Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog

Archive for the ‘Popular culture’ Category

This great video details The Bechdel Test, which is a way of measuring how mainstream movies treat women. To pass the test, a movie has to:

(1) have at least two women in it, who (2) who talk to each other, about (3) something besides a man.

The test first appeared in 1985 in Alison Bechdel’s comic Dykes to Watch Out For.

This site has a growing list of films that do pass the test. Films from 2010 include: Toy Story 3, Sex and the City 2 and, perhaps surprisingly, The Karate Kid. What’s more interesting is applying the test to your favourite movies. It makes you realise that the male point of view has become so normalised that we’re often blind to the marginalisation of women in films. Worse still, this whole attitude seems to be entrenched in Hollywood and is actually taught in film schools.

The idea of applying the Bechdel Test to porn films seems almost ludicrous; porn films are usually about one or more women “discussing” a man, nice and hard. Still, it’s another useful way of revealing just how male-oriented most porn can be.

via Erika Lust.

SMH says: A report in the Australian journal Body Image has found that consumers respond positively to depictions of average-sized men in advertising. The survey asked over 600 students in their late teens to look at mock-up advertisements for products, some using muscle-bound men and others using thinner or chubbier male models. The results showed that the “buffed” models didn’t rate any higher than average guys.

Neither sex responded more positively to the musclebound bodies, and the males even found ads that showed just the item – with no accompanying model – more effective than those posed by classic hunks.

Some participants in the University of Queensland study ”may have attributed the models’ muscularity to vanity or homosexuality, characteristics which they may have found unpleasant or discomforting”, [study leader] Ms Diedrichs wrote.

It’s not surprising that male respondents preferred not to see a male model at all. This is not news; it’s why the guy’s heads are always cut off in porn films and why we never see naked men in mainstream film. To even look at another man carries hints of homosexuality for some people and therefore must not be tolerated.

It think it’s an interesting and useful study that also reveals a lot about gay stereotypes and how we allow men a lot more leeway in their appearance than women.

On a personal level, I don’t mind a nice six pack or well-defined muscles, although if the guy looks like a boofhead, I’m not so interested. I think a man’s smile and his eyes are very important factors in whether he is attractive or not.

I think Ewan McGregor is gorgeous and he has long been a favourite actor of mine due to his eagerness to get his gear off in films. I think he should win an award for “Most Full Frontal Male Nude Scenes”.

Now he’s told Out magazine that he doesn’t mind kissing guys on set because it “gets his blood up.”

Talking about kissing Jonathan Rhys Meyers in ‘Velvet Goldmine’, Ewan told Out magazine: “I remember when I kissed Johnny. It was just a rush at the end of the day. It was just an electrical moment, because you look around and some of the British electrician guys – who are all mainly closeted homosexuals, I think – were sitting around going ‘F**k, no.’

But I like kissing boys on screen. As a straight guy, it’s quite an interesting proposition. Anything on a film set that takes you by surprise like that, that gets your blood up, is good.

“I’m always interested in playing different people, in different situations. It doesn’t matter to me whether someone is in love with a man or a woman. I find the idea of love and romance interesting. I’m a sucker for it. I like playing someone who’s falling in love because I like the sensation of it.”

If we get Ewan nude in some kind of gay romance film I think it will make millions. Just so long as the other guy isn’t Charlie from Long Way Round.

Previous post: Ewan McGregor: Our Nude Hero

Meet the latest successful viral marketing campaign. It’s from Old Spice who have created a collection of odd yet very amusing commercials for their products. This one made me giggle… and then I had to re-watch it to try and spot the joins between each special effect (I couldn’t).

So one could analyse this commercial and critique what it has to say about being male, “lady smells” and the whole stereotypical notion of what women desire. But it feels like that’s taking it all too seriously. I suspect that the advertising company is taking a cheeky and ironic jab at notions of what makes a MAN (that’s MAN in capitals, of course). Essentially, it’s taking the piss out of other commercials that try to speak to macho notions of masculinity. Thus, this ad:

I think if you’re taking it seriously you probably need to get out and practice smiling a bit more.

In the end, these ads are funny, plain and simple. And that guy in the first ad is so sexy he doesn’t require any kind of diamonds (or artificial smells).

And I could even be tempted to buy this stuff and use it on myself. I want to smell like a MAN too. Now that’s a successful ad campaign.

Update 18th Feb: The commercial is up to 1.7 million views and I’ve found a video about how the ad was made. Unfortunately it’s 20 minutes long so here’s the quick version: the whole thing was done in one shot. The only computer graphics used were those with the tickets, diamonds and bottle rising up out of his hand. The shower was a set lifted by a huge crane and the boat was also a set. When he says “What’s in your hand?” he’s sitting down on a specially designed rig that moves him away from the boat and onto the horse. You can see the sky move in the background. They did have to digitally remove a few bits of that rig from under the horse’s neck.

Apparently the shoot took 3 days and this is the 53rd take. The actor’s name is Isiah Mustafa and apparently his phone has rung off the hook after this ad. He’s also on Twitter; his location is “on a horse”.

