Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog

Archive for the ‘Porn’ Category

If you’ve seen any porn in the last 25 years, you’ve probably encountered adult legend Nina Hartley. Nina has starred in countless porn films and created her famous line of instructional videos.

She’s due to give a talk at SXSW on the 15th March about sex and social networking. The offficial blurb says she’ll be “discussing how the web has been both a blessing and a curse for industry players and how that’s now changing thanks to social networking technology.”

Nina is also about to launch her own social networking site called SexWise, an online space for discussions about all aspects of sex and sexuality (but one that won’t have porn on it).

Ahead of all this, Nina is giving interviews. And voila, I’m pleased to present a quick five minute encounter with La Nina just to whet your appetite.

You’re part of a panel at SXSW talking about sex and social networking. Why has this topic got you excited?

Sex education and promoting adult conversations about sex and sexuality is what my whole career has been about. Social media is just the newest, and potentially the most effective, way to do this. Only those who want to participate are included and even if I don’t have an answer to a particular question, the odds are good that one of the other people in the conversation will.

What possibilities to do you see for the future of social networking and human relationships?

Social media is so new I don’t think we’ve started to scratch the surface of what’s possible. I can have a conversation with someone half way around the world, in real time, about anything at all. This is amazing on the face of it. We can grow our circle of friends, even those who live on other continents. It seems like old-fashioned pen pals on steroids, since we can communicate with so many more people at one time, so quickly. No more waiting for that letter from Peru or Scotland to arrive in the mailbox!

The downside, of course, is how easy it is to misrepresent oneself in an online forum, or to lie outright. This can lead to a lot of hurt feelings. If one is looking for romance, in the end we’ll still have to meet face to face and be able to navigate that platform.

You’re a legend in the porn industry and something of a fairy godmother to the new wave of alternative and feminist erotica. Did you ever expect to last so long in adult? What’s your secret?

Actually, I did. My secret is that I’m here for more than just the party. I got into adult entertainment for many reasons, not the least of which was to get my message about sex, sexuality and sexual expression out into the world. I’m a nurse, as well, so I’m here to set an example of healthy sexuality, as well as to help others find their best sexual place/expression. I act as an advocate to those who aren’t at liberty to be as out about their sexuality as I am. If I had been here only for the attention or the money I’d have burned out long ago. I’m also exceptionally well-suited psychologically for a career in sex work, as it happens. I’m bisexual, non-monogamous, kinky, exhibitionistic and enjoy sex without having to be in love. Adult entertainment is NOT for everyone, but it is for me.

What are your plans for the future?

To continue advocating for sexual literacy and sexual freedom for all adults. To take the conversation about sex, sexuality and sexual expression to a wider audience. To do stand up about sex, sexuality and sexual expression (believe me, sex is also funny as hell). I’d like to go on TV and talk to the likes of Joy Behar, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, the women of The View. I want to continue speaking to colleges and universities about sex and sexuality and sexual expression. I want to engage as many people as are interested in the conversation to join it in my new community, SexWise, which is a safe place to discuss all aspects of consensual adult activity.

In short, I’ll be doing in the future what I’ve been doing for the past 26 years. I’ll just be taking it to a wider audience.
**

Thanks to Nina for her time!

Pic is from Nina’s Facebook page.

Good For Her have announced the official list of nominees for the 2010 Feminist Porn Awards. I’m pleased to say that For The Girls has been nominated for Best Website.

Here’s some info from their press release:

But wait, what is feminism doing getting into bed with porn? At Good For Her, we are feminists and we sell and rent porn. In 2006 we decided that it’s not enough to criticize adult films for not adequately representing women’s – and in many cases, men’s – sexuality. So we decided to do something about it. As porn star and performance artist Annie Sprinkle famously said, “The answer to bad porn isn’t no porn…it’s to try and make better porn!” Good For Her couldn’t agree more. We believe the world is inundated with cheesy, cliche, degrading, and patronizing porn. But we also believe that erotic fantasy is powerful, and that women and marginalized communities deserve to put their dreams and desires on film, too. As feminists and sex-positive people, we want to showcase and honour those who are creating erotic media with a feminist sensibility.

The nominees on this year’s list continue to strive to provide erotic entertainment that is smart, sexy, and continues to appreciate women as viewers. In addition to featuring 51 nominations in total – the highest number of nominated films and websites ever – this year’s nominee list also includes movies from more countries than previous years, and includes filmmakers from: Great Britain, Spain, The Netherlands, France, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, and of course, the porn epicenter of the world, The United States. Canada is also represented among the nominee list with erotic website, GoodDykePorn.com, and “Kiwi-Canuck” Astrid Glitter.

