quote:Originally posted by Rixel: Just out of curiousity, do you object to playboy magazine?
Legally, I don't object to ANY porn that was made with the consent of all involved, who are all over the age of 18. Morally, I object to porn that contains violence or humiliation to either party. (However, BDSM is a bit of a slippery slope for me. I'm not against it as a whole, but it would depend on how it was portrayed.) To be honest, I've never read Playboy Magazine, but from what I hear it is supposed to be a more tasteful celebration of nudity than, say, something called "Cum Guzzling Sluts". So no, I do not object to it.
-------------------- "For me, religion is like a rhinoceros: I don't have one, and I'd really prefer not to be trampled by yours. But it is impressive, and even beautiful, and, to be honest, the world would be slightly worse off if there weren't any." -Silas Sparkhammer Posts: 3239 | From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
-------------------- When p.c. actions become so inane they're absurd, my opinions won't be far behind. Posts: 102 | From: Regina, SK, Canada | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
The passage I was refering to was talking about how the only way to stop rape, (etc) would be to over turn the patriarchy and replace it with a matriarchy, because research showed that those crimes didn't happen in those types of socities
-------------------- WARNING The message above may have statements that only make sense in this user's mind.
Read at your own risk. Posts: 667 | From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, no one can find historical evidence of matriarchal societies, let alone statistics that rape "doesn't happen" in these hypothetical societies.
-------------------- "There is no constitutional right to sleep with endangered reptiles." -- Carl Hiaasen Won't somebody please think of the adults! Posts: 8254 | From: Florida | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm a 20 year old Feminist. I read through all the replies. I always find it frusturating when people talk about feminism as if its about women creating a matriarchy, and then proceed to point out examples of radical or extreme feminists. Adding to this, there are countless different kinds of feminisms, and a great many different definitions and opinions within feminism. I've spent my last three years in the feminist community and have never met any of these man-hating feminists. I work in a feminist collective at a women's centre, and I am a women's studies major. The women I work with and go to school with all want the same thing: equality with men. Equality for men, women, trans people, gay, straight, bi, black, white, etc, etc.
I recently wrote a paper on feminist pornography and came across some great alt porn links. There was a recent documentary I would love to see but hasn't been released widely yet. And there's an interesting 'documentary' called "The East Van Porn Collective".
Feminist pornograhy, to me, and other women I have talked to is about equality in porn. Mainstream porn is not aimed at women. The shots in it are aimed at men, so while it may not be overtly degrading, it is very unapealing for women. It's uncommon for porn to have authentic pleasure for women. Feminist porn is about everyone involved enjoying themselves genuinly, essentially about everyone having fun and actually getting off. More real people. Porn that includes feminist values and challenges stereotypes.
Although most psychological research fails to consider that women too may enjoy porn, the idea is beginning to be more and more recognized. Karen Ciclitira conducted a study in 2004 interviewing women, many of whom considered themselves feminist, to explore women's experiences and views of pornography. Many of the women interviewed cited Dworkin's work as having a more powerful effect on their opinions then the pornography itself. Dworkin maintains that sexual desire is an expression of irrational and unconscious wishes that we can have no control over. Some women explained how they felt Dworkin and other anti-porn activists simplified the complexities of the debate, citing their own changing positions of pornography as evidence of these complications. Others reported how the anti-porn views made them question their identification as feminists. Nine of thirty-four women noted their conflicts between these views and their enjoyment of pornography and sometimes their enjoyment of sex. Some women discussed how they still enjoyed porn despite disagreeing with it politically. Discouraged by the lack of alternatives to mainstream porn and the nature of what is available, some women still view what is only accessible. The bind of the rigid definition of feminism and pornography makes women feel as though they are both oppressed and the oppressor.It's clear that porn is here to stay so feminsit porn is a form of activism. One thing that most feminists do seem to agree with when it comes to sex work is that the problem is patriarchy. Some would argue that decriminalization is just another way for a male-dominated society to take control of the situation of prostitutes, who are for the most part, women. To quote Audre Lorde, "The master's tools will never dismantle the master's house". However, I think many of us have learned that sometimes you have to use the tools that are available to you to begin to make changes.
(Woo, that was long. I used some quotes from my paper which was entitled, "Feminist Activism in Sex Work".)
In the same study the issue of classist and racist implications was brought forward. One woman, a former sex worker who is black, discussed how this anti-porn definition of feminism caused her difficulties. She uses Alice Walker's term, Womanist, because she wants to align with women's issues, but feels that feminism is too dogmatic to represent her views. As a sex worker, feminists marching against pornography were not helping her situation. Race and class have been all but ignored and unacknowledged by feminists working to abolish pornography. By paying attention to the intersections of race, class, porn, and sex work, feminists can understand that censorship is not the answer, and does nothing for sex worker's conditions.
One of the main feminist critiques of sex work is the objectification of women. Objectification means the treatment of one person as an object, and not as a human being, by another person. Because women are arguably seen only in terms of what pleases men, men are then seen as the subject while women are the object. Because I am speaking of women who have entered sex work by choice, the question is can one make themselves the object if they are conscious of this process? By which I mean can a woman make a free choice to objectify herself? Since it seems that many feminists argue that women have no agency when it comes to sex work, I have to wonder what the argument becomes when the sex workers are free-willed, educated feminists, who fight for their rights and are aware of the idea of sexual objectification. The situation becomes a very slippery slope, and there is no easy answer. If you can consciously make yourself the object, does that not give you subjectivity, rather then objectivity?
Adding to the already confusing situation, the idea of what objectification is has become cloudy. Most would say objectification is equivalent to dehumanization. But in light of female sexuality becoming more visible, some feminists realize that maybe objectification is not inherently bad, claiming that most people objectify their partners in intimate relationships at least some of the time. As Betty Rollin said, "Scratch most feminists and underneath there is a woman who longs to be a sex object. The difference is that is not all she longs to be."
-------------------- I am the snake. Bite, bite, bite. Posts: 247 | From: Winnipeg, Canada | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
...so what you're saying is; not one really knows what feminism means? they think they do and they fight issues using words like 'sex object' or 'womenist' even through, judging from your post, no one really knows what the whole ideal is? It seems to me that Feminism is like the church, it's broken into many 'sects' of it's self, each with it's own, unique view.
-------------------- WARNING The message above may have statements that only make sense in this user's mind.
Read at your own risk. Posts: 667 | From: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Firestorm=MX+b: ...so what you're saying is; not one really knows what feminism means? they think they do and they fight issues using words like 'sex object' or 'womenist' even through, judging from your post, no one really knows what the whole ideal is? It seems to me that Feminism is like the church, it's broken into many 'sects' of it's self, each with it's own, unique view.
