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!