Women have been duped

Author	Post
ILMR Member Earth 38 Posts 7/02	Posted - Jul 11 2002 : 12:45AM Women have been duped. For anyone who doesn’t adhere to the major religions, pornography should not be a “moral” issue. If one looks at the whole of porn, its essence is no more than film of people being naked and having sex. Porn is a medium, not the source. If you get deep enough into listening to why someone is anti-porn, you will find that their reasoning has more to do with sex itself. Porn is so varied and wide that there is porn for every kind of legal, consensual sex with every category of man and woman: all races, all nationalities, all sizes and shapes. Putting porn under one moral category as “bad” is like saying the same of mainstream films or books. When I find people objecting to porn (primarily women) who are not religious, the objection usually revolves around disgust. “Ew!” they say. “Gross!” “Disgusting!” Yet, these same people will say, “I’m not a prude,” or “I have nothing against sex.” These are lies. They must be since porn is just a depiction of nudity and sex. Many of these same people will have no objection to watching mainstream films with simulated sex (i.e., Mulholland Drive, Eyes Wide Shut). Porno is the reality of sex brought to the page or screen. Anyone who chooses to register disgust is, in actuality, revealing his or her own shame issues about sex, in private or on exhibition. The high incidence of shame around sex may exist in part because of women’s lack of exposure to professional depictions of it. Mainstream movies are never specific, romance novels are more interested in titillating than informing, and sex ed classes are at a “sex beginners” level. No copy of Kama Sutra can give you as much information as 2 (or more) real people performing the positions before your very eyes. Sexual discussions among women can often be where the lessons of shame are taught and reinforced. This is not to say that men don’t have shame issues, but men are more regularly able to glimpse a world of shameless sex in porn. These regular visits to that world also teach men how sexual professionals {some might even say “artists”) perform. This constant study leads to a gap in sexual information. Obviously men and women as a whole are having the same amount of sex, so there is an equal amount of that kind of experience. Yet there is a much higher standard of “what’s weird” among men because they are regularly exposed to sexual professionals/artists. An analogy: If men and women grow up participating in the same amount of basketball in gym class, but, in addition, the men watch the NBA and the women do not--who’s going to know more about basketball as an adult? Even if they play an equal amount every month in IM leagues? No matter how many times the women watch Love and Basketball, Hoosiers and The Air Up There, they will not have as much information about basketball as men who are watching the professionals do it for real. This information will not determine any individual’s skill level; but it will cause a knowledge gap generally between the men and the women. This knowledge gap also keeps many men’s sexual shame from disappearing: when they try something they’ve seen often in porn and their partner says “ew!” This also leads to frustration with his partner for being disgusted with something he thinks is normal. If “ew” happens too often, he’s going to begin to wish he had another partner. Not necessarily one who is “more sexually liberated,” but one he considers “normal”, or who doesn’t have “problems with sex.” This knowledge gap also answers the naysayers who proclaim, “I just don’t need to see that.” Guess what...you just might. One issue for the woman who doesn’t object to the concept of porn, but who has chosen to view it rarely, is quality--porn is depiction of sex, and that’s all it is. Yes, there are tons (literally) of videos that are just that--videos, not films. They are the moving version of the stroke mag. But for the person who doesn’t watch a lot of porn, there is more than enough out there for you. Go into it knowing that the best ones are still only going to have the quality of a low budget 90’s MTV video. Also go into it knowing that people who really love acting go into...acting. In Hollywood movies. On Broadway. In community theater. People in porn want to have lots of sex, and/or are good at having sex. The highest paid porn stars in the world will make a few million during their careers. The highest paid mainstream actors will make hundreds of millions. Those dedicated to acting are not going to ruin their chances at a big time career by making porn. That leaves to porn the people for whom having the art of acting is secondary to having sex. Also, Hollywood’s fear of showing sex in films helps create this situation. If they only know the video revenue of well-done Hollywood movies about sexuality! Caligula, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, and 9 1/2 Weeks are still among video’s top renters years after their initial releases. Sex being pushed into the porn ghetto creates a situation wherein the most serious and talented porn directors don’t have the incentive to make films with both a good story and unfiltered sexual expression. Sex must always be fully displayed or the porn consumer won’t buy it. The mainstream film consumer won’t buy it even if it’s on the shelf next to Titanic because that consumer won’t have heard of the movie or anyone in it. Porn directors don’t have anywhere near the budgets of mainstream films to hire recognizable names. Even if they did, what Hollywood actor with any kind of box office draw would do a porno? And if a porn director did have a Hollywood-level budget, he would probably make a Hollywood movie, which has the potential for a higher return on investment than a porno. On top of all this, porn directors with real talent for moviemaking are offered lucrative jobs in the mainstream industry. Women porn consumers need to tell the person in the store what you want. It can be blinding to walk into a porn room in a video store. The manager on duty should be able to give you what you want if you tell her exactly. If you’re going to hedge, you’ll be unsatisfied. Ask for a VCA or Wicked feature (not compilation). Ask for Greg Dark or Michael Ninn (porn directors who are good enough to make mainstream product). This brings me back to the issue of shame. I understand that the shame and disgust women have regarding porn is not just from the depiction of sexuality but also the experience of encountering porn. Online, it’s a surprise annoyance that pops up on your screen and clutters your mailbox. Most online porn is in the form of pictures, which don’t have the educational value I’m talking about. Going to an edifice to get a video has its baggage. Even the most woman-friendly sex shop cannot overcome many women’s fear of being associated with active sexuality by any stranger or annoying acquaintance who sees them in or around Le Sex Shoppe. Many women have said they don’t want to be seen as a “slut” by others who might judge them so, even if they know they are not one. The fear of being labeled “slut” is not a minimal one, because being labeled that entails real danger for women. Danger of being harassed or worse. The danger can run the gamut from office gossip that gets you a reputation to anything worse. These things can happen for any reason, not just visiting a sex shop, but our culture has taught women to fear exhibiting sexuality by punishing women time after time for doing so. In fact, I’ve come to find that many women respond with “ew” to porn or sex toys automatically, as a defense mechanism, then finding out the same woman seeks them out on a regular basis. The women in the porn videos are the best examples of courage in the face of “slut”. Many embrace it with pride the way many groups take control of insults and turn them into in-group compliments. Despite the fact that there are hundreds of women performers in the porn world at any one time, and thousands more who want to be in it, many women discount them. Some women even think there is something mentally wrong with these women. What porn fans see in them is lack of shame, pride even, that seems lacking in a sex partner who hates porn. Porn viewers know that behind the scenes everyone is constantly STD-tested, and that everything that occurs onscreen is legal and consensual. The porn industry is like the world’s biggest, safest swinger’s club. Yes, there are currents of misogyny in porn. There are also such currents in mainstream films and books. However, porn is so vast that someone could watch a porn a week and never see a woman-hating work. But porn-haters don’t know this because they make a lot of assumptions. Some think “men like it so much, it must be misogynistic.” But in porn there is no one saying “Do I look fat in this?” or “I hate the way I look in my bathing suit” or “I don’t even look at my body in the mirror now that I’m over 40.” Porn is an escape from a culture in which women hate our own bodies enough for both genders. Every body type is worshipped in porn. Anyone who has even looked at the porn rack in a convenience store knows that porn is not just Playboy. It is Players and Plumpers and Plus 40. Even porn videos in which someone is being insulted or slapped is, on its surface, not about hating the slapped person, but more about the slapped person enjoying sex so much that even those things feel good. Often, the slappee is slapping right back. [Link]
dumblonde Senior Member 2352 Posts 7/00	Posted - Jul 11 2002 : 12:16PM " This constant study leads to a gap in sexual information. " It's not made to be 'informational' . I think anyone who watches porn as a sexual learning tool is a fool. A lot of what you see is fake, or just pornographers trying to outdo each other. In the end, porn is nothing more than a masturbatory aid for males. That's all. It's not made for females, which is why many don't watch it. To assume that there must be something wrong with her is just as short-sighted as condemning all porn as bad. [Link]
ILMR Member Earth 38 Posts 7/02	Posted - Jul 11 2002 : 3:28PM Dumblonde wrote: "It's not made to be 'informational'." You're right, DB. Neither is a baseball game the same as a "How to Pitch" video, but you can still learn something by watching baseball games. I use the sports game analogy because a film analogy doesn't work; porn is far less fake than a Hollywood movie simply because pornmakers don't have the money to make it that fake. Before I wrote this, I watched "Craven Moorehead 14". Those were real blowjobs, and I have the cumshot compilation tape to prove it. DB wrote: "I think anyone who watches porn as a sexual learning tool is a fool." And I say that one who is open to learning will learn from every source possible. DB wrote: "A lot of what you see is fake, or just pornographers trying to outdo each other." I would say that a better word than "fake" is "incomplete". I think that there should be more lubricant "product shots." Wouldn't it be great if Lex paused before putting himself in Belladonna's butt to say "I always use ID Berry Blast Lube before assfucking my friends!" Cut to Bella giving a thumbs up and saying "Thanks Lex!" However, unlike Hollywood movies, these people are really performing sexual acts. The men are really cumming and the women are (sometimes) really orgasming. The only place where male cumshots are fake are in Leisure Time compilations and Virtual Sex DVD's. DB wrote: "In the end, porn is nothing more than a masturbatory aid for males. That's all." Ok, reading this from you makes me wonder whether your whole post was tongue-in-cheek. But in case it wasn't: look at the name of this forum, then look down at your own body..."Adult DVD Talk"... female... "Adult DVD"... female DB wrote: "It's not made for females, which is why many don't watch it." And the many of us who do? The millions of us who do? Take it from me, there are many men who don't watch porn either. If only a minority of the world watches porn, does that mean it isn't watched? You may notice that this post has been edited; it's because I decided to read DB's porn reviews. Now some of her comments in that context make sense. DB wrote: "To assume that there must be something wrong with her is just as short-sighted as condemning all porn as bad." I didn't make the leap that something is wrong with women who don't watch porn. I'm saying that non-religious women who have prejudged porn as disgusting or morally objectionable (without having watched it) have been duped. I'm saying that to object to porn is to object to sex itself because porn is merely sex's medium. I'm saying that sex has been ghettoized into pornography because Hollywood prefers profit over uninhibited artistic expression. ------------------ Men would more often look us in the eyes if they weren't so often downcast Edited by - ILMR on Jul 11 2002 [Link]
Chillin Member San Diego 208 Posts 9/01	Posted - Jul 12 2002 : 2:26AM This post is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long... Chillin.. [Link]
dumblonde Senior Member 2352 Posts 7/00	Posted - Jul 12 2002 : 12:50PM ILMR writes: "Ok, reading this from you* makes me wonder whether your whole post was tongue-in-cheek. "* Not at all. I'm not sure why you find this surprising. It's not just my view, and I'm not saying it's a BAD thing. I just think you're taking porn waaay too seriously. You've probably noticed that there's very few females here. I'd love to see more, and I think it's great that you have such enthusiasm. I also appreciate your directness. Because you or I or anyone else happens to like porn, doesn't change the fact that its main purpose is as a masturbatory aid for males, however. One of our goals here is to get the studios to produce better, more varied pornography. Perhaps even some that targets women as the end user. I got from your post that you were of the opinion that just because you watch porn that you were somehow an authority on the subject, and anyone who didn't care for it was less than informed. I don't see it that way. Most of my friends don't watch it, but we don't get in each other's face about it. If anything, they could probably make a good case for ME being a little twisted. My reply was merely an attempt to put things in perspective for you. Relax - it's Friday, and the weekend is coming up! [Link]

