"I don't want to sound like a downer, but if no woman had ever picked up a camera in this industry, it wouldn't have been any different. Female pornographers have not changed the industry. Women behind the camera are irrelevant to porn. They're the equivalent of female sportcasters. They lack the testosterone to get it.
No, it's closer to the legal profession. Women entering law changed those women. It did not make the legal system more kind and nurturing. Similarly, porn has changed female pornographers more than female pornographers have changed porn. Porn has only become more misogynistic and more cruel over the past decade as females have picked up more cameras.
How does porn change the women who make it? It isolates them from society, and makes them more coarse and masculine, and thus less suited for relationships, marriage and mothering.
Porn loves to trot women out as leaders in their industry because it makes the industry more socially acceptable (keeps up the pretense the product is for more than lonely men). Female directors make porn appear less misogynistic, but the average non-porn woman knows the truth -- porn and prostitution devalue and demean the worth of the average woman. They lower her sexual power over men. Why should men commit to one woman (and stick with her to raise kids) to get sex if they can get the simulated version just by going online?
It's for a good reason that society uses the word "whore" as its greatest denigration of women. Civilization must watch over women's sexuality (and yes, use a double standard) so men can know who their children are (and thus be more likely to stay around to raise them).
Men in porn know they're pigs. Women in porn delude themselves."
Discuss. Disagree. Froth at the mouth. Impugn the author's sexuality. Have fun!
A lot of that is off its own subject, bullshit or at least bullshit-like, but I wouldn't categorically reject this bit:If you were going to claim the opposite, I'm not sure what your evidence would be. You would also have to be arguing that women directors inherently would make different porn, and I wouldn't easily give in to that assumption.
Then there's the question of how many female directors are needed before any change can be detected. Possibly more than we have now.
I don't know, there's lots of radical feminist theory -- and not so radical feminist theory -- with quite similar theses, though one might suspect their philosophical allegiances are directly opposed to Luke's. The part about men knowing who their children are, etc, is directly lifted from some basic anthropological and sociological tenets, as well.
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - Oct 21 2005 : 7:18AM
Why should women commit to one man? The trend in society seems to be to avoid marriage, and more women are making decisions to have children and raise them on their own. It's male insecurity that fuels the laws and traditions that have bound us for so long. Woman have gone along with the social compact because they needed the protection of the male species and someone to provide food. Times have changed and that need has been lessened to the point where it's negligible. We need to find better reasons to tie us together for life than just because it's always been that way. On the subject of women directors, I would tend to agree with Luke's contention, up to a point. I don't see anything radically different coming from women in the industry. I think the biggest reason is that the target market is still going to be male. Candida Royalle is the only woman director that comes to mind who truly embraced a woman's view of what sex should look like onscreen. Or more to the point, her view. It would be presumptuous to assume that any one person speaks for a whole gender. Maybe the biggest influence a woman has on the production is creating a more comfortable atmosphere for the talent on set. Once the action begins it's the same seven positions and a facial.
I don't get how the greatest pleausure on earth that women radiate demeans them in any way. Lust is mental and spiritual substance of joy. How can that in and of itself demean the honor of women?That's funny many porn actresses are in healthy relationships. It's society denigration of porn that makes male and female performers less suited to enter relationships.Wrong men and women know they're pigs and sluts on camera.
IN my opinion, the double standard makes no fucking sense. A guy who sleeps with many women has the same sexual lifestyle a whore has. How can men who denigrate "whores" praise men for fucking tons of women? Common sense says that he is morally equal to the whore who is being denigrated. People who have the audacity to support the double standard just prove their intellectual laziness.
Might have been an interesting point, if Luke didn't use it as a launching pad for a vast rant about female sexuality in society in general. For the most part, female directors either try to make everything "classy" or go the other way and attempt to outgross and outshock all the boys.
Then again, it could be that ALL directors, regardless of gender, just take the marching orders from the production company they work for (unless they are lucky enough to own it) and have zero say in the "formula" anyway.
"Candida Royalle is the only woman director that comes to mind who truly embraced a woman's view of what sex should look like onscreen"
Same here.
