Agency in porn: eye of the beholder, mind of the performer
Infra of Skin::filter() says
Evidently, porn for women is rare.
But… what exactly is "porn for women?"
...
I’d be inclined to think that part of the dearth issue is something mentioned in Inside Deep Throat: that the crossover between adult films and mainstream cinema that people were hoping would occur, never did. The sites that I’ve seen that focus on porn for women tend to mention things that would seem to target this kind of crossover, like emotionally involved couples sex; generally, a less “clinical” view of human sexuality, as they put it. ... But I’m not particularly inclined to buy that line of reasoning, especially since I’ve found that stereotype to consistently ring false.
I’m also doubtful of it due to the disconnect that there seems to be between the number of women who buy porn in stores and the percentage of women who watch porn on-line, and the fact that what porn women do purchase, when they do, tends to be more kink-inclined as a rule. (I’m going on things that Ren [of Renegade Evolution --fl] has mentioned, here.)
Infra adds in an update "how, if at all, would preferences for literature vs. film play into this?"
So in his comment section I started to mention that it had occurred to me a few months ago that the *real* distinction isn’t video vs. literature *per se* so much as it was which examples of which media permits which viewers a greater sense of agency — of *doing* or doing *with* and not merely being there to be passively done *unto.*
And then as soon as I realized that it occurred to me that maybe that’s why there’s such a huge, huge, huge disconnect between, say, Ren or Amber Rhea and their critics. The *external end result* of Rens work may or may not appear to have any agency for women but she clearly, and correctly, feels an incredible amount of agency during its *production.* The *external end result* of pole dancing may be a bunch of lolmenz going "hur hur lukkit hur shaken em ta-tas! On a polez!" but she clearly and correctly feels an incredible amount of agency while she's doing it.
Anyway, under such circumstances it's possible for both pro-porn performers and anti-porn critics could be 100% right *from their perspectives* (though in practice I'm not sure anyone can be 100% right about anything.) They'd just happen to be right about *totally different things.* Which would, of course, account for some of the vitriol that's spilled in, um, let's call it debate between the two sides.
That disconnect between production and consumption is a big part of my conflict between sex workers in general and their customers. I'm not sure what the answer is but one element would seem to be bringing the agency of sex workers to the attention of consumers.
Have you ever watched a "behind the scenes" segment on a mainstream-porn DVD? They can be amazingly candid, and shockingly cheerful.
I remember one, for a totally unenlightened-sounding "Asian Ass Reamings 18" type video (it was borrowed, okay?) that showed a set full of mostly women laughing and joking with each other and with the equally laid-back male talent. The director was a woman and a sometime performer herself, nobody seemed drugged or unhappy, and it all seemed so friendly and safe.
Then I flipped to the actual feature and... horrible grimaces, miserable touch-free pounding, ejaculations from two feet away onto barely-tolerating faces. It seemed like these nice people were acting more unpleasant than they really were.
No wonder consumers get the wrong idea. If one tenth of that on-set cameraderie had translated into the main feature, it would have been such a different experience. Less marketable? I don't know, although I really doubt it. But definitely more humanizing.
[Last week somebody (was it you?) mentioned that while *watching* horror movies can be stressful, making them is often as much fun as you can have with your clothes on. I'm not sure why porn *content* should always seem as almost-like-church serious as it usually comes across... but it sounds like they go out of their way to make it so. (I wonder if it's a consequence of the old "purient interest" standards where, if it looked like anyone was actually having fun it would be actionable as porn. Whereas if everyone looks like they're at the dentist it's not. I'd *hate* to find out that was the only kind that sells! Hmm. Thanks, Holly. --fl]
Oh, and porn for women is definitely NOT pictures of men ironing and vacuuming. That's just insulting.
"Them ladies [or "us gals," it's just as bad either way] love cleanin' up so much it's like sex for them!"
[Seems that way to me too. I sort of playfully tested it with some laundry-folding photos on Flickr. Thanks, Holly. --fl]
I'm not a big fan of the phrase "porn for women" as it seems to try and determine a "his & hers" mentality around sex which just isn't the case. Just as the idea is want to exist that "Action" flicks are masculine and "Romance Comedy" feminine - but of course that is how they are marketed - that is how they are written, I was thinking the other day about Indiana Jones, how it combines romance, comedy and action so well, put sex into it and it would be bigger than Ben Hur. Could be "Indiana Jones and Harem of Sex Lust".
