Porn For Women revisited yet again

If I understand you correctly you mean that men are turned on by pictures of women doing stuff to men (or stuff men would like to see happening, like 2 girls together). So consequently you conclude women are turned on by pictures of men doing stuff to women.

(I'm thinking out loud here, so I might take too long to get to a point...)

Hm, I think I agree... But that doesn't mean that all women like the same stuff, just like not every man likes the same pictures. I don't care for pictures of men giving head to women, because I think it looks silly. But I do get turned on by seeing just the lower half of a man standing with a girl on her knees giving him a blow job. Sometimes. Depending on how his body looks and how she looks...

Perhaps women are just a bit more critical about what they'd like to see? Because I believe that women are more critical about men than vice versa in the real world too.

[Oh yeah, no way any one thing will appeal to everyone, man or women. And while your first paragraph *sort* of captures what I want to say, it's more that when it works there's some sort of invitation tied to your perspective or point of view that makes it easier to identify with *as a viewer* even if not, particularly, as a participant. Thanks, Cecile. --fl]

Anyway, when people ask about "Porn For Women" what they need to be talking about are images of men doing what women want

Yes -- of course. I have a partner who sends me smashingly hot photos of himself. They're graphic and generous and often include his cock; he's displaying himself for me, and that's exactly what I want to see. No action, just a display of body parts. I like looking at your pictures, but wouldn't necessarily seek out pictures of anonymous naked men or disembodied cocks. This could be taken to mean that I'm not visual, but of course I'm visual; when I look at his pictures, and sometimes yours, it's as if a red-hot wire runs directly from my behind my eyes to between my legs -- no analysis required. And yet my desire is always informed by a knowing or an understanding of the particular person on display. So for this woman, an image of a man doing what I want is really an image of a man who's allowed me to know him somehow.

[I totally get what youre saying, Jen. I don't know if it has to be, but the way we've done dating for like the last 100 years has been: men scan around for people we're attracted to and *guess* might be attracted to us and then sort of muster the courage to ask out. And with that conditioning (though whether it was nature or nurture doesn't really matter) we'd probably be attracted to choice-making imagery. Which is how a lot of the porn you see out there works. Your experience is probably something more like *receiving* multiple inquiries from men you're either more or less interested in, and if so then it makes sense that you'd probably prefer to know a little more about them. Even if in the end we each wanted to see the other in very sexual circumstances. Is that paraphrasing what you said or am I over-interpreting? Thanks! --fl]

women feel uncomfortable if they’re wearing a fishnet bodysuit and their date is wearing chinos and a blue Oxford. Or a bow tie and a bookstore bag.

Really? I don't. That's usually about how Rusty and I dress to go to the sex club.

[Agreed. Stein was being a toolbag in the sense that he's repeating what *he's* been told as if it was true. And the funny thing is I think he, and his partners, would probably really, really have it be some other way. And might if... he didn't insist that what he has been told to believe is true is actually true. Thanks, Amber. --fl]

I do think you have to be cautious applying ideas about what people want to look at IRL with what they want to look at in media, because they're often not the same.

For instance, in the years we did Scarlet Letters, because overall (sparing now-gone publications -- sigh! -- like the print version of Libido and Yellow Silk, and Playgirl, whose subscribers have never been a female majority) we and everyone else knew so little about what women wanted in erotics, we did a lot of discussing and a lot of broad polling. Mind, your readership was a mixture of orientations, but one thing that kept coming up -- and has come up in studies still -- is that often women don't want to look at porn from a voyeuristic standpoint.

In other words, that often, women looking at erotic visual imagery are or like to put themselves in the picture, which is one why of plenty of heterosexual women who want to look at imagery with women in it, or even solely OF women. Sure, some folks want -- always or sometimes -- to be the one looking in, but some also -- and more women reported this being the case to us -- want to look at it as if looking in a mirror. And that also is some of the why for the issues of visual agency you're bringing up: if we're looking at it as if it were a mirror, and what we see looks nothing like us, we're not going to be satisfied. If we're looking as if it's a fantasy mirror and we like what we see, it's a bit more coherent, and if it DOES look more like us, we can more easily make that connection.

Again, as in all things pertaining to sexuality, generalizing is rarely helpful, and people don't just vary amoung themselves, but individuals vary personally from day to day.

Too, it's perhaps worth mentioning that every look at a nude body or any kind of body also isn't always about what someone is finding sexy or erotic, or meant to be masturbatory fodder, eh? :)

Oh, and, you knew -- you had to -- I was going to call you on it, but, "Anyway, when people ask about "Porn For Women" what they need to be talking about are images of men doing what women want." No, they really don't. Not only are we all not heterosexual, no matter our stripe, we don't always, and some ever, want to be looking at men in porn at all. :P

[Yes, I knew you were going to call me on it, and in fact my mental voice-in-the-ear about heteronormativity sounds a lot like you. I just thought I'd done a better job qualifying beforehand. But getting back to where you said "want to look at it as if looking in a mirror" instead of voyeuristically, yeah that's *exactly* what I've been struggling to get at. Thanks! I might add that that's the impression I keep getting, even when the "what's reflected in the mirror" doesn't look like the person at all. Fantasy, after all, don't necessarily reflect what we'd actually want to *do* at all. But that doesn't mean our *location* in the fantasy isn't important. For men as well as women. I'm actually going to stop right here because a) I should just digest what you said and b) if I'm not careful I'll start wondering if it helps that so many of my photos are taken in a mirror and otherwise start prematurely overreaching. Thanks a *ton* Heather. --fl]

Ha! I didn't even think about your mirror stuff. Very interesting....