On Luke's point about female directors in the adult industry, I pretty much agree with him. If female directors are changing porn, I don't see it. Frankly, porn has reached alarming levels of misogyny in this RLD all-sex era.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Oct 21 2005 : 1:14PM
I would wonder if you two aren't defending a male's view on what a female view of sex should be like, IF I was convinced that any such thing existed. Which I am not. Male and female points of view are nice theoretical/analytical concepts, but I wonder if they do have any ontological value beyond offering an 'easy' interpretative grid of what might very well be very diverse and highly idiosyncratic phenomena.
btw, I guess you are unfamiliar with the work of French pro-am queen Laetitia. She shot, directed, edited and participated in her own series in the 90s. She made at least 200 videos -- I have seen 131 of them myself. She was probably the biggest influence on ... Jean-Yves Le Castel, who used to work for her a lot. She was offering shots of gapes when Max Hardcore was still working for LBO.
AlexPanzer said: “I don't think that a person would pay $50+ for something that he didnt liked”
Are you saying that if a man makes classy porn, it isn't because he is a man, it's because he wanted to make classy porn; but if a woman makes classy porn, she made it because she is a woman? Men directors make all kinds of porn, and women directors make all kinds of porn. I think it has little to do with gender, just that women are scrutinized more, as we always will be.
Su/Buffy from Anabolic has been shooting porn for a decade, I think. Without any hoopla whatsoever.
I tend to think that what gets shot is determined more by the genre that the [Female Director's Name Here] chooses to work in, just as in any other profession.
Most porn is "anonymous" regardless who, of any gender, is listed as director. The role of director in porn is a lot more like it is for TV shows, where the significance of that job is far less important than a) who is on the screen and b) who is producing the show. There are probably a lot more individual pornographers now who can assert their own style, or are performers-turned-directors who can at least get their name all over the product even if they don't shoot it (they're in the scenes). But once you skim off the Evil Angels and the boys at RLD, and the William H's and Mason's, and Van Styles and Bryan Xin's and Chris Streams's and Michael Ninn's, and whatnot and whoever, it looks a lot like any monkey with a Panasonic.
threesomebody wrote:What I'm trying to say is I think the kernel of truth in Ford's statement is there is a natural tendancy to justify a woman's part in the porn process to porn hating feminists by appealing to the artisitic merit of the film. Saying it's "classy" is another way of saying "Oh, this is the type of porn a woman can stand to watch, and it was made by a woman, so there.". Then there are the other extreme where it's like "Screw it, if I'm gonnna play in a boy's world watch how nasty I can be".
Maybe I'm not watching enough porn nowadays, but I've just found there's little middle ground between the gap of Veronica Hart or Candida and say Mason or Belladona as far as what female directors turn out.
As far as Luke goes......well, the guy hates porn, women AND himself. Plus half of what he says is schtick. It's hard to take anything he says seriously.
"I would wonder if you two aren't defending a male's view on what a female view of sex should be like"
That wasn't my own intent. Since I latched onto Candida Royalle's films, which are so easily categorized as "see, her films actually look different", I can see why you would say that though.
Luke's main argument is rather simple: In terms of actual products being produced, Carly, you're wrong. Female directors are not significantly altering the adult industry.
I agree.
However, I am not sure if I agree with Ford's assertion that the industry is in fact making the female directors more misogynistic. To use one example, Kat Slater's films have definitely gained a harder edge over time, but I wouldn't dare call them misogynistic.
Of course, as you've pointed out perhaps the real question is why should the films female directors make really look substantially different from the ones produced by male directors anyway?
As my thoughts rarely translate well to words, I'll lean on someone who all ready summed it up best for me-
Skronker: Most porn is "anonymous" regardless who, of any gender, is listed as director. The role of director in porn is a lot more like it is for TV shows, where the significance of that job is far less important than a) who is on the screen and b) who is producing the show. There are probably a lot more individual pornographers now who can assert their own style, or are performers-turned-directors who can at least get their name all over the product even if they don't shoot it (they're in the scenes). But once you skim off the Evil Angels and the boys at RLD, and the William H's and Mason's, and Van Styles and Bryan Xin's and Chris Streams's and Michael Ninn's, and whatnot and whoever, it looks a lot like any monkey with a Panasonic
Edited by - tscfan317 on 10/21/2005 5:09:47 PM
[Link]
nietzsche Deactivated User
5470 Posts 8/03
Posted - Oct 21 2005 : 7:01PM
Luke is begging the issue. Who says women are supposed to make porn more nurturing, or anything else for that matter? I just want to see wayward 18 year old trollopes degraded and discarded. I don't see why a woman couldn't do it as well as a man.