The last part is pretty close to what I think about it. It's a school of thought, a philosophy, and it is as diverse as most schools of thought are. Generally, they share a common goal (roughly and quickly stated, equal rights for women) but disagree about how to get there.
It's a somewhat baseless theory on my part, but I think that many people who claim not to be feminists but do want equal rights for women do so because of uncertainty about what the word means. Or because they view "feminism" in general as only applying to certain styles of feminism, which they do not agree with. Just a thought.
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's uncommon for porn to have authentic pleasure for women. Feminist porn is about everyone involved enjoying themselves genuinly, essentially about everyone having fun and actually getting off...
I've never understood the problem with the above. It's a movie, the women involved are actresses. Nobody complains when things are faked in "regular," non-pornographic movies: in fact, so many things are "fake" in your average movie that it's hard to even begin listing examples. I mean, in most softcore porn it's all fake, no one is really having any pleasure at all. They're just acting. Why does that have to change when it becomes hardcore?
Sure, I understood why people might like porn more if it's real rather than fake (by simply finding it more arousing), but other than that, I don't get the problem.
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference, though, between an actress who really seems to be enjoying herself (even if it's just acting) and an actress who doesn't seem into it. There's also a difference between giggling and foreplay and a-good-time-being-had-by-all, and wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am. Porn seems very full of the second kind, and not so much of the first.
From what I hear. I honestly read most of my pr0n. It just tends to be very badly written.
quote: Nobody complains when things are faked in "regular," non-pornographic movies: in fact, so many things are "fake" in your average movie that it's hard to even begin listing examples.
Oh, but you are wrong...plenty of people complain about things that are faked in non-pornographic movies. That's the stuff that critics make their money from.
Lots of traditional porn portrays women enjoying things that real women often don't enjoy (or at least don't enjoy as much as the films imply).
Alternative (feminist) forms of porn recognize and deal with this issue by including real turn-ons for women.
It's not about real vs fake, it's about believable vs not believable.
Edited to add quote.
-------------------- "But I'm adding this to my reasons why I never really liked really good looking men much. Sheesh, what good is good looking if you have to stuff a sock in his mouth." - Sara at home NFBSK, IIRC and other mysterious Snopester language Posts: 851 | From: Indiana | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Nobody complains when things are faked in "regular," non-pornographic movies: in fact, so many things are "fake" in your average movie that it's hard to even begin listing examples.
Oh, but you are wrong...plenty of people complain about things that are faked in non-pornographic movies. That's the stuff that critics make their money from.
Lots of traditional porn portrays women enjoying things that real women often don't enjoy (or at least don't enjoy as much as the films imply).
Alternative (feminist) forms of porn recognize and deal with this issue by including real turn-ons for women.
It's not about real vs fake, it's about believable vs not believable.
Edited to add quote.
Exactly, I think that sums it up really well.
And I think El Camino put it very well as well in regards to 'sects' of feminism. I would say, yes, it's true we're all working towards a common goal, but going about it different ways. I would say I belong to the mainstream feminist group. Most everyone I know shares my ideals, or very similar ideals. But we all try to respect what others think, when possible. And we all understand that we're striving towards equality.
When people ask me why feminism isn't called humanism, since what we want is equality for all, I say it's because women aren't equal to men. We have to make women, and other disadvantaged groups, equal to the privileged groups first.
-------------------- I am the snake. Bite, bite, bite. Posts: 247 | From: Winnipeg, Canada | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aimee Evilpixie: There's a difference, though, between an actress who really seems to be enjoying herself (even if it's just acting) and an actress who doesn't seem into it. There's also a difference between giggling and foreplay and a-good-time-being-had-by-all, and wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am. Porn seems very full of the second kind, and not so much of the first.
From what I hear. I honestly read most of my pr0n. It just tends to be very badly written.
Aimee "Learn to spell!" Evilpixie
[hijack] Did David Bowie come up with "Wham bam, thank you ma'am" or did he just use it in Suffragette City? Also, David Bowie is awesome. [/hijack]
Posts: 1048 | From: Brunswick, Maine | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wanderwoman: Lots of traditional porn portrays women enjoying things that real women often don't enjoy (or at least don't enjoy as much as the films imply).
Alternative (feminist) forms of porn recognize and deal with this issue by including real turn-ons for women.
I have an issue with the idea that porn can't be feminist if it "portrays women enjoying things that women often don't enjoy." It implies to me a majoritarian kind of rule; who decides that it'd be "unrealistic" for a woman to enjoy certain activities? For all practical purposes, everything dreamed up in porn has been enjoyed at some point by somebody, including women.
Frankly, it seems to me that trying to portray things that most women could approve of would result in a pretty standard format. It seems almost offensive to me that someone could claim to put forward "real turn-ons for women" and go unchallenged. Just because something is or is not a turn-on for you doesn't make it so for other women in the potential viewing audience.
I also think that this problem points out how nebulous and personal the idea of feminist porn is. It's just as complicated, if not more so, as the argument here over what is pornography. Ultimately, no matter how many theoretical and dictionary definitions are established, the decision on what falls into what category is going to be a personal one; that decision will likely be based more on gut feeling than analysis.
-------------------- "I never liked Hemingway." "I never liked you." Posts: 543 | From: Brooklyn, NY | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by El Camino: [hijack] Did David Bowie come up with "Wham bam, thank you ma'am" or did he just use it in Suffragette City? Also, David Bowie is awesome. [/hijack]
Dean Martin had a song by that name years before "Suffragette City," (around 1950) and I'm guessing the saying itself goes back even further.
-------------------- Another lifetime I'd have fallen in love with you Swept away by my feelings, ashamed and confused But just now it's enough to be walking with you Let the mystery play as it will! -Lui Collins Posts: 2669 | From: Jouy en Josas, France | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rixel: And Chloe, do you object to playboy?
Ah, but is Playboy considered porn? I think that in Spain, generally, it isn't.
Ah, that's what I'm interested in finding out though. If it isn't porn, that's fine, but is it erotica then? Also Because playboy displays women in their complete form and not just their individual parts and she truly looks like she's enjoying herself in the photo, couldn't an argument be made that playboy is truly a feminist porn mag?
If on the other hand, if it is considered porn, what makes this still frame picture different from El Calmino's example?
quote: So would you consider a sex scene where the beauty (sexiness, hotness, whatever) of the entire female actress was emphasized (probably in a video clip simply by panning over her entire body rather than focusing on some parts) to be erotica and not porn (assuming there was also no humiliation/ violence)?