Update 19th Feb: The LA Times has an interview with the lovely Isiah here. Turns out he’s got a girlfriend.

I’m about two months late with this post but I thought I should at least read the Twilight books and see the New Moon film before I made any comment. (Note: Spoilers follow).

For a while there, almost every Google alert I got for the phrase “porn for women” came from some columnist or blogger declaring the books and films to be thus. It’s an offhand way of dismissing the immense popularity of these teenage vampire books, similar to the way romance novels are marginalised. “Oh,” huff the critics, “it’s all just fluffy romantic nonsense. Porn for women.” (Because women don’t like real porn, of course. We’re too girly for that. Sex is icky, remember?)

I’d like to declare that the Twilight Saga is not porn for women. Mainly because it’s not porn. Duh.

Oh sure, the films certainly offer female viewers plenty of eye candy, especially New Moon which features a whole pack of buff young men running around without shirts on. “You’re kind of beautiful,” Bella tells Jacob, saying out loud what we’re all thinking. Meanwhile, Edward’s brooding, yellow-eyed paleness has its own distinctly emo appeal.

Yes, no doubt about it, the guys are gorgeous and it’s great that the female gaze is so evident in this movie. It’s absolutely a film made FOR female viewers, something that’s still quite rare.

But it’s not porn because there’s just not enough sex. Rather, it’s romance, plain and simple. The Twilight books stick firmly to the old-fashioned Mills and Boon script of love, marriage, then sex followed almost immediately by children.

I found myself having something of a love-hate relationship with the books as I read them, both guiltily enjoying the luxury of a good romantic novel while still feeling very frustrated about the sexual dynamics of the whole thing.

Almost everyone agrees that vampirism is a metaphor for sex and that’s part of the appeal. The first three Twilight novels seem to be an ode to abstinence which is perhaps not surprising that the author is a Mormon. Despite Bella’s determination to do the wild thing with Edward it doesn’t happen until the fourth book and even then, only when they’re safely married and on honeymoon.

And what’s worse… she fades the scene to black before anything happens! I must confess, I actually yelled at the book at that point. “No!” I said. “Where are the goddam juicy bits?! How could you do this to me, you bitch!”

Despite the coyness of Meyer’s writing, it’s apparent that “sex” for Edward and Bella can only mean penis-in-vagina intercourse; there’s no scope for any other kind of loveplay, despite the fact that the act is extremely dangerous for Bella. Haven’t vampires heard of mutual masturbation? And then the couple seem to get pregnant on their very first shag.

Porn for women? Pah! The whole thing just felt too white-picket-fence and conservative for me to find it intellectually appealing.

And yet… having expressed that frustration, I should now acknowledge two things. The first being that the book is for teenage girls and thus blow-by-blow descriptions of human-vampire sex may be a bit inappropriate and also decrease possible sales.

Secondly, part of the appeal of the Twilight series is the thrill of delaying the moment. As Dr Frank-n-Furter might have said, the books and movies make us shiver with anticip….ation. I ploughed my way through thousands of pages waiting for them to finally get it on and, if nothing else, it kept me motivated.

While I can’t support the idea of abstinence as a good thing simply because someone declares it to be “right”, Twilight at least makes it seem appealing for it’s own sake. There’s something to be said for the idea of delayed satisfaction, of holding back and letting the mouth water a little longer than necessary. And that, perhaps, is another reason why these books aren’t porn. Because porn is about self gratification and fantasy, something that often doesn’t include any kind of anticipation or delay.

So part of me rebels against the ideological grounding behind the book and at the same time I found myself enjoying the results.

See what I mean about love-hate?

Others have criticised the way Bella is so passive and self absorbed. They say the books promote the idea of giving everything up for a boy if your emotions dictate that you must. I don’t really have an issue with those things. It is, after all, a teenage love story and I remember feeling the same way when I was 16. Twilight is emotionally honest, even if it seems angst-filled or over-the-top to adults. And if nothing else, I see the books as a gateway to the literature upon which Meyer based her plot.

There’s one more thing that makes me want to wave the flag for these books and films, despite their many flaws. It’s the fact that Twilight unashamedly speaks to women. The author and the filmmakers know their audience and they’ve made an effort to cater to that audience without compromising. The result is a multi-million dollar franchise that has spawned a bunch of imitators and made Hollywood realise that the much derided “chick flick” might actually be worth pursuing.

It’s also created a spiteful anti-Twilight backlash that may simply be motivated by scorn for “girly nonsense.” Hence the derogatory use of the phrase “porn for women.” For an excellent critique of the way Twilight’s popularity has been marginalised in the mainstream media, read Sady Doyle’s excellent article Girls Just Want To Have Fangs.

Twilight is more than a teen dream. It’s a massive cultural force. Yet the very girliness that has made it such a success has resulted in its being marginalized and mocked. Of course, you won’t find many critics lining up to defend Dan Brown or Tom Clancy, either; mass-market success rarely coincides with literary acclaim. But male escapist fantasies — which, as anyone who has seen Die Hard or read those Tom Clancy novels can confirm, are not unilaterally sophisticated, complex, or forward-thinking — tend to be greeted with shrugs, not sneers. The Twilight backlash is vehement, and it is just as much about the fans as it is about the books. Specifically, it’s about the fact that those fans are young women.??