The Nominees for the 2010 Good For Her Feminist Porn Awards are (in alphabetical order – film title first)

48) 101 Positions for Lovers – Jamye Waxman – Sensual Couples
49) A Man With a Maid: Tales of Victorian Lust – Nica Noelle – Sweet Sinner Video
50) Art of Female Self-Pleasure – Jaiya – New World Sex Education
51) Be My Boy Toy – Anna Span – Easy on the Eye Productions
52) Behind the Red Door – Carlos Batts – HeartCore Films
53) Bordello – Courtney Trouble – Reel Queer Productions
54) Buck Angel’s Ultimate Fucking Club – Buck Angel – Buck Angel Entertainment
55) Cocksucker – Julie Simone – Julie Simone Productions
56) Couch Surfers 2: Trans Men in Action – Brazen Garage Squad –Trannywood Pictures
57) Crash Pad Series 4: Ropeburn – Shine Louise Houston – Blowfish Video
58) Crash Pad Series 5: The Revolving Door – Shine Louise Houston – Blowfish Video
59) Dangerous Curves – Carlos Batts – HeartCore Films
60) Des Jours Plus Belles Que La Nuit – Jennifer Lyon Bell + Murielle Scherre – Blue Artichoke Films
61) Dirty Diaries: 12 Shorts of Feminist Porn – Mia Engberg (producer) — Njuta Films
62) Fluid: Men Redefining Sexuality – Madison Young – Reel Queer Productions
63) Fluid: Women Redefining Sexuality – Madison Young – Reel Queer Productions
64) Glamazons – Carlos Batts – HeartCore Films
65) Handcuffs – Erika Lust – Lust Films
66) Honey Bunny – Vena Virago – Vivid Alt
67) John — Astrid Glitter– Glitter Films
68) Lesbian Adventures: Victorian Love Letters – Nica Noelle – Sweetheart Video
69) Lesbian Hitchhikers – Nica Noelle – Sweetheart Video
70) Maneater: The Prelude – Damali Dares – Desire Street Productions
71) My Daughter’s Boyfriend – Nica Noelle – Sweet Sinner Video
72) Penny Flame’s Expert Guide to Rough Sex – Tristan Taormino & Penny Flame – Vivid Ed/Smart Ass Video
73) Perversions of Lesbian Lust Vol. 2 – Madison Young – Madison Young Productions
74) Queer Manor – Madison Young – Reel Queer Productions
75) River Rock Women’s Prison – Kathryn Annelle – Triangle Films
76) Rock Hard: For Music and Cock Lovers Everywhere – Jelena Lakic – Easy on the Eye
77) Roulette: Berlin – Courtney Trouble – Reel Queer Productions
78) Sensual Massage for Pregnancy – Jaiya – New World Sex Education
79) Seven Minutes in Heaven: Coming Out – Courtney Trouble – Reel Queer Productions
80) Seven Minutes in Heaven: Tender Hearted – Courtney Trouble – Reel Queer Productions
81) Speakeasy – Courtney Trouble – Reel Queer Productions
82) Stories of Sexes – Ovidie & Jack Tyler – French Lover TV
83) Sylvia – Madison Young – Madison Young Productions
84) The Band – Anna Brownfield – Hungry Films
85) The Deviant – Nica Noelle – Sweet Sinner Video
86) Tristan Taormino’s Expert Guide to Anal Sex for Men – Tristan Taormino – Vivid Ed/Smart Ass Video
87) Tristan Taormino’s Expert Guide to Threesomes – Tristan Taormino – Vivid Ed/ Smart Ass Video
88) Tristan Taormino’s Rough Sex – Tristan Taormino – Vivid / Smart Ass Video
89) Women Love Porn – Anna Span (producer) – Easy on the Eye Productions
90) Women Love Porn: Apocalypse Angels – Katie Coxxx – Easy on the Eye
91) XXX Vignettes – Astrid Glitter – Glitter Films

Website Nominations:

www.RubysDiary.com
www.JuicyPinkBox.com
www.ShotWithDesire.com
www.NoFauxxx.com
www.GoodDykePorn
www.ForTheGirls.com
www.OnMyPeriod.com

Congratulations to all the nominees. There’s a lot of great films in there and also some new ones I haven’t heard of; I’ll have to look into where I can get them for review.

I’m not certain but I’m hoping to be able to attend this year’s awards. It will be a bit last-minute if I go but I’m sure it will be worth it.

Here’s the main Feminist Porn Awards 2010 page.

Vice blog has some fascinatingg interviews with four of the main stars of the new wave of authentic lesbian porn – Dylan Ryan, Syd Blakovich, Madison Young and Jiz Lee. These women dish the dirt on what it’s really like to be a porn star, share anecdotes about bodily fluid mishaps and also give their views of feminist porn. Worth reading.

Here’s some quotes from Jiz Lee:

So you’re sincerely turned on when you’re working.
Yes, and I wouldn’t do it any other way. Being turned on and having a good time filming is one of the [major] reasons I do what I do. I also do it consciously knowing that I represent queer homo hapa faggy soft-butch dykes…

Even down to aesthetics like hair–I have hair, and I like the way it looks. Every now and then I’ll shave it ’cause I want to play, not because that’s the way beauty has to be. I’d say “Fuck The Man” but lots of straight dudes dig my work and my hairy asshole. I have words for them: All my pubes are my feelers, and the hair around my asshole is my wizard. And it is very, very wise. Some folks say that “disco bush” is back in style. Mine is “disco gutter.”