coffeycurve Member 30 minutes from the beach, the desert and the mountains 29 Posts 2/02	Posted - Jul 12 2002 : 3:48PM shit sandwich [Link]
Meridian Member 155 Posts 8/01	Posted - Jul 13 2002 : 7:00AM I’m a little confused why coffeycurve decided to let us in on his lunch menu there, but I’d just like to take a moment here to welcome you, ILMR. I’m a fan of enthusiasm in just about any form and on any topic so if you have something to say I say go for it. And ignore the MTV crippled ‘too long’ comments! Maybe I’ll get around to disagreeing with you later on when I have a bit more time , but this topic isn’t one I feel too qualified to comment on so I’ll probably just sit back and watch you guys sort it out. ILMR = I Love My Righthand? Edited by - meridian on Jul 13 2002 [Link]
SueR Member Under a hill of books 262 Posts 12/02	Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 12:36AM Some of my thinking has changed since I wrote this post. The lack of true rebellion in the bulk of the industry has become more clear to me. I now see how the particular pattern of male performers who eschew eating their own cum off the recipients they just begged to swallow it is a bulwark of homophobia, which, in turn, is misogyny. This is an echo of the culture reinforced and magnified by the strength of the pattern, with notable exceptions of the guys not from America (ie Nacho, Teo, etc). Porn newbies turned off by facials would probably be less disgusted if the straight guys more often shared the cum, as opposed to running away from it. The porn powerhouses' view of rebellion is "it's nasty but let's do it anyway" as opposed to a truly rebellious attitude, which would sound more like "sex is glorious, natural and healthy. We are made better by fucking. We should consider sex as aspiration, not submission to 'baser and lower' senses." This attitude of the industry, however, is no different than mainstream Hollywood's attitude. Also, if I re-wrote this I would emphasize more the affect that rampant sexual assault has had on the psyche of women. No matter how much freedom artists gain to show sexually explicit material, sexual liberation will not occur until men stop other men from sexually assaulting the women and girls in their lives. [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14595 Posts 3/02	Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 1:57AM SueR wrote: Some of my thinking has changed since I wrote this post. The lack of true rebellion in the bulk of the industry has become more clear to me. I now see how the particular pattern of male performers who eschew eating their own cum off the recipients they just begged to swallow it is a bulwark of homophobia, which, in turn, is misogyny. This is an echo of the culture reinforced and magnified by the strength of the pattern, with notable exceptions of the guys not from America (ie Nacho, Teo, etc). Porn newbies turned off by facials would probably be less disgusted if the straight guys more often shared the cum, as opposed to running away from it. Click to expand Not that I think guys kissing cum-covered faces is a bad thing, but I would think that facials would be less disgusting if they were greeted by the women with the enthusiasm shown by Alex Jordan in Nasty Nymphos 8. If the woman taking the facial is obviously doing it for the money, where's the beauty in that? Having the guy lick it off isn't going to fix that problem is it? Homophobia is misogyny? The mind reels. Help me here SueR. Elaborate, please. [Link]
lindi Senior Member 12345 3205 Posts 9/02	Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 2:34AM The porn powerhouses' view of rebellion is "it's nasty but let's do it anyway" as opposed to a truly rebellious attitude, which would sound more like "sex is glorious, natural and healthy. We are made better by fucking. We should consider sex as aspiration, not submission to 'baser and lower' senses." This attitude of the industry, however, is no different than mainstream Hollywood's attitude. Click to expand Ooooooooh, SueR, now we're getting somewhere. But it's even more enjoyable to consider it healthy and then play at being nasty, indulging that part of the brain that is animal, and deals in the symbolic, earthy, and spiritual, rather than the logical. (For the less informed, and for posterity, ILMR now posts as SueR) [Link]
SueR Member Under a hill of books 262 Posts 12/02	Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 7:27AM Homophobia can be described as [hatred of the feminine]within men. Misogyny = [ ] Whether the homophobe hates more the woman or the man who "lowers" himself to be woman-like is up in the air. And Hardware, to tell the truth, if the receiver of cum is truly disgusted, I'd rather see that. What I hate most is a poorly-acted delight upon receipt of semen. During real sex, things happen sometimes that gross us out, so why not show a performer giggling "yuckie!" while running to the bathroom? She has to find out sometime whether she hates cum, so if cameras are present during her first Rodneyblast-sized facial, why not let it be realistic? I love real moments like that in gonzo. lindi, I'm not being snarky, because I looked at your post for a long time. But I don't conceptualize "nasty" [negative] in the same column as "earthy, spiritual, symbolic, animal-like". Can you explain more what you mean? [Link]
YogaGrrl self-removed user 757 Posts 12/01	Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 10:24AM Hardware wrote: Homophobia is misogyny? The mind reels. Click to expand Hardware, just think of the dismissive phrase, "ooooh, that's SO gay." In my opinion, that attitude can be traced back to sexism. If you ask a homophobe what's so bad about being gay, it's usually related to the perception (often a misperception or stereotype) that gays are somehow "feminine" or "girly." In essence, that's the same thing as saying that female qualities are substandard. [Link]
cobalt60 Knuckle Dragger 2046 Posts 2/03	Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 10:33AM SueR wrote: "sex is glorious, natural and healthy. We are made better by fucking. We should consider sex as aspiration, not submission to 'baser and lower' senses." Click to expand 'nuff said Great stuff, ladies. I'm bowing out graciously; just wanted thank you all for being here and sharing these thoughts. POOF! [Link]
lindi Senior Member 12345 3205 Posts 9/02	Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 11:30AM lindi, I'm not being snarky, because I looked at your post for a long time. But I don't conceptualize "nasty" [negative] in the same column as "earthy, spiritual, symbolic, animal-like". Can you explain more what you mean? Click to expand Short answer - no, but Carl Jung and Jack Morin can. The key word in my posting was 'play.' Slightly longer answer - I have wrestled with this as a topic for a column on insidethelair.com, and it hasn't unmuddled itself enough for an article yet. But the woes on the msmagazine.com boards reminded me that good sex is not all roses and kisses and egalitarian and politically correct. That there are little dark fantasies in everyone, and sex is can be a safe place to play them out. Play them out. A lot of porn hasn't gotten past the attitude of nastiness that you refer to, and the porn 'for women' that avoids the nastiness is often painfully dull, afraid to play with the politically incorrect. You've probably already seen my April column. That explains some of what I am talking about. -------------------------------------------------------- Edited by - lindi on 10/22/2003 11:33:09 AM [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14595 Posts 3/02	Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 11:54AM SueR wrote: Homophobia can be described as [hatred of the feminine]within men. Misogyny = [ ] Whether the homophobe hates more the woman or the man who "lowers" himself to be woman-like is up in the air. And Hardware, to tell the truth, if the receiver of cum is truly disgusted, I'd rather see that. What I hate most is a poorly-acted delight upon receipt of semen. During real sex, things happen sometimes that gross us out, so why not show a performer giggling "yuckie!" while running to the bathroom? She has to find out sometime whether she hates cum, so if cameras are present during her first Rodneyblast-sized facial, why not let it be realistic? I love real moments like that in gonzo. Click to expand YogaGrrl wrote: Hardware, just think of the dismissive phrase, "ooooh, that's SO gay." In my opinion, that attitude can be traced back to sexism. If you ask a homophobe what's so bad about being gay, it's usually related to the perception (often a misperception or stereotype) that gays are somehow "feminine" or "girly." In essence, that's the same thing as saying that female qualities are substandard. Click to expand Thanks SueR and YogaGrrl. I confess to ignorance of any homophobes or their arguments, but I agree that American society expects different mannerisms and skills from boys and girls, and ridicule is heaped on those who 'mis-behave.' I'm not arguing the merits, I'm just making the observation. So, the question I have is, is the homophobe disgusted because the homosexual shows inferior traits, or the wrong traits? One thing worth considering is that the dictionary defines homophobia as fear and disgust of both lesbians and homosexuals. Since one assumes that some lesbians are exhibiting male behavior, how does that fit into your theory? In regards to the facial SueR, I take your point, and my guess is that most males who dislike facials would be OK with the scenario you described; not that they'd be excited by it and want to see more. [Link]