And you know, there are a lot of different ways I like to kick down the "women aren't as visual as men" stuff, but one of my faves is to take a look at how often some of the most visible workers in fields like urban planning, interior decorating, engineering, visual art, graphic design, even teaching (which, as any teacher will tell you, is often seriously visual) are female, even though, in some of those fields, the challenges for women to even get in them, let alone be visible, are tougher. We really have nothing, in any arena, that earnestly suggests that somehow men are more visual -- what the heck does that even MEAN? And if and when it's about porn, why is it asking if women are visual, rather than how women are sexually socialized and/or what exactly we're all supposed to be wanting to look at, as if content was somehow irrelevant? -- than women are.

And obviously, personally, as a visual artist on top of everything else I do, anytime people go on with this "are women as visual" stuff, I just sit here stupefied as to why that's even a questtion.

[Oh lord, and don't even *start* on how women (because, I'm guessing, there's so much stress on beauty) can distinguish 37 shades of lavender. (I remember my first girlfriend and her mom mocking me like I wasn't *just* stupid when I said lavender was a kind of purple.) And while, of course, I can actually discern the shades, and even use them, I don't do enough design work to be able to name them. (oops, digression inspired by bitter memories of being laughted at.) But anyway yes, it's nuts to say women aren't "as visual," though really what they mean is that women are supposed to leave ogling naked bodies up to men. Thanks, Heather. --fl]

The first picture I saw of a man I would later become involved with was of him sitting on his motorcycle. It was an incredibly sexy picture to me -- partly of course because I found him physically attractive, but partly because I immediately imagined myself sitting behind him on that motorcycle (I feel the urge to apologize for the stereotypicalness of that, but as an epileptic I don't drive). All of which is just an anecdote in support of the agency thing -- I imagined us together and that was a turn on.

It took a few years of getting to know him however before I decided I was actually attracted to him (long distance explains the slow pace). Which leads me to something that I think contributes to the idea that women aren't visual. I tend to only describe myself as attracted to a man when the whole package is there - attraction on many dimensions. Finding a man visually yummy will not by itself prompt that description, though I will certainly appreciate him. My husband, in contrast, will say he is attracted to a woman when what he means is he finds her visually appealing. A quick survey of my friends suggests on the whole we sort this way. This is certainly socialized and the fact we are socialized that way is no doubt part of the paradigm you are railing against.

I can't articulate why I find your pictures appealing, though I have been pondering it on and off. I think part of it is the domesticity: by which I mean, the locales are such that I can imagine, for example, wandering sleepily downstairs into the steamy bathroom and finding you there. I guess as an old married woman I find day to day intimacy sexy. ;) Again, anecdote in support of the agency thesis.

[An excellent anecdote into agency, E. And the domesticity is another way of locating desire where you want to be. (And hmm... it occurs to me that a *huge* amount of for-men porn, still and moving alike, is set in mansions or yachts or executive suites, near cars, and marble swiming pools and gated lawns, in sumptuous-yes-but-who'd-live-in-that bedrooms, and... along with the pneumatic and coifed women are actually... perceived signs of having achieved worthines so... Hmm.......) Where was I? Oh yeah, I'd like to point out that the scenarios of visual attraction you described where actually very similar to how men experience it, your *language* about it was pretty different. Obviously that doesn't mean one way's the right way and the other the wrong way to say it, just that it's always interesting to inquire into how we get to differential language like that. Hmm, again. Lots of excellent food for thought, E. Thanks a million! --fl]

That last paragraph doesn't quite say what I meant -- of course part of the reason is that you are attractive, I meant merely I can't articulate what it is about the staging etc. of the photos that makes them better than say standard porn images of men.

[I think I got it. And if I didn't get it exactly right it's still all an inspiring comment. Thanks again, E. --fl]

I think a lot of it is circular logic: the patriarchal system tells women they're not supposed to be interested in sex, so of course they don't buy porn.

There's got to be as much variation in what women like to look at as there is with men, the trick is making it okay for women to look at it.

[And of course if they're not buying then no one will try to make something they *would* buy. Very circular indeed. Though it also applies to porn in general where if only the most desperate perverts are willing to buy it then only stuff for desperate perverts will be produced, and only by sufficiently desperate producers and performers, leading to... all kinds of nasty situations. Good point. Thanks, SDE. --fl]

And the converse is true too: a lot of the women I know are women who believe it is okay for women to like porn, so they tend to be okay with buying it, talking about it, saying what they like or don't like in it, etc.

If it weren't for a whole range of groups trying to enforce a certain view of how women should react to porn, women who like porn would be more free.

[Hey, *I'm* trying to enforce certain views too so there's nothing wrong, per se, with that. I happen to feel I have a better *case* for my position. Which is that to the extent possible it should be freely created, freely distributed, and freely consumed for free such that there's neither motive nor opportunity for coersion or other involuntary exploitation of performers. Thanks, SDE. --fl]

Hey, Figleaf, I'm with you on that - but that's about how porn should be produced, not how it should be received or how people should react to it. And, erm, didn't you have a post a week or two back about the disconnect between what you see and how it's produced? ;-)

[And of course you're right about how it's received, and that really is a whole separate issue. I was thinking too much about the first, production side. Thanks for the catch, SnowdropExplodes. --fl]

Ah Figleaf, you write such cool stuff, and here I am off on holidays with my brain not really working. Hence, I'm several days late for this post.

Anyway, I can't help but come in and type a quick response:

Nice pic! :)

Re the idea of women putting themselves in the photo - that's one of the ways I'll assess a dirty pic. Would that be me, would I do that? But I'll also agree with your thoughts on agency - of men (or whoever!) doing what women want. The focus being on women's pleasure and women's fantasies. That's how I've always defined women's porn anyway.

And... ah, bugger it. I can't remember what I was going to say. Time for another beer.

[Thank you very kindly, Ms N! --fl]