I’m a few days late with this but really want to blog about it. Sam Benjamin, ex porn director and author of Confessions of an Ivy League Pornographer, has written an article for AlterNet entitled Why I Had To Stop Making Hardcore Porn. In it he describes how he spent 5 years making heterosexual gonzo porn for a living and how, eventually, he decided to stop because he found the whole experience too cruel.

I came to learn that within the context of the heterosexual L.A. industry, while my overt task at hand was to make sure that the girls got naked, my true responsibility as director was to make sure the girls got punished. Scenes that stuck out, and hence made more money, were those in which the female “targets” were verbally degraded and sometimes physically humiliated.

None of it was written in my contract, of course; it was more of a contextual thing. Like: Everyone’s doing it . . . thus, so shall we. My various superiors across the years saw the issue from a businessman’s perspective, reminding me quite openly of the need to keep up with our competition…

What surprised me most though, was the fact that I found within myself a happy willingness to be violent, a willingness to degrade. Though my bosses may have ordered me to organize and record the scenes of degradation, I followed their orders, and not without pleasure. Something cowardly within me, an internal space, suffused with a weak kind of anger, felt satisfied when I saw a woman “take her punishment.” I clung to the sense of temporary empowerment I found through the bullying. Lust-colored aggression and the satisfaction of making “good money” guided me through scene after scene.

Sam is talking about exactly the kind of porn I find offensive and have spoken out against regularly on this blog. I too have seen the slow creep towards “harder” porn online, “harder” meaning crueler and more degrading. I’ve long deplored the various “reality” sites that showed women laughed at and abused for having sex, sites that show women being slapped, made to vomit and cry during blowjobs, called whores and bitches and sluts… To me this type of porn has always been more about hate and revenge rather than actual sex and I despise it.

Sam then goes on to say that, after a break, he took up directing gay porn and found the attitude behind it to be far different:

Gay porn, in fact, was so goddamn simple that it approached a type of Zen beauty. I mean, this was guys taking on guys, in every shape and form imaginable, for the most part in good humor and absent-minded lust. They may have stuck to roles of “tops” and “bottoms,” but in the dressing room, we all seemed equals, on the same team.

Thankfully he uses the experience of gay porn to point out that not all pornography need be exploitative or cruel. He also mentions female-directed and alt porn as examples or more positive erotica. He then goes on to say:

At its worst, though, porn can represent with shocking clarity the inability of a modern society to empathize. We are living in an increasingly individualistic, over-privatized, fragmented society, and it’s not going to get any better any time soon. Perhaps the character of our generation will be judged in how we react to the images that run before us on our screens: do we wish for the objects of our desire to be punished, humiliated? Or treated with respect? The answer is in our collective consciousness. It is up to us.

While I think Sam’s juxtaposition of “us and them” is a bit too simplistic (exploitation happens in gay porn too), I’m glad he wrote the article. This is a conversation we really need to be having and questions need to be asked:

* Why have some genres of porn become so horrible?
* Who is driving it? The consumers or the producers?
* What is the motivation behind wanting to see/create this type of porn?
* What effect does it have on young men who may see porn as a type of sex education?
* How can we change things so that degrading gonzo porn is no longer so dominant?
* How do we make porn better?

In the fight against censorship I find myself standing up for all porn, even though I dislike so much of it. Unfortunately freedom of speech means I have to defend their position in order to maintain mine – even though what I do is so vastly different, ethically and philosophically. And yet defending freedom of speech doesn’t mean I can’t speak out and say there’s a problem here. Because there is and I’m glad someone like Sam Benjamin has acknowledged it. The trick now is to keep discussing this without the inevitable calls for it to be banned.

Once again, Annie Sprinkle’s quote applies: The solution to bad porn isn’t no porn, it’s better porn.

And that’s what I’ve been doing for ten years now. Carving out my own little dirty corner of the internet and creating a space for women that’s positive, respectful, intelligent and fun, one that embraces sexuality as an act of love and pleasure, not hatred. I want to make a difference to porn, to provide something that’s good and well made and beautiful. To depict sex as something worthy of honour and respect.

At this stage I’ll direct you to an excellent piece written by Charlie Glickman from Good Releasing called The Ethics Of Making Sex Positive Porn. It’s his response to Sam’s article and details his ideas about improving the porn landscape. It becomes a plug for Good Releasing but that’s OK because they’re a distribution and production company that IS trying to make a difference.

Women are watching more porn than ever. At least, that’s the conclusion if you read The Sun’s latest survey (and I will admit, The Sun must be taken far less seriously than other newspapers).

Around 76 per cent of women now admit* to using porn – a ten per cent rise on the two-thirds of girls who admitted to watching porn with their partners in a survey last year.

The most popular format is online porn, which is watched by 61 per cent of couples. Just one couple in 20 looks at magazines, while 18 per cent get their kicks watching porn DVDs on the telly.

The survey of 4,200 women also revealed four in five women like to dress up for their other halves and indulge in role play.

The most popular outfit is a French maid, used by 42 per cent, followed by nurses, chosen by a quarter of women.

