Porn Perspectives

A more chaste porn star

First of all, I want to make clear that Jenna Jameson did a knock-out performance on Oprah in November. Like, perfect 10. Her publicist and speaking coach must've worked overtime, but Jenna said all the perfect things you want a porn start to say on Oprah. (It's not that I think her words are untrue; her level of self-awareness and eloquence was just off the charts higher than anything I'd seen from her before.) If you missed it, check out this play by play.

Ok, so that glowing review aside, I did take exception to one part of the interview where Jenna claims she's not like "other women" who have lots of partners and are called sluts/whores. According to Jameson, because her primary partner on camera was her husband, she's somehow more chaste (my word). Take a peek:

Look, the world's biggest porn star DOES NOT need to defend her chastity. No woman does, but particularly a woman whose sexual performances have made her a millionaire and a global brand. Like, whatever you did, you did good. Also? You got paid to have sex--to most people keeping tabs on the morality scale, that's a big no-no.

My issue is that Jenna is separating herself from "others" who (she implies) ARE deservedly called sluts. That's unkind to her fellow ladies of the set. Most women in porn are honest ladies who just want to make a buck--they don't deserve scorn for violating some outdated notion that women should retain their purity. Not everyone finesses a porn career having sex with as few partners as Jameson. Jenna really set a new paradigm in her career, but it isn't helpful for her to then separate herself as somehow more "pure" and "chaste" than other porn stars. 

Prediction: in the next few years we'll see a move away from women's liberation-via-girl's-gone-wild (and the ancillary strip pole dancing classes), towards reclaimed chastity. Seriously, not having sex will be the new hot thing.

You don't have to be slutty just because you watch porn

The phemonenon of women watching and enjoying porn is growing. Everywhere, including Idaho. Trust me on that. The phenomenon of women talking about how they watch and enjoy porn is also taking hold--though this time it's mostly limited to liberal enclaves and major cities. But still, it's a start.

I've noticed an interesting dynamic start taking place among these women who talk about porn. A man watching porn is just doing what men are assumed to do. No biggie. But for a woman to watch porn, and then tell people is a radical revelation, and people assume she somehow acts like the women in the porn movies.

It's happened to me a few times - people I meet are aware of this blog and my area of study. When I mentinon that I advocate sexual conservatism I get looks of shock. "Don't you think that's kind of incompatible?" they ask. 

Of course not! Watching porn is about entertainment. On a cerebral level, it's accepting that everyone is a sexual creature, and sex can be a creative (if efficacious) sexual outlet. Not sleeping around is a personal decision based on real life experience and a sense of one's own personal values for behavior in the real world. Totally different.

I suppose it doesn't help the case that many of the biggest women's porn advocates--Tristan Taormino, Violet Blue, Nina Hartley, Sasha Grey--also broadcast a libertine sense of sexuality. I can see how people could conflate personal sexual practices with porn viewing practice.

But I am here to tell you, dear readers, that they are NOT the same thing! You can both watch porn and exist in a monogamous relationship. You can both watch porn and not sleep with someone on the first date. You can both watch porn and not like backdoor sex. In fact, watching porn may help you hold your ground under pressure--you get to indulge your wildest fantasy while still maintaining your personal values

The Dirty Truth Behind 'Playgirl'

I wonder where he gets his hair done...

One of the most articulate pieces from the editors at now-defunct Playgirl magazine appeared this week on TheAwl.com. Jessanne Collins begins the piece addressing controversy over the softcore subscription website operating under the Playgirl name's decision to feature Levi Johnston (Sarah Palin's would-be son in law). That part is boring, but what Collins really is interested in is defending attackers of Playgirl who allege the magainze's editorial staff was out of touch with women's desires, and furthermore ignored its much more loyal gay audience.

According to Collins, the editors of Playgirl didn't actually have control over the publication. Its parent company Trans Digital Media, had a stranglehold on the content, and THEY were the ones out of touch:

The men in the boardroom had no idea how to market or appeal to either women or gay men—never mind to both at the same time, an unattainable magic act, in my opinion, but one the company insisted on attempting for years. The tragicomedy of Playgirl's particular aesthetic failure starts to make a lot of sense if you consider that it wasn't constructed by anyone who professed actual physical interest in the male physique. If would-be Fabios were standard, that's because "musclebound with a ridiculous mane" is a comfortable caricature of what women find sexually attractive as doodled in the minds of out-of-touch old dudes. 

Collins bemoans all that Playgirl could have been, if only the editors had had the freedom to explore female sexual desire.

My colleagues and I wished we could've made something relevant and fresh out of the troubled, tousled remnants of what had once been one of the world's most unique and successful magazines for women. I don't know if we would have succeeded—we never got the chance to find out—but in its last few months, despite the brewing recession, Playgirl was actually seeing an increase in newsstand sales.