Doyle also points out that because Edward is not your stereotypically macho hero (he’s pale, beautiful, talks about his feelings, sparkles occasionally), he’s easily derided by men as being not manly enough. Never mind that women find him extremely attractive, the guys won’t have a bar of it. Bring on the muscles, they demand. This Edward bloke isn’t enough of a proper vampire! He’s just so… poofy!

I find Edward to be very appealing, if a little… stalky. He’s infintely superior to the boofy and obnoxious Jacob who I was ready to kill by the end of the third book (buffed abs or no).

So there it is, my delayed critique on the whole Twilight shebang. Not a literary masterpiece by any means but still a cultural phenomenon worth studying and, yes, occasionally praising.

The only question that remains is this: can Twilight ever be porn for women?

Well, I’m thinking the rights might be a little hard to acquire. But beyond that… it might be a project worth doing. Think of the possibilities: Gorgeous pale vampire guy, hot buffed werewolf guy, cute human girl… cue the MMF threesome.

I think most of us wouldn’t mind seeing that.

This is a short film shown before Yves Saint Laurent’s 2009 fall fashion show for men.

It consists of only a full-frame shot of Michael Pitt’s face as he listens to an unseen woman talk to him erotically about clothes. “I lift up the T-shirt that peeks out from the sleeves and see underneath, you’re stark naked,” she rasps in French. “You dream of me rubbing your feet… I raise the veil from your leather belt and discover where your firm, flat stomach begins. Trousers which, though baggy, fall perfectly straight.”

Is it sexy? Well he’s certainly good looking and it feels like Jennifer Lyon Bell’s film Headshot or a Beautiful Agony video. The French voiceover sounds great although it may be seen as pretentious. I’m not sure I can read that much eroticism into clothing, I must admit, but if you like fashion, it may be a winner.

The Times Online has followed up last week’s opinion piece about teens and sex with an article headed Boys who see porn more likely to harass girls. The piece discusses Michael Flood’s report looking at existing research into the effects of porn on adolescents.

“There is compelling evidence from around the world that pornography has negative effects on individuals and communities,” he told the Times.

Naturally I sat right down and read the full report. And you know what? The “evidence” he found in various peer-reviewed journals isn’t all that compelling. Indeed, his summary of the existing literature looking at the “harm” or otherwise of porn found it was generally conflicting or inconclusive or not long-term enough or not particularly thorough. Almost every paragraph of the report says that while there’s plenty of concern that porn can cause harm, there’s no magic bullet that proves the hypothesis.

He says that porn doesn’t cause rape and that research is unable to “encapsulate the complex role that emotions and intent play both in the use of pornography and in sex, a role that may either enhance or minimise harm.” Essentially, a whole bunch of outside factors are the deciding influence as to whether porn is a good or a bad thing.

The point became rather repetitive. Research keeps offering the rather sensible supposition that a teenager’s attitude to porn and sex is usually shaped by their family, their peers, their culture, their exposure to other media and their education. That is, you have to take a holistic approach. If a teen – usually male – is using porn in a negative way you should probably look closely at pre-existing problems or bad attitudes before you blame the porn itself. Bad porn is more like the icing on a very bad cake than the recipe itself.

That aside, there was one aspect of Flood’s report that I found very disturbing. It’s his definition of what constitutes “harm” in the first place – and I think it’s something that needs to be discussed more often. Because in all the hysterical hand flapping of “somebody think of the children!”, nobody really sits down and says: “Well, what is it that we don’t want kids to learn or do when it comes to sex?”

Flood doesn’t claim these definitions are his own. He farms them out to “the community” in this paragraph:

Not surprisingly, given the high rates of adolescent exposure, concern exists that young people are being inundated with unwanted and wanted, and possibly violent sexual information before they are developmentally capable of constructively dealing with it. This may detrimentally transform sexual attitudes and behaviours and ultimately sexuality and intimate relationships. Concerns within different parts of the community focus on the potential of pornography to:

* interfere with normal sexual development (e.g. encouraging early sexual activity)
* foster ‘open’ sexual lifestyles (e.g. acceptance of casual and extramarital sex, multiple partners, etc.) and ‘unnatural’ practices (e.g. anal and oral sex, homosexuality)
* undermine physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing (generate shame, guilt, anxiety, confusion, poor social bonds, and addictions)
* undermine relationships and foster sexual violence (e.g. Jensen & Okrina 2004; Zillman 2000).

So folks, let’s have a look at these supposed harms, shall we?

Let me go for the obvious one first. Flood raises the terrible spectre of embracing “open sexual lifestyles”! Lord save us, people might actually take up butt sex! Casual sex, multiple partners, homosexuality… the horror! And all because they looked at porn!

I’m rather stunned that a supposedly scientific report would include such a conservative and judgemental definition of “harm.” Just because a “community” (and face it, we’re talking about fundamentalist Christians here) thinks these things are wrong does not prove that they cause verifiable harm to the individuals doing them.