Consider four different situations, A woman (could be a man as well, but for sake of this argument..) poses nude, with no emphasis on any of her body-parts. She does this in front of a video camera and a still image camera. She then posts the video online, sells the video to a porn shop, sells the photo to playboy (and later becomes the centerfold), and posts the still image online. What is the difference between these four situations that might make one image be considered wrong, but in other cases right? Is their a difference?
Edited for Clarity
-------------------- When p.c. actions become so inane they're absurd, my opinions won't be far behind. Posts: 102 | From: Regina, SK, Canada | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by black roses 19: Porn is depressing? Unpleasant, okay. I can't say, however, that I've ever heard the word "depressing" as a description for porn.
I could definitely see it as depressing. There was a time in my life where I began to object to pornography, but still looked at it from time to time. (Why would i do that? Addiction? Probably.) When I took my mind out of the fictional world that the participants/producers were trying to create, and began to think about what was actually going on, it was pretty depressing to me. Now, that likely has to do with my views of the body, sex, and committed relationships. But if you view sex as something wonderful and special to be shared in a committed relationship, than its use for profit and between individuals who didn't actually love each other could be quite depressing.
Also, most porn could also be depressing because of the commentary it gives on what the producers/viewers want male-female relationships to be like. Or because of the violence that some porn portrays, or the racism involved.
quote:Originally posted by ali_marea: In regards to the OP, I'd never really considered most porn to be sexist or racist. How is it racist? I'm not saying it never is, I'm just curious how it is. Since it's something I've never noticed.
Aside from whether the pornography is sexist or racist on its own (which it can be, when it purposely fulfills certain stereotypes about men, women, or different ethnic groups), the advertising for porn can be extraordinarily sexist and/or racist. If you search for porn on the internet, then a huge number of the links that you see for it will be demeaning towards the women involved in some way. And if you search for porn with an ethnic angle to it, you will see a ton of blatantly racist material.
Depressed writing this post just because I knew these things...
quote:Originally posted by Rixel: Ah, that's what I'm interested in finding out though. If it isn't porn, that's fine, but is it erotica then?
Porn vs. erotica isn't necessarily a dichotomy. Neither term has a solid definition- it's more dependent on the viewer's perception.
quote: Also Because playboy displays women in their complete form and not just their individual parts and she truly looks like she's enjoying herself in the photo, couldn't an argument be made that playboy is truly a feminist porn mag?
What kind of women does Playboy depict? Are they all similar or is there diversity? Do the models have control over the way they are represented, or does Playboy choose their outfits and poses and represent them as saying things they did not really say? (The quotes that appear on the spreads are often made up by the magazine rather than actually coming from an interview with the woman) Is editorship of Playboy exclusively the realm of men, or do women play an equitable role in the way the magazine is put together? What about the rest of the content of Playboy? The cartoons? The articles? The advertisements? These questions are all important ones if a magazine is going to be labeled as supportive of women and feminism.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleS: Also, "pornography" may have no redeeming social value, but what would you call something that was exactly like pornography but DID have redeeming social value?
I have yet to see a porn with redeeming social value. If I did see one that has redeeming social value, I wouldn't call it a feminist porn, unless it had a huge background storyline that talked of the empowerment of womens rights (just for example). But if the film had enough time to encorporate a huge background story, then it wouldn't be a porn, it would be a 18A or X movie.
quote:Last, you are incorrect about porn being all alike once you get past the storyline. Some of the sex scenes in porn are sickeningly degrading and even painful looking. Others are more equitable and look like someone who wasn't being paid to do it might actually enjoy it.
As I said, that was partial devil's advocate, I'm aware there are different levels of pornographic acts, and As I said, some are more exploitive/degrading then others. What I wasn't about to do (and won't do now) is classify different levels of porn. There is a turning point for everyone where what they are watching is no longer a turn on and that turning point differs for everyone. However, for me to say, "That porn is sick because she's NFBSKing the guys fist" It wouldn't surprise me to find a follow up post, where someone disagrees and I would have to defend something that is off topic. So keeping in the general definition of the word, where porn is meant to turn someone (not necessarily you or me) on, once you move past the storyline, all porn is porn. Not all sex is straightforward sex, but all porn is porn.
quote:Also, "regular porn would be missionary sex style" is such a narrow definition of "regular porn" that no actual porn falls in that category.
This was an effort to cover my own NFBSK on the definition of porn in regards to feminist response. The last thing I wanted was someone to tap me on the shoulder in this and say "doggystyle is never going to be feminist because it dominates the woman" or equally "oral sex being performed on the man is never..." etc. You're right, I haven't seen many porns that feature only missionary position (though they do exist). The idea of keeping it narrowly defined though is to avoid disagreement based on it not being feminist because of how the woman is giving, receiving, or partaking in the sexual act. If you do not agree with keeping it narrowly defined like this, then will you accept the general definition of a "regular sexual act"?
However, to get back to my original point (and expand the norms of sex to whatever boundary level you are personally comfortable with), where does a regular sexual act on film change from being porn to being feminist porn once you remove the storyline? Is there more foreplay? the existence of accidental mistakes and fumbling with condoms in the film?
The point is that if all you are seeing is a man and a woman fornicating in your standard feminist pornography... what makes it a feminist porno?
I'm not trying to be snarky, but what answers have been given so far all related back to the storyline that precedes or follows the sexual act. And that, IMHO, is not what defines any pornography, because whatever is said/done in the storyline could be contradicted by later sexual acts unless they are very clearly feminist sexual acts as well.
It's hard for me to discuss this without knowing how familiar you are with porn. If you've watched as much porn as I have and still think "porn is porn" and that only the storyline and foreplay have any bearing on whether the porn is feminist, then we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. Furthermore, I don't think it's useful to only talk about one position or set of positions or only talk about "normal" sex acts because that's not the point at all. Porn isn't just a video record of two people boinking. It's depiction of a fantasy, and every detail from the way the actress looks to the length of the scene to the size of the man's penis is relevant to whether that fantasy is positive towards women or negative.
It's not a matter of storyline. It's not a matter of the actors talking explicitly about feminism. It's a matter of making what's depicted portray a positive version of sexuality that doesn't demean people.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleS: It's hard for me to discuss this without knowing how familiar you are with porn. If you've watched as much porn as I have and still think "porn is porn" and that only the storyline and foreplay have any bearing on whether the porn is feminist, then we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.
