Know what I mean? So I'm thinking it might be like old-fashioned questions and answers, as in "Do you like this better than this? Thank you. Now, do you like this better than this? Thank you." Until there's enough information to start asking for suggestions from. (Hint: I think "more plot" is sort of a red herring suggestion. I think you, E, and others who emphasize *implied connection* instead of mere presence is what matters.)
Next, I think it actually *is* possible to come up with a *general* idea about what women enjoy in porn based on... well... what women enjoy in porn! Sure, it's not for everybody (same's true in porn for men, obviously.) But still, just breaking out of the ingrained idea that only special and/or weird women, but not normal ones, would like to look would make a big difference.
And finally, non-evil pornographers have just got to get over that little reverse chip on your shoulders. There really are evil ones out there, and even joking about yourselves being in those ranks kind of diminishes the threat *they* pose. Not to mention making it harder to identify and work on them. Thanks! --fl]
If women are not "supposed" to like sex... then I am a freak.
You could begin with photos like the ones you post here... subtle, but very, very sexy.
Works for me.
But then, according the "no sex" class concept, as stated above, I am a freak.
[The only freaks around here are the people (mostly but not all men) who insist that women aren't supposed to like sex. The "no-sex" class paradigm has to go. You're helping with comments like this. Thanks, Dawn! --fl]
This may not be directly related to the topic of this post, but I would highly recommend that you check out the conversation between Annie Sprinkle and Mae Tyme, the link provided courtesy of Amber. In her introduction, Annie Sprinkle explains:
The full conversation can be found here.
Compared to the take-no-prisoners comment threads on some of the feminist blogs, it was amazing to see these two women shares their experiences and be supportive of each other, even though they are from opposite sides of the pornography debate.
[Yeah, I've heard of the conversations Sprinkle and Tyme have had but I hadn't seen a link. I agree they're wonderfully civil (in the real meaning of the word.) Thanks Kochanie! --fl]
Wow. That strikes me as profoundly fucked-up, not to mention an apt illustration of what I believe Figleaf is trying to accomplish with his "no-sex class" series.
The power dynamics change? What? There is just so much wrong with that.
Of course, I've never much cared for "fuck" as a transitive verb. I think it's great as an intransitive verb; "We fucked" or "Let's fuck!" or "I love fucking!" instead of "He fucked her" and the like.
I guess it's easier to see sex as altering power dynamics (again, WTF; I'm having trouble getting past that) when you view sex as someone doing something to someone else.
Which implies one person has agency, and the other is passive at best and non-consensual at worst.
[Yup. Whereas *relationship* dynamics often change after you have sex, it's hard to see exactly where or how any *power* dynamics would change unless, maybe, it wasn't a relationship at all. For instance whereas a mugger *interacts* with his victim, and certainly has potentially shifting power dynamics, he has no *relationship* with his victim. And within such a dynamic the victim has no agency. And yeah, all that is *exactly* what I'm trying to move everyone away from looking at sex like. Good points, Amber. Thanks. --fl]