The survey was actually by a site called Netmums which gives you an idea of the demographics. Apparently women have a lot less time and energy for sex at the moment but they’re putting more effort into it when they get the chance.

* I hate how newspaper use the word “admit” like porn use is a crime. It casts the whole thing into a negative light. Thankfully the article includes interviews with (and photos of) three typical porn-loving women. This is a really positive thing to include because it shows that women who like a bit of porn are just everyday, normal chicks who want to enjoy their sex lives using whatever tools are available to them.

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.

This morning I read an opinion piece by Natasha Walter in The Times Online called How Teenage Access To Pornography Is Killing Intimacy In Sex. The headline is pure moral panic but I was surprised to find that this extensive article actually contained a real attempt to be vaguely balanced in its anti-porn argument. Normally these kinds of pieces are all hysteria and generalisations and Dworkin-style feminism. This one went close to that but then tried a bit harder. These paragraphs were what gave me pause:

Now that the classic feminist critique of pornography — that it necessarily involves or encourages abuse of women — has disappeared from view, there are few places that young people are likely to hear much criticism or even discussion about its effects.

Many women who would call themselves feminists have come to accept that they are growing up in a world where pornography is ubiquitous and will be part of almost everyone’s sexual experiences. I can see why some are arguing that the way forward really rests on creating more opportunities for women in pornography, yet I think it is worth looking at why some of us still feel such unease with the situation as it is now.

I do not believe that all pornography inevitably degrades women, and I do see that the classic feminist critique of pornography is too simplistic to embrace the great range of explicit sexual materials and people’s reactions to them. Yet let’s be honest. The overuse of pornography does threaten many erotic relationships, and this is a growing problem. What’s more, too much pornography does still rely on or promote the exploitation or abuse of women. Even if you can find porn for women and couples on the internet, nevertheless a vein of real contempt for women characterises so much pornography.

It’s very rare that writers actually acknowledge the existence of alternative porn such as the stuff I make. And I find that rather pleasing because it means they can’t get away with the “all porn is bad” or “all porn hurts women” nonsense. They also can’t then start arguing for censorship because they’re aware it would harm sex-positive erotic expression.

And the fact is that I too have major concerns about the ongoing misogyny and negative attitudes that pervade mainstream porn. I too wonder what it’s teaching young people and whether it’s reinforcing sexism or making guys into bad sexual partners.

My problem, though, is with the assumption that this is absolutely and definitely happening to a large number of men. And the reason I have a problem with it is because there is no scientific evidence to back up that claim. In the article Natasha writes:

For a long time I was sceptical about the claim that the internet had really changed people’s access and attitudes to pornography. Those who want it have surely always been able to find it, whether they were living in 5th-century Athens or the 1950s. But the evidence (my italics) has convinced me that the internet has driven a real change for many people, especially younger people.

She then goes on to quote statistics about how many teens and men are using porn but she fails to then offer any proof that the use of porn is then causing harm.

And that’s the real problem with these kinds of articles. The writer can come up with numerous individual anecdotes that back up their point (in this case, a lengthy interview with “Jim” who became obsessed with porn as a teen) but there’s no real, proper research offered to back up those individual cases.

I too find it disturbing when I hear of women saying their partners became crap in bed after they’d gotten a little too interested in mainstream porn… but can that be extrapolated into a wider trend within the male population?

Fact is, no huge studies have been done to prove it. And here’s the other problem: you’re gonna need a seriously massive study to see any kind of trend. Because the internet means that everybody looks at porn now and if you then think about whether this ubiquitous thing is having a visible, quantifiable effect on vast numbers of men… well, I just don’t see it. In theory we should be witnessing the wholesale destruction of relationships, increasing sexism in our everyday interactions, major psychological problems becoming commonplace among men but it’s just not there.

Instead you could point to the studies that show incidences of rape and sexual harrassment fell in the last ten years. Or even the recent very small survey in Canada that sought to answer these very questions. The researcher originally made headlines because he was unable to find any men who didn’t use porn for his control group. But he did discover that the men in his study watch porn with a cynical eye and that it doesn’t lead to criminal behaviour.

Thus, I don’t really buy into the argument that mainstream porn is making men into complete bastards even if it does make some kind of logical sense. And yet I do want to continue the discussion about what meanings mainstream porn IS constructing and what it means for teens who are, unfortunately, getting their sex education from porn. I’m all for talking about what’s wrong with the depictions of women and sex and advocating for a more positive portrayal of sexuality.

And I’m certainly keen on bringing men into the conversation and hearing what they think about it. Because too often articles like Natasha’s make generalisations about “what men think” without recourse to actually asking them. I actually like to hope that most guys do take porn with a grain of salt, aware that it often appeals to negative emotions or base impulses. And perhaps if we can get that discussion going, more men’s consciousness can be raised to the point that they’re aware of the problematic nature of mainstream porn.

Education and communication is the solution to this puzzle. It always is.

For another view on this, please read The Thin Line Between Pearl-Clutching And Concern at The Pursuit of Harpyness. A good dissection of the issue AND I just love the term “pearl clutching”.