Edited by - nietzsche on 10/21/2005 7:02:22 PM
[Link]
nietzsche Deactivated User
5470 Posts 8/03
Posted - Oct 21 2005 : 7:04PM
And if you're facing prison time, do you really want a kissy-feely attorney?
Isn't this a bit of a straw man? I saw nothing in Luke's words to indicate "praise" of studly men. Luke's point seemed to be that men have more to lose from female promiscuity, as we lack the certainty that women have always had of who our children are. Ie, the double standard exists in reaction to a fundamental inequality in the reproductive process.
I tend to agree that in the modern world there is no longer room for this double standard, but it doesn't necessarily follow that female promiscuity should be lauded. It would be just as equitable if society stopped overlooking the transgressions of promiscuous men and put more of an emphasis on monogamy for both genders. And surely a lot healthier too, in the current epidemiological climate.
Re: Lindi's point on DNA testing - If this were a routine thing performed on every child born you might have a point. Currently it's still perfectly possible (and not uncommon) for a man to go on unknowingly supporting another man's child for years before he has a reason to doubt and ask for a DNA test, so Luke's point still has relevance.
I'm confused by Luke's opening paragraph. Female pornographers have not changed the business, or they don't get it? I don't know if the female pornographers, and let's realize that though a bevy of beautiful women's names read on the boxes as "directed by", it's generally a business move and not a female pornographer, so we are dealing with a very very few female pornographers, but, I'm not sure they set out to change the business. I think they simply wanted to direct porn just like any other adult director. And, of course, they're going to bring their own slant to the table, just like any director would. Or, maybe they're going to bring their own boring rendition of the 5 sex scenes just like so many male pornographers. And at the end of the day, it's a business. If porn has become more misogynistic, maybe we should look to the audience, as it sure it what a certain large audience sustaining this industry seems to want. It's not just in porn. TV of today is a lot different from TV of a decade ago. Look at how the music has changed. It certainly couldn't be due to a very few female pornographers picking up cameras. Or... is it because women have become less in need of men? Let's face it, if he doesn't bring home the bacon what good is he? We can certainly go get our own kids these days. Or, could it be like Steph said, that maybe we marry for other reasons? Regardless, women are quietly becoming PhDs and CEOs and pornographers. It's a fascinating but confusing time for all sexes. And maybe our porn (both gender's) exemplifies this.
I don't think porn makes women more course or unsuitable for marriage or mothering. In fact, it allows a woman inside the brain of a man. It's makes her more sympathetic, more compassionate. And any mother who doesn't recognize her child will be dealing with sex by age 10 these days is kidding herself. Surely, that female pornographer is going to have a lot more than the birds and the bees to gently explain to her child. And surely she'll have a better understanding of why her man needs to work late... however she decides to handle that, and will probably do so just like a woman.
As for non-porn women knowing "the truth"... "porn and prostitution devalue and demean the worth of the average woman." Who's truth would that be? Sounds like a little lady pulled one over on someone as he laid that 4 karat on her finger. Hmmm... would hate to tell this guy about all the non-porn women who are fucking around on their husbands in the suburbs. Or, could that woman still be worthwhile? Maybe we should ask the sluts we call men these days.
As for any delusions, I think most women are smarter than you would think. And they all "get it." Don't kid yourself.
Men will finally know who their children are when they start looking past themselves.
I think men who think like this SHOULD stick to getting the simulated version on-line.
I've always enjoyed sharing porn with girlfriends, lovers and women friends who enjoy it, and find that to be really healthy and often quite hilarious. Once, I had a hard time getting a Rocco & Buttman tape back from a girl, whose boyfriend was really into it. Turns out, he was really into it -- into Rocco! He came out as gay, they broke up so he could get up off the down low, and she was single! Yay!!!
Of course, maybe she was already "kinda single" if she was hanging out with me watching Buttman movies while we waited for her roomie (who I was dating) to get home from school. Ah, such wonderful wicked days!
Videographed pornography seems to be, decades if not centuries, behind pornogaphy in literature.
