Pornography in the service of women

[CharleyH]

In 'Polemical Preface, Pornography in the service of women', Angela Carter wrote, "Pornographers are the enemies of women only because our contemporary ideology of pornography does not encompass the possibilities of change, as if we were the slaves of history, and not its makers, as if sexual relations were not necessarily an expression of social relations, as if sex itself were an external fact, one as immutable as the weather, creating human practice but never part of it."

I've had the advantage of reading the whole essay, but I thought this a fascinating statement worthy of discussion. What's your opinion?

 

[Huckleman2000]

I think the idea of a malleable sexual orientation is primarily a female idea, and really doesn't reflect how males experience sexual desire.

Implicit in this statement is the idea that if pornography would only show fat old women, then fat old women would be seen as attractive. The thing is, fat old women can make my dick hard too, if they do the right things - I just prefer watching younger, healthier bodies doing those things. It's more a question of aesthetics than provocation of desire.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Pornography in the service of women

In 'Polemical Preface, Pornography in the service of women', Angela Carter wrote, "Pornographers are the enemies of women only because our contemporary ideology of pornography does not encompass the possibilities of change, as if we were the slaves of history, and not its makers, as if sexual relations were not necessarily an expression of social relations, as if sex itself were an external fact, one as immutable as the weather, creating human practice but never part of it."

I've had the advantage of reading the whole essay, but I thought this a fascinating statement worthy of discussion. What's your opinion?
__________________

I think the idea of a malleable sexual orientation is primarily a female idea, and really doesn't reflect how males experience sexual desire.

Implicit in this statement is the idea that if pornography would only show fat old women, then fat old women would be seen as attractive. The thing is, fat old women can make my dick hard too, if they do the right things - I just prefer watching younger, healthier bodies doing those things. It's more a question of aesthetics than provocation of desire.

If this is the same Angela Carter:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Carter

You are suggesting talking about something that is extremely outdated.

I agree with Huck, by the way. Fat old women can be as sexually desireable as anybody else. If you want, you can find porn featuring women who are old or fat or both.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Absence Makes The Heart Grow Fonder.

Some people needlessly complicate simple natural processes.

Vietnam taught me some important lessons about life and people. After a year in Vietnam I noticed that damn near every white woman I saw in Seatlle looked scrumptious...old ones, fat ones, young ones, skinny ones. I had an appetite for some white meat, and it all looked good.

The best beer I ever drank was a can of Carling Black Label Panther Piss. It was 120 degrees and a guy had some buried in ice. God damn!

The bigger your appetite is, the more variety youre up for.

 

[CharleyH]

I think the idea of a malleable sexual orientation is primarily a female idea, and really doesn't reflect how males experience sexual desire.

Implicit in this statement is the idea that if pornography would only show fat old women, then fat old women would be seen as attractive. The thing is, fat old women can make my dick hard too, if they do the right things - I just prefer watching younger, healthier bodies doing those things. It's more a question of aesthetics than provocation of desire.

I got something different from it, but that's an interesting take.

 

[Huckleman2000]

I got something different from it, but that's an interesting take.

Well, of course sex has a power dynamic - you can make a baby doing it, for chrissakes! You can go to jail or lose your job for doing it with the wrong person. It can affect property rights. Women seem to be aroused by making men take higher risks to be with them. So society has constructed all sorts of special laws around sex, mainly to protect women's interests, and those of the potential offspring. Sex is seen as something women have, and men want. Of course it's politics, and economics, and sometimes coercive - it's blood sport, and each sex has a different set of tools to start with.

But remove any possibility of conception, and what is sex? A fun thing to do, for one thing. Even moreso with another person! But it certainly loses the high-stakes element, and without that, much of the power dynamic is gone as well. Some women really hate that, I guess. They see porn as women giving up power - men see porn as some really imaginative ways to get your dick off.

It sometimes looks to me that women get really invested in their sexual power, and when they discover that they can no longer wield it, they cling to having sex in its exalted moral position where it's something they can use. They say porn is degrading (some is, I think to both sexes), men are bigger so they need special protection (and so do skinny guys?), sexual violence is different because it's an invasion of what makes us women (and a kick in the nads is what?).