lindi Senior Member 12345 3205 Posts 9/02	Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 1:23PM One thing worth considering is that the dictionary defines homophobia as fear and disgust of both lesbians and homosexuals. Since one assumes that some lesbians are exhibiting male behavior, how does that fit into your theory? Click to expand That dictionary is wrong. There is no requirement in homophobia to be disgusted by both gay males and gay females. One or the other will do. Many homophobic men not only have no disgust for "girl-girl sex," shall we say, they relish it, although they may dislike dykey women who don't fit the deferential female role. Plenty of guys on here who want to see women kiss, finger and suck each other, don't even want to see a man's face in their porn. People in general are way less threatened by lesbians than by gay males, for whatever reason. Some of the same guys may also be upset by 'real' lesbians whom they perceive as usurping a superior role that they are not entitled to. --------------------------------------------------------- (another typo!) Edited by - lindi on 10/22/2003 2:59:02 PM [Link]
Hardware All-Star Member Your other left 14595 Posts 3/02	Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 2:18PM lindi wrote: People in general are way less threatened by lesbians than by gay males, for whatever reason. Click to expand They've probably never heard of the infamous 'cucumber incident.' LOL Some of the same guys may also be upset by 'real' lesbians whom they perceive asusurping a superior role that they are not entitled to. Click to expand No doubt you're right. It's a mindset I have difficulty fathoming. [Link]
Kitty-kat Member 50 Posts 10/03	Posted - Oct 23 2003 : 5:53AM The original post bothered me a little because it placed the blame on women not liking porn on women themselves and not on the porn that is available. As far as women being disgusted by certain things in porn, it's not so much the act but usually the context. Women are more likely to respond to a loving partner who will take things slow and be romantic and respectful than they are to some guy who wants do some nasty act with a chick cause he "saw it in some porno once." [Link]
Renee Member 765 Posts 8/03	Posted - Oct 23 2003 : 9:30PM There was a reference by Hardware to "The Cucumber Incident" on a previous post in this thread. To read more about this, check back on the discussion in the American Gunk thread. To be brief, 3 women were convicted of rape for using a cucumber to penetrate a man that they had bound up. I want to clarify that these woman were not lesbians or man-haters; in their words, they wanted to "humiliate and torment" the particular man in question because of his past behavior towards a child in the family. Dumblonde wrote way back when: It's not made to be 'informational' . I think anyone who watches porn as a sexual learning tool is a fool. A lot of what you see is fake, or just pornographers trying to outdo each other. In the end, porn is nothing more than a masturbatory aid for males. That's all. Click to expand This is basically how I feel. It's entertainment, of a rather low sort, and people shouldn't read much more into it than that. Like a line from the new Fox TV show on the porn industry says (spoken by Ron Silver, the pornographer character), "sex flicks are the car wrecks of the entertainment industry. Everybody slows down to watch them, but no one will admit to doing it." The lack of rebellion on the part of pornographers has more to do, in my opinion, with their stated goal of making money, than trying to make some sort of artistic or political statement with their films. They make the films they think fans (mostly male) want to see because the pornographers want sales . Ergo, the way they all rush around imitating each other. I mean, is there really any difference between Throat Gaggers 1-5 and Gag Factor 1-5? These movies even use the same male actors in one film after the other. Just my 2 cents. [Link]
myk Member 367 Posts 10/02	Posted - Oct 23 2003 : 10:31PM I once knew a family whose son was in an accident and needed a neurosurgeon for a procedure. They refused to consent for it until 'Uncle Louie' came in to talk to them. You see, Uncle Louie had been shot in the head in WW2 and had a steel plate in, so he was the family expert on neurosurgery. Just because you have experience with something doesn't make you an expert at it. Pornography, as a whole, is male-centric entertainment. Yes, some women enjoy some parts of it, but if you look at the amount of circus freak sexolympics that's available, not many of them are going to enjoy it. That, and the men of porn are, as a whole, unattractive. To claim that watching porn makes you a better bedmate is pretty ridiculous, I think. Man or woman. if anything it sets up somewhat unrealistic expectations. The 'why doesn't my girlfriend want to do ATM' posts that creap up occasionally. As if you can't figure out why your girlfriend doesn't want to lick excrement off your cock... Myk Dumblonde wrote way back when: It's not made to be 'informational' . I think anyone who watches porn as a sexual learning tool is a fool. A lot of what you see is fake, or just pornographers trying to outdo each other. In the end, porn is nothing more than a masturbatory aid for males. That's all. Click to expand This is basically how I feel. It's entertainment, of a rather low sort, and people shouldn't read much more into it than that. Like a line from the new Fox TV show on the porn industry says (spoken by Ron Silver, the pornographer character), "sex flicks are the car wrecks of the entertainment industry. Everybody slows down to watch them, but no one will admit to doing it." The lack of rebellion on the part of pornographers has more to do, in my opinion, with their stated goal of making money, than trying to make some sort of artistic or political statement with their films. They make the films they think fans (mostly male) want to see because the pornographers want sales . Ergo, the way they all rush around imitating each other. I mean, is there really any difference between Throat Gaggers 1-5 and Gag Factor 1-5? These movies even use the same male actors in one film after the other. Just my 2 cents. Click to expand [Link]
Huggins293 Member 608 Posts 5/04	Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 1:06PM Despite the fact that there are hundreds of women performers in the porn world at any one time, and thousands more who want to be in it, many women discount them. Some women even think there is something mentally wrong with these women. What porn fans see in them is lack of shame, pride even, that seems lacking in a sex partner who hates porn. Porn viewers know that behind the scenes everyone is constantly STD-tested, and that everything that occurs onscreen is legal and consensual. The porn industry is like the world’s biggest, safest swinger’s club. Click to expand It is not just anti-porn women who deny the possiblity of porn sluts enjoying hardfucking, nasty blowjobs, and loads to the face, many men who are jerking off to it share the same attitude. Many women have said they don’t want to be seen as a “slut” by others who might judge them so, even if they know they are not one. Click to expand Exactly! Women in the porn industry are aware of this reality too. Girl only performers know that that there is a less likely chance to be viewed by a slut by their male fans than if they did gangbangs with 500 men. In many ways, I am like women. I knew that if I express my sexual prowess completely in any public setting I will encounter the same demonization(probably to a lesser extent) than these women. So I understand their sexual caution and even behave the same way these women do. [Link]
Huggins293 Member 608 Posts 5/04	Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 1:12PM The women in the porn videos are the best examples of courage in the face of “slut”. Many embrace it with pride the way many groups take control of insults and turn them into in-group compliments. Click to expand Exactly, traditional america has defined slut as degrading sexuality by failing to intergrate it into a symbol of romantic love. The porn slut who accepts the word slut accepts the word and views it in a positive light. A slut, dog and pig as a man or woman who proudly celebrates sexuality in its independent form and is totally unhibited in his or her celebration. Kobe Tai is the classic example of a slut. She doesn't have to have gangbangs with 100 men to qualify as one. It is her genuine celebration and loving of animal sexuality. Stacy Valentine is another slut who proudly embraces the organic founcation of raw sexuaity. What the critics call exploitive, animalistic and mechanical we call the proud and unhibited celebration of the carnal spirit. The carnal sprit has its own identity and can be celebrated in its very own identity. [Link]
Huggins293 Member 608 Posts 5/04	Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 1:20PM We are made better by fucking. We should consider sex as aspiration, not submission to 'baser and lower' senses." This attitude of the industry, however, is no different than mainstream Hollywood's attitude. Click to expand Nasty sex in my definition deals with primal passion. You are making a brutaly false assumption that a man giving facials is trying to insult the women. Although I hate most facials the facials I do like accentuate her sexual prowess in a beautiful light. Cum shots on the chin or breats is the final extension of exuding her sexuality rather than some demonic way of insulting her. However, I do agree most facials are asthetically unappealing, but I think most 70 year olds having sex would be asthetically unappealing. I would find it ignorant to consider this nasty in a moral context. [Link]
Huggins293 Member 608 Posts 5/04	Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 1:28PM Kitty-kat wrote: Women are more likely to respond to a loving partner who will take things slow and be romantic and respectful than they are to some guy who wants do some nasty act with a chick cause he "saw it in some porno once." Click to expand I don't neccessarily equate fast and aggressive sex with mistreating a women. There is nothing wrong with aggressive sex in a polished manner. Randy Spears is the perrect balance between powefucking and slowing it down. In my opinion the exterem loving sex movies where the guy moves like a snail totally ignores the animal and passion part of sexuality. The extreme raincoater titles are so unpolished and it looks like the guy is trying to over do it. Vivid, JKP, Elgant Angel, Adama and Eve balance the polished and the primal aspects of our sexual reality. I think that is where most women are at. I don't think every women wants only a guy to pump her 5 miles per hour. I don't think every women wants a guy to fuck her like Rocco S. I think they want both worlds. Porn that has slow polished foreplay as well as powefucking by both genders represents real sexuality. [Link]
neondon Member 134 Posts 5/04	Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 5:46PM ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz [Link]

DenverDon Benevolent Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02	Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 7:29PM Note to Huggins: It's great to use the 'qoute' function, but please include who it is you are quoting. You only did it on your last post. This is especially true when the thread that you are resurrecting started two years ago. Then one wouldn't need to scroll back and forth, or go from page to page, to see who is being quoted. Thanks. Edited by - DenverDon on 7/13/2004 7:29:18 PM [Link]
Em Member 198 Posts 4/04	Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 7:59PM Lindi wrote: Plenty of guys on here who want to see women kiss, finger and suck each other, don't even want to see a man's face in their porn. People in general are way less threatened by lesbians than by gay males, for whatever reason. Click to expand Hello Lindi, I am one of those who can't stand a male in their porn. It needn't have any antagonistic background. We come for what we like (or love, or are fascinated with), and we buy what we like. What is the other choice - should we buy all kinds of porn in the name of equality? In my humble opinion, it is a simple question of preference. And then there is a problem of false advertising. If a film is advertised as girl-girl, anger is a normal reaction when the movie features a guy. To like A does not imply that you must at the same time hate B. For most of us it means that if we want A, it is A we want, and not a mixture of A, B, C, and D. Those we leave for those who enjoy A, B, C and D together, as well as those who prefer B, C and D separately, or in any combination :) Em Edited by - Em on 7/13/2004 7:59:34 PM [Link]
RobHammer Independent Producer San Jose, CA 444 Posts 4/03	Posted - Jul 15 2004 : 2:47AM Hello Em, What if it's E that we want, and no one's making it? Then what? Rob (Must be the beer buzz...shakes head...) [Link]
Loraine Senior Member 1559 Posts 3/04	Posted - Jul 15 2004 : 7:54AM Rob, E's are illegal. [Link]
BustdownGal Member 539 Posts 7/06	Posted - Mar 19 2007 : 10:29PM is this adultdvdtalk or sociology class? [Link]
Loraine Senior Member 1559 Posts 3/04	Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 7:10AM BustdownGal wrote: is this adultdvdtalk or sociology class? Click to expand ...just going back to a time when more than the size of a girl's assgape or cum snorting technique was sometimes discussed. [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Mar 21 2007 : 1:27AM Geez, Loraine -- you're such a reactionary! [Link]
Loraine Senior Member 1559 Posts 3/04	Posted - Mar 21 2007 : 8:26AM Bob wrote: Geez, Loraine -- you're such a reactionary! Click to expand Shaddup or I'll dupe you - repeatedly.Hard. [Link]
Loraine Senior Member 1559 Posts 3/04	Posted - Mar 21 2007 : 8:32AM Huggins293 wrote: Exactly! Women in the porn industry are aware of this reality too. Girl only performers know that that there is a less likely chance to be viewed by a slut by their male fans than if they did gangbangs with 500 men. Click to expand I have to admit to enjoying the curly logic here...and I'm sure that a porn starlet would be crushed to be thought of as a slut by a fanboy...crushed and mortified. [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Mar 22 2007 : 5:18AM Thanks to whoever bumped this. I really enjoy hearing SueR's ideas. I once spent hours reading her old posts. It's a pity she doesn't participate here any more. [Link]