I should point out, Flood later includes erotophilia as another “harmful” effect of viewing porn. If I may be lazy and include the Wikipedia definition:

Erotophilia is a term used by psychologists to describe sexuality on a personality scale. Erotophiles score high on one end of the scale that is characterized by expressing less guilt about sex, talking about sex more openly, and holding more positive attitudes toward sexually explicit material.

Um, I’m not sure about you, but how is this harmful, exactly? It seems to describe me quite well. Should I assume that I’m somehow psychologically damaged? More inclined to go on a homicidal ramapge?

The idea of “less guilt” when it comes to sex seems to completely contradict his third point that porn undermines “physical, emotional and psychological wellbeing” by generating guilt and shame. I would argue that any guilt or shame arising from pornography use comes from outside influences telling an individual that their porn use is wrong. Either that or it’s a pre-existing guilt arising from being raised to believe that sex is dirty and sinful.

Porn may encourage early sexual activity? How early, exactly? And what is “normal” sexual development? Some teens mature faster than others and make a conscious decision to have sex even before the age of consent (which differs, I might add, according to where you are). If a teen has safe sex and enjoys the experience without regret… is that “too early”? Again, it feels like there’s a judgemental, cultural yardstick being used here rather than any empirical standard of “harm”.

Now I don’t have a problem with some of the other definitions used in that list. If porn causes anxiety about body image or confusion about how to have good sex or how to maintain a healthy relationship, that’s bad. If it encourages unsafe sex, that’s bad. If it encourages pre-existing bad attitudes toward women or normalises a negative, possibly violent view of sex, that too is bad. If it becomes an obsession (note, I refuse to use the word “addiction”) and creates a dispute in a relationship, that’s bad.

Those things may actually result in problems for the individual viewing the porn (or their partners) and we should focus our attention and concern on those. And we should always look at those concerns within the broader context of the individual’s personality, upbringing and culture.

That’s the thing: I don’t want to come out swinging completely in favour or mainstream porn. I’ve expressed my distaste for it many times on this blog. I find a lot of it to be sexist, sex-negative, boring, cliched and sometimes cruel and we need to have a continuing discussion about the images and world view that a lot of porn presents. Because it is a part of our culture and it does have some influence on us as consumers.

I am, however, always worried when a study like this is used by media (like The Times) to say “There’s conclusive evidence porn causes harm, let’s ban it!”

That’s exactly what’s happened here in Australia with the internet filter. The whole idea of the filter was actually thought up by Clive Hamilton, who co-wrote a paper with Michael Flood in 2003 about the effects of porn on 16 and 17 year old “children”. They used the fact that almost all teen boys over 16 use porn to whip up hysteria about “children seeing porn on the internet”. This may be partly while I feel so antagonistic towards this latest study by Michael Flood. It feels as though he’s approached the issue from a pre-decided stance and done his best to make it say what he wants… even thought the actual evidence won’t come to the party.

Still, I can’t argue with his final paragraph which actually offers a perfectly rational solution to everyone’s concern about teens and porn: education.

Though restricting exposure will remain a priority, an over-reliance on this approach to protect against the perceived harms of pornography is problematic as it fails to recognise the realities of ready availability and the high acceptance of pornography among young people. Moreover, it fails to examine the holistic way in which adolescents’ sexual expectations, attitudes and behaviours are shaped in our society and the complexity of factors that give rise to the cited harms.

Protecting young people necessarily requires equipping them, and their caregivers, with adequate knowledge, skills and resources (e.g. media literacy; sex education; education about pornography and rights and responsibilities of sexual relationships; safe engagement with technologies) to enable successful navigation toward a sexually healthy adulthood, as well as tackling factors predisposing to sexual violence.

Interestingly, this is exactly the approach advocated by Joybear’s Justin Ribeiro dos Santos in this second Times piece.

“It’s out there and the reality is, we can’t stop that. French and Italian kids are allowed to drink at the dinner table and they don’t have our problems with binge drinking. Maybe it’s the same with porn. We need to stop being so prudish.”

Given the panicky headlines that Michael Flood’s research is going to create, I don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon.

SPOILER ALERT: Warning! This post is about the film Avatar and may contain spoilers. Stop reading now if you haven’t seen it. Also, stop reading now if your find the idea of alien nipples or hair sex disturbing.

I finally saw James Cameron’s Avatar yesterday and I quite liked it. The visual imagery was stunning but I found the plot a little derivative and unoriginal. Where Titanic made me cry like a romantic fool, Avatar didn’t really inspire any serious emotional reaction. So I was a trifle disappointed but still mostly impressed.

Reviews aside, I’m rather intrigued about the “nudity” and sexuality depicted within the film. As you probably know, Avatar features a race of blue-skinned, forest-dwelling aliens called the Na’vi who tend to wear very little clothing apart from loincloths, necklaces and weapons. Their long tails tend to cover up their buttocks and we don’t ever see any glimpses of genitals.

