What is sexy...for women?

Much of what I have been reading lately from feminists on pornography is that porn does not address a female audience. Feminists like Linda Williams rightly assume that pornographic films were written, designed, filmed, produced, even costumed and dialogued with a male audience in mind. Some argue that the female focus in these films somewhat compensates for this, and even begins to objectify men in this way, but these arguments always seem to "fail." The argument against this is that while women are the "subject" of the film, they are the "object" of the male viewer's gaze, thereby making him the true subject of the film.

My question is, what happens when a person views a work that was not intended for or directed toward them? Let's assume that a painter has created a work that she knows will be appreciated by those who have an extensive background in, say, surrealist paintings. The painter makes artistic decisions throughout their process in order to place their painting in the surrealist mode. Maybe the artist wants to become a well-known surrealist painter; maybe they want to create a piece that fits with each major style that they have studied; maybe the artist has always appreciated surrealism and just wants to have some fun; maybe the artist knows that a surrealist painting will sell the best and make them the most money at that point in time. Let's assume the only intention of the artist's that we know is that they intend to create a surrealist painting to be appreciated by others who are very familiar with the surrealist style.

This artist finishes her painting, and it does indeed reach an audience of people who are familiar with surrealism. It is judged well, and becomes an instant success. The artist suddenly becomes very well-known, and the painting goes up in, say, a very famous art exhibit in New York City or another well-traveled city with an art culture. Now, people from all walks of life are coming from all over the United States to see this painting. People familiar with surrealism, people unfamiliar with that style, people unfamiliar with art, people young and old, people local and completely foreign, people educated and uneducated, people left and right-brained, people sad and happy, people of all races and sexualities and personalities and hobbies and likes and dislikes. Some people like the artist's painting, some don't. Some people read very deeply into the painting's shapes and see it as phallic, others see it as elitist, and still others as racist and ethnocentric. Some would like to see the artist branch out, given a knowledge of her other pieces. Others don't care for the surrealist mode at all but commend the artist, while there are those that don't like the mode and find the artist "mundane" or "not all that talented."

Now I wonder: does this sound at all familiar? This is how I see the pornography industry. Yes, it is hard to ignore that pornography is largely a phallic industry, and that to participate in that industry is to somewhat accept its sexist undertones and historic tendencies. However, can we discriminate against directors of pornographic films who direct their films toward a male audience? Can we say that they are sexist when they are merely targeting the portion of the population that has historically been more likely to consume the products? One could argue that if films were directed toward women, then they would be just as likely as men to consume them. However, pornographic film has been around since the turn of the century, and as such was born in a time when women simply would not have watched pornographic films. It is incredibly frustrating to say that, but it is unfortunately true. Women have been born into roles of sexual purity throughout America's history (which began largely with the Puritans), and even in 2010 this view of women still exists for some in this nation. Many women would not even consider watching pornographic films now - can you imagine the average woman in 1900? These films have been constructed in a tradition of male audiences. Is it so hard to believe that films are still created in this tradition?

This does not mean that it is okay. That is not what I mean. What I mean to say is that we need not concern ourselves with whether or not directors have been right or wrong for producing films directed almost entirely at men. We know that it is wrong, but given the social context of these films, it is consistent and hardly surprising. What we should concern ourselves with, in my opinion, is the future. Now that society at large realizes that women are sexual beings with desires, fantasies, wants, needs, and lots and lots of lust, we can look at the current industry and negatively judge the disparity that still occurs. Most pornography is still directed at men, and while this is consistent with historical trends in consumption (or so I would assume), it seems necessary that in a world with expanding and more progressive outlooks on sexuality, pornography directed toward other interests be on the rise. I definitely believe that this is occurring, but to what extent I don't have the knowledge or experience to guess. What, to the female audience, is sexy? How can we distinguish between porn intended for a male audience and for a female audience?