Loraine Senior Member 1559 Posts 3/04	Posted - Mar 22 2007 : 6:32AM licker wrote: Thanks to whoever bumped this. I really enjoy hearing SueR's ideas. I once spent hours reading her old posts. It's a pity she doesn't participate here any more. Click to expand I have loved her posts since I first started reading here what feels like many moons ago, and lindi and renee and the classic dumblonde. [Link]
Corben99 Member Deep South Texas 146 Posts 11/06	Posted - Mar 22 2007 : 7:16AM dumblonde wrote: " This constant study leads to a gap in sexual information. " It's not made to be 'informational' . I think anyone who watches porn as a sexual learning tool is a fool. A lot of what you see is fake, or just pornographers trying to outdo each other. In the end, porn is nothing more than a masturbatory aid for males. That's all. It's not made for females, which is why many don't watch it. To assume that there must be something wrong with her is just as short-sighted as condemning all porn as bad. Click to expand Hey I used to watch porn as a learning tool back in the 80's and 90's. Ron Jeremy taught me how to fuck a girl upside in an anal piledriver, because the flow of gravity keeps her poop inside. So it's a better position for it. Tom Byron taught me not to touch my dick, or even go near it unless I had to pee, or wash it, for weeks till I was ready for sex. ( builds up your stamina.) Peter North taught me how to shoot cum. What to aim for, and how far. And even to pump a girl a good extra 5 to 10 minutes after ejaculating. Marc Wallice showed me that a curved dick is not a bad thing. That some girls actually like that. Christy Canyon and Teri Weigel set the bar, for what kinds of girls to look for. A hot brunette with big tits and a real screamer in the sack. ( I like blondes too.) But that was before all this Gonzo shit. But I agree with you on the modern porn movies. (they do not teach anything, anymore) But go back to the Golden Age, and you'll see alot of educational stuff. [Link]
Freddy and Eddy Member 37 Posts 3/07	Posted - Mar 22 2007 : 12:40PM First, it's ingenuine to lay a post on this topic at the feet of women. The vast majority of objections to porn (and legislation and prosecutions) are initiated by MEN. It's the Tom Delays, James Dobsons, and Rush Limbaughs of the world who lead the charge against pornography (and SEX in general). Notice the main common thread among them? Religion. And its crazy crusade against anything that's pleasurable. Alcohol? Nope. Drugs? Nope. Gambling? Nope. Sex? Absolutely not. The anti porn crowd are primarily a bunch of DUDES who didn't get any tang growing up and are trying to make sure we don't get any now (except that they ARE watching porn and engaging in all kinds of perverted shenanigans in secret - Ted Haggard, Swaggart, Gingrich, etc.). Shit, most women don't have a clue what's going on in porn. Ask any woman walking down the street what ATM is and they'll lead you to the nearest cash machine. That's why the main weapon used to defend ourselves is the Freedom of Speech argument. As long as you stay within the law, you're FREE to watch - or not watch - whatever you want. It's certainly not a bunch of sexually repressed chicks in Congress and churches trying to ban porn. You can't dupe someone who doesn't have any idea there's even an issue. [Link]
seedless Member by the lake 13 Posts 12/03	Posted - Mar 22 2007 : 2:12PM I read somewhere that men are more visual and women are more intellectual when it comes to sex. My wife is a perfect example. If you were to give her a choice of a porn flick or reading a porn short stories forum she would go for the stories most every time. [Link]
BustdownGal Member 539 Posts 7/06	Posted - Mar 23 2007 : 12:16PM Hey seedless, here's a thread by this same poster on the very issue of the myth of women being less visually stimulated. Lie #247 Edited by - BustdownGal on 3/23/2007 12:17:14 PM [Link]
cobalt60 Knuckle Dragger 2046 Posts 2/03	Posted - Mar 23 2007 : 1:18PM seedless wrote: I read somewhere that men are more visual and women are more intellectual when it comes to sex. My wife is a perfect example. If you were to give her a choice of a porn flick or reading a porn short stories forum she would go for the stories most every time. Click to expand Same here, and expanded upon in the thread BDG linked to. [Link]
Bob All-Star Member 5516 Posts 3/03	Posted - Mar 23 2007 : 2:35PM seedless wrote: If you were to give [my wife] a choice of a porn flick or reading a porn short stories forum she would go for the stories most every time. Click to expand +1 My wife would always choose the stories (although she doesn't choose them often). [Link]
Freddy and Eddy Member 37 Posts 3/07	Posted - Mar 23 2007 : 2:42PM After watching so much bad porn, the stories are a refreshing change. [Link]
BustdownGal Member 539 Posts 7/06	Posted - Mar 28 2007 : 7:13PM reading = visual [Link]
licker Senior Member Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic 1141 Posts 8/03	Posted - Mar 28 2007 : 10:07PM BustdownGal wrote: reading = visual Click to expand IMHO reading <> visual; [Link]
Freddy and Eddy Member 37 Posts 3/07	Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 12:46AM I read somewhere that men are more visual and women are more intellectual when it comes to sex. Click to expand This may be true, but it's certainly not the whole story. BOTH of us like to watch porn when it's done WELL. Shitty gonzo and gaping assholes don't appeal to either of us, but a movie like Wicked's "Manhunters" or Pulse's "Blacklight Beauty" appeal to both of us equally. Maybe women aren't less visual at all, but simply more cerebral and discriminating ABOUT their visuals. Is it so bad to want to watch sex with some semblance of BELIEVABILITY? Or in a situation that MAKES even the slightest sense? Or with cinematography standards ABOVE a handheld camera in the middle of a parking lot or rented house? Or music that doesn't sound like it came from a Costco keyboard? The fact that many men can sit and watch anal fuck fests with barely 18 women getting pounded by unattractive, giant cock wielding doofuses is more proof that these males are unevolved simpletons (and misogynistic) - NOT that they're more "visual." What a total crock. Does the fact that gay male porn enjoys robust sales among straight women tell us women are less visual than males? The fact is, men masturbate like crazy from 12 years old and up and are driven to ejaculate thousands of times in their lives, as opposed to the relatively economical cycles of women, whose childbearing years are limited to fertility availability only one day per month. Men just want to come all day long and porn helps them do so; women like to have sex, but are just a bit more discriminating and more likely to enjoy it with a partner rather than a crappily made porn flick that isn't produced for her anyway. Outside of Candida Royale and a few lezbos, who's really making an honest attempt to reach the female audience - especially knowing the general perception among females is that of an industry bent on ratcheting up ever more extreme and degrading sexual barbarity? With women who look and act nothing like them? Forget it. Isn't going to happen - maybe not in our lifetimes. As long as the industry is dominated by men - and women who've been mentored by these same men - women will always be wary and reluctant to fire up the DVD player with porn. They're not being duped - they've got it totally right and the joke's on us. [Link]
BustdownGal Member 539 Posts 7/06	Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 1:27PM excellent post FreddyEddy, but as we female posters on ADT show over and over, once a woman is into porn, our tastes are as varied as men's. Because of our culture, there isn't really a stereotype of the woman who loves porn. That's why it's hard to "imagine". But it isn't hard to see. We are here. We are varied. We love watching people have sex. We are the women you see in your porn store, both in the porn room and behind the counter. We are the women you see in your porn. We are the women you don't see, but are in your porn. Holding boom mics. Running cameras. Directing. Editing. Writing code. And of course, most of us you don't see. I don't think there's any particular way to "appeal to women" with porn. For every woman who's into Candida Royalle or SIR Video, there is another woman who hates that and prefers Joey Silvera or Max Hardcore. And another who hates all those and prefers only Japanese bukkake. Yes, I want BELIEVABILITY. But what's believable to each of us is different. I'm loud. I squirt. And I love to get stupid when I have sex. So I really enjoy seeing that in porn. Other people who may be more reserved, may prefer to see a more reserved performance. I know what I like, so I focus on choosing that when I buy/rent. I don't focus on the stuff I don't like. I just skip it. There's too much porn to choose from to expend any energy on that which I don't like. I have found my veins of gold in the mountain, and I'm following them. [Link]
Freddy and Eddy Member 37 Posts 3/07	Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 2:02PM excellent post FreddyEddy, but as we female posters on ADT show over and over, once a woman is into porn, our tastes are as varied as men's. Click to expand Ah, ILMR, if only the percentage of women like you in this world weren't so small. Sigh. Granted, we agree with your points; however, think about the percentage of women here in ADT as opposed to men. What, about 10-1? 20-1? Over in our own forums, women actually outnumber men, so we're inclined to believe that, while our site clearly shows equal SEXUAL interest - maybe even more among women - the imbalance HERE shows that the vast majority of the fairer sex have yet to embrace pornography or else you'd see more women contributing. Like you, we also squirt, get loud, and love to practice some BDSM in our own marriage - at 19 years and counting - but watching a hot young woman thrown around by an old pig like Max Hardcore is neither believable nor sexually stimulating. That's not to say we sit around and watch Candida Royale or Playboy videos - we'll take Fashionistas, Flesh Hunter 4, and Island Fever 2 any day of the week - but for us there has to be at least a belief that the performers are enjoying themselves. BUT, we think it's cool that you like Max - that's what freedom of speech is all about, right? And we hope you're just one of a new wave of female viewers who will approach porn with a more open attitude (though we're not optimistic based on the majority of what we see being churned out these days). [Link]
BustdownGal Member 539 Posts 7/06	Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 2:02PM reading is visual. Ask a blind person. Imagining scenarios in your head while you read = visual. Porn pictures are not the only form of visual stimulation. That's why I don't believe "Lie 247" about women not being visually stimulated. Not only is there scientific evidence to the contrary, but it's wrong just by common sense. Just like men may have fetishes for the sight boobs, legs or ass, women may have fetishes for lingerie, hard dicks or 6-pack abs. Or expensive cars. Or guys with dogs. Or Adrien Brody. I think any general differences between genders in the desire to see porn may have more to do with how accustomed the genders are to seeing porn. Which is the original poster's point. Men generally may be exposed to porn earlier in life, and therefore are less shocked when encountering it throughout life. But I've seen for myself once a woman who is not used to seeing real people having sex gets to see real people having sex (whether live or on DVD), she begins to develop her own taste for what she wants to see. Or...sometimes it's too late. Having your first porn experience being at 25 finding "White Grrlz with Big Asses 6" in your boyfriend's DVD player is a feeling laced with jealousy. That's different than finding that a porno tape in your parents' VCR at 13. Everyone's circumstance is different. Another gender difference is the whole body esteem thing. Women who I've personally introduced porn to have a surprising pattern of noticing things like zits, stretch marks or misshapen tan lines. Things I never notice. But it makes sense because women watching only mainstream media are unaccustomed to seeing real bodies up close. They only see women with expensive hairdos and lots of TV makeup. Pornstars may start with these things, but they always melt away when the reality of hot fucking sets in. And I've had friends who "lose their mood" when they're new to porn because they're so busy noticing ass freckles or pussy juice or queefs. They're not accustomed to viewing these realities of sex onscreen. So should porndom be more like Hollywood and hide these little realities? More hours in the make-up chair? More editing out of leaks and queefs? Would that make the sex more "believable" or would it just make it more "palatable"? [Link]
lindi Senior Member 12345 3205 Posts 9/02	Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 3:39PM Or guys with dogs. Click to expand Yes! [Link]
BustdownGal Member 539 Posts 7/06	Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 6:16PM FreddyEddy: I'm BustdownGal. ILMR is the original poster from 2002. What's your website btw? Yes, I totally understand the percentages. Yes, more porn is bought by men than women. But let's remember that percentage points represent millions. If millions of us are buying, then there must be something in the current porn trends that is working for women. Even for a guy like Max, there must be women who like that because he has performers who work with him over and over. I'd say they represent the vein of women who like being dommed in that way. [Link]