The females have small breasts and presumably also nipples because the males have them. Problem is… we’re not allowed to see them. The women wear various neck decorations which cover the whole nipply area although there are a number of times when we are given glimpses of the full boob. At the very start I swore I saw a nipple outline but on other occasions there was a simple flat blue surface. Others have debated this whole vexed question and someone pointed at that since these aliens aren’t placental mammals, they shouldn’t have breasts at all.

Why do I care about whether the audience can see alien nipples?

I’m interested because it throws light on issues of censorship, “child friendly” entertainment and of Western society’s whole attitude towards breasts and sexuality.

In theory, it shouldn’t matter that we can see the nipples or genitalia of an alien. If the computer-generated image on screen doesn’t depict a human, why are we imposing human ideas of “obscenity” onto it? Surely the tails of the Na’vi are just as rude?

The same thinking applies to the excision of the love scene between hero Jake and the Na’vi woman Neytiri. We only see them kiss… and then we have a few vague shots of them cuddling, fading to black. The original script sees them “plugging in” to each other via the nerve-type thingies (”queues”) in their hair:

He puts his face close to hers. She rubs her cheek against his. He kisses her on the mouth. They explore each other. Then she pulls back, eyes sparkling.

NEYTIRI: Kissing is very good. But we have something better.

She pulls him down until they are kneeling, facing each other
on the faintly glowing moss.

Neytiri takes the end of her queue and raises it. Jake does
the same, with trembling anticipation. The tendrils at the
ends move with a life of their own, straining to be joined.

MACRO SHOT — The tendrils INTERTWINE with gentle
undulations.

JAKE rocks with the direct contact between his nervous system
and hers. The ultimate intimacy.

They come together into a kiss and sink down on the bed of
moss, and ripples of light spread out around them.

THE WILLOWS sway, without wind, and the night is alive with
pulsing energy as we DISSOLVE TO –

LATER. She is collapsed across his chest. Spent. He
strokes her face tenderly.

(from this page)

Apparently Cameron made the decision to cut out the scene to keep the film PG-13. It will feature in the DVD, along with more nipple shots.

I think the whole “ultimate intimacy” idea behind “queue mingling” sounds rather fabulous. Much more spectacular than the usual messing around with bodily fluids. And it certainly buys into the idea of sex as being a transcendent activity, more important than mere reproduction or physical pleasure.

But is it sex at all? There’s no real hint as to whether “queue mingling” actually qualifies as a reproductive act – especially given that the Na’vi tend to “plug in” to their horse-creatures and dragon-type animals and trees. Declaring the act to be a sexual one tends to turn the Na’vi into the very naughtiest kind of tree-huggers.

But why should children not see a scene that doesn’t actually involve sex – at least, sex of the human kind? Why should kids be protected from glimpses of alien nipples? (Indeed, I could go off on a rant about why we get so upset at the idea of kids seeing human sexuality… but that’s another post.) In theory, the Na’vi are the same result of evolutionary biology as the rest of us; their bodies do what they have evolved to do. I could detect no overtly restrictive sexual “morality” written into the imaginary society of Cameron’s indigenous people beyond the fact that queuing enforces a natural monogamy.

Of course, we all know that these imaginary aliens are simply a metaphor for human indigenous people. They share too many humanoid traits for us to consider them as “true” aliens – of the kind that, say, tend to lay eggs in your chest or go on intergalactic hunting missions.

So all the careful concealment of genitals and nipples and weird hair sex are to suit the strange attitudes of the audience, for whom nudity is still shameful and sex is still taboo. And ultimately, this self-censorship by the filmmaker was about getting the film out to as many people as possible, including children, who we deem to be too frail to endure the sight of blue nipples.

And do I even need to point out the ongoing insanity that says kids can’t be exposed to sexuality but violence – such as the graphic final battle scenes of Avatar – is fine?

We’ve obviously got a long way to go with the way sex is depicted in mainstream films if we can’t even explore the sexual biology of an imaginary alien species.

Photo is from the official Avatar site. I wasn’t able to find many pics to better showcase alien boobs, although I suspect the filmmakers want it that way.

I’ve long been musing about the whole issue of copyright, downloading and paying for entertainment/artistic content. It’s now the end of the Noughties and, as we speak, film studios, media companies and distributors are becoming increasingly hysterical about the effects of the internet, in particular the piracy that occurs through torrents and illegal downloads. The British government is mulling over a bill that would see people losing access to the internet if they are caught downloading copyrighted material, as are other Western governments.

Meanwhile plenty of people are advocating changes to copyright law that acknowledges the current situation: that millions of people download music, movies and TV shows every day without paying for them and that you can’t criminalise the whole world.

If everyone is downloading, does the law even apply anymore?

When it comes to porn, the internet is awash with free adult material. If you wish you can visit a torrent site and download any feature-length porn film you can name, helpfully uploaded by some unnamed masturbator. Or you can visit one of the plethora of free tube sites that feature porn video clips, many of them illegally ripped from membership sites. Beyond that there are millions of small galleries and free sites offering an abundance of porn, all for free.