 

[Stella_Omega]

When was that written, 1978? I wonder what Angela Carter would say today, because things have changed drastically-- in part because of her and other women's voices, but far, far more because of a change that she could not have imagined in a million years, and the porn market for women is kinda booming, as we discussed for the past few days (second page right now)

I refer, of course to the internet.

Back in 1978, I had to figure out my porn preferences without much input from other women-- each of us had to invent our own wheel, and many of us had no idea of what a wheel might be made out of, so to speak. Via this medium, I am in contact with thousands of women, and I am not surprised to find out that;
a) many of them like the same wierd shit that I do,
b) some of them like even wierder shit than I had thought of, and it turns me on too,
c) that we are perfectly happy and willing to create our own porn for our own purposes.

This is my livejournal av; http://p-userpic.livejournal.com/83457675/6742711

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]Back in 1978, I had to figure out my porn preferences without much input from other women-- each of us had to invent our own wheel, and many of us had no idea of what a wheel might be made out of, so to speak. Via this medium, I am in contact with thousands of women, and I am not surprised to find out that;
a) many of them like the same wierd shit that I do,
b) some of them like even wierder shit than I had thought of, and it turns me on too,
c) that we are perfectly happy and willing to create our own porn for our own purposes.

This is my livejournal av; http://p-userpic.livejournal.com/83457675/6742711

More power to you, and god(dess) love you for doing it, Stella! I've learned a lot in the last "few" years, too.

I'm glad women are discovering they're such freaks(tm - Pussycat Dolls). I wish some of them would stop trying to tell men that their dicks get hard for the wrong reasons, and simply be content knowing that they at least control the switch.

 

[Leto Degeneres]

When was that written, 1978? I wonder what Angela Carter would say today, because things have changed drastically-- in part because of her and other women's voices, but far, far more because of a change that she could not have imagined in a million years, and the porn market for women is kinda booming, as we discussed for the past few days (second page right now)

I refer, of course to the internet.

Back in 1978, I had to figure out my porn preferences without much input from other women-- each of us had to invent our own wheel, and many of us had no idea of what a wheel might be made out of, so to speak. Via this medium, I am in contact with thousands of women, and I am not surprised to find out that;
a) many of them like the same wierd shit that I do,
b) some of them like even wierder shit than I had thought of, and it turns me on too,
c) that we are perfectly happy and willing to create our own porn for our own purposes.

This is my livejournal av; http://p-userpic.livejournal.com/83457675/6742711

There aren't large numbers of young women in life, some nieces and a few friends. To a one, I think they'd agree with you entirely. I envy them because they embrace life and sexuality seemingly without forethought or apology. They'll talk about it as naturally as breathing. They watch porn and treasure some favorites, and what they watch is erotic and exciting, and I don't mean simply sexually exciting, though it is that. I didn't even know some of this was produced. Once I watched it myself the old "tried and true" stuff was too crude and blase to think about.

I haven't struggled too much with understanding why their generation seems as free as it is, but I'm happy to learn from it.

 

[Stella_Omega]

More power to you, and god(dess) love you for doing it, Stella! I've learned a lot in the last "few" years, too.

I'm glad women are discovering they're such freaks(tm - Pussycat Dolls). I wish some of them would stop trying to tell men that their dicks get hard for the wrong reasons, and simply be content knowing that they at least control the switch.

yeah, I know. I wish some men would stop telling women that they should simply be content for any reason... But the sentiment is much appreciated

There aren't large numbers of young women in life, some nieces and a few friends. To a one, I think they'd agree with you entirely. I envy them because they embrace life and sexuality seemingly without forethought or apology. They'll talk about it as naturally as breathing. They watch porn and treasure some favorites, and what they watch is erotic and exciting, and I don't mean simply sexually exciting, though it is that. I didn't even know some of this was produced. Once I watched it myself the old "tried and true" stuff was too crude and blase to think about.

YES!

And you know-- that was always so obvious to me (and the women I've talked to) and the reason why "women don't like porn," back in the days when Carter was writing. Evidently, what women like often works better for men, too.