Author

Post

ILMR
Member

Earth
38 Posts
7/02

Posted - Jul 11 2002 : 12:45AM

Women have been duped. For anyone who doesn’t adhere to the major religions, pornography should not be a “moral” issue. If one looks at the whole of porn, its essence is no more than film of people being naked and having sex. Porn is a medium, not the source. If you get deep enough into listening to why someone is anti-porn, you will find that their reasoning has more to do with sex itself. Porn is so varied and wide that there is porn for every kind of legal, consensual sex with every category of man and woman: all races, all nationalities, all sizes and shapes. Putting porn under one moral category as “bad” is like saying the same of mainstream films or books.
When I find people objecting to porn (primarily women) who are not religious, the objection usually revolves around disgust. “Ew!” they say. “Gross!” “Disgusting!” Yet, these same people will say, “I’m not a prude,” or “I have nothing against sex.” These are lies. They must be since porn is just a depiction of nudity and sex. Many of these same people will have no objection to watching mainstream films with simulated sex (i.e., Mulholland Drive, Eyes Wide Shut). Porno is the reality of sex brought to the page or screen. Anyone who chooses to register disgust is, in actuality, revealing his or her own shame issues about sex, in private or on exhibition.
The high incidence of shame around sex may exist in part because of women’s lack of exposure to professional depictions of it. Mainstream movies are never specific, romance novels are more interested in titillating than informing, and sex ed classes are at a “sex beginners” level. No copy of Kama Sutra can give you as much information as 2 (or more) real people performing the positions before your very eyes. Sexual discussions among women can often be where the lessons of shame are taught and reinforced. This is not to say that men don’t have shame issues, but men are more regularly able to glimpse a world of shameless sex in porn. These regular visits to that world also teach men how sexual professionals {some might even say “artists”) perform. This constant study leads to a gap in sexual information. Obviously men and women as a whole are having the same amount of sex, so there is an equal amount of that kind of experience. Yet there is a much higher standard of “what’s weird” among men because they are regularly exposed to sexual professionals/artists.
An analogy: If men and women grow up participating in the same amount of basketball in gym class, but, in addition, the men watch the NBA and the women do not--who’s going to know more about basketball as an adult? Even if they play an equal amount every month in IM leagues? No matter how many times the women watch Love and Basketball, Hoosiers and The Air Up There, they will not have as much information about basketball as men who are watching the professionals do it for real. This information will not determine any individual’s skill level; but it will cause a knowledge gap generally between the men and the women.
This knowledge gap also keeps many men’s sexual shame from disappearing: when they try something they’ve seen often in porn and their partner says “ew!” This also leads to frustration with his partner for being disgusted with something he thinks is normal. If “ew” happens too often, he’s going to begin to wish he had another partner. Not necessarily one who is “more sexually liberated,” but one he considers “normal”, or who doesn’t have “problems with sex.” This knowledge gap also answers the naysayers who proclaim, “I just don’t need to see that.” Guess what...you just might.
One issue for the woman who doesn’t object to the concept of porn, but who has chosen to view it rarely, is quality--porn is depiction of sex, and that’s all it is. Yes, there are tons (literally) of videos that are just that--videos, not films. They are the moving version of the stroke mag. But for the person who doesn’t watch a lot of porn, there is more than enough out there for you. Go into it knowing that the best ones are still only going to have the quality of a low budget 90’s MTV video. Also go into it knowing that people who really love acting go into...acting. In Hollywood movies. On Broadway. In community theater. People in porn want to have lots of sex, and/or are good at having sex. The highest paid porn stars in the world will make a few million during their careers. The highest paid mainstream actors will make hundreds of millions. Those dedicated to acting are not going to ruin their chances at a big time career by making porn. That leaves to porn the people for whom having the art of acting is secondary to having sex. Also, Hollywood’s fear of showing sex in films helps create this situation. If they only know the video revenue of well-done Hollywood movies about sexuality! Caligula, The Unbearable Lightness of Being, and 9 1/2 Weeks are still among video’s top renters years after their initial releases. Sex being pushed into the porn ghetto creates a situation wherein the most serious and talented porn directors don’t have the incentive to make films with both a good story and unfiltered sexual expression. Sex must always be fully displayed or the porn consumer won’t buy it. The mainstream film consumer won’t buy it even if it’s on the shelf next to Titanic because that consumer won’t have heard of the movie or anyone in it. Porn directors don’t have anywhere near the budgets of mainstream films to hire recognizable names. Even if they did, what Hollywood actor with any kind of box office draw would do a porno? And if a porn director did have a Hollywood-level budget, he would probably make a Hollywood movie, which has the potential for a higher return on investment than a porno. On top of all this, porn directors with real talent for moviemaking are offered lucrative jobs in the mainstream industry.
Women porn consumers need to tell the person in the store what you want. It can be blinding to walk into a porn room in a video store. The manager on duty should be able to give you what you want if you tell her exactly. If you’re going to hedge, you’ll be unsatisfied. Ask for a VCA or Wicked feature (not compilation). Ask for Greg Dark or Michael Ninn (porn directors who are good enough to make mainstream product).
This brings me back to the issue of shame. I understand that the shame and disgust women have regarding porn is not just from the depiction of sexuality but also the experience of encountering porn. Online, it’s a surprise annoyance that pops up on your screen and clutters your mailbox. Most online porn is in the form of pictures, which don’t have the educational value I’m talking about. Going to an edifice to get a video has its baggage. Even the most woman-friendly sex shop cannot overcome many women’s fear of being associated with active sexuality by any stranger or annoying acquaintance who sees them in or around Le Sex Shoppe. Many women have said they don’t want to be seen as a “slut” by others who might judge them so, even if they know they are not one. The fear of being labeled “slut” is not a minimal one, because being labeled that entails real danger for women. Danger of being harassed or worse. The danger can run the gamut from office gossip that gets you a reputation to anything worse. These things can happen for any reason, not just visiting a sex shop, but our culture has taught women to fear exhibiting sexuality by punishing women time after time for doing so. In fact, I’ve come to find that many women respond with “ew” to porn or sex toys automatically, as a defense mechanism, then finding out the same woman seeks them out on a regular basis.
The women in the porn videos are the best examples of courage in the face of “slut”. Many embrace it with pride the way many groups take control of insults and turn them into in-group compliments. Despite the fact that there are hundreds of women performers in the porn world at any one time, and thousands more who want to be in it, many women discount them. Some women even think there is something mentally wrong with these women. What porn fans see in them is lack of shame, pride even, that seems lacking in a sex partner who hates porn. Porn viewers know that behind the scenes everyone is constantly STD-tested, and that everything that occurs onscreen is legal and consensual. The porn industry is like the world’s biggest, safest swinger’s club.
Yes, there are currents of misogyny in porn. There are also such currents in mainstream films and books. However, porn is so vast that someone could watch a porn a week and never see a woman-hating work. But porn-haters don’t know this because they make a lot of assumptions. Some think “men like it so much, it must be misogynistic.” But in porn there is no one saying “Do I look fat in this?” or “I hate the way I look in my bathing suit” or “I don’t even look at my body in the mirror now that I’m over 40.” Porn is an escape from a culture in which women hate our own bodies enough for both genders. Every body type is worshipped in porn. Anyone who has even looked at the porn rack in a convenience store knows that porn is not just Playboy. It is Players and Plumpers and Plus 40. Even porn videos in which someone is being insulted or slapped is, on its surface, not about hating the slapped person, but more about the slapped person enjoying sex so much that even those things feel good. Often, the slappee is slapping right back.