I am now going to speak as a heterosexual woman who participates in heterosexual sexual relations. What I would consider the keynote to male-intended pornographic film, and is coincidentally the most unappealing aspect of pornographic film for me, is the "cum shot" or "money shot." It gives me no pleasure, whether physical, mental, visual, or emotional, to see a man ejaculate on another woman's face. Allegations of sexism and female degradation set aside, I simply do not get off to seeing a guy get off all over some woman. I wonder if that is not because "cum shots" are mostly a pornographic technique and "invention." Again, I have no statistical information to support this, but it would seem to me that most men do not go around blowing their loads all over their girlfriends, wives, and sexual partners. "Cum shots" in real life seem to be mostly accidental. For example, maybe a girl who does not enjoy swallowing semen decides to try it once, but pulls away at the last minute (only to find herself covered in semen afterwards). Or maybe a guy is having sex with his partner (girl, guy, whatever) and feels he may come too soon if he does not pull out and rest a bit. Anyway...it seems that accidents like this happen, but it seems that the sheer amount of cum shots present in pornographic films is disproportionate to the number of people that probably actually enjoy participating in this act. Or maybe that is the draw... I'm saying, maybe men like seeing this, but I do not know many women who would prefer to watch this method of ejaculation in a pornographic film (notice I said prefer, not enjoy. One can enjoy seeing something but not choose to see it all the time).

So...what do women find sexy? This blog will continue to analyze films and videos for the underlying elements contained in them (awareness is important after all), but I want also to explore elements that could be directed more toward women in the future. Let the sexy begin!

Any Suggestions?

Traffic on the blog seems slow, but who knows? Maybe people are reading and not commenting. Maybe people are not reading at all - but maybe they will. In an attempt to be optimistic, I'm going to go ahead and leave you all with a question:

Any suggestions? This could be related to: topics or issues you want addressed, movies you have in mind that you want reviewed or just to talk about, an addition to the blog you'd like to see, links you think should be mentioned or checked out, or even the name to your own blog that you'd like me to take a look at!

Comment with any suggestions you might have :)

Post-feminism - fact or fiction?

The purpose of this blog is to discuss sexuality and pornography - but what about bigger issues, such as the idea of feminism? What about post-feminism? Today, the television gave me something to address on this blog - it has me thinking, and I hope it gets anyone reading this thinking as well.

While casually reading Alice's Adventures in Wonderland today, my sister was watching The Tyra Show. I don't know if you guys watch this show, but Tyra can end up being somewhat of a hypocrite. For example, she seems to be all girl-power and female empowerment, but when it comes down to it, she has serious judgment issues with people who have changed sexes, with women who strip or dance and also have children, and these are just some of her most memorable negative moments from the few episodes I have watched. This leads me to have serious issues with either Tyra or her producers, if she is in fact being scripted to say and act a certain way. I can't be sure.

What was on today was a show revolving around sex (go figure). This particular episode seemed to focus on couples and their sexual relationships (so I gave it half an ear of interest). Featured was the author of Decoding Love Andrew Trees. Now, I can't remember the exact context of this man's comment - I believe it had something to do with who pays for meals - but he claimed that we live in a post-feminist world. There are a few more complicated meanings of this term, but what many people mean when they say it is that a post-feminist world is one in which women have achieved equality and, therefore, feminism (as many consider it) is not necessary.

I think his message was an okay one - that men shouldn't have to do all the paying at a restaurant, which essentially could imply that women can participate independently economically in a relationship just as well as men can. Good message. I liked it. But he also encouraged the man to pay on the first date, and most dates. What this, combined with his comment about living in a "post-feminist world," says to me is that women can let men do the "gift giving" of buying dinner without feeling like they are being compromised because, it's ok, women are treated equally! I don't find this to be true.

Here's what I think: women who are in a mutually respectful relationship or on a seemingly respectful date do not need to feel guilty about having their partner pay for dinner, particularly if they offer to pay themselves and particularly if they do not make as much money. Some guy who says things like "you can't pay for dinner, that's not your job" well that maybe you should do something about! So equality on an individual basis seems to me a good establishment. I'm not going to go feminist all over my boyfriend and say, "You can't treat me to dinner because I'm an independent woman and I don't need your money!" That's a little hurtful, because I wouldn't want the same done to me.

*Sigh* So what about equality on a larger scale? And what does this have to do with porn? The idea of living in a post-feminist world would mean that we don't have to worry about underlying issues of inequality (or equality) in pornography. I think if we truly lived in a post-feminist world, many feminists would not be so deeply opposed to pornography's existence and use. The very existence of these beliefs signals to me that we MUST continue to fight for equality. And I believe we must also realize that political and economic equality (which we don't truly truly have, by the way) does not imply ideological equality.

