 |
|
|
||||
|
Time's porn article makes assumptions about women"Here's a little statistic that means a lot. In hotel rooms where pornography is available, two-thirds of all movie purchases are for pornos; and the average time they are watched is 12 minutes. The image instantly summoned is of the traveling businessman who wants a smidge of sexual exercise before retiring, but who is too tired, timid or cheap to summon a call girl." I'd like to further take the author to task on his use of these statistics. Richard Corliss has failed to appreciate that the vast numbers of people who use porn in hotel rooms are couples. An awful lot of people indulge in a little naughty porn viewing while away from home, often as part of the standard "dirty weekend". This means that an awful lot of women are making the decision to enjoy porn at hotels - whether with or without a partner. Corliss immediately assumes that it's only men who watch porn, and he's also assuming that men only do it because they can't get real sex. The mainstream media regularly make dramatic assumptions about porn like this, so I shouldn't be surprised. And, as has been pointed out, Corliss' final sentence in the five page article says "Granted, I can't authoritatively swear that today's hard-core stinks. That's because I haven't seen a porn video, or digito, whatever they call them, in decades." Which seems to suggest he's written a huge feature piece without doing any proper research. But it is indicative as to the general mindset about women and women's porn use. No wonder it's so hard for people like Candida Royalle to get funding for her porn films. Society just seems to want to blank out this aspect of women's sexuality. Posted: Saturday 2nd April 2005, 7:29 PM Back to the Blog
|
|