[Link]

dumblonde
Senior Member

2352 Posts
7/00

Posted - Jul 11 2002 : 12:16PM

" This constant study leads to a gap in sexual information. "

It's not made to be 'informational' . I think anyone who watches porn as a sexual learning tool is a fool. A lot of what you see is fake, or just pornographers trying to outdo each other.

In the end, porn is nothing more than a masturbatory aid for males.
That's all.

It's not made for females, which is why many don't watch it. To assume that there must be something wrong with her is just as short-sighted as condemning all porn as bad.

[Link]

ILMR
Member

Earth
38 Posts
7/02

Posted - Jul 11 2002 : 3:28PM

Dumblonde wrote:
"It's not made to be 'informational'."

You're right, DB. Neither is a baseball game the same as a "How to Pitch" video, but you can still learn something by watching baseball games. I use the sports game analogy because a film analogy doesn't work; porn is far less fake than a Hollywood movie simply because pornmakers don't have the money to make it that fake. Before I wrote this, I watched "Craven Moorehead 14". Those were *real* blowjobs, and I have the cumshot compilation tape to prove it.

DB wrote:
"I think anyone who watches porn as a sexual learning tool is a fool."

And I say that one who is open to learning will learn from every source possible.

DB wrote:
"A lot of what you see is fake, or just pornographers trying to outdo each other."

I would say that a better word than "fake" is "incomplete". I think that there should be more lubricant "product shots." Wouldn't it be great if Lex paused before putting himself in Belladonna's butt to say "I always use ID Berry Blast Lube before assfucking my friends!" Cut to Bella giving a thumbs up and saying "Thanks Lex!"
However, unlike Hollywood movies, these people are *really* performing sexual acts. The men are *really* cumming and the women are (sometimes) *really* orgasming. The only place where male cumshots are fake are in Leisure Time compilations and Virtual Sex DVD's.

DB wrote:
"In the end, porn is nothing more than a masturbatory aid for males.
That's all."

Ok, reading this from *you* makes me wonder whether your whole post was tongue-in-cheek.

But in case it wasn't: look at the name of this forum, then look down at your own body..."Adult DVD Talk"... female... "Adult DVD"... female

DB wrote:
"It's not made for females, which is why many don't watch it."

And the many of us who do? The *millions* of us who do? Take it from me, there are many *men* who don't watch porn either. If only a minority of the world watches porn, does that mean it isn't watched? You may notice that this post has been edited; it's because I decided to read DB's porn reviews. Now some of her comments in that context make sense.

DB wrote:
"To assume that there must be something wrong with her is just as short-sighted as condemning all porn as bad."

I didn't make the leap that something is wrong with women who don't watch porn. I'm saying that non-religious women who have prejudged porn as disgusting or morally objectionable (without having watched it) have been duped. I'm saying that to object to porn is to object to sex itself because porn is merely sex's medium. I'm saying that sex has been ghettoized into pornography because Hollywood prefers profit over uninhibited artistic expression.

------------------
Men would more often look us in the eyes if they weren't so often downcast

Edited by - ILMR on Jul 11 2002

[Link]

Chillin
Member

San Diego
208 Posts
9/01

Posted - Jul 12 2002 : 2:26AM

This post is just waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too long...

Chillin..

[Link]

dumblonde
Senior Member

2352 Posts
7/00

Posted - Jul 12 2002 : 12:50PM

ILMR writes:
"Ok, reading this from *you* makes me wonder whether your whole post was tongue-in-cheek. "

Not at all. I'm not sure why you find this surprising. It's not just my view, and I'm not saying it's a BAD thing. I just think you're taking porn waaay too seriously.

You've probably noticed that there's very few females here. I'd love to see more, and I think it's great that you have such enthusiasm. I also appreciate your directness. Because you or I or anyone else happens to like porn, doesn't change the fact that its main purpose is as a masturbatory aid for males, however.

One of our goals here is to get the studios to produce better, more varied pornography. Perhaps even some that targets women as the end user. I got from your post that you were of the opinion that just because you watch porn that you were somehow an authority on the subject, and anyone who didn't care for it was less than informed. I don't see it that way. Most of my friends don't watch it, but we don't get in each other's face about it. If anything, they could probably make a good case for ME being a little twisted.

My reply was merely an attempt to put things in perspective for you.

Relax - it's Friday, and the weekend is coming up!

[Link]

coffeycurve
Member

30 minutes from the beach, the desert and the mountains
29 Posts
2/02

Posted - Jul 12 2002 : 3:48PM

shit sandwich

[Link]

Meridian
Member

155 Posts
8/01

Posted - Jul 13 2002 : 7:00AM

I’m a little confused why coffeycurve decided to let us in on his lunch menu there, but I’d just like to take a moment here to welcome you, ILMR. I’m a fan of enthusiasm in just about any form and on any topic so if you have something to say I say go for it. And ignore the MTV crippled ‘too long’ comments!

Maybe I’ll get around to disagreeing with you later on when I have a bit more time , but this topic isn’t one I feel too qualified to comment on so I’ll probably just sit back and watch you guys sort it out.

ILMR = I Love My Righthand?

Edited by - meridian on Jul 13 2002

[Link]

SueR
Member

Under a hill of books
262 Posts
12/02

Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 12:36AM

Some of my thinking has changed since I wrote this post. The lack of true rebellion in the bulk of the industry has become more clear to me. I now see how the particular pattern of male performers who eschew eating their own cum off the recipients they just begged to swallow it is a bulwark of homophobia, which, in turn, is misogyny. This is an echo of the culture reinforced and magnified by the strength of the pattern, with notable exceptions of the guys not from America (ie Nacho, Teo, etc). Porn newbies turned off by facials would probably be less disgusted if the straight guys more often shared the cum, as opposed to running away from it.

The porn powerhouses' view of rebellion is "it's nasty but let's do it anyway" as opposed to a truly rebellious attitude, which would sound more like "sex is glorious, natural and healthy. We are made better by fucking. We should consider sex as aspiration, not submission to 'baser and lower' senses." This attitude of the industry, however, is no different than mainstream Hollywood's attitude.

Also, if I re-wrote this I would emphasize more the affect that rampant sexual assault has had on the psyche of women. No matter how much freedom artists gain to show sexually explicit material, sexual liberation will not occur until men stop other men from sexually assaulting the women and girls in their lives.

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14595 Posts
3/02

Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 1:57AM

Not that I think guys kissing cum-covered faces is a bad thing, but I would think that facials would be less disgusting if they were greeted by the women with the enthusiasm shown by Alex Jordan in Nasty Nymphos 8. If the woman taking the facial is obviously doing it for the money, where's the beauty in that? Having the guy lick it off isn't going to fix that problem is it?

Homophobia is misogyny? The mind reels. Help me here SueR. Elaborate, please.

[Link]

lindi
Senior Member

12345
3205 Posts
9/02

Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 2:34AM

Ooooooooh, SueR, now we're getting somewhere. But it's even more enjoyable to consider it healthy and then play at being nasty, indulging that part of the brain that is animal, and deals in the symbolic, earthy, and spiritual, rather than the logical.

(For the less informed, and for posterity, ILMR now posts as SueR)

[Link]

SueR
Member

Under a hill of books
262 Posts
12/02

Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 7:27AM

Homophobia can be described as [hatred of the feminine]within men. Misogyny = [ ]
Whether the homophobe hates more the woman or the man who "lowers" himself to be woman-like is up in the air.

And Hardware, to tell the truth, if the receiver of cum is truly disgusted, I'd rather see that. What I hate most is a poorly-acted delight upon receipt of semen. During real sex, things happen sometimes that gross us out, so why not show a performer giggling "yuckie!" while running to the bathroom? She has to find out sometime whether she hates cum, so if cameras are present during her first Rodneyblast-sized facial, why not let it be realistic? I love real moments like that in gonzo.

lindi, I'm not being snarky, because I looked at your post for a long time. But I don't conceptualize "nasty" [negative] in the same column as "earthy, spiritual, symbolic, animal-like". Can you explain more what you mean?

[Link]

YogaGrrl
self-removed user

757 Posts
12/01

Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 10:24AM

Hardware, just think of the dismissive phrase, "ooooh, that's SO gay." In my opinion, that attitude can be traced back to sexism. If you ask a homophobe what's so bad about being gay, it's usually related to the perception (often a misperception or stereotype) that gays are somehow "feminine" or "girly." In essence, that's the same thing as saying that female qualities are substandard.

[Link]

cobalt60
Knuckle Dragger

2046 Posts
2/03

Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 10:33AM

'nuff said

Great stuff, ladies. I'm bowing out graciously; just wanted thank you all for being here and sharing these thoughts.

POOF!

[Link]

lindi
Senior Member

12345
3205 Posts
9/02

Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 11:30AM

Short answer - no, but Carl Jung and Jack Morin can.

The key word in my posting was 'play.'

Slightly longer answer - I have wrestled with this as a topic for a column on insidethelair.com, and it hasn't unmuddled itself enough for an article yet. But the woes on the msmagazine.com boards reminded me that good sex is not all roses and kisses and egalitarian and politically correct. That there are little dark fantasies in everyone, and sex is can be a safe place to play them out. Play them out.

A lot of porn hasn't gotten past the attitude of nastiness that you refer to, and the porn 'for women' that avoids the nastiness is often painfully dull, afraid to play with the politically incorrect.

You've probably already seen my April column. That explains some of what I am talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------

Edited by - lindi on 10/22/2003 11:33:09 AM

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14595 Posts
3/02

Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 11:54AM

Thanks SueR and YogaGrrl. I confess to ignorance of any homophobes or their arguments, but I agree that American society expects different mannerisms and skills from boys and girls, and ridicule is heaped on those who 'mis-behave.' I'm not arguing the merits, I'm just making the observation. So, the question I have is, is the homophobe disgusted because the homosexual shows inferior traits, or the wrong traits? One thing worth considering is that the dictionary defines homophobia as fear and disgust of both lesbians and homosexuals. Since one assumes that some lesbians are exhibiting male behavior, how does that fit into your theory?