Specifically in pornography, it is obvious that much of what someone wants to watch is personal preference. Some men and women even admit to finding pleasure in torture or positions of submission. What underlies this, though, is ideology, and trying to find in pleasure a place where equality and power can exist in harmony rather than opposition. Linda Williams in her book Hard Core: Power, Pleasure, and the "Frenzy of the Visible" does a great job illustrating both her ideas and Michel Foucault's ideas on the subject of sexuality and power/pleasure/knowledge. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in this subject.

So, post-feminism? Yes or no? Does the porn debate as it stands represent a need for feminism? Does porn necessitate understanding and equality both within and outside of feminism? Is sexuality between two people or is it part of larger social issues? Can porn and sex ever be outside of these norms and structures? If so, then do we in fact live in a post-feminist world? What about a "post-feminism relationship" - can that exist? Does it?

Myne Tease 3 - Scene 1

Well people, I brought home the movie Myne Tease 3 to analyze while on my break from school. And I will start off by saying that I am not at all impressed by this film. As someone who both supports and enjoys pornography, I will say that I would NEVER watch anything else by director Pat Myne by choice. Simply by watching the first scene of this film, I can tell that this film was definitely not directed with women in mind at all, whether as an audience, as sexual beings, or even as humans. This first scene was pretty appalling, to say the least.

Myne Tease 3 was released in 2005 by director Pat Myne, a man who is apparently famous in the industry for his scenes of anal sex. In fact, it seems from a brief review of the "literature" that the entire series focuses almost exclusively on anal sex. This alone is somewhat troubling. While we cannot deny that many people enjoy anal sex and do get pleasure out of it, the anus is not one of the female erogenous zones (at least not the last time I checked). I do also realize that it is possible to get off simply thinking about a certain situation or image that turns us on. However, we must face the fact that the director almost cuts out entirely other types of sex that are more likely to lead to female orgasm. The anal sex in the first scene of this video contained no more than 5 total seconds of what we would technically have to consider foreplay - there is a brief moment when the male actor runs his hand over the woman's genitals. For this reason, it seems that the director is choosing to ignore female pleasure entirely and direct this film explicitly toward men whose only goal is their own orgasm. We see and hear many indicators that the male/male actor in this film have "come," but the female's performance is hardly convincing. Linda Williams, a feminist theorist who writes on porn, discusses that this focus may be due to the difficulty in "proving" female orgasm since it is less visually obvious than that of the male's. However, what many women would consider "typical" things that must happen in order for them to come are simply not present in the first scene of this film. Completely phallocentric, it is!

This is not even to mention the language. The video opens with the woman saying, "I want you to come and fuck my motherfuckin' throat now." The woman is then degraded multiple times while orally stimulating the man on screen; he says, "That's a good little girl" and "No hands, just your mouth," just as a couple of examples. If she's such a "little girl," you probably shouldn't be fucking her! The woman is actually no better in the movie, calling him "whore" and "motherfucker" and then drawing attention to her body as if she is a display. She says, "Look at my titties bounce" and ends up displaying her stretched out (and possibly bleeding?) anus directly at the camera a minimum of five times. The exhibitionist aspect of this video is really disturbing; many feminists complain that all pornography objectifies women, and I would disagree, but it is hard to argue against language and actions that are self-objectifying on the woman's part. So, the language and the whole displaying-of-her-asshole thing were really too much.

You would think that a self-respecting feminist would turn off the film by this point, but I decided to finish it. The movie concludes with the woman faced away from the camera, squatting over a wine glass while she farts the male's ejaculate out of her anus. And as if that wasn't enough, she then proceeds to drink the ejaculate after toasting the camera (and the male audience). I think the worst part of this scene was the farting noises - it is a scene of total embarrassment and degradation. It reminded me of the first couple of minutes when the gagging and choking noises of the woman from this man's dick were enough to make me want to vomit. Overall, this movie was quite disgusting and, like I mentioned before, written and directed as if in a men's-only world.

Conclusion

I had a couple of concluding remarks. First, I thought it was interesting that the director had the woman in this first scene be so commanding, ordering the man to fuck her or to "let her" taste his dick, among other things. This intrigued me because, at one point, we hear the director's voice ordering the woman to do something with her breasts or the position she was in. This false sense of command simply reinforces how lacking in pleasure the occurrences in the movie truly are, and how male-focused the entire scene is. The authoritative nature of the woman is a total ploy and parody of female sexual power and autonomy. Another thing that caught my attention was that the male asks her to look up at him while she has her mouth around his genitals. I was wondering why, on a more complex level, he asked her to do that. Obviously, it is what men want to see. But why? Why do some people enjoy eye contact during oral sex? My suspicion is that there is a psychoanalyst out there with an answer, if I can only do enough research to find them...

