Figleaf's Real Adult Sex

Via Petra Boynton, sex researcher Shere Hite, writing in The Indypendent, tackles a subject that’s very near and dear to my heart: the representation of hetero men in conventional pornography.

Pornography, it seems to me, presents a highly distorted image of men. While my research with thousands of men shows a different picture of “who men are sexually,” pornography imposes a rigid ideological view on male sexual feelings, expression and behavior. They are not the monolithic beings depicted in most porno images, nor do they find their authentic selves in pornography.

Ironically, pornography seems friendly to men — more than to women — but its underlying message makes fun of men. Subliminally, it tells men that their sexual expression is ridiculous, base, insensitive, even grotesque. Visually it frequently makes men look ugly and coarse, foolish and unappealing.

She said it here.

It’s almost cliché that women are presented as one-dimensional and cartoonish in porn. Critiques of women in porn are practically an industry unto itself. Extending that critique to men is rather refreshing.

An emerging criticism of her column and, presumably, her underlying work is that she misunderstands how men are depicted in porn. And while a quick tour this morning of popular porn upload sites like YouPorn and RedTube (we really are presented as almost voiceless, as always having and keeping erections, as uninterested in emotional contact or even non-penis physical contact) suggest she’s not that far off the mark.

But reading deeper into her column that’s not really her point. Even if everything that’s presented about men in porn was sexually enjoyable¹ to do, what’s really important is that it’s a really, really limited set of the full range of sexually enjoyable things that men can do with a partner.

Hite speaks in particular to something I think men (and, often, even our partners) tend to shy away from in real life and, evidently, avoid like the plague in porn. Here’s Hite.

Men say they enjoy masturbation because they can fantasize about whatever they want and there is no pressure on them to perform. During masturbation, in my research, men stimulate themselves in many more places than they do when with a partner.

...

But many men cut short foreplay because they are afraid they may lose the erection which they have been taught is necessary to enjoy sex and which would be “shameful” to lose. More men could reach much higher peaks of feeling and arousal if they did not feel anxious about how they should behave sexually.

The great middle of the bell-shaped curve of porn never goes there, never treats men as interesting or, especially, complicated or, quirkily, fun to play with. We’re remarkably fun to play with though.

I think it’s great that Hite has raised the question.

And hey, just in time for Kristina Lloyd’s Man Candy Monday photo over at porn-for-straight-women Erotica Cover Watch. Oh, and check out comments on this porn-for-women post by Jessica Freely.

And if you’re an adult you can click here for yet another entry.

[1: Although seriously, what’s fun about stopping everything to wank out a “money shot” when you’ve got a partner right there who, in real life, would welcome your orgasm in contact and would almost certainly enjoy more active participation in creating it? Especially when it’s done over, and over, and over, and over. And over! —fl]

“Jeans 020” from my “Sizing Jeans” photoset on Flickr.
Also, why these photos?

Ms Naughty of Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog raises an issue that’s dear to my heart

[Note: All links go to pages containing nudity. —fl]

Thanks to The Girl for pointing me in the direction of Erotica Cover Watch. This is a new blog that asks the question: why are only women featured on the covers of erotic books?

It’s a very good point and the topic naturally delves into the whole feminist issue of the male gaze and the continued way that straight women are still considered to be non-visual.

It all comes down to official marketing wisdom which says that women on covers sell and men don’t.

...

I’m glad someone is making a fuss about this. Maybe next year’s Best Women’s Erotica, which is absolutely and utterly aimed at women, should have a guy or a couple on it.

She said it here.

I’m not as diligent about it as I used to be but I got started posting my own photos because I was frustrated that, while it was conventional wisdom that “men are visual and women aren’t” it seemed like nobody was even bothering to try to make erotic representations of men specifically for heterosexual women. What made it frustrating was the number of women bloggers, then almost exclusively anonymous, who said they were frustrated. And it seemed to me (as I’ve said elsewhere) that since virtually all visual porn was made for straight or gay men, and almost always made by men, that nobody was even trying. Men in straight porn are usually featured as either foils (comical, non-threatening) or proxies for the assumed viewer and in almost all cases they’re positioned as accessories to women. In gay porn men are at least presented as erotic in their own right but even then the representations were (obviously) still coming from a male perspective. (Incidentally a lot of those anonymous bloggers said they preferred, and could more closely identify with, the activities in gay porn to the stylized hump/thump/dump male antics in straight porn.)

So anyway, since I was a lot more daring in my youth (ok, three or four years ago anyway) I swallowed quite a lot of reluctance and took photos I thought might appeal to, you know, actual straight women. Actually since I didn’t really know what that would even mean my main method was trying to avoid what mostly shows up in conventional porn and self-photography. And mostly that seemed to involve photos and poses that created space where the viewer could imagine putting herself instead of being put, of acting instead of just being acted on, of having agency instead of subjectivity. (Not that big a leap, actually, since, after all, that’s what photos tend to do for men in their porn.)

No one was more shocked than I that it hit a chord. It was popular, and since in real life I’m kind of shy and unassuming, a little embarrassing. Web stats suggest some of those photos have become very popular with other posters. (Yikes! If I hadn’t been anonymous I don’t think I could have done it at all! And good thing I’d probably submit a job application to the Obama Transition team!)

I still post photos now although to be honest I feel like I’m losing my touch. I’m also getting pretty restless about my anonymity. And so except for Thursday photos I think I’m slowly winding down. Which is fine — it looks like people like Ms. Naughty and the folks over at Erotic Cover Watch are taking up the torch.