Part of the reason for all this free porn is the promotional model that first emerged in the late 90s: give people some free photos and advertise at the same time. If the surfer is interested in the samples they will hopefully buy a membership to see more explicit pics.

Unfortunately the “sample” model turned into the “here’s the whole shebang” model and suddenly people didn’t need to pay money to see the hardcore stuff because it was absolutely everywhere and freely available.

The end result of all this free porn on the internet is the decline of the mainstream porn industry. As we speak some of the major adult companies are struggling to stay afloat. Porn stars are getting less work and they’re being paid less because the money is no longer there.

Too bad, I hear you say. It’s time the rich media companies stopped ripping us all off.

This is the usual thing I hear in defence of downloading, especially with regards to Hollywood movies and major record companies. The big wigs have had control of the business for too long, they’ve starved out competitors and encouraged crap product at the expense of good artists. The model is stale and cynical and is not giving us what we want. So who cares if they lose money, they’ve got heaps of it anyway. And it’s time things changed.

And I kind of agree, in a way. The distributors and the executives and the parasites need to be scraped away from the creation of good art. It’s time we cut out the middle man and found a better way for artists to get their product out there.

But here’s my problem. Amid all this “Robin Hood” downloading I’m also seeing plenty of theft that is hurting smaller producers. I’m talking about the filmmakers, actors, writers and artists who don’t have a big company behind them. They’re creating self-produced porn with their own money, putting a lot of time, effort and love into making something they think is worthwhile. It can take years for a single film to be made involving vast amounts of work, often without pay, to see a vision realised. And then there’s the endless wrangling with distributors and gatekeepers, trying to get the movie out to the audience.

And what happens then? Some asshole rips it and puts it on a torrent.

Too bad, goes the argument. They should just be happy that people are watching their film in the first place. Art shouldn’t come with a price tag, right?

This seems a delightfully lofty ideal and it’s one that we all might aspire to. Unfortunately, here in the real world, things don’t work that way. We live in a capitalist society where people need to work to make money to live. If you choose to pursue filmmaking rather than, say, an office job, you choose to live on the breadline. Sure, you could try and do both but it’s a great deal harder to come up with good art.

So firstly, if we accept that people deserve money for effort then demanding that they offer that effort for free is not fair.

Secondly, if someone puts time and money into a film and it doesn’t pay the bills (or the loan) because people refuse to buy then they are highly unlikely to make a second film. And if their first film is really good then there’s no chance to further enjoy that person’s unique perspective.

Making good porn requires money. Sure, anyone can grab their camcorder and film themselves fucking in a dimly lit room. That’s amateur porn and yes, it has plenty of fans. But if you want porn that has decent lighting, sound, sets, camerawork, costumes and actors, you need to start forking out the cash to make that happen. Even simple low-budget stuff can’t be done properly unless you have money. I know this, I’ve done it.

And if you want to go a step further and create porn that breaks the mould, that tries new ideas, that explores weird fantasies or breaks taboos AND is ethically made, you definitely need money. That’s just how it works. The simple ethical idea of treating performers with respect means you have to pay them properly. And that takes money.

Someone asked where they could find feminist porn for free. The answer is, you won’t find a lot of the new wave of independent feminist porn without paying for it. And nor should you. The people who are forging a new path in the porn industry, creating female-friendly erotica with feminist/humanist ethics and high aesthetic value are all doing it without the support of any major players. We’re all small-time in the broad scheme of things.

So many of the filmmakers I met in Berlin are struggling, trying to get their work out there while being ignored by the mainstream porn industry that refuses to believe that women even like porn. They’re self-publishing and distributing, working their butts off trying to get their product out into the marketplace. They may be offering samples of their work, but nobody can afford to just give the whole thing away.

I’m speaking here as a porn producer and artist but I should point out that I’m also a consumer. A few years ago I did my share of downloading on a file sharing site – and I will still do it occasionally when it’s apparent I can’t find and pay for what I want through standard channels (and this I understand is one of the reason many people do download – so many media companies still haven’t “got it” with regards to the internet). But I did make an ethical choice to stop downloading indiscriminately because I felt that what I was doing was ultimately not fair to the artists.

And this is what I want to advocate in this long and rather painful post. We as surfers need to put the brakes on and start to adopt some ethics when it comes to downloading. If we want to see copyright laws loosened then we damn well need to take some responsibility on our end.

Here are my suggestions for the ethical consumption of online media:

If a movie or song is by an independent artist, make an effort to find their website and buy it directly off them. You will undoubtedly get it cheaper, possibly personalised and you know they’re getting compensation for their hard work that made you happy.

If you’ve already downloaded something and you really like it, make an effort to buy the official version. Or if it’s not in buyable form, make a donation.

If you like something, recommend it to your friends.

If a movie/song/website is making an effort to cater to you and is offering high quality stuff that you can’t normally get elsewhere, pay for it. You are paying for ethics and quality, in much the same way you pay more for free range eggs.

Don’t assume that everything should be free or begrudge having to pay. It’s not fair to the artist and will ultimately result in less content being created.