My rating? 1 out of 10 stars for overall viewability of this film.

The Importance of Pornography

Today was a very sad day for me.

Last month, I applied for a grant given out by my college that encourages research and learning through sponsored faculty-student projects. Pornography has been an academic subject of interest for me since last year, and I decided to do my bachelor-level thesis project on it. But, since my proposed research would require money and materials, I decided to try and get funded. One of my FAVORITE professors ever agreed to work with me for the whole kit and kaboodle, and we spent the better part of two months putting together a project that explores pornography today.

The result? Epic fail. Both my professor and I received the official rejection letter, eloquently written in order to better kill my spirits. A project that is supposed to foster my academic growth was turned down because my work was seen as irrelevant and undeveloped. Well, of course it's undeveloped - I haven't done the project yet! Or at least that was my initial reaction. Along with a long string of swear words.

So, what does this mean? It means this blog is even more important to me now than it ever was. What was already a difficult feat of my work being accepted by the HSRC is made slightly more unlikely by the fact that I didn't receive grant approval.

What does this really mean? It means I'm going to take all my super pissed off energy and turn it into productive, kick-ass, feminist, fuck you energy!! I WILL research myself so thoroughly no committee member will ever be able to outsmart me. I WILL use every resource I can get ahold of to improve my knowledge of field research. I WILL show pornographic films all over my school and get amazing, free-spirited women like myself to talk about it. I WILL continue applying to the HSRC until my work is accepted. And I WILL press on until my project is so cohesive you won't be able to put down the 100 page finished product!!

Everybody - don't let The Man tell you that you are not good enough. Do what you enjoy. If it's truly white collar working, then do it. If it's ping pong, do it. If it's stamp collecting, do it. Me? I enjoy watching and analyzing pornography, but even more, I enjoy discussing how to make both women's and men's lives more fulfilled, harmonious, and free of what oppresses us all! So keep tuning back and enjoy more pornographic discussion to come.

Deep Throat - A Trip Back to '70's porno

Oh, Deep Throat. Oh, Linda Lovelace and the clitoris located oh-so-ironically in the back of your throat. Let me tell you, folks, if you're not bored to tears by the first four minutes of the film, which are a continuous shot of Lovelace in a car, then you will be stunned by the sheer amount of pubic hair in this film from the 1972.

A little background about the movie
Deep Throat was directed by Gerard Damiano and released in the US in 1972. A film that caused a stir both in the courts and on the streets, Deep Throat follows actress Linda Lovelace's journey to find sexual satisfaction. Lovelace complains to her friend Helen (actress Dolly Sharp) that she enjoys sex but has never "gotten off" in her whole entire life. This is, indeed, a tragedy, so Helen lines up 12 different men for Lovelace to have sex with. After the plan also fails to produce an orgasm in Lovelace, she goes to see Dr. Young (Harry Reems). Turns out, the poor girl's clitoris is located not in her genitals, but in the back of her throat. The doctor recommends "deep throating" as a cure to Lovelace's troubles, and he hires her to perform such acts in order to satisfy her and his patients, who have weird sex fetishes. We then see Lovelace with some sort of test tube stuck up her vagina, only to have a man drinking soda out of it! The movie concludes with Lovelace finally finding a man who is "big enough" to marry, a man with a rape fetish portrayed by the director himself! We can see why this movie might turn a few heads.

Pros and Cons
From an entertainment standpoint, this movie was certainly interesting. It had a plot line, which is not always the case in pornography. I would argue the first four minutes is slightly boring, and the last 25 minutes or so did nothing to turn me on, but the fact that the film was developed is commendable. There were also many funny moments, such as when Dr. Young claimed he would be able to hear himself cum if his balls were in his ears. Not to mention the hilarious and ironic music that persisted throughout the film (although I was disappointed that I couldn't hear much moaning). It is evident that this film really attempted to be accepted by mainstream audiences as well as more pornographically aligned ones.