The thing that ends up confusing me about this is that you are suggesting you have indeed seen "feminist-porn" that is separate from "feminist-porn-ficition": Some pornographic film that through primarily sexual acts (and not the storyline) empowers women, or intentionally puts women on a level of equality with men. This type of porn is not something I have seen. If you have seen a feminist-porn that does empower women (again primarily through sexual acts, not storyline), by all means please inform me what one (or more then one) it is.
quote:Furthermore, I don't think it's useful to only talk about one position or set of positions or only talk about "normal" sex acts because that's not the point at all. Porn isn't just a video record of two people boinking.
Depending on the situation it can be just a video record ie. a one-long-take shot of two (or more) people having sex, is just a video record of two (or more) people boinking... but it is also porn. Leaving those types alone (and they do exist, even if not professionally made as I'm sure you're aware) though, you are right there is more thought than most people will give credit that goes into making an an average pornographic film. Most people just don't realize it because, well let's face it, they aren't watching porn for its editing or cinematography (at least not on a conscious level... but that can be said for all of the film industry can't it?).
quote:It's depiction of a fantasy, and every detail from the way the actress looks to the length of the scene to the size of the man's penis is relevant to whether that fantasy is positive towards women or negative.
This is actually getting closer to answering the core question I've been repeatedly asking in this topic thread. That being what makes a feminist porn a feminist porn (in terms of sub-genre of porn and not porn-fiction) and not just porn? However, the problem with this is that it provides the illusion of an answer without actually giving one. What I mean is that in the case of how the actress looks I can perhaps come up with an image both giving a positive image of women and a negative (for sake of argument... a business woman coming home to her husband who then proceed to NFBSK vs say a hooker or a business woman being blackmailed by her boss and proceed to NFBSK). In the other cases though, I can't think of any explicit examples that make the porn more degrading or more equal or more feminist.
Obviously, this being a public board we want to keep the details as clean as possible (as I'm sure BSK still get on here despite the NF part), but could you cite an example of a scene where everything within the scene of a porn led you to believe it was designed to be empowering the woman or putting her on an equal level as the man. If writing such a description makes you uneasy, or think it would be to explicit to be posted here, again send me a film name/reference, or send a PM.
quote:It's a matter of making what's depicted portray a positive version of sexuality that doesn't demean people.
This serves as an excellent ideal for what what feminist porn should be like, but again it does not serve to explicitly define in terms of what makes a pornographic film a feminist pornographic film.
To be more specific as to what I'm asking, I'll give you a few examples of other genre's of film can be defined by concrete things shown within the film.
Western film genre - Common elements of the western include but are not limited to: the setting is generally 18th or 19th century America, the protagonist is someone who is "outside the law" usually a lone wolf but sometimes someone cast out from society. Examples would include: "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" (1966) or "Unforgiven" (1992)
Film Noir film genre - Again the lone wolf protagonist makes his appearance, though this time in a industrial city environment and usually as a private-eye: Someone who lives inside the bounds of law, but not held back by them. The Spider-Woman exists: a woman who intrigues the protagonist and while mostly submissive, as the name suggests, will usually betray the protagonist. Stylistically one can easily spot the film noir genre by it's often cliuche blinds that hang over windows and usually foreshadow the death of a character. Example would include: "The Maltese Falcon" or "The Big Sleep" (1941)
Porn film genre - A More broad film genre then the two mentioned above but still has a few notable characteristics. It has no specific setting and little or no storyline to speak of. The majority of the film must revolve around sex or sexually explicit themes. In most cases sex occurs (either implied through body language or actual images shown) on camera, though explicit images of body-parts shown out of context for the state of arousal can also be used. As mentioned while non-pornographic elements, such as storyline, are sometimes present these other elements are largely dominated by pornographic elements. Examples would include: "Girls Gone Wild" (1998) or "Hardcore Interracial Sexxx" (2003) or "Barnyard Bondage" (2005).
Porn-Fiction film genre - Differs from the porn genre in that while a primary focus is still sex and sexually explicit themes another focus (sometime also primary, sometimes secondary) is the storyline. In these films a conclusion beyond sexual release is present. These storylines while not necessarily as strong or as convincing as one found in regular film genres have a definite beginning, middle and end to them, one that is often (though not always) advanced by sex. Examples would include: "Color Blind (Adam & Eve)" (2002) or "Latin Lover" (2001 TV Series). This is also (in reference to my previous posts) where I believe Feminist-Porn-Fiction would fall in as a sub-genre of...
But you're in disagreement: That Feminist-Porn can exist separate from the Feminist-Porn-Fiction genre.. so..
Feminist-Porn film genre: ....? Examples: ....?
Note the word Porn itself is incorporative of the Porn film genre and Porn-Fiction film genre (among many other things) because both still have a primary focus on sex/sexually explicit themes. One can even argue that Porn-Fiction film genre is a subdivision of the Porn film genre because they both rely on one common primary focus. However, the Feminist-Porn-Fiction genre remains separate from the Porn genre because of it's storyline incorporative elements.
-------------------- When p.c. actions become so inane they're absurd, my opinions won't be far behind. Posts: 102 | From: Regina, SK, Canada | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleS: Porn vs. erotica isn't necessarily a dichotomy. Neither term has a solid definition- it's more dependent on the viewer's perception.
While I agree that erotica is much more poorly defined (and in my experience just used as a way of making someone feel better about watching something that is pornographic), porn at least in terms of film is has a very clear definition. Some people do choose to expand that definition to include other things which are less clearly pornographic, though these examples tend to be on the fringe and not the majorities POV.
quote:What kind of women does Playboy depict? Are they all similar or is there diversity? Do the models have control over the way they are represented, or does Playboy choose their outfits and poses and represent them as saying things they did not really say? (The quotes that appear on the spreads are often made up by the magazine rather than actually coming from an interview with the woman) Is editorship of Playboy exclusively the realm of men, or do women play an equitable role in the way the magazine is put together? What about the rest of the content of Playboy? The cartoons? The articles? The advertisements? These questions are all important ones if a magazine is going to be labeled as supportive of women and feminism. [/QB]
Yes, I admit the statement that Playboy being a feminist porno magazine is partially inflammatory. I don't agree that it is, which is also why I specifically said "couldn't an argument be made that playboy is truly a feminist porn mag?". I don't think it would be a good argument or even a convincing one, but it was more a question/statement to consider, especially in relation to that in particular thread.
just a question though.. you say:
quote:Is editorship of Playboy exclusively the realm of men, or do women play an equitable role in the way the magazine is put together?
Does it have to be women who play an equitable role in the way a feminist porn magazine is put together or can it be just feminists, whether they be male or female? I mean, aside from how the public reacts based on gender lines, it really shouldn't matter so long as they're all feminists right?