The mandatory internet filter has been on the cards for nearly two years now but I must admit I honestly didn’t think it would get off the ground. The whole idea is manifestly flawed and technically unfeasable and I foolishly thought that Senator Conroy would have to bow to common sense in the end.

Alas, no. Religious zealotry tends to flush away all common sense and thus it is that today Stephen Conroy has given the green light to the filter.

It’s hard to articulate the churn of negative emotions I’m feeling now but suffice to say that I’m angry, frustrated, outraged and perplexed by the decision. The plan still involves a blacklist and it’s still going to be secret; it’s essentially a green light for the government to censor pretty much anything under the guise of “protecting the children.”

And what’s being sold as a fight against child porn is actually a war on legal, adult pornography. The report says that RC (”refused classification”) material will be blocked – this is material that it is actually legal to own in Australia. The Australian Sex Party says 99% of all adult websites would be considered RC if the government had the resources and time to classify the millions of them out there.

Even female ejaculation is considered a “fetish” and thus beyond the pale. Once again, censorship imposes itself on female sexuality and tells us what is and isn’t “normal”. This is a regime that bans the healthy sexuality of Matinee but thinks images of clitoridectomy a la Antichrist is OK.

The only positive thing I can take from this is the overwhelming response to the announcement on Twitter and in comments on news sites. About 99% of all comments and tweets I’m reading are opposed to the filter and a lot of people are saying it’s a vote-changer. There’s real anger out there and I think it’s going to be forcefully expressed in the coming days and weeks.

Fact is Australia has outgrown it’s ridiculous censorship laws and there’s a wave of Gen X and Y internet users that are about to start getting seriously vocal about their right to freedom of speech. It really is time we stood up to these conservative bastards and told them what the majority of Australians really think.

And if protests and letters and emails and strong public antipathy don’t work, I will be leaving Australia. Probably in a year’s time when the filter is due to come into force. No doubt For The Girls and some of my other sites will be blocked and I don’t want to give my tax dollars to a country that thinks my brand of positive sexual expression is obscene.

Fuck them.

Update (and I think I’m going to keep updating this post this evening as things progress): The Australian Christian Lobby which pushed for the filter is ALREADY demanding that it be extended:

Managing director Jim Wallace issued a statement claiming the Enex report had “proven the technological principle [of filtering] can be extended to deal with other harmful X and R-rated material on the internet.

“This is now clearly feasible and we need a review in three years that might test this in practice, particularly using third party providers of URLs,” Wallace said.

Hello slippery slope.

Scanning in old photos a few weeks ago I came across the pics we took at the Sydney performance of Annie Sprinkle’s Post Porn Modernist in 1996. Annie positively insisted that the audience took photos of the show so these blurry images are the result of our participation. I’ve also still got one of the rice-filled shakers we used to create a wall of sound during Annie’s orgasmic meditation.

This show was like a first step into a wider world for me. I’d had my interest in sex and sexuality stirred by the then-risque pages of Australian Women’s Forum mag but beyond a few furtive visits to a sex shop, I was still pretty naive.

And then Annie Sprinkle came to town amid much fanfare and negative press. I don’t think I paid much attention until the day the police paid her a visit. Suddenly it became imperative that uniformed officers determine if “obscene” acts were being performed in the Belvoir Theatre, something that couldn’t be allowed to go on if drinks were being served.

The libertine in me was galvanised. I booked two tickets to the show, partly to say “fuck you” to conservative censors who would tell me what I could and could not see.

Once I was in the theatre, I found myself feeling rather nervous. What was I in for? Was this really my kind of thing?

And then Annie appeared in all her positive, cheerful, bewigged glory and related the fascinating tale of a life lived to its fullest. She made us laugh and she made us share in the sad times. She also made us squirm. I can still remember my shock at hearing the story of a customer who enjoyed anal fisting: “I’d reach up and around and tickle his heart,” she said with a twinkle in her eye. I think that’s the first time I’d even heard of fisting, let alone the anal kind.

In the interval she invited audience members to come down and have a photo taken with her boobs on their head – for $15 of course. I was too shy and I still regret not doing it. The above photos show that we enjoyed it vicariously.

And then she performed her amazing breath orgasm which was just a stunning thing to watch (I actually tried it a year later with mixed success). It was a mind-expanding experience, to be in the same room as a woman who could achieve orgasm through breathing and mind power alone. I was just so impressed and Annie has been a heroine for me ever since.

Indeed, she showed me that sex can be a positive and feminist experience and that one can make a living out of prostitution or porn or sexually-based art without having to be all those negative things that society insists a woman should be. In a way, Annie’s Post Porn Modernist put me on the path that I’m still walking today: a feminist pornographer out to change the world.

I dug up my old Sydney Morning Herald and Age data CDs to see if I could find the news reports of Annie’s visit here. They’re so out of date they don’t work on Windows Vista but I did salvage some articles after much mucking around. Here’s a sample of some of the media from Annie’s 1996 visit.