In my own experience I've known many women who have said that Winterbottom's "Nine Songs" was just softcore drivel, yet many women love Charles Bukowski, a gutter talking grotty brothel frequencing poet - would have "Barfly" been a sexy movie with softcore sex scenes. So what is sexy for women? Then again, what do I find sexy? I am male but am I typical male? Are we talking about what is typical or niche, I don't know.
I've often thought that reasoning that porn films, the typical ones aren't appealing because they a) don't have plots b) there is not subtle erotics c) seem dominating and exploitative from a masculine point of view. Yes true, and indeed most computer games and day time television have some of the same functions - what I would like to see is a general upsurge of creative output, not just in porn, but in every medium, simply because as much as I look at pulp bad porn, I also see pulp bad movies, badly written books, and unimaginative music and imagery - and this is the mainstream, this is the general, this is the majority.
I have bombed out theoretically with most of these things because I'm feeding it into my scripts but I know it all needs sorting.
Rups
[Funny, I got so excited about the agency thing I totally forgot what brought it on. But yes, I agree that at least as it's framed it's a problematic question because it assumes women are *different.* I try to start with an assumption that women are the same and see what comes from that. For me it comes out as "most porn is based not on male *content* (what, exactly, about sex itself is either male or female?) but on a male *point of view.* So what if you made porn not with "women's content" but from women's *points of view?* I don't know if I do a good job with my photos but at least when I take them I try to think what others would like to see instead of what I'd like to see or, more to the point, show! Thanks, Rupert. --fl]
Holly:
A lot more porn films/sites, especially the more aggressive/brutal leaning ones, are starting to include more of the behind the scenes stuff, which I think is great, personally. Seeing the performers cracking jokes and, gasp, acting like normal humans before the mayhem begins I think is perhaps one of the best things the porn industry can do for itself and its own reputation.
(waves to figleaf) And on that whole agency thing? This is me nodding.
[I've noticed the outtakes thing -- I'm not sure but if Kink.com didn't start it they've certainly popularized it. I agree it probably does help though it *still* raises interesting questions about WTF in a lot of porn. (For instance I *still* don't get why they have "fluffers" or other "warmup" people working off camera just to create the idea that the actors are always ready. Just don't get it! I mean, when outtakes are more interesting than the alleged content there's something weird going on.) Thanks, Ren! Glad you get the point about agency... hope you know what I mean about the other side too. Resolving the two ought to make both porn *and sex* more enjoyable for all concerned. --fl]
I really think you're onto something here, figleaf! Great post!
Also, could you update your link to my blog to point to beingamberrhea.com? Thanks!
[Glad you like the agency distinction. I've updated your link. Thanks, Amber --fl]
Kink.com certainly does it a lot, but I think Belladonna is pretty well known for it as well, as is MayhemXXX...the goofy prep and after wrap and candid performers thing. I think it's a really good idea.
As for the prep people, I think that is more a matter of "Time is Money" than trying to give the impression that the men are always just ready to go. Heh, me with the business end of the business crap again :)
And yeah, I get it ;)
[I'm just saying if I ever did a porn video I think I'd *start out* with the performers trying to revive their male counterparts after a real or imagined "round one." Not sure it would sell to men, but then there's enough porn made for men already. Thanks, Ren! --fl]
I need a porn agency or dirctors of porn
movie..if any one can help me to get me invole
in a well paid role. i'm a mix afica girl. stay in asia in Malaysia..i want to be connected pls let me know your mind if possible..
yours fathfullness
gulfriend!
[Hi Gulfriend. I'm sorry I can't help you as I don't know anything at all about the laws or social attitudes towards porn in Malaysia, let alone anything about the porn industry there. --fl]
Actually there is a lot of porn for women, and many women actively search for porn. Then tend to use a different vocabulary to men. For example women search for "adult videos" instead of "porn videos". The other big difference is women are more turned on by realisitic amateur videos whereas it seems a majority of men prefer professionals with surgically enhanced bodies