Things are still a jumbled mess when it comes to copyright and the world of entertainment feels like it’s on the cusp of a huge change. Everything is going to be delivered digitally in the future and the big media companies can see themselves being squeezed out. I’m not going to mourn them. It’s going to be great when every individual artist is able to make a living by communicating directly with their audience.

BUT

The online audience has to come to the party. If we want the brave new world that is the internet then it can’t all be free.

* The above pic is a screenshot from Grahame Linehan’s hilarious spoof of that annoying anti-piracy ad in the IT Crowd. Mr Linehan is a vocal advocate for loosening copyright laws and not prosecuting people for file sharing. He’s also hilarious.

Someone has helpfully posted the segment on the Oprah show featuring Violet Blue so I’ve finally been able to watch what was said.

Violet has posted her feelings about the show on her blog and they’re overwhelmingly positive. I like this bit:

Look closely at this show and you’ll notice that Oprah has reframed the entire conversation: we women are not ‘tolerated’ or marginalized for exploring our inhibitions, voicing our desires, or owning our sexual agency — we are embraced. The 1 in 3 consumers of adult material online — women — were finally acknowledged, and with respect for a change…

Myths and stereotypes: smashed! We live in a world where women are more sexually powerful and articulate than any other time in history because of the internet and emergent communicative technologies. Oprah’s hip to it. You’re soaking in it. And that’s really, outrageously exciting for all of us.

She’s right, of course. It’s wonderful that women’s erotica got such a good airing on a mainstream TV show without the usual negativity.

I do, however, have a gripe. I feel that the show only seemed to skim the surface of the topic and it did so in a way that seemed to focus much more on the mainstream porn industry rather than the burgeoning indie/women’s porn movement that I feel is doing a better job at catering to women. I think having the interview with Jenna Jameson as the main focus meant things were skewed that way.

That moment when Oprah first asked about Violet’s recommended movies had me holding my breath, waiting to hear Tony Comstock’s name, or Nica Noelle’s, or Shine Louise Houston’s or even Candida Royalle’s. Alas, it turned into a plug for Jenna’s relatively mainstream film The Masseuse, fab though that may be.

And it’s wonderful for Playgirl and director Skye Blue to get a mention but for me that company is a prime example of mainstream porn aiming at a female market but not necessarily getting it right. The Playgirl movies I’ve seen look great and can inspire a mood but they still feature the same old porn stars having the same old porny sex. They’re nice enough but they could be so much more.

Of course, maybe I’m just jealous. Actually, I AM jealous, dammit. Once again, online porn receives much less media attention than “real” porn offered via movies (although now that DVD sales have tanked, this may change).

The main thing is, it’s a start and it was good that Oprah even dared to tackle the topic (especially given some of the negative and vitriolic reactions from viewers in the forum).

Now that Oprah has announced a new cable lifestyle channel we can look forward to a sexuality-themed TV series, one that has more time to devote to women’s erotica.

I can dream, can’t I?

So it’s been almost a week since Oprah did her porn show. I haven’t had a chance to watch it so I can’t comment but it seems the response is not as positive as we’d like it to have been.

This seems due to the fact that the show relied heavily on an interview with Jenna Jameson. Reading comments in the Oprah forums after the show had aired, I was depressed to see so much negativity towards the topic and also toward Jenna herself. Perhaps not surprising – blonde, silicone-boobed Jenna is not exactly the sort of celebrity who appeals to your average soccor mom/Oprah viewer. She’s an example of the mainstream porn industry rather than the new alternative porn that is seeking to cater to women.

By all accounts Violet did a great job but it was Jenna who got the attention – along with Vivid founder Steve Hirsch. The show also featured the owner of an adult store. What is interesting is the number of people who weren’t interviewed.

Which brings us to Candida Royalle. She’s made a comment on Facebook saying she’s “miffed” at the Oprah show for the way it was conducted:

Anyone catch Jenna Jameson on the Oprah show? Jenna trying to take credit for ‘feminist porn’ was a joke. Only thing worse was watching Vivid founder Steve Hirsch try to take credit for the ‘couples market’. Oh really? Was he even in business when I created my Femme line for women and couples in 1984?…

So here’s the deal: I was called by the producers in June and worked with them for 5 months on that show…only to be canned at the last minute along with a bevy of other far more qualified and significant women who made a difference for women in porn…

In the end they went for the most famous, wealthiest and recognizable person who they hoped would bring in the ratings…it is after all sweeps month.

(Quote is from LukeisBack)

I do think it’s a pity that Candida and other female-friendly porn producers (and stars) couldn’t have been on the show. Hell, I’d have paid my own way over there to be on it and give my 9 years’ worth of 2 cents. But I guess it’s a mainstream show and, like Candida said, they wanted something to give them ratings and headlines.

There have been a few articles about the show:

E!Online offered this snarky short piece: Jameson to Oprah: I’m One Classy Lassie

The Examiner had several opinion pieces on the episode. Suzanne White offered this analysis of the show, concluding that it was focused on Jenna rather than on women consuming porn.

Interestingly, Google News lists Oprah/Jenna stories from such worthy tomes as The Plastic Surgery Channel and Celebrity Baby Scoop. I decided not to link to those.