Sprinkle’s tour into realm of the censors
By Mark Ray

IN a city accustomed to sordid revelations at the Wood Royal Commission on corruption within the New South Wales police force, New York-based performance artist Annie Sprinkle seemed an odd target for a burst of censorship fervor.

Sprinkle, a former US prostitute and star of 200 pornographic movies, has just finished a sell-out week-long season of her show ‘Post Porn Modernist’ at Sydney’s Belvoir Street Theatre, despite threatened police action against the theatre. The show opens at the Athenaeum in Melbourne on Tuesday for a two-week season.

During the week, the Belvoir Street Theatre was told its liquor licence might be revoked because of Sprinkle’s explicit one-woman show. There are no longer any censorship laws in NSW but police action against the show was threatened by recourse to provisions of the Liquor Licensing Act.

By Friday that threat had been abandoned – apparently after the Minister for Police suggested to his commissioner that the moves against Sprinkle were inappropriate.

‘Post Porn Modernist’ is certainly explicit, but the atmosphere at one performance here this week seemed unlike that of a sleazy porn show.

An audience of apparently unremarkable suburbanites, dedicated fans and the curious broad-minded staged no walkouts, made no complaints but responded with much laughter…

WHAT I LIKED ABOUT ANNIE.
SHANNON HALBERT, 26, high-voltage linesman.
“It was bizarre. Much more spiritual than I expected. I thought it’d be the life and times of a porno queen but it’s a decent show.”
AMANDA GARLAND, 29, film producer.
“I didn’t know what to expect but it was nice to see sexuality brought out so openly and presented so positively.”
ROBERT SKAPPEL, 50, interior decorator.
“I liked the fact that she included spirituality into her sexual experience. I’m all for that message.”
DIANA COXSHEAD, 35, naturopath and pharmacist.
“She seemed most comfortable in the last part of the program, going into the spiritual, tantric side.”

- The Age, 31st March 1996

Annie’s Happy Ritual
By Jim Schembri
…The reaction to the show has been strictly divided, Sprinkle says. “I’ve had the best audiences in Australia and the worst press. The audiences have been the most appreciative of anywhere I’ve been in the world and the press has been the most vicious.

“I’ve been misquoted here in Australia more than I’ve ever been. I wouldn’t say (the coverage has been) the most conservative, (but) I would say (it’s been) the most misinformed, the most taken out of context, the most uneducated. And very judgmental, extremely judgmental.”

Sprinkle says she’d never bring Post-Porn Modernist back to Australia because of the stress of bad press, but will bring her new show MetamorphoSex here. “I would have to think hard if I’d want to bring something back that has that potential to be controversial. The bad press inspires a lot of hatred.

I’m a lover, not a fighter.”
- The Age, 4th April 1996

In deep water with Annie
By Emma Tom

NOT LONG into the all-nude Annie Sprinkle bath-house interview, I wish to inform Houston that we have a problem.

Note-taking in a ginseng bath is turning out to be almost as difficult as the well-documented “where the hell do I put my wallet?” nudist nightclub dilemma.

Plus, for some weird reason, the unclothed subject matter is not proving conducive to family newspaper photographs. No matter how low we sink in the spa or how strategically placed the sauna towels, there’s always a stray nipple or three vying for camera attention.

This is Annie Sprinkle, live performance sextress and former porn film starlet, after all. Asking her to keep her money- makers out of the camera would be like asking Eva Cox for a lap dance. Just wouldn’t seem right…

- The Age, 29 March 1996

Reading through some of the other pieces I’m somewhat depressed that Australian society hasn’t progressed in the 13 years since Annie’s visit. A 1996 article called “Have We No Shame?” used Annie’s public cervix announcement as an excuse to bewail the alleged decline of society’s morals. You could easily reproduce the piece in today’s papers and the conservatives would happily nod along. The visit by the police was reproduced during the Henson art gallery censorship incident in 2008. Seems that Australia’s attitude to sex is still very furtive and juvenile.

Annie hasn’t come back and I don’t blame her. Looks like I’ll have to make the effort to go to the US and seek her out. Maybe then I can finally get that photo of her boobs on my head.

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.

In the last week or so I’ve been musing about the length of sex scenes in videos, specifically, what’s too short and what’s too long.

I was recently editing a non-exclusive male masturbation vid and, in a frenzy of cuts, got a painfully long 18 minute video down to under 5 minutes. In that space of time I captured the guy fondling himself through his pants, taking them off, becoming erect and then stroking himself to orgasm. I watched it with fresh eyes the next day and was very pleased with the result.

This got me thinking that I should go back and re-edit some of the other videos at For The Girls. A lot of them go for at least 10 minutes, some up to 20. When I originally edited them I often left scenes longer than I would like because I figured our members would prefer a nice big batch of ongoing sex with plenty of time for masturbation. That is, after all, the main point of a porn video, yes?

And I suspect this theory of “wank time” is a driving factor behind the length of most sex scenes in porn films. The actors go at it, the camera captures it and the editor gives everybody a whole lot of masturbatory room before anything new or different happens. Plenty of people watch porn with one hand on the remote (or >> button on Windows Media Player) so they can find the bits they want and fast forward what they don’t. Why deprive someone of the possibility of finding a bit they like?