 

[Scotsman69]

I'm with CharleyH on this. Carter's piece is a part of a profound reflection on women and sexuality, which in its day (79) was pretty revolutionary. The more so because of course she was by then an established and reputable novelist.

It's interesting that this essay, which in the UK is published by the feminist imprint Virago in the essay collection 'The Sadeian Woman', is still in widely available. My edition is a 2006 reprint, the eleventh reprint since original publication in 1979.

I thoroughly commend it to anyone seriously interested in examining a groundbreaking writer's take on human sexuality.

But guys, if you're looking for wank material, this isn't it. It's a real and worthwhile intellectual challenge. If you want to wank go buy 'Playboy'.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Well, of course sex has a power dynamic - you can make a baby doing it, for chrissakes! You can go to jail or lose your job for doing it with the wrong person. It can affect property rights. Women seem to be aroused by making men take higher risks to be with them. So society has constructed all sorts of special laws around sex, mainly to protect women's interests, and those of the potential offspring. Sex is seen as something women have, and men want. Of course it's politics, and economics, and sometimes coercive - it's blood sport, and each sex has a different set of tools to start with.

But remove any possibility of conception, and what is sex? A fun thing to do, for one thing. Even moreso with another person! But it certainly loses the high-stakes element, and without that, much of the power dynamic is gone as well. Some women really hate that, I guess. They see porn as women giving up power - men see porn as some really imaginative ways to get your dick off.

It sometimes looks to me that women get really invested in their sexual power, and when they discover that they can no longer wield it, they cling to having sex in its exalted moral position where it's something they can use. They say porn is degrading (some is, I think to both sexes), men are bigger so they need special protection (and so do skinny guys?), sexual violence is different because it's an invasion of what makes us women (and a kick in the nads is what?).

You know, the world would be so much nicer if that power dynamic was gone and men's interests were protected as much as women's interests.

But that would be equality which would be misogyny, wouldn't it?

 

[WRJames]

I hate to belabor the obvious -- but it is possibly relevant here. Men objectify and compartmenalize. Women think holisticly and subjectively. Of course this affects the way men and women regard sex and representations of sex.

Is sexual attactiveness a conditioned response? You bet. Just look at how different the image of female beauty has been in different times and different cultures. On the other hand, how many of us are actually attracted to the Playboy bunny or the supermodel?

I still remember when I was eleven or twelve I had a friend with a great collection of science fiction books -- I'd to down to his house to read them. One day he had found his father's porn stash -- or what passed for it in those days. It was a collection of tiny little pipes that you held up to your eye. Anyone, when you peered into these you saw very skinny ladies with enormous, danglng breasts. And I remember wondering to myself what the big deal was about looking at deformed women.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I hate to belabor the obvious -- but it is possibly relevant here. Men objectify and compartmenalize. Women think holisticly and subjectively. Of course this affects the way men and women regard sex and representations of sex.

Is sexual attactiveness a conditioned response? You bet. Just look at how different the image of female beauty has been in different times and different cultures. On the other hand, how many of us are actually attracted to the Playboy bunny or the supermodel?

I still remember when I was eleven or twelve I had a friend with a great collection of science fiction books -- I'd to down to his house to read them. One day he had found his father's porn stash -- or what passed for it in those days. It was a collection of tiny little pipes that you held up to your eye. Anyone, when you peered into these you saw very skinny ladies with enormous, danglng breasts. And I remember wondering to myself what the big deal was about looking at deformed women.

So are you saying that you personally don't compartmentalise and objectify?

Why not, you Man you?

Perhaps because the porn is better when it's holistic?

I think that one reason the twentieth-century traditions of pornography for men were so limited in scope was b ecaause society worked so damn hard to limit human sexuality. It was so very difficult for anyone with a literary or artistic reputation to deal with erotic material-- as Scotsman69 says;
I'm with CharleyH on this. Carter's piece is a part of a profound reflection on women and sexuality, which in its day (79) was pretty revolutionary. The more so because of course she was by then an established and reputable novelist.