Here’s the page on Oprah.com describing the show along with several other links (including, unfortunately, an article that states that “men are visual, women are textual”).

So… all in all, it hasn’t exactly been the big win I was hoping for.

Incidentally, if I had the luxury of compiling a show about women, porn and the new wave of feminist porn, I’d want to invite a massive guest list. My stars would include:

Candida Royalle, Annie Sprinkle, Nina Hartley, Veronica Hart, Shine Louise Houston, Anna Brownfield, Jennifer Lyon Bell, Tony Comstock, Petra Joy, Erika Lust, Marianna Beck, Maria Beatty, Nina Lennox, Anna Span, Nica Noelle, Jamye Waxman, Audacia Ray, Tina Tyler, Estelle Joseph, Tristan Taormino, Madison Young, Mia Engberg…

And me of course.

Now that I’ve compiled that list, it’s pretty damned impressive, actually, and nowhere near comprehensive.

Here’s hoping the Oprah show decides they haven’t given the topic enough attention and has another go.

The white dress, the reception, the invitations… the way we get married feels very traditional, as if it’s been done that way forever. Trouble is, our idea of marriage has only been around since Victorian times.

The Times has a fantastic article about the history of marriage in England and how its changed over the centuries.

It is surprising perhaps that the white wedding is still in vogue. There is nothing truly traditional about it. It was invented by the Victorians to show that the lady was rich enough to have a dress that was used only once. Victorian fathers “gave” their daughters away wearing virginal white and a veil as a substitute for her long hair worn use, originally the symbol of virginity.
…
Given the choice, those unencumbered by property preferred to avoid the expense and rigmarole of an official church wedding and spend their money on drinking to celebrate the new partnership. Dodging the newly imposed tax and resentment at the state’s interference in their private business provided further incentives to live in “common law unions” that had no basis in law and did not carry property rights. As long as a couple considered themselves “married in the sight of God” and was “reputed lawful man and wife amongst their neighbours” the forms of ceremony mattered little to them.
…
Clandestine marriage led to all sorts of abuses, from the kidnapping, drugging, forced marriage and rape of heiresses by fortune hunters to under-age, same-sex, incestuous or bigamous unions. Bigamy was common in a society where divorce was denied. Given the dubious nature of the paperwork and lack of witnesses, it was all too easy to walk away from a clandestine marriage and marry again.

I think all those who feel that gay marriage somehow undermines society should read this and consider what a shaky base our modern concept of marriage is built upon.

This is an ad for Diet Coke from the 90s. Now, I abhor Diet Coke but this ad almost makes me forgive it for all its sins. That’s because this ad is a showcase for the female gaze – the idea of shooting from a woman’s point of view. Yes, it’s only advertising, but think about how often ads assume the viewer is male and trot out the standard bikini girls.

And the guy is kind of hot.

I’ve created a new site called The Female Gaze where I’m hoping to look at ads, photos and films that give priority to a female perspective. It’s still in its early stages but it will grow, I’m sure.

Today brings the sad news that Patrick Swayze has finally succumbed to pancreatic cancer.

I thought I’d add a blog post on behalf of all the thirty-something women who are feeling a little bit sad right now. In our teens, Patrick embodied an ideal of manhood that was very appealing. His role as Johnny Castle in Dirty Dancing was certainly romantic… but it was something else too. He represented an awakening of sexual desire, both in Jennifer Grey’s Baby character and within ourselves.

There’s a reason Swazye was voted the best near-naked man on screen. He spends almost half of Dirty Dancing sans shirt. And the camera spends a lot of time lingering over his muscles and chiselled good looks. That film treats Patrick with a distinctly female gaze and I know that many, many women responded positively to that.

Just look at the “Cry To Me” scene from Dirty Dancing. Baby is the one in control here and she’s the one admiring him. That’s pretty rare in a mainstream film. And it’s also very sexy.

Cry to Me Clip

Ah Patrick. Yes, you did a great many other good things, but it’s this that I will remember you for. Thanks for the shirtlessness.

Fashion and design magazine Wallpaper* has gone out on a limb by offering a cover featuring a “peelable” naked man. The cover starts out all very clothed, but you can then peel back a sticker and the rather handsome guy on the cover is totally naked.

It’s a lovely idea and one I’d like to see more of. I’m sure the girls at Erotica Cover Watch will be very pleased. I’ll also be interested to see how well the whole thing sells.

Interestingly, the Guardian’s coverage of the cover focuses on the cost and logistics of the whole thing. There’s no commentary whatsoever about the fact that the man is naked, no typical hysteria about “porn” or the corruption of children or (insert moral panic here).

Is it because it’s a fashion magazine? Are people making the assumption that the naked man is aimed at gay consumers – and only gay men read fashion mags? Or is it lacking in headlines because the bogans don’t normally go near that kind of magazine and thus haven’t noticed it or complained?

* No, really, dahlings. “Wallpaper*” with an asterisk is how you write it. And say it, obviously. I’m always saying things with a silent asterisk. Like now*.