In regards to the facial SueR, I take your point, and my guess is that most males who dislike facials would be OK with the scenario you described; not that they'd be excited by it and want to see more.

[Link]

lindi
Senior Member

12345
3205 Posts
9/02

Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 1:23PM

That dictionary is wrong. There is no requirement in homophobia to be disgusted by both gay males and gay females. One or the other will do.

Many homophobic men not only have no disgust for "girl-girl sex," shall we say, they relish it, although they may dislike dykey women who don't fit the deferential female role. Plenty of guys on here who want to see women kiss, finger and suck each other, don't even want to see a man's face in their porn. People in general are way less threatened by lesbians than by gay males, for whatever reason.

Some of the same guys may also be upset by 'real' lesbians whom they perceive as usurping a superior role that they are not entitled to.
---------------------------------------------------------
(another typo!)

Edited by - lindi on 10/22/2003 2:59:02 PM

[Link]

Hardware

All-Star Member

Your other left
14595 Posts
3/02

Posted - Oct 22 2003 : 2:18PM

They've probably never heard of the infamous 'cucumber incident.' LOL

No doubt you're right. It's a mindset I have difficulty fathoming.

[Link]

Kitty-kat
Member

50 Posts
10/03

Posted - Oct 23 2003 : 5:53AM

The original post bothered me a little because it placed the blame on women not liking porn on women themselves and not on the porn that is available.
As far as women being disgusted by certain things in porn, it's not so much the act but usually the context.
Women are more likely to respond to a loving partner who will take things slow and be romantic and respectful than they are to some guy who wants do some nasty act with a chick cause he "saw it in some porno once."

[Link]

Renee
Member

765 Posts
8/03

Posted - Oct 23 2003 : 9:30PM

There was a reference by Hardware to "The Cucumber Incident" on a previous post in this thread. To read more about this, check back on the discussion in the American Gunk thread.

To be brief, 3 women were convicted of rape for using a cucumber to penetrate a man that they had bound up. I want to clarify that these woman were not lesbians or man-haters; in their words, they wanted to "humiliate and torment" the particular man in question because of his past behavior towards a child in the family.

This is basically how I feel. It's entertainment, of a rather low sort, and people shouldn't read much more into it than that. Like a line from the new Fox TV show on the porn industry says (spoken by Ron Silver, the pornographer character), "sex flicks are the car wrecks of the entertainment industry. Everybody slows down to watch them, but no one will admit to doing it."

The lack of rebellion on the part of pornographers has more to do, in my opinion, with their stated goal of making money, than trying to make some sort of artistic or political statement with their films. They make the films they think fans (mostly male) want to see because the pornographers want sales . Ergo, the way they all rush around imitating each other. I mean, is there really any difference between Throat Gaggers 1-5 and Gag Factor 1-5? These movies even use the same male actors in one film after the other.

Just my 2 cents.

[Link]

myk
Member

367 Posts
10/02

Posted - Oct 23 2003 : 10:31PM

I once knew a family whose son was in an accident and needed a neurosurgeon for a procedure. They refused to consent for it until 'Uncle Louie' came in to talk to them. You see, Uncle Louie had been shot in the head in WW2 and had a steel plate in, so he was the family expert on neurosurgery.

Just because you have experience with something doesn't make you an expert at it.

Pornography, as a whole, is male-centric entertainment. Yes, some women enjoy some parts of it, but if you look at the amount of circus freak sexolympics that's available, not many of them are going to enjoy it. That, and the men of porn are, as a whole, unattractive.

To claim that watching porn makes you a better bedmate is pretty ridiculous, I think. Man or woman. if anything it sets up somewhat unrealistic expectations. The 'why doesn't my girlfriend want to do ATM' posts that creap up occasionally. As if you can't figure out why your girlfriend doesn't want to lick excrement off your cock...

Myk

Just my 2 cents.

Click to expand

[Link]

Huggins293
Member

608 Posts
5/04

Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 1:06PM

It is not just anti-porn women who deny the possiblity of porn sluts enjoying hardfucking, nasty blowjobs, and loads to the face, many men who are jerking off to it share the same attitude.

Exactly! Women in the porn industry are aware of this reality too. Girl only performers know that that there is a less likely chance to be viewed by a slut by their male fans than if they did gangbangs with 500 men. In many ways, I am like women. I knew that if I express my sexual prowess completely in any public setting I will encounter the same demonization(probably to a lesser extent) than these women. So I understand their sexual caution and even behave the same way these women do.

[Link]

Huggins293
Member

608 Posts
5/04

Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 1:12PM

Exactly, traditional america has defined slut as degrading sexuality by failing to intergrate it into a symbol of romantic love. The porn slut who accepts the word slut accepts the word and views it in a positive light. A slut, dog and pig as a man or woman who proudly celebrates sexuality in its independent form and is totally unhibited in his or her celebration. Kobe Tai is the classic example of a slut. She doesn't have to have gangbangs with 100 men to qualify as one. It is her genuine celebration and loving of animal sexuality.

Stacy Valentine is another slut who proudly embraces the organic founcation of raw sexuaity. What the critics call exploitive, animalistic and mechanical we call the proud and unhibited celebration of the carnal spirit.

The carnal sprit has its own identity and can be celebrated in its very own identity.

[Link]

Huggins293
Member

608 Posts
5/04

Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 1:20PM

Nasty sex in my definition deals with primal passion. You are making a brutaly false assumption that a man giving facials is trying to insult the women. Although I hate most facials the facials I do like accentuate her sexual prowess in a beautiful light. Cum shots on the chin or breats is the final extension of exuding her sexuality rather than some demonic way of insulting her. However, I do agree most facials are asthetically unappealing, but I think most 70 year olds having sex would be asthetically unappealing. I would find it ignorant to consider this nasty in a moral context.

[Link]

Huggins293
Member

608 Posts
5/04

Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 1:28PM

I don't neccessarily equate fast and aggressive sex with mistreating a women. There is nothing wrong with aggressive sex in a polished manner. Randy Spears is the perrect balance between powefucking and slowing it down. In my opinion the exterem loving sex movies where the guy moves like a snail totally ignores the animal and passion part of sexuality. The extreme raincoater titles are so unpolished and it looks like the guy is trying to over do it. Vivid, JKP, Elgant Angel, Adama and Eve balance the polished and the primal aspects of our sexual reality. I think that is where most women are at. I don't think every women wants only a guy to pump her 5 miles per hour. I don't think every women wants a guy to fuck her like Rocco S. I think they want both worlds.

Porn that has slow polished foreplay as well as powefucking by both genders represents real sexuality.

[Link]

neondon
Member

134 Posts
5/04

Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 5:46PM

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Link]

DenverDon
Benevolent

Firmly Embedded in Depravity
5914 Posts
7/02

Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 7:29PM

Note to Huggins:

It's great to use the 'qoute' function, but please include who it is you are quoting. You only did it on your last post. This is especially true when the thread that you are resurrecting started two years ago.

Then one wouldn't need to scroll back and forth, or go from page to page, to see who is being quoted.

Thanks.

Edited by - DenverDon on 7/13/2004 7:29:18 PM

[Link]

Em
Member

198 Posts
4/04

Posted - Jul 13 2004 : 7:59PM

Hello Lindi,

I am one of those who can't stand a male in their porn. It needn't have any antagonistic background. We come for what we like (or love, or are fascinated with), and we buy what we like. What is the other choice - should we buy all kinds of porn in the name of equality? In my humble opinion, it is a simple question of preference.

And then there is a problem of false advertising. If a film is advertised as girl-girl, anger is a normal reaction when the movie features a guy.

To like A does not imply that you must at the same time hate B. For most of us it means that if we want A, it is A we want, and not a mixture of A, B, C, and D. Those we leave for those who enjoy A, B, C and D together, as well as those who prefer B, C and D separately, or in any combination :)

Edited by - Em on 7/13/2004 7:59:34 PM

[Link]

RobHammer
Independent Producer

San Jose, CA
444 Posts
4/03

Posted - Jul 15 2004 : 2:47AM

Hello Em,

What if it's E that we want, and no one's making it? Then what?

Rob

(Must be the beer buzz...shakes head...)

[Link]

Loraine
Senior Member

1559 Posts
3/04

Posted - Jul 15 2004 : 7:54AM

Rob, E's are illegal.

[Link]

BustdownGal
Member

539 Posts
7/06

Posted - Mar 19 2007 : 10:29PM

is this adultdvdtalk or sociology class?

[Link]

Loraine
Senior Member

1559 Posts
3/04

Posted - Mar 20 2007 : 7:10AM

...just going back to a time when more than the size of a girl's assgape or cum snorting technique was sometimes discussed.

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Mar 21 2007 : 1:27AM

Geez, Loraine -- you're such a reactionary!

[Link]

Loraine
Senior Member

1559 Posts
3/04

Posted - Mar 21 2007 : 8:26AM

Shaddup or I'll dupe you - repeatedly.Hard.

[Link]

Loraine
Senior Member

1559 Posts
3/04

Posted - Mar 21 2007 : 8:32AM

Huggins293 wrote:

I have to admit to enjoying the curly logic here...and I'm sure that a porn starlet would be crushed to be thought of as a slut by a fanboy...crushed and mortified.

[Link]

licker
Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
1141 Posts
8/03

Posted - Mar 22 2007 : 5:18AM

Thanks to whoever bumped this. I really enjoy hearing SueR's ideas. I once spent hours reading her old posts. It's a pity she doesn't participate here any more.

[Link]

Loraine
Senior Member

1559 Posts
3/04

Posted - Mar 22 2007 : 6:32AM

I have loved her posts since I first started reading here what feels like many moons ago, and lindi and renee and the classic dumblonde.

[Link]

Corben99
Member

Deep South Texas
146 Posts
11/06

Posted - Mar 22 2007 : 7:16AM

Hey I used to watch porn as a learning tool back in the 80's and 90's.

Ron Jeremy taught me how to fuck a girl upside in an anal piledriver, because the flow of gravity keeps her poop inside. So it's a better position for it.

Tom Byron taught me not to touch my dick, or even go near it unless I had to pee, or wash it, for weeks till I was ready for sex. ( builds up your stamina.)