The piece didn't strike me as scapegoating. Collins has a plausible argument, and seems to have a firm grasp on the potential of the magazine. Given the behind the scenes dynamics, I'm glad Playgirl folded; now we need a new generation to fill the void with a kick-ass "mainstream" publication (online or otherwise) which fulfills the original Playgirl mission.

via www.theawl.com

Oprah Says You Can Watch Porn

Check out Oprah and Dr Laura Berman (Oprah's go-to therapist) talk to a woman about watching porn. It's clear Oprah isn't totally on board the porn train, but at least she's open.

I think this is good advice.

Watch here

Squirt Ban in UK

Apparently UK porn films must undergo approval by a group called the British Board of Film Classification. I can only imagine a row of grey-haired Brits staring down their noses at raunchy movies - I'm shocked anything makes it past them.

Films depicting female ejaculation had been banned by this board, a decision which was recently overturned thanks to the lobbying efforts of female porn director Anna Span.

Ms. Span

While the question of female ejaculation is mildly controversial--what is it anyway? is it pee? do regular women do this?--one must admit there's a massive double standard in place when male ejaculation is (literally) all over the place in porn films. 

So kudos to Anna Span. I'll have to check out her films.

You can read more about this issue here. There are some freaky new-age books about "divine nectar" from which I'd steer clear. Many resources about female ejaculation are available, should you want to investigate. Word of caution: female ejaculation is apparently much more, uh, copious (i.e., messy) than the male version.

Women Moving In

While the porn industry suffers from the same recessionary trends impacting the rest of the country, many porn companies who once could count on easy profits are having a tough time. Sales are down, and customers are turning to free content available online.

Some argue that this downturn will result in a return to quality in porn. Customers can get junky content for free online, so why would they pay for it? Instead, producers will need to present a product worth paying for. I've argued that women in particular understand this market for quality content. Supporting this claim, Good Releasing, sister to novelty toy company Good Vibrations (started in the 1970s and oriented towards female consumers), has announced a three new video production lines: Reel Queer Productions, HeartCore Productions and the PleasureEd Series.

According to Good Vibrations COO Jackie Strano, Good Releasing will feature quality content and leverage the expertise of legend Carol Queen, PhD. According to Strano:

“Good Releasing's titles showcase authentic and hot adult entertainment full of helpful information, lustful and unabashed sexualities, unapologetic desire, genuine pleasure, and screen burning chemistry.”

She added:

"Our films will offer viewers’ a unique selection of wide-ranging topics that provide open-minded information for a diverse audience, with special emphasis placed on mutual respect, enthusiastic participation and pleasure.”

I wouldn't be surprised if we saw more women using the economic downtown as an opportunity to launch new ventures and introduce novel, high-quality content to the market. Now's a great time to get started.

Turning to Sexwork to Pay the Bills

According to Salon, women are increasingly turning to sex in order to make end's meet during the recession. While the idea of a hardworking woman stripping to pay off student loans or put food on the table is titillating, the reality isn't so cheery.

My hunch is that a lot of women who might consider dipping their toes into sex work will retreat quickly once they realize that this isn't for them. Some may have a tougher time getting out. Others may realize they've found their calling.

The dynamic of exploring porn during times of desperation underscores one of my central concerns around pornography. The industry is a "last resort" for some young women who run out of options. It's a way for a woman with few skills, no prospects, or no education to make decent money. As a result, it tends to attract women with few skills, no prospects, and no education. This in itself is not necessarily a problem.

There is a problem, however. Pornography does not create the situation women find themselves in, but it can worsen the situation for unsavvy ladies. Young women who may not have the life experience or perspective to understand what it means to indelibly document herself in a sexual context are given the opportunity to do just that. And there's no going back. This is where self-advocacy and mentorship within the industry are crucial. Knowledge is power!

The Increasing Female Audience

Violet Blue, who was one of the earliest porn bloggers and reviewers (check out her blog, TinyNibbles), reports on Oprah.com that women are becoming an increasingly large segment of the porn market. This trend is a longtime coming, but it's good news nonetheless.

I agree with Violet's claim that poor quality and social stigma are the largest detractors for potential female customers. Body image issues are also a detractor. At least some producers recognize the need to listen to their market (a novel concept to some in the industry):

Though I've sometimes felt that my job as a porn reviewer (for Web sites like FleshBot.com) is akin to being a canary in a bad-taste boys' club mine shaft, I've seen a change in quality in the past few years that I think is a direct reflection of the growing female audience. As more discriminating viewers, we've demanded better porn -- and lo, it is being made.

As the porn industry suffers at the hands of free Internet content and customer ADD, finding and appealing to new markets will be the key to survival. For too long, it has been easy to make money churning out low-quality content, since consumers had few alternatives and tended to buy whatever was available. I foresee a shift towards quality and consumer targeting, and women--those age-old consumer behemoths--will be the savior of many porn companies.

Unraveling the Eternal Mystery of Women

 

A fascinating article in Sunday's Times discussed a number of research efforts attempting to define female desire. The whole article is worth a read, but I've pulled out a few provocative insights for your consideration.

A Canadian researcher conducted an experiment where she measured physical (genital) response to sexual materials, and also asked participants to consciously report their arousal level. The stimuli included hetero sex, homosexual male and homosexual female sex, a man masturbating, a woman masturbating, a naked man walking, and a naked woman exercising. She also showed a video of bonobo monkeys copulating.