(Again, not actually arguing Playboy is a feminist porn magazine, but rather talking in hypotheticals).
-------------------- When p.c. actions become so inane they're absurd, my opinions won't be far behind. Posts: 102 | From: Regina, SK, Canada | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by wanderwoman: Lots of traditional porn portrays women enjoying things that real women often don't enjoy (or at least don't enjoy as much as the films imply).
Alternative (feminist) forms of porn recognize and deal with this issue by including real turn-ons for women.
I have an issue with the idea that porn can't be feminist if it "portrays women enjoying things that women often don't enjoy." It implies to me a majoritarian kind of rule; who decides that it'd be "unrealistic" for a woman to enjoy certain activities? For all practical purposes, everything dreamed up in porn has been enjoyed at some point by somebody, including women.
Frankly, it seems to me that trying to portray things that most women could approve of would result in a pretty standard format. It seems almost offensive to me that someone could claim to put forward "real turn-ons for women" and go unchallenged. Just because something is or is not a turn-on for you doesn't make it so for other women in the potential viewing audience.
I also think that this problem points out how nebulous and personal the idea of feminist porn is. It's just as complicated, if not more so, as the argument here over what is pornography. Ultimately, no matter how many theoretical and dictionary definitions are established, the decision on what falls into what category is going to be a personal one; that decision will likely be based more on gut feeling than analysis.
I'm just going to jump in here and anoint you winner of the thread. Not that I have any actual authority to do so, it's just that everything you say here is 100% right.
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aimee Evilpixie: There's a difference, though, between an actress who really seems to be enjoying herself (even if it's just acting) and an actress who doesn't seem into it.
I used to watch porn in college (I've pretty much given it up now), and for me the most important quality for the female porn star to have was her ability to make me believe she was enjoying what she was doing.
I think most people watching porn know that the people aren't really enjoying it that much -- either the women or the men (men actually have a fairly tough time in porn from what I've heard, because they have to train themselves to stay hard for very long periods of time and to hold their ejaculation until the director says it's time -- apparently a lot of them have basically lost the ability to come naturally and have to use their hand, which is why you see a fair number of scenes that end with the guy furiously stroking his semi-limp penis.)
Back on the topic of the thread, in my experience, there is a good deal of porn that is aimed at the humiliation of women, and some people (at least on the message boards I read) are very open to admitting that one of the things they like to see in porn is women getting humiliated.
However, there is another "sect" of porn-watchers that does not like seeing this sort of porn, and they frequently bemoan the direction porn is taking nowadays towards the "gonzo" style of direction.
The dichotomy seems to come partly from the base reason why people enjoy porn. For some people, it is essential that they be able to imagine themselves in the scene as the male -- for them, if the scene contains something that they could not see themselves doing with a real woman, they cannot enjoy it. Other people are more about the voyeuristic aspect, and thus the scene can contain all manner of sexual acts and positions that the viewer would never even consider doing in real life.
As for the "feminist porn" idea, I do think it may be overstating itself a bit -- as was stated earlier, I don't think you can predict absolutely what will turn on women and what won't. But there are men, too, who would like to see less humiliation/objectification porn produced.
Posts: 333 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So which style does porn/erotica that starts out with an interview with the star, explaining (among other things) what, why, and how long they've been doing it fall under?
I mean, when she's sitting there with her clothes on, and she says "I like to NFBSK real hard, and I love the feeling when a man NFBSKs in my NFBSK" whould I believe her? Is she empowered, or just putting me on? (I mean, I have heard a few women who aren't in porn say this, so it must be true sometimes, and it seems logical that the porn industry might be an outlet for such people...)
Sometimes, arguments against porn smell faintly of hypocrisy: "It's her body, her choice... but for God's sake she mustn't choose to do that!"
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: I mean, when she's sitting there with her clothes on, and she says "I like to NFBSK real hard, and I love the feeling when a man NFBSKs in my NFBSK" whould I believe her? Is she empowered, or just putting me on? (I mean, I have heard a few women who aren't in porn say this, so it must be true sometimes, and it seems logical that the porn industry might be an outlet for such people...)
You can never know. It may be that the director just told her before the camera started rolling to pretend that she likes it (or perhaps most people with a few films under their belt would know that's how it works).
The problem is that the porn filming process results in such an artifical experience that it's hard to believe many of the women actually derive sexual gratification from it.
The FAQ for rec.arts.movies.erotica is a pretty interesting read if you're interested in learning more about what goes on behind the scenes (It has no NSFW images or anything like that, but the text is NSFW...)
quote: Sometimes, arguments against porn smell faintly of hypocrisy: "It's her body, her choice... but for God's sake she mustn't choose to do that!"
I don't think that's hypocritical. Just because someone can make a particular choice doesn't mean they should. Usually the "my body, my choice" thing is with reference to legality, not the question of whether someone should do something.
Posts: 333 | From: Columbus, OH | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleS: It's hard for me to discuss this without knowing how familiar you are with porn. If you've watched as much porn as I have and still think "porn is porn" and that only the storyline and foreplay have any bearing on whether the porn is feminist, then we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.
The thing that ends up confusing me about this is that you are suggesting you have indeed seen "feminist-porn" that is separate from "feminist-porn-ficition": Some pornographic film that through primarily sexual acts (and not the storyline) empowers women, or intentionally puts women on a level of equality with men. This type of porn is not something I have seen. If you have seen a feminist-porn that does empower women (again primarily through sexual acts, not storyline), by all means please inform me what one (or more then one) it is.
Where have I suggested that I had seen porn I considered feminist? I have seen no such porn. That does not mean it is an impossibility though.
quote:
quote:Furthermore, I don't think it's useful to only talk about one position or set of positions or only talk about "normal" sex acts because that's not the point at all. Porn isn't just a video record of two people boinking.
Depending on the situation it can be just a video record ie. a one-long-take shot of two (or more) people having sex, is just a video record of two (or more) people boinking... but it is also porn. Leaving those types alone (and they do exist, even if not professionally made as I'm sure you're aware) though, you are right there is more thought than most people will give credit that goes into making an an average pornographic film. Most people just don't realize it because, well let's face it, they aren't watching porn for its editing or cinematography (at least not on a conscious level... but that can be said for all of the film industry can't it?).
Okay.
quote:
quote:It's depiction of a fantasy, and every detail from the way the actress looks to the length of the scene to the size of the man's penis is relevant to whether that fantasy is positive towards women or negative.