So, yeah-- profound reflections haven't been exactly encouraged. And guess who was let to provide the reflections? I have this image in my head of fat old turds who see an easy buck coming their way. Not the kinds of people who will show a girl a good time, yanno. And certainly not the kinds of guys who will show other guys that a good time could be had. Capitolism is not erotic.

One reason woman-created porn has had the chance to develop into a holistic etc, is because women have been creating it as amateurs, with a ton of interaction. "yeah, that works, no, that doesn't." "Have you read so-snd-so's slash? I want more like that!" (slash is a particular genre in which two men are the erotic partners.) And so on and so forth. Until women-- and the LGBT community as well-- began doing this, porn was a passive market. Guys bought what was offered them. If it didn't really satisfy, who would know? There wasn't anything else to be bought.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Men objectify and compartmenalize. Women think holisticly and subjectively. Of course this affects the way men and women regard sex and representations of sex.

I'm trying not to laugh here.

Um.....who told you this? The gender category fairy?

 

[WRJames]

So are you saying that you personally don't compartmentalise and objectify?

Why not, you Man you?

Oh, I do absolutely. It drives my wife crazy. Most of my close friends in adult life have been women. On the other hand, my wife would probably be the first one to debunk any notion that I actually understand how women think.

Terrie and my daughter have both assured me that my women characters are convincing, so maybe I have learned something over the years.

 

[xssve]

I'm trying not to laugh here.

Um.....who told you this? The gender category fairy?

This is true in general, and women compartmentalize differently - for reasons likely related to reproductive costs, but also to the fact that women's brains, on average, exhibit less bihemispheric differentiation,

They think in the abstract, but it tends to be in fairly personalized ways, whereas men appear to exhibit a greater propensity to construct pure abstractions, which relate to to the personal in only abstract ways - mathematics is pure abstraction for example, as sadly, is much of politics, often to the point of delusion.

As I say, an average, I run into plenty of women that think more like men, and it's established that bihemispheric differentiation is not strictly confined to males - in fact, one theory of autism is that these children suffer from what is essentially a pathological degree of bihemispheric differentiation, to the point that the two sides of their brains have difficulty communicating.

Anyways, there are enough Madame Curie's and Grace Hoppers to indicate that it is only a generality at best.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

This is true in general, and women compartmentalize differently - for reasons likely related to reproductive costs, but also to the fact that women's brains, on average, exhibit less bihemispheric differentiation,

They think in the abstract, but it tends to be in fairly personalized ways, whereas men appear to exhibit a greater propensity to construct pure abstractions, which relate to to the personal in only abstract ways - mathematics is pure abstraction for example, as sadly, is much of politics, often to the point of delusion.

As I say, an average, I run into plenty of women that think more like men, and it's established that bihemispheric differentiation is not strictly confined to males - in fact, one theory of autism is that these children suffer from what is essentially a pathological degree of bihemispheric differentiation, to the point that the two sides of their brains have difficulty communicating.

Anyways, there are enough Madame Curie's and Grace Hoppers to indicate that it is only a generality at best.

And Hot Mama's. We both agree that she has the most male brain of any woman we know. Talk about linear thinking . . . most of the time!

 

[Boxlicker101]

I hate to belabor the obvious -- but it is possibly relevant here. Men objectify and compartmenalize. Women think holisticly and subjectively. Of course this affects the way men and women regard sex and representations of sex.

Is sexual attactiveness a conditioned response? You bet. Just look at how different the image of female beauty has been in different times and different cultures. On the other hand, how many of us are actually attracted to the Playboy bunny or the supermodel?

I still remember when I was eleven or twelve I had a friend with a great collection of science fiction books -- I'd to down to his house to read them. One day he had found his father's porn stash -- or what passed for it in those days. It was a collection of tiny little pipes that you held up to your eye. Anyone, when you peered into these you saw very skinny ladies with enormous, danglng breasts. And I remember wondering to myself what the big deal was about looking at deformed women.

Well, duh. Of course I objectify the women in a porn flick. That's the idea of it, that I and other men who watch will lust after the women and wish they were the guy who is doing various things to her and with her. What do you mean by compartmentlize or holisticly? I am aware that the people in the flick have lives outside the scenes they are doing. They have hopes and dreams and likes and dislikes, are somebodies' sons and daughters and fathers and mothers, etc. So what? I see them as sex objects. If I were personally acquainted with them, or had read their biographies, it might be different.