Peter North taught me how to shoot cum. What to aim for, and how far. And even to pump a girl a good extra 5 to 10 minutes after ejaculating.

Marc Wallice showed me that a curved dick is not a bad thing. That some girls actually like that.

Christy Canyon and Teri Weigel set the bar, for what kinds of girls to look for. A hot brunette with big tits and a real screamer in the sack. ( I like blondes too.)

But that was before all this Gonzo shit. But I agree with you on the modern porn movies. (they do not teach anything, anymore) But go back to the Golden Age, and you'll see alot of educational stuff.

[Link]

Freddy and Eddy
Member

37 Posts
3/07

Posted - Mar 22 2007 : 12:40PM

First, it's ingenuine to lay a post on this topic at the feet of women. The vast majority of objections to porn (and legislation and prosecutions) are initiated by MEN. It's the Tom Delays, James Dobsons, and Rush Limbaughs of the world who lead the charge against pornography (and SEX in general). Notice the main common thread among them? Religion. And its crazy crusade against anything that's pleasurable. Alcohol? Nope. Drugs? Nope. Gambling? Nope. Sex? Absolutely not. The anti porn crowd are primarily a bunch of DUDES who didn't get any tang growing up and are trying to make sure we don't get any now (except that they ARE watching porn and engaging in all kinds of perverted shenanigans in secret - Ted Haggard, Swaggart, Gingrich, etc.). Shit, most women don't have a clue what's going on in porn. Ask any woman walking down the street what ATM is and they'll lead you to the nearest cash machine.

That's why the main weapon used to defend ourselves is the Freedom of Speech argument. As long as you stay within the law, you're FREE to watch - or not watch - whatever you want. It's certainly not a bunch of sexually repressed chicks in Congress and churches trying to ban porn. You can't dupe someone who doesn't have any idea there's even an issue.

[Link]

seedless
Member

by the lake
13 Posts
12/03

Posted - Mar 22 2007 : 2:12PM

I read somewhere that men are more visual and women are more intellectual when it comes to sex. My wife is a perfect example. If you were to give her a choice of a porn flick or reading a porn short stories forum she would go for the stories most every time.

[Link]

BustdownGal
Member

539 Posts
7/06

Posted - Mar 23 2007 : 12:16PM

Hey seedless, here's a thread by this same poster on the very issue of the myth of women being less visually stimulated.

Lie #247

Edited by - BustdownGal on 3/23/2007 12:17:14 PM

[Link]

cobalt60
Knuckle Dragger

2046 Posts
2/03

Posted - Mar 23 2007 : 1:18PM

Same here, and expanded upon in the thread BDG linked to.

[Link]

Bob

All-Star Member

5516 Posts
3/03

Posted - Mar 23 2007 : 2:35PM

My wife would always choose the stories (although she doesn't choose them often).

[Link]

Freddy and Eddy
Member

37 Posts
3/07

Posted - Mar 23 2007 : 2:42PM

After watching so much bad porn, the stories are a refreshing change.

[Link]

BustdownGal
Member

539 Posts
7/06

Posted - Mar 28 2007 : 7:13PM

reading = visual

[Link]

licker
Senior Member

Heretic, Iconoclast, Skeptic
1141 Posts
8/03

Posted - Mar 28 2007 : 10:07PM

IMHO reading <> visual;

[Link]

Freddy and Eddy
Member

37 Posts
3/07

Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 12:46AM

This may be true, but it's certainly not the whole story. BOTH of us like to watch porn when it's done WELL. Shitty gonzo and gaping assholes don't appeal to either of us, but a movie like Wicked's "Manhunters" or Pulse's "Blacklight Beauty" appeal to both of us equally. Maybe women aren't less visual at all, but simply more cerebral and discriminating ABOUT their visuals. Is it so bad to want to watch sex with some semblance of BELIEVABILITY? Or in a situation that MAKES even the slightest sense? Or with cinematography standards ABOVE a handheld camera in the middle of a parking lot or rented house? Or music that doesn't sound like it came from a Costco keyboard?

The fact that many men can sit and watch anal fuck fests with barely 18 women getting pounded by unattractive, giant cock wielding doofuses is more proof that these males are unevolved simpletons (and misogynistic) - NOT that they're more "visual." What a total crock. Does the fact that gay male porn enjoys robust sales among straight women tell us women are less visual than males?

The fact is, men masturbate like crazy from 12 years old and up and are driven to ejaculate thousands of times in their lives, as opposed to the relatively economical cycles of women, whose childbearing years are limited to fertility availability only one day per month. Men just want to come all day long and porn helps them do so; women like to have sex, but are just a bit more discriminating and more likely to enjoy it with a partner rather than a crappily made porn flick that isn't produced for her anyway.

Outside of Candida Royale and a few lezbos, who's really making an honest attempt to reach the female audience - especially knowing the general perception among females is that of an industry bent on ratcheting up ever more extreme and degrading sexual barbarity? With women who look and act nothing like them? Forget it. Isn't going to happen - maybe not in our lifetimes. As long as the industry is dominated by men - and women who've been mentored by these same men - women will always be wary and reluctant to fire up the DVD player with porn. They're not being duped - they've got it totally right and the joke's on us.

[Link]

BustdownGal
Member

539 Posts
7/06

Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 1:27PM

excellent post FreddyEddy, but as we female posters on ADT show over and over, once a woman is into porn, our tastes are as varied as men's.

Because of our culture, there isn't really a stereotype of the woman who loves porn. That's why it's hard to "imagine". But it isn't hard to see. We are here. We are varied. We love watching people have sex. We are the women you see in your porn store, both in the porn room and behind the counter. We are the women you see in your porn. We are the women you don't see, but are in your porn. Holding boom mics. Running cameras. Directing. Editing. Writing code. And of course, most of us you don't see.

I don't think there's any particular way to "appeal to women" with porn. For every woman who's into Candida Royalle or SIR Video, there is another woman who hates that and prefers Joey Silvera or Max Hardcore. And another who hates all those and prefers only Japanese bukkake.

Yes, I want BELIEVABILITY. But what's believable to each of us is different. I'm loud. I squirt. And I love to get stupid when I have sex. So I really enjoy seeing that in porn. Other people who may be more reserved, may prefer to see a more reserved performance. I know what I like, so I focus on choosing that when I buy/rent. I don't focus on the stuff I don't like. I just skip it. There's too much porn to choose from to expend any energy on that which I don't like. I have found my veins of gold in the mountain, and I'm following them.

[Link]

Freddy and Eddy
Member

37 Posts
3/07

Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 2:02PM

Ah, ILMR, if only the percentage of women like you in this world weren't so small. Sigh.

Granted, we agree with your points; however, think about the percentage of women here in ADT as opposed to men. What, about 10-1? 20-1? Over in our own forums, women actually outnumber men, so we're inclined to believe that, while our site clearly shows equal SEXUAL interest - maybe even more among women - the imbalance HERE shows that the vast majority of the fairer sex have yet to embrace pornography or else you'd see more women contributing.

Like you, we also squirt, get loud, and love to practice some BDSM in our own marriage - at 19 years and counting - but watching a hot young woman thrown around by an old pig like Max Hardcore is neither believable nor sexually stimulating. That's not to say we sit around and watch Candida Royale or Playboy videos - we'll take Fashionistas, Flesh Hunter 4, and Island Fever 2 any day of the week - but for us there has to be at least a belief that the performers are enjoying themselves.

BUT, we think it's cool that you like Max - that's what freedom of speech is all about, right? And we hope you're just one of a new wave of female viewers who will approach porn with a more open attitude (though we're not optimistic based on the majority of what we see being churned out these days).

[Link]

BustdownGal
Member

539 Posts
7/06

Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 2:02PM

reading is visual. Ask a blind person.

Imagining scenarios in your head while you read = visual.

Porn pictures are not the only form of visual stimulation. That's why I don't believe "Lie 247" about women not being visually stimulated. Not only is there scientific evidence to the contrary, but it's wrong just by common sense. Just like men may have fetishes for the sight boobs, legs or ass, women may have fetishes for lingerie, hard dicks or 6-pack abs. Or expensive cars. Or guys with dogs. Or Adrien Brody.

I think any general differences between genders in the desire to see porn may have more to do with how accustomed the genders are to seeing porn. Which is the original poster's point. Men generally may be exposed to porn earlier in life, and therefore are less shocked when encountering it throughout life. But I've seen for myself once a woman who is not used to seeing real people having sex gets to see real people having sex (whether live or on DVD), she begins to develop her own taste for what she wants to see. Or...sometimes it's too late. Having your first porn experience being at 25 finding "White Grrlz with Big Asses 6" in your boyfriend's DVD player is a feeling laced with jealousy. That's different than finding that a porno tape in your parents' VCR at 13. Everyone's circumstance is different.

Another gender difference is the whole body esteem thing. Women who I've personally introduced porn to have a surprising pattern of noticing things like zits, stretch marks or misshapen tan lines. Things I never notice. But it makes sense because women watching only mainstream media are unaccustomed to seeing real bodies up close. They only see women with expensive hairdos and lots of TV makeup. Pornstars may start with these things, but they always melt away when the reality of hot fucking sets in. And I've had friends who "lose their mood" when they're new to porn because they're so busy noticing ass freckles or pussy juice or queefs. They're not accustomed to viewing these realities of sex onscreen.

So should porndom be more like Hollywood and hide these little realities? More hours in the make-up chair? More editing out of leaks and queefs? Would that make the sex more "believable" or would it just make it more "palatable"?

[Link]

lindi
Senior Member

12345
3205 Posts
9/02

Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 3:39PM

Yes!

[Link]

BustdownGal
Member

539 Posts
7/06

Posted - Mar 29 2007 : 6:16PM

FreddyEddy: I'm BustdownGal. ILMR is the original poster from 2002.

What's your website btw?

Yes, I totally understand the percentages. Yes, more porn is bought by men than women. But let's remember that percentage points represent *millions*. If millions of us are buying, then there must be something in the current porn trends that is working for women.

Even for a guy like Max, there must be women who like that because he has performers who work with him over and over. I'd say they represent the vein of women who like being dommed in that way.

[Link]