I definitely had a few complaints while watching this film. First, there was really too much music. It was very distracting, and since I get turned on by moaning, I don't know that I would be able to use this film in any sexual act. Second, about 45 minutes into the movie, the camera angles begin switching very frequently. Again, it was very distracting, and I would be hard-pressed (haha) to use this movie seriously in sex or masturbation. Third, between about 33 minutes and 45 minutes, the movie gets very boring pornographically - there is very little sex portrayed, and it is done so comically when it does. Okay for casual porn viewing, but AGAIN, hard to take seriously. Fourth, Lovelace is supposed to "nurse" a man whose sexual fetish is pretending to rape women. While this is solely a scenario, it is slightly troublesome that this type of situation would be included in the film. Since many feminists, and people in general, are opposed to pornography because they believe it depicts rape, I think the inclusion of the man's rape fetish is a bit risky. That scene also emphasizes sexist notions of women: Lovelace says, "I need a big, strong man" after giving up masturbating for the rape fetish man. The film also reinforces the idea that women need to be married. Fifth, there was other troubling language throughout the film. For example, Helen says, "Everybody gets a little piece of this action" about Lovelace - yuck. Other offensive and disgusting quotes in my opinion were: "What's a nice joint like you doing in a girl like her?" Helen's reference to cunnilingus as "breakfast" for the man, and "The man I marry has to have a nine inch cock," which sets up unrealistic standards for male viewers of their own dicks.

There were many positives to this movie, though which somewhat surprised me! The movie is full of average-looking men and women who have what would be considered average-sized breasts and dicks. Some are shaved, some not. Some are tan, some not! I feel that women and men can better relate to pornography when the actors and actresses look like normal people. The movie also includes a wide variety of sexual positions, such as missionary, doggy style, reverse cowgirl, and even a threesome! Female pleasure is in no way ignored - there is a lot of eating out performed in this movie for sure! This is somewhat balanced out by the number of blow jobs...but they are never more than about 5 minutes long, and do not include cum being squirted into Lovelace's eye. One may also notice that the men never cum inside the female actresses, and while I cannot rightfully guess the reason, it seems like it may be a respectful thing (since I doubt this was pulling out to prevent pregnancy). The close-ups on the actresses faces during the sex scenes also prevented viewers from being too distanced from the people behind the body parts, and I felt like the women were not totally objectified throughout the film like in some other pornographic films.

On an even more fundamental level, the movie acknowledges that the woman's pleasure center is in her clitoris, not her vagina! Since this movie was produced almost 40 years ago, this is fairly remarkable and an important feature to notice. It may seem demoralizing that a woman's clitoris is separated from the rest of her erogenous zones as a way to make including a lot of blow jobs seem okay, but I think this movie has a different message. Many women even today see blow jobs as degrading - I think this movie attempts to portray blow jobs as a thing that women can enjoy and do not have to resist on principle because everyone tells them it is "ladylike" to do so. Personally, I enjoy performing oral sex - it makes me feel sexy and like I have the power to pleasure my partner like no one else! So, while many could argue that this movie is degrading toward women, I would argue that it is no more degrading to women than it is to men, and that it portrays oral sex for everyone in a positive light.

Quick Conclusion
Overall, I would watch this movie simply because of the impact it had on society in its time, and because it is most DEFINITELY one-of-a-kind. Plus, the angry bushes are AWESOME and a definite fresh change from the total absence of pubes in modern pornography.

I don't see any adult content...

That's because this blog is brand new, folks! Prepare for a spot where you can watch and discuss pornography with fellow voyeurs! The purpose of this project is to create a space where the average Joe and Jane can talk about their experiences with pornography, or even sex and relationships in general, without being subject to scrutiny. This project is intended to foster a sense of community and tolerance regarding the free expression of sex and sexual practices, including but not limited to pornography!

It is also important to note that I am a pro-pornography feminist. So, while I will be discussing many types of porn from various sources, I will also be watching with a somewhat scrutinizing eye out for what is useful and not useful to women's sexuality. Be that as it may, everyone should feel free to discuss the material posted as candidly as possible.

Much of my academic work for the next two years will focus predominantly on pornography not only in women's lives, but in men's lives as well. Honest comments will prove just how useful pornography can be in our lives - and it may help someone else learn a little something about themselves or their sex lives! So while this project is a very serious one to me, it in no way has to be taken seriously!! Sit back, watch, experience, and comment away!

Welcome to WE!