As for holisticly, I definitely look at the womens' holes but, somehow, I don't think that's what you mean.

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I really don't buy into the notion that women think subjectively and holistically and men think compartmentally and tend to objectify. That is simply too broad and too non-specific to be accepted at face value. Give me some evidence besides your point-of-view and I might consider it. But, at this juncture, it looks like opinion and opinion only.

I'm a woman and I think both objectively and subjectively. I also take things apart into a thousand tiny pieces and put them back together again. How can you suggest that women's minds cannot be analytical? I am probably the most analytical person I know. I also objectify sometimes. What does that make me? An anomaly? I don't think so.

As to the issue of bi-hemispheric capacity, what the hell does that mean exactly? It sounds like you mean that men use both sides of the brain and women don't. Is that what you mean? I think "bi-laterally," which means I can think with both sides simultaneously, but still I don't think that is unique to my gender.

My point is: I dislike generalization. Specificity is always preferred when making such arguments.

 

[WRJames]

I really don't buy into the notion that women think subjectively and holistically and men think compartmentally and tend to objectify. That is simply too broad and too non-specific to be accepted at face value. Give me some evidence besides your point-of-view and I might consider it. But, at this juncture, it looks like opinion and opinion only.

I'm a woman and I think both objectively and subjectively. I also take things apart into a thousand tiny pieces and put them back together again. How can you suggest that women's minds cannot be analytical? I am probably the most analytical person I know. I also objectify sometimes. What does that make me? An anomaly? I don't think so.

As to the issue of bi-hemispheric capacity, what the hell does that mean exactly? It sounds like you mean that men use both sides of the brain and women don't. Is that what you mean? I think "bi-laterally," which means I can think with both sides simultaneously, but still I don't think that is unique to my gender.

My point is: I dislike generalization. Specificity is always preferred when making such arguments.

Well, of course we are talking tendencies here. I am married to a mathematician. She and my son both have dryer, more analytic minds than I and my daughter. On the other hand, she has less capacity to comparmentalize conflict than I do -- and I have found that true of women I have worked with over the years also.

As for evidence -- I don't know. Can you have a knock down, drag out fight over a business issue with someone and then go have a nice lunch together? I know I had to change the way I did business to be much less confrontational when more women were in the picture. I know when we brought a woman manager into our group we had to tone down the language in our management meetings.

At some point someone suggested that our development process was like ice hockey and it should be like figure skating instead -- graceful, controlled and predictable. We all had to be polite and considerate and full of the proper decorum. It took all the fun out of work.

And now you will say I'm just a sexist, male chauvinist pig. But isn't that the point?

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Good effort, but not convincing. Thanks though.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Here we have three men who each say that women in general do *this* -- except for many of the women they know in particular, who do *that* instead. So, why do they still state that women do *this*?

At some point someone suggested that our development process was like ice hockey and it should be like figure skating instead -- graceful, controlled and predictable. We all had to be polite and considerate and full of the proper decorum. It took all the fun out of work.

And here we have one more example of a paucity of perceived examples. All you know about is figure skating, it's all you have to reference.

A better comparison might be roller hockey which is far less violent than Ice, and is gaining hugely in popularity for that reason-- also because it doesn't cost upwards of 20,000 USD per year to play as a semi-pro.

Which is another reason why roller hockey might be a better business model.

And now you will say I'm just a sexist, male chauvinist pig. But isn't that the point?

The point of what?

 

[Scotsman69]

This is all very interesting, but isn't it rather getting away from CharleyH's initial question? I mean I know that's what happens on threads, but am just trying to nudge it back on track!

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

This is all very interesting, but isn't it rather getting away from CharleyH's initial question? I mean I know that's what happens on threads, but am just trying to nudge it back on track!

Well, if you have an answer to the question or something to contribute, great, do so. Otherwise, we don't need a hall monitor, oh, sorry, I meant to say "thread" monitor.