From the usual suspects of (modern) pornography in the feulleiton - Reage, de Berg, Nin, Miller, later McNeill, Despentes and Millet - only one is a male. Many of their novels got flak for being misogynistic . Millet's "autobiography" would have been marked as a hideous wet dream, if written by a male individual.
It was disputed, if Reage was actually a woman, and de Berg actually published under a male nom de guerre first - AFAIK because the editor did not think anyone would actually believe a woman could write such a novel.
The article mentioned in the thread-starting post only induces the need to relax the muscles of the jaw.
Most porn is yawn-inspiring, an article filled with platitudes, gained through thumbsucking, on the theory of McBurger-grade pornography is a veritable barbiturate-surrogate.
It implies that male promiscuity should be less focused on.Ford never mentions or hints that we should erase the double standard in the modern world. He clearly states that he finds good reason for it. I don't think he is in agreement with you. IN fact, I think he means what he writes about the double standard.
True, but you previously said "How can men who denigrate "whores" praise men for fucking tons of women?", and that's what I was replying to. Luke's suggestion that there is more of a reason for society to discourage promiscuity in women is a long way from saying it is a desirable characteristic in men.I'm quite sure that he means what he writes, but you're reading far too much into it. I never claimed to be in full agreement with him either. I do concur with his assessment of why the double standard exists, however it was your opinion that it should end that I was agreeing with. I just don't follow that to the conclusion that female promiscuity should be encouraged in the name of fairness. As I pointed out, there is a safer, saner way to achieve equality in this regard.
I agree with Ford's assertion that female directors aren't radically changing the porn industry's product (and that's all I agree with). For product to change significantly, companies have to be aggressive in developing the female consumer market. Every other industry does detailed market research in order to gain new customer segments. Does the porn industry do this? If so, which women are they targeting? What do they do with the data? Is that where "couples porn" comes from? I see plenty of product marketed toward couples, but not much strictly toward women. What women are willing to watch with their mates might differ strongly from what they'd watch alone. In the end, the only people that can change the product are female consumers. Trouble is, women have their men shop for their porn. The industry needs to try really hard, in creative ways, to make women want to buy porn themselves. The only way women's preferences will change the industry is if they speak with their dollars. Right now, we've got our men speaking for us, and they don't always pass on the message quite the way we meant it.
Luke just writes this stuff to be inflammatory and make his site less static. He probably moved from this silly rant, feigning indignation with the same overacting prose he uses to suddenly proclaim (and re-proclaim) his devotion to Judaism. He'll then lament the unrequited love of some porn girl and when he's done with that he will go into muck-racking mode exposing the secretive power-elite of the business. When he's totally out of creativity, he regales you with cut and paste copies of IM discussions with Rob Spallone which is less interesting than eavesdropping on Jim Southe's lunch group at Solley's Deli.
If you're confounded by the quixotic lapse of logic in his thesis, it's because Luke himself doesn't believe this pap, so it doesn't have to make sense. The joke's on you! Luke is like Andy Kaufman, willing to be hated as long as he's noticed. Like Andy's comedy, a Luke blog is art because he says it is. Luke is much smarter than most of his readers (which isn't saying much).
The next best thing to watching Luke goad readers into debating a non-sequiter brain fart, is watching DAC stir it up to see who else would bite.
In my defense, I hope you'll note that I didn't waste one keystroke with a point/counterpoint on the artificial controversy that started this thread, i.e. the insipid musings about the influence of women directors.
Cynically, CSM It's late and the meds have worn off
In short we need more female sportscasters, preferably topless!! Fact of the topic is that everybody has depraved fantasies to some extent. How many asian sportscasters are there here in the USA for the NFL? Do we need more of them too? People are just people. I personally know a lot of freaky women who love sex, but it is socially unacceptable for them to admit it, yet alone direct or star in X rated films.
In my own mind sex isn't that big of a deal, we all were conceieved from sex. Why hide it? Sex is all about animalistic passion, it has nothing to do with love. Good sex captured on film or video? That is hard to do. Or is it easy?
Film is an artform, no matter what sex you are. Capturing erotic moments is not easy via a camera.
In my opinion women are equal to men when it comes to filming. Just my opinion though. It does break a barrier that women can do just as good as a job as a man can if not better.
Luke Ford @ Adult Empire
Posted - Oct 21 2005 : 1:56AM