This is actually getting closer to answering the core question I've been repeatedly asking in this topic thread. That being what makes a feminist porn a feminist porn (in terms of sub-genre of porn and not porn-fiction) and not just porn? However, the problem with this is that it provides the illusion of an answer without actually giving one. What I mean is that in the case of how the actress looks I can perhaps come up with an image both giving a positive image of women and a negative (for sake of argument... a business woman coming home to her husband who then proceed to NFBSK vs say a hooker or a business woman being blackmailed by her boss and proceed to NFBSK). In the other cases though, I can't think of any explicit examples that make the porn more degrading or more equal or more feminist.
Again, I'm not sure how much porn you've watched, so it's hard for me to answer this. Porn wherein a woman is being nailed so hard she is crying, or engaging in anal sex with a man whose penis is so huge it makes her anus gape open, or deepthroating a penis so big it chokes her and makes her tear up, or having semen sprayed all over her face and in her eyes, does not strike me as empowering or feminist. It is also extremely mainstream. Porn in which all of the women have very large breasts and tiny bodies, huge platinum hair, big glossy lips, deep tans, and wear six inch heels and miniskirts at all times, is not representative of all women, and thus is not feminist. Feminism wants to do away with unrealistic standards of beauty.
quote:It's a matter of making what's depicted portray a positive version of sexuality that doesn't demean people.
This serves as an excellent ideal for what what feminist porn should be like, but again it does not serve to explicitly define in terms of what makes a pornographic film a feminist pornographic film.
To be more specific as to what I'm asking, I'll give you a few examples of other genre's of film can be defined by concrete things shown within the film.*snip*
But you're in disagreement: That Feminist-Porn can exist separate from the Feminist-Porn-Fiction genre.. so..[/quote]
I don't know what the feminist-porn-fiction genre is or where I have said I think it can exist separately from feminist porn.
quote:Feminist-Porn film genre: ....? Examples: ....?
Note the word Porn itself is incorporative of the Porn film genre and Porn-Fiction film genre (among many other things) because both still have a primary focus on sex/sexually explicit themes. One can even argue that Porn-Fiction film genre is a subdivision of the Porn film genre because they both rely on one common primary focus. However, the Feminist-Porn-Fiction genre remains separate from the Porn genre because of it's storyline incorporative elements.
I'm not sure what you want from me here. "Feminism" is not a genre like "western," it is a way of going about making the film and the way the film depicts its subjects. "Feminist" porn could have any number of storylines or none at all, but it would depict sex in a way that was not degrading, painful, humiliating, or sexist, to either party. I like to think that feminist porn would do away with the requirement that all men have ginormous penises and all women have huge boobs and tiny vaginas, also.
So basically what I'm saying is there isn't a strict definition of feminist porn as genre because it's not a genre. It's an idea about how porn could and should be.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleS: Porn vs. erotica isn't necessarily a dichotomy. Neither term has a solid definition- it's more dependent on the viewer's perception.
While I agree that erotica is much more poorly defined (and in my experience just used as a way of making someone feel better about watching something that is pornographic), porn at least in terms of film is has a very clear definition. Some people do choose to expand that definition to include other things which are less clearly pornographic, though these examples tend to be on the fringe and not the majorities POV.
How is porn defined in terms of film? The definition of porn that I usually use is "materials produced with the intent to provoke sexual arousal." Don't see why that would be different for film. Unless you are talking about hardcore vs. softcore, which has a pretty specific definition.
quote:What kind of women does Playboy depict? Are they all similar or is there diversity? Do the models have control over the way they are represented, or does Playboy choose their outfits and poses and represent them as saying things they did not really say? (The quotes that appear on the spreads are often made up by the magazine rather than actually coming from an interview with the woman) Is editorship of Playboy exclusively the realm of men, or do women play an equitable role in the way the magazine is put together? What about the rest of the content of Playboy? The cartoons? The articles? The advertisements? These questions are all important ones if a magazine is going to be labeled as supportive of women and feminism.
Yes, I admit the statement that Playboy being a feminist porno magazine is partially inflammatory. I don't agree that it is, which is also why I specifically said "couldn't an argument be made that playboy is truly a feminist porn mag?". I don't think it would be a good argument or even a convincing one, but it was more a question/statement to consider, especially in relation to that in particular thread.
just a question though.. you say:
quote:Is editorship of Playboy exclusively the realm of men, or do women play an equitable role in the way the magazine is put together?
Does it have to be women who play an equitable role in the way a feminist porn magazine is put together or can it be just feminists, whether they be male or female? I mean, aside from how the public reacts based on gender lines, it really shouldn't matter so long as they're all feminists right?
(Again, not actually arguing Playboy is a feminist porn magazine, but rather talking in hypotheticals). [/QUOTE]
Both the political viewpoints and the genders of the editorial staff would be important to me. If the staff is all feminist-identifying men but they don't seek out employees and contributors of all genders then they are not very good feminists. I do think that men can be feminists but I'm a bit leery of feminist-men's all-boys-clubs. What's feminist about excluding females from the decision making process?
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry about the terrible quote formatting, everyone. I can't seem to figure it out these days.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleS: Where have I suggested that I had seen porn I considered feminist? I have seen no such porn. That does not mean it is an impossibility though.
It may have been a misinterpretation on my part, but the suggestion came in the initial response to my comment:
quote:If you've watched as much porn as I have and still think "porn is porn" and that only the storyline and foreplay have any bearing on whether the porn is feminist, then we'll just have to agree to disagree I guess.
The implication, as I read from this statement, is that you've seen straight-forward porn which you consider to be feminist. Read another way and in relation to the rest of your post I can take this quote to mean you have seen porn that you would deem anti-feminist. If that is the case, and what you meant, then yes I can agree that I have seen porn which is anti-feminist in nature; but in this case, just because a negation (anti-feminist porn) exists, does not mean its opposite does exist. If it does exist, then I'm looking for examples, but by your admission you haven't seen any feminist porn and it does make this discussion rather difficult.
A week or so ago I got to watch "A Time to Kill" on tv.. it had been a long time since I last saw that movie and it really is a classic... anyway. At one point, the defense attorney has to discredit the states psychiatrist to help prove his clients insanity at the time of the shooting. He ended up doing this by finding a flaw in the psychiatrist logic. The State psychiatrist had been in his position for 11 odd years, the head of a psych ward and testified at 48 trials as to the insanity of the defendants. In all those trials he never found a defendant to be insane, yet at least in one case a defendant was found insane an still in the states psych ward.