Unfortunately there’s a major downside to the theory of “wank time”: far too many porn scenes are downright boring.

When you think about it, sex is a very repetitive business and there’s only so many ways you can do it. Slot A goes into Slot B, move back and forth, rinse, repeat (or something like that). So capturing every second of it is not necessarily going to reveal anything new or exciting. There might be 3 or 4 minutes of piston-like pumping in any given scene but you might only see one interesting facial expression or line of dialogue in that time. So why persist in giving viewers the whole thing?

Beyond “wank time”, scene length in mainstream porn films may be dictated by the desire to make feature-length DVDs. When you’ve got 90 minutes or more to fill, more footage is better than less, no matter what the quality. It could be argued that the increasing move to web-based product would change this idea but it continues apace. There’s a worry that giving people less product – even if it’s of better quality – isn’t good value for money.

Perhaps another reason for the under-editing is the idea that the footage is there so the director might as well use it. You’ve just spent a bunch of money hiring porn actors and crew to get the scene in the can so you may as well wring it for all it’s worth.

I know. That’s how I originally felt after directing my first erotic short film in February this year. I had a whole bunch of wonderful footage and it was really – I mean really – hard to pick out the bits that would best suit the film because I liked so much of it. And I’ve actually gone through a learning curve with the editing process on that film. My initial cut was nearly 20 minutes. There’s a long version of 15 minutes at For The Girls and the version showing in Berlin is 10 minutes. My R-rated version is 7 minutes. And then I re-cut it again to enter it in the Joy Awards and that version is under 5 minutes.

And having gone through that process, I think the shorter versions are better.

There is of course the balancing act that occurs between authentically capturing the moment and boring your audience. You do want to do your actors and their scene justice by documenting the essence of what went on but you have to also be a little bit ruthless on behalf of your viewers, whose time is precious.

So what’s wrong with editing things down to show four or five strokes (for example), cut to the interesting expression, cue another camera angle, back to the original camera angle… and then move on. Film school students will tell you that 3 seconds is ample time to give your audience an idea of what’s happening. Modern music videos often only give you half a second worth of shot. So why does porn persist in holding the audience captive for so long? Why must we see every different position for at least 3 or 4 minutes? Do people really masturbate along in time, like some kind of perverted Read-A-Long story?

My problem is, I’m not sure that my opinion is reliable on this topic. I’ve been working with porn for nearly ten years now. I’m afraid to say that I find a lot of porn dreadfully boring, perhaps because I’ve seen it all before. Maybe the opinion of a porn newbie or a seasoned fan will be very different.

And I’ve actually been given pause to wonder about scene length even further after watching Nica Noelle’s The Stepmother. The first scene in that film goes for 35 minutes and I think it went for too long. At the same time, I very happily watched it to the 15 minute mark without feeling bored because those first 15 minutes are very watchable indeed. That’s because the sex is so very real, intimate and passionate and I was enthralled to see something like that in a porn movie (still a rare thing!). There were very few edits on show; the footage seemed to flow in real time. Unfortunately, just when it felt like the sex should naturally come to a conclusion, the couple switched positions and kept at it. And at it. And at it. And so I got bored.

And in reality, I could have happily watched a few minutes less of each position, so long as my interest was maintained. As I said in my review: actually having sex for 35 minutes is fun. Watching it for that long, not so much.

That’s the big question: when do things get boring? And are the punters getting bored in the first place or are they just getting busy with their hands (or lovers)?

Meanwhile, Erika Lust has released a short film called Handcuffs that features lots of emotive, film noir build up but very little actual sex. Will it be good wank material? And should it be considered in that sense (because obviously Erika’s film offers more than your average gonzo scene designed purely to get you off)? For some, the erotic atmosphere and shock of the very brief hardcore scene will be enough to inspire fantasies and trigger orgasms. It may leave others cold. Certainly it’s a very left-fieldexample of how a sex scene can be cut together but I do think it shows that the “same ol’ same ol’” theory of porn editing is a bit tiresome.

I asked this question on Twitter a few days ago. I only got one personal reply. She said: “I tend to get what I need by the 15 minute mark.” Meanwhile filmmaker Tony Comstock said that “Boring your audience is a cardinal sin, regardless of subject matter.” And “surveillance camera footage is not a film.” Which is a good point.

But is there a consensus out there about the ideal length of a sex scene? Does it differ according to the type of “action” involved (e.g. can a hetero boy-girl scene go longer than a male masturbation one?) Does “wank time” matter? Let me know!

* Still above is from my film “That’s What I Like”

Wow. Erika Lust, who produced the amazingly good Five Hot Stories For Her, is working on a new project. And she’s just released this 7 minute short to promote it.

The first half is a bit too dark to really work out what’s happening but things hot up at the mid way mark. Just goes to show that a film can be incredibly erotic without going into too much explicit detail. And when you do see that erect cock… it makes the impact that much stronger.

Gorgeously filmed too… amazing production values. I’m very keen to see what she’s working on!

Visit Erika’s site – she’s got her movies online there plus a great blog.