The male participants reacted true to form - the straight men were aroused when watching hetero sex, lesbian sex, and the naked women. Gay men preferred the gay sex and naked men. Neither group of men was interested in the monkey sex.

The story was quite different for women - they were aroused across the board (including monkey sex), but only genitally. Mentally, they reported arousal in accordance with sexual orientation. Also worth noting is the women were more aroused at the sight of the exercising woman than with the naked walking man.

One explanation could be that women are simply out of touch with their true desires. But according to this explanation, women want to have sex with bonobos. This was unlikely, so the researcher's tentative conclusion was that in terms of evolution, it made sense for women's vaginas to lubricate in response to any sort of sexual stimulation. It makes sex possible and less painful.

Another explanation is that female sexuality is reactive, while male sexuality is aggressive and direct. Evolution wouldn't want two motivational forces - complementary forces would be more stable and productive. This could have something to do with the strong role that being desired plays in female sexuality. This would also help us understand the issues some young, "liberated" women face today of not being able to say no to boys (it's hard to say no when you're not sure what it is you really want) - I'll write more on this in my next post.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of women having a passive/receptive sexuality, but I am compelled by the notion that women are able to react to a wide variety of sexual stimuli. This creates a much more fluid sexuality, which, on the downside is hard to pin down, but also has the benefit of being hard to pin down. Categories aren't sexy - mystery is. How delightful women's infinite complexity is - we never have to explain ourselves when we're weirdly attracted to a pair of shoes or a tall building or the metering light pattern on the Bay Bridge (uhm..).

Another interesting insight, related to the above. If the feeling of being desired is central to women's sexuality, then what happens when women enter monogamous relationships?

Another researcher who works with women suffering from dyspareunia (vaginal pain during sex), as well as women experiencing loss of desire. Loss of desire is much more common among married women than married men; additionally, women tend to have a lower libido. This means women need a lot more stimulation to spark desire. And if we accept the premise that being desired is important to women, then monogamy necessarily kills desire. Husbands have no choice than to have sex with their wives. So no matter how he may try to dress it up, she knows that she is his only option; his sexual pursuit of her is not completely inspired by her ravishing beauty.

I'm not saying that this explanation is widely applicable, or even true - but it is an interesting development in the study of female desire. Aspects of this research are well worth consideration.

Really, I urge you to read the full article. There's tons more material there, including a shockingly provocative discussion of female rape fantasies which would have landed the writer and researchers in major hot water among the feminist community 10 years ago (and maybe still today?).

Magazine Review: Scarlet

A reader had alerted me to the existence of the British magazine Scarlet some time ago, but because it is not sold in the US, I didn’t feel I had enough information to form an opinion on it (content available online is limited). The concept behind “The Magazine That Turns Women On” is a sex-positive, pro-woman magazine tame enough to be sold in the drugstore, but naughty enough to transcend Cosmo’s “50 secrets to driving your man wild”.

 

I recently spent a few days in London, and my first purchase upon arrival was Scarlet. I paged through it at a coffeeshop, and I’m pleased to say we’ve got ourselves a winner. My initial skepticism that the magazine would be condescending, self-congratulatory, tasteless, or narrow-minded was unfounded.

 

Increasing people’s comfort with sex—particular female sexuality—is key in producing an open, accepting society. Magazines like Scarlet which discuss graphic sexual details the same way one might describe a trip to the grocery store is a huge step towards increasing comfort levels.

 

In addition to a delightful section entitled “Cliterature” (oh, how I never get enough of sexual puns!), the magazine includes several short features about the sexual adventures of its staff writers. Most features are accompanied by photos of these women, and it’s both surprising and heartening to see how average they look. They are exactly the average, pasty, size 12, thirtysomething women with stringy hair you would imagine actually write for a women’s magazine (Hollywood movie casting notwithstanding).

One feature describes the writer’s vacation to a Swinger’s colony:

 

“Meanwhile, I sucked Greg off so hard that I thought my vocal chords might rip. Eventually I turned around and let him fuck me from behind while a row of guys lined up in front of me, all waiting to be sucked off.”

 

What an icebreaker—don’t you just wish all soccer moms were exposed to this type of writing regularly? We might not be having this Sarah Palin problem if they did…

 

Other things I like about Scarlet:

 

• The erotic stories in the Cliterature section all make an effort to eroticize condom usage, so points for that.
• The magazine is sprinkled with ads and reviews for sex toys, which is convenient for women (who, by the by, comprise the vase majority of the sex toy market)
• The advertisements are amazing. Gorgeous lingerie and corsets abound; it’s highly motivating, and let me say that it’s never a bad thing for a woman to invest in gorgeous lingerie.
• Readers are not treated as one-dimensional sex fiends, as indicated by features on non-sex-related topics like interesting historical figures, music, and well-designed office supplies (ok, so maybe that’s a bit sexual).

 

In sum, I highly recommend this magazine to readers on their next layover in London. You can get it at the airport (!).