One last point: whereas I don’t think more erotic representations of straight men is especially progress if everyone just winds up being objectified I do think it’s progress when assumptions based on what stereotypes “want” are broken down. I’d also suggest that what’s traditionally made the “objectification” in porn so objectionable has been its highly unilateral, not to mention exclusive (“you’re a woman, you’re not supposed to like it!”) nature. And finally, creating erotic imagery that acknowledges women’s erotic agency (something conventional male-oriented porn decidedly and consistently fails to do) helps break down the really terrible idea that women don’t have agency of their own… and that consequently their fallow sexuality is available for male appropriation.

Art for art’s sake alone
Of course
You ask me to disrobe, not strip
Of course
Art for art’s sake alone
Of course
You ask me stop, my shirt unbuttoned
To turn a bit
To look up
To look away
To inhale deeply
And hold it… hold it…
Good, that’s it.

Art for art’s sake
Of course
You ask me to continue
Slowly
And then to stop, my pants loosened
And low, low on my hips
To move my foot outward
To let the waistband drop a bit more
To let it catch at the top of my stretched, strained thigh
To look down
To lift my chest
To hold it… hold it…
Good, that’s it

Art for art’s sake
Of course
When my pants are at my ankles
And I bend down to free one foot
You ask me to stop
To straighten my legs
To bend at the hips
To keep my back straight
To turn again
For the light on the lines of my cheeks
And the shadows on my figgy hanging balls betwen them
Of course
To hold it… hold it… longer this time…
Good, that’s it

Art for art’s sake
Of course
And you
Fully dressed
Of course
And me moving only at your direction
And you
Moving me
Directing me
Because the photographer literally calls the shots
Of course

[Hmm. I haven’t gotten much work done, or all my homework, let alone my correspondence, let alone replies to comments. But for whatever reason (maybe that two-page paper I started writing around two in the morning) posts are flying out. Including a very rare second HNT post. Oh well, sometimes it’s sunshine, other times you need an umbrella. —fl]

Quick question: I’m not sure if you’ve thought about it much, but have you ever considered how most activities that require a lot of body strength don’t usually involve standing or working in the poses and postures we most often associate with bodybuilding?

Well, it being Half-nekkid Thursday and all I was struck this morning about the difference in some of the poses we associate with manly or womanly sexiness and… it occurred to me… that an awful lot of the cliché poses we associate with sex would actually be terrible positions to be in during actual sex.

At this point I ought to make clear that I probably wouldn’t have noticed if I hadn’t noticed that most HNT participants — the ones who are clearly feeling sexual in their photos — are in positions that do make sexual sense. So while I’m pointing fingers I’m generally pointing them at the light/cheesecake/advertising and heavy industrial porn industry and at the subset of “amateurs” who emulate them. In other words, if you’re an HNT participant, not you. :-)

You probably know what positions I’m talking about, right? The classic porn pose, one that drives a lot of people crazy, moralists and immoralists alike, is the woman naked in high heels who’s squatting so low her knees are around her ears and she has to lean back to support herself with her hands behind her back. Cliché as the dickens, and certainly sexualized beyond mere gynecology (gynecologists are almost never need that much space to work) but… not at all practical for any kind of sex at all.

Not even for a nice, unreconstructed patriarchal man! She’s too low and leaned back for a blowjob, to well-braced to push over and violate, way, way too low to easily caress, and more strenuously acrobatic than classically vulnerable. Yet over and over we see that and countless other poses in men and women that again are unquestionably sexualized but not sexy in any practical sense of “hey, let’s have sex like this!”

Now I happen to think this is probably another one of those things like “O-face” where, mostly through unfamiliarity and insufficient time to develop affection for it, people decide real orgasmic faces are just too goofy and so they make all those weird-assed romanto/porno grimaces of agony and ecstasy and outrage that, in turn, make us feel even more self-conscious about our authentically orgasmic faces. Well, same with real sexual poses and positions.

Well, for the most part I think we probably look a little awkward, bracing our legs, pressing our pelvises up or out or down or in effectively but not very gracefully, to give ourselves and our partners the best contact with our (hidden from view if we’re doing it right) genitals, and often-asymmetrically leaning here or there in ways that feel wonderful but look (if we weren’t too self-conscious to let others look) awkward as pre-teen cousins forced to dance together at a relative’s wedding. But (rather pointedly unlike being forced to dance at someone else’s wedding) oh my does what we really actually do feel nice. Even if it doesn’t look as nice as the made-up stuff people do for photographs.

Anyway, without dismissing or decrying porn (or advertising, or Hollywood, or romance-novel covers) I suddenly feel very comfortable pointing out that the create a very unfortunate impression of what we generally experience as very fortunate experiences, and likewise our attempts to create fortunate impressions we, like porn stars, Hollywood talent, and cover models, may end up with unfortunate experiences. Just something to notice next time you’re thumbing, or browsing through photos.

Anyway….

Let’s just say that were we ever to do more together than drink coffee and shake hands you might find me taking you by the hand, or shoulders, or by the hips, or thighs, or even hair and moving you to our mutual best advantage I can guarantee that even if for some reason there was a camera or audience in attendance we’d still be arranging ourselves for feeling, rather than necessarily looking, our best.

Once again, Happy HNT (or Half-nekkid Thursday!)