The point of bringing that up is, we're set for a very slippery slope if your argument is as follows: you've seen lots of porns and think it more then likely that feminist porn exists you just haven't seen any. It gives a free pass to any feminist to claim such a genre exists but not back it up.
quote:Again, I'm not sure how much porn you've watched, so it's hard for me to answer this. Porn wherein a woman is being nailed so hard she is crying, or engaging in anal sex with a man whose penis is so huge it makes her anus gape open, or deepthroating a penis so big it chokes her and makes her tear up, or having semen sprayed all over her face and in her eyes, does not strike me as empowering or feminist.
This brings me back to a point I made much earlier in this thread. You make an extremely good argument toward anti-feminist visuals, but its seems much easierfor people to come up with negative visual examples (ie these things aren't feminist porn) then positive ones (ie these things are feminist porn). Arguing for the existence of something based on what it is, is extremely different from arguing for the existence of something based on what it isn't.
quote:Porn in which all of the women have very large breasts and tiny bodies, huge platinum hair, big glossy lips, deep tans, and wear six inch heels and miniskirts at all times, is not representative of all women, and thus is not feminist. Feminism wants to do away with unrealistic standards of beauty.
Have you used a file-sharing program and typed in pornographic words into its search engine? You'll get hundreds of hits, varying from short clips of home made-footage to full length pornographic films pirated onto the internet. Not only that some videos will include links to websites. Such porns exist that shows a 'middle-weight' (for all intensive purposes I'd put middle weight at a 5'8 height and between 140 and 200... I'm not good at accurately assessing weight, but you know what I mean.. not middle wieight "she must be 110") woman pleasuring herself and having sex. It fits into the standards of 'realistic beauty' and by all accounts she's enjoying herself as much as the man. Is this feminist porn?
If you say it is, does your opinion of it being feminist porn change when I tell you a watermark appears on it, suggesting one should visit a "tubby women" website? If your opinion does change, you have qualms with the people who made the video, but by all accounts remove the watermark and it should be feminist again right?
The problem with the above described porn is it is standard fare as to what porn is out there, (in terms of porn with no plotline attached) but it isn't labelled feminist porn (otherwise I imagine the awards in the OP would have existed long before this). This is true in both the shorter homemade or low-budge made pornographic films and the longer commercially made ones. Defining one of feminisms goals as wanting to do away with unrealistic standards of beauty is fine, but once you cross over to feminism and "is there feminist porn?", even with realistic beauty and sex it isn't considered feminist porn. Especially if you give it a racy title. Then its definetely not feminist porn.
quote:I don't know what the feminist-porn-fiction genre is or where I have said I think it can exist separately from feminist porn.
If porn-fiction is taken to mean a "Porn with a Fictional Narrative", then feminist-porn-fiction would be "Porn with a Feminist Narrative". Ergo the difference between Feminist-porn-fiction and feminist-porn would be what I have restated more then a few times in my posts in this thread.
Feminist-porn derives its feminist angle only from the sexual encounter and not the pre and post storyline (which as I have stated I don't think feminsit porn exists, or at least feminists wouldn't call it that)
quote:Originally posted by Rixel: I have my personal doubts as to seeing most feminists jumping up in support of a short straight foward sex scene and calling it equal sex.
Feminist-porn-fiction derives its feminist angle from its plot line. It can then be reinforced by the sexual encounter.
quote:Originally Posted by ThistleS:I'm not sure what you want from me here. "Feminism" is not a genre like "western," it is a way of going about making the film and the way the film depicts its subjects.
Yes, the word Feminism is not a genre, but Feminist Film is a genre. "Bye Bye Blues" (1989) and "Margaret's Museum" (1995) are examples of the feminist film genre (and while I haven't seen it, I imagine "Mona Lisa Smile" (2003) would also be an example of feminist cinema, just as "Tombstone" (1993) is an example of western cinema). While you are right that a feminist film is dependant on how it portrays it subjects (most noteably the female protagonist who is also often main character), "the way of going about making a film" is to vague a statement to be truly applied to the finished product. Do you mean directorial style? Camera Angles? How the film got funded? Who's broadcasting it?How it was edited? Some things about making a film, while nice to speak of in reviews of films, have little to do with the finished product.
quote:"Feminist" porn could have any number of storylines or none at all, but it would depict sex in a way that was not degrading, painful, humiliating, or sexist, to either party. I like to think that feminist porn would do away with the requirement that all men have ginormous penises and all women have huge boobs and tiny vaginas, also.
So basically what I'm saying is there isn't a strict definition of feminist porn as genre because it's not a genre. It's an idea about how porn could and should be.
You see the problem with this in terms of the OP? The entire initial idea is that feminist porn is a genre. But if feminist porn is not a genre then there can't be awards for it that wouldn't be biased and unrealistic. As I've pointed out, porn exists that does show realistic women enjoying sex and nothing to suggest that it is "anti-feminist", but its not called feminist porn, because its just regular porn. "an idea about how porn could and should be" sounds more like a documentary seeking ideals that can never be reached.
Sorry if any of this is repetitive but I feel like I'm being driven in circles. I'm trying to keep this in retrospective of the OP at all times while keeping with my original argument; the argument that feminist porn doesn't exist simply because the majority of feminists can't agree on what feminist porn is and would rather bash most porn as non-feminist instead. Aside from the common 'ideal' of feminist porn being an equal representation of sex (an ideal that is very subjective) and a realistic portrayal of a woman (an ideal that is slightly subjective) during the sex, nothing objective about a "feminist porn" has been presented. Without an objective definition of what feminist porn is, that can be agreed upon, I can't see feminist porn existing because there will always be greater general disagreement, then there will be general agreement.
Sorry for delays in posting. Lifes been hectic and getting everything down takes more time then I usually have these days. Also, apologies for any spelling errors/grammatical errors.
-------------------- When p.c. actions become so inane they're absurd, my opinions won't be far behind. Posts: 102 | From: Regina, SK, Canada | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ThistleS: [qb]Porn vs. erotica isn't necessarily a dichotomy. Neither term has a solid definition- it's more dependent on the viewer's perception.
While I agree that erotica is much more poorly defined (and in my experience just used as a way of making someone feel better about watching something that is pornographic), porn at least in terms of film is has a very clear definition. Some people do choose to expand that definition to include other things which are less clearly pornographic, though these examples tend to be on the fringe and not the majorities POV.
How is porn defined in terms of film? The definition of porn that I usually use is "materials produced with the intent to provoke sexual arousal." Don't see why that would be different for film. Unless you are talking about hardcore vs. softcore, which has a pretty specific definition.