I hate being late to the party with these things but I’ve only just heard about the European Feminist Porn Award which is being held on Saturday 17th October in Berlin. Yes… I’m going to miss them, dammit, but despite my general divineness and best efforts at omnipresence I’ve discovered that I just can’t be everywhere at once.

So this is essentially a party and film night to honour the feminist pioneers of porn: Candida Royalle, Annie Sprinkle, Maria Beatty, Shine Louise Houston and Petra Joy. The lovely Jennifer Lyon Bell from Blue Artichoke Films will be there as well.

In October 2009 the first Feminist Porn Film Award will be presented in Berlin. The initiators set themselves off against sexist, mainstream pornography. “We want to revolutionize the erotic film market”, says Laura Meritt – sexpert with a doctorate in communication sciences. Awards will be given for high quality erotic movies “with a wide range of portraying female sexual lust and in which women play an important role as producers.”

The feminist film prize is initiated and organized by Sexclusivitaeten, the first women-oriented sex enterprise and sexual communication centre in Europe, together with the Freudenfluss network.

I have to say, I really like their criteria for feminist film. I think these are rules that all adult films should uphold!

• A sex-positive attitude, no de-humanising or misogynistic portrayals

• Roles in collusion with those involved / no crossing of personal borders

• Ethical work conditions / safe sex is encouraged

• Those involved will be shown in relation to one another – eye, skin, hand, and body contact, energy exchange.

• Emotions and declarations of love are encouraged, doable, and showable.

• Diverse camera settings, light and shadow games

• Variations of sexual practices in joyful transitions, not an achievement test, broadening of the stereotypically portrayed spectrum.

• A variety of body types, ages, genders, sexual orientations and ethnic backgrounds.

• Authentic sound recordings or music. No gender-stereotypical amplified dubbing of moaning.

• Portrayal of lust and pleasure, focus on female lust and its diversity.

• No schematic portrayals of the “sexual curve” – that is to say no straight zoom in on the male ejaculation, no emphasis of the male cum shot. Orgasms are not the only goal.

• Women are significantly involved in the production of the film as producers, directors, or camerawomen.

This week sees the premiere of Dirty Diaries, a new feminist porn film helmed by filmmaker Mia Engberg. The movie features twelve shorts created by different women, each offering their own version of what’s sexy. The above pics are stills from three of the films: Skin, For The Liberation of Men and Flasher Girl On Tour.

“Erotica is good and we need it,” says the Dirty Diaries manifesto. “We truly believe that it is possible to create an alternative to the mainstream porn industry by making sexy films that we like.”

Mia talks about her film in this article from a Swedish news site.

Throughout the history of art, the image of woman has been created by men. The gaze has been a man’s gaze and female sexuality has been limited to a few identities that have suited the patriarchal system (and the male artistic ego): whore, wife, mother, muse.
…
We have been faced with many questions. Is there a female sexuality that can be differentiated from its male counterpart and, if so, what does it look like? Is it possible to be subject and object at the same time? How can we liberate our own sexual imagination from the commercial images we see every day and that seep into our subconscious minds?

Unfortunately, some people have objected to the film. They’ve taken exception to the use of public money to fund the project and also have a problem with it being approved because it’s feminist.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Art is subjective. For the state to decide that feminist porn is art but ‘regular’ porn is reprehensible is little more than paternalistic moralising and sends out all the wrong signals in the equality debate. Equality is an important issue, but it should never function as a cloak for state funding of ideologies that are somehow deemed correct in the eyes of the authorities.

Oh, what I wouldn’t give to have public funding and the subsequent abuse. In Australia we could go to jail just for MAKING feminist porn.

In any case, I welcome yet another addition to the growing pantheon of feminist porn and I can’t wait to see Dirty Diaries. Will try and review it soon.

Back in June I reported that ABC’s Nightline was going to show a report women’s interest in porn and sex toys. The piece was bumped several times and it’s only just been broadcast. The report included appearances by Candida Royalle and Nica Noelle. For The Girls was initially contacted by the show but we never heard back from them.

In any case, there’s a longish article to accompany the report on the ABC website. I can only groan at the ubiquitous mention of Sex and the City but it does have some nice quotes from Candida and Nica.

“Women generally want to know why two people are having sex,” said Nica Noelle, a top porn director. “They want to know what the relationship is between those two people. … They want to feel that it’s a relationship that matters to both of the characters. And that the sex is passionate and intimate. And none of those things were really being portrayed in the porn that was out there.”

Update 14th August
Nightline has put the report online so I’ve had a chance to watch it. The yoga thing felt like a waste of space but otherwise I think it was a good, positive piece. Candida and Nica were great. What’s interesting is their focus on the amount of time spent on plot vs sex, as if this is the way to define porn for women. There was also the usual emphasis on relationships, realism and intimacy which will no doubt fire up a backlash among some porn loving women.

I was very pleased to see my site Porn Movies For Women appear, albeit briefly. Here’s a screenshot:

It’s interesting that, once again, the focus is on films rather than websites, even though the statistics quoted relate to internet porn.