That is more or less the definition I use as well. The statement i made was more in concern with the individuals who look at films, with any sexual content arousing or not, and define it as porn for the sake of blacklisting it. An example would be "Lolita" (1962) directed by Stanley Kubrick. Some can argue that "Lolita" is pornographic, but these people tend to be on the fringe. That is not the point of "Lolita".
quote:Both the political viewpoints and the genders of the editorial staff would be important to me. If the staff is all feminist-identifying men but they don't seek out employees and contributors of all genders then they are not very good feminists. I do think that men can be feminists but I'm a bit leery of feminist-men's all-boys-clubs. What's feminist about excluding females from the decision making process?
In this in particular case, I'm more interested in pointing out the hypocritical nature not of you, or anyone else on this board, but of more radical feminists in general. There nothing feminist about excluding females from the decision making process - on the opposite side of that coin, theoretically it should be hard for a feminist group to claim they want equality of the sexes while excluding men. But I've seen examples of that form of discrimination go unchecked, whereas the opposite (males excluding females from the decision making process) is under a constant watchdog of the media and feminist groups.
But that's just my own beef and i'm only bringing it up in hopes that anyone who does notice this hypocritical nature occuring will do their best to counteract it.
Yeah, a pet peeve of mine is hypocrits..
-------------------- When p.c. actions become so inane they're absurd, my opinions won't be far behind. Posts: 102 | From: Regina, SK, Canada | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rixel: There nothing feminist about excluding females from the decision making process - on the opposite side of that coin, theoretically it should be hard for a feminist group to claim they want equality of the sexes while excluding men. But I've seen examples of that form of discrimination go unchecked, whereas the opposite (males excluding females from the decision making process) is under a constant watchdog of the media and feminist groups.
THat's because you misunderstand the nature of feminism. I think we had this discussion on this board, perhaps on another.
OK. The above is why many people object to the feminist lable and go for something like "equalist". I understand that. They want perfect, structured equality, and tend to believe that perfect, structured equality can be gained at this point in our civilization.
The reason feminism argues for female-only space, is fine with the exclusion of males, is because they are interested in *eventual* equality, and actually more than simple equality. (Too early in the AM for this kinda stuff).
OK. Feminism wishes to eliminate the assocation of the individual with stereotypical "gender" features. They wish to have every person judged first as an individual, not first on what gender they embody (ex. When someone has a kid, one of the first questions, if not the first, is "Is it a boy or a girl). Right off the bat, gender is the first catagory applied to a human.
Gender would be disassociated from sex and, as such, lose all meaning.
As far as woman-only space, the fact remains that men are still solidly in charge of finance, religion, academia, politics etc. As such, to gain access to man-only or male-dominated means to take control of a power space.
Female-only or female-dominated space is traditionally not sought by males, due to the fact that it ususally does not encompass power. However, it provides a refuge of sorts, which traditionally male-domianted space provided for men.
Now, if you saw males clamoring to enter female dominated space (and respect it), that might change. However, this hasn't been the case, and you only see males make a big deal out of entering female space when they want to make a political statement.
No. I'm not fighting for equality. I'm fighting for a state that makes equality irrelivant.
-------------------- So many spankings! It feels so good! But at the same time, I don't care about meeting your family! - I'mNotDedalus: Posts: 3216 | From: Denver, CO | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rixel: (and while I haven't seen it, I imagine "Mona Lisa Smile" (2003) would also be an example of feminist cinema,
Yes and no. It's certainly feminist, but not particularly realistic with respect to the choices most women had in life in the early 1950s (when the movie takes place). The best description I've yet seen of that movie was to call it "Disney feminism". Wonderful movie, though.
-------------------- Another lifetime I'd have fallen in love with you Swept away by my feelings, ashamed and confused But just now it's enough to be walking with you Let the mystery play as it will! -Lui Collins Posts: 2669 | From: Jouy en Josas, France | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rixel: I have not said that I think feminist porn exists yet, only that it can exist.
I still don't see why plot is so crucial to the feminism or lack of feminism in a porn film.
I don't see why someone giving out awards for what they consider to be porn that is feminist means that feminist porn is a genre. I'm not really sure we're both clear on what a genre is. As I've stated, feminist porn would be porn that is not degrading and that presents a positive view of sex. That definition certainly does not make it a genre in the same way that westerns are a genre. Just because there is a genre called feminist cinema doesn't mean all films that do not fit that genre are not feminist. Again, feminism is an idea about how people should be treated, not a set of memes.
I have seen amateur porn, crappy internet porn, porn that caters to specific fetishes such as "chubbies" or pregnant women, gonzo porn, big budget porn, all sorts of different kinds of porn, and none of it struck me as particularly interested in putting forward a view of sex and women that was positive. My description of what porn models typically look like was based on mainstream porn, not amateur or fetish or genre porn, and it was meant to be typical, not all encompassing.
I feel like you're trying to paint me into a corner and get me to admit that I can't define all types of porn one way. Okay, I can't, but that doesn't mean I've seen anything like feminist porn, or that the porn I have seen is feminist. Again, all I am saying is that I think it's possible for porn to present a more positive view of women and sex. Your example of the average-build woman masturbating- well, it would depend on a number of factors.
Yes, every aspect of the way the film was made, including lighting, funding, cinematography- everything- would be a factor. I'm sorry, but I can't just sit here and write out a pat little description of what feminist porn is or should be. If your scene with the average girl enjoying herself and a partner was produced in a feminist manner, then yes, I don't see why it wouldn't be feminist.
There are a lot of sex acts that are part of mainstream porn that most mainstream women do not enjoy. Instead of mainstream porn portraying these as though everyone, man and woman alike, enjoyed them and did them every time they had sex, I wish things like ATM, money shots on faces, and painful anal were fetish items. There is nothing wrong with having a fetish whatsoever, but imagine how odd it would be if virtually every mainstream porn film featured women shitting on men. Most of us would think this porn was pretty unrepresentative of every day sex for most people. Yet similar niche items are presented as completely usual in mainstream porn, and that gives people the idea that these things are part of the way sex should be (including myself- I have certainly fallen prey to this fallacy).
I also feel like I am being driven in circles, and I sort of feel like you haven't made your argument clear previously, but instead have just argued against what I have been saying. Maybe feminist porn doesn't exist yet. That doesn't mean it's impossible. And that doesn't mean I can't point out what is un-feminist about current porn. I'm not going to go out and make every feminist sit down and figure out what we think feminist porn is before I can critique current porn's blatant misogyny.
I guess I feel like you're trying to get me to say something or do something that I never said I could do.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lastly, please stop using my posts to argue against fictitious hypocrites, or at least tell me before you do that. I really dislike arguing against someone who is just playing devil's advocate.
-------------------- Officially Heartless Posts: 3065 | From: The Montgomery County of the West Coast- Berkeley, CA | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
