Ms Naughty Porn for Women Blog

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.

It took five weeks but here, finally, is my little doco about the 2009 Berlin Porn Film Festival. It’s a little over 4 minutes and you’ll hear some great comments about feminist porn by some of the fab female directors I met including Shine Louise Houston, Anna Brownfield, Candida Royalle, Anna Span, Petra Joy, Jennifer Lyon Bell and Renee Pornero. Plus a quick cameo from Joe Gallant and footage from the Petra Joy Awards presentation.

A much longer version went live at For The Girls yesterday and I’ll also be uploading more footage there soon. Candida Royalle’s lecture about her films is particularly interesting – that’s waiting for a future update. I also wrote an expansive article about my experiences in Berlin for FTG.

The short blog version is that I had a ball, won an award, met lots of wonderful people and wished it could have gone for another 3 days. I didn’t get to enjoy nearly enough films because I was so busy with the Petra Joy Award but the ones I did see were amazing.

It was the people I met that really made it worthwhile. I interviewed Shine Louise Houston from the Crash Pad Series and was so impressed with her drive and knowledge. She’s a woman with a plan and she’s going to become even more of a force to be reckoned with in the future.

Well-known director Joe Gallant could well be the nicest man in the world. We talked the future of porn and hopefully we can work together at sometime next year. He said he thought I’d like Bong Water Butt Babes but I wasn’t so sure. He made me aware of how disconnected I am from the mainstream porn industry… something for which I’m kind of grateful.

Anna Brownfield is a card. We were so pleased to meet each other and had the comraderie of two Aussies lost in Europe, trying not to slip into slang when giving interviews. Her film The Band was such a standout and it shows you can easily marry explicit sex, comedy and great storytelling.

I also got to meet Lisa Vandever from Cinekink who is so much fun and easy to talk to, as is Vena Virago, a wild, pink haired artist who just happens to make porn for Vivid Alt. And I found myself getting stupidly protective towards the gorgeous Julie Simone, who is very quiet and shy, despite being a fearsome BDSM Mistress who can rock a rubber dress.

And then there’s Jennifer Lyon Bell of Blue Artichoke Films who I met last year. Jen is kind of like the social glue of the event, introducing people and arranging dinners and you couldn’t encounter a warmer, more positive person.

I even got to say hello to Candida Royalle, albeit briefly. Indeed, I cringe a little when I think about it. I was feeling a little starstruck and eagerly handed her my card which read Louise Lush. “That’s my new pretendy name,” I said.

Pretendy name??? Sheesh! I like to flatter myself that I have a decent vocabulary but do you think I could remember the word pseudonym for love or money at that moment? My husband has been teasing me about my pretendy name ever since.

OK, enough name dropping. Suffice to say I made lots of contacts and, as you see in the film, we all feel like we’ve found a family in Berlin.

I’ve since discovered quite a few of the short films on Youtube or other free sites around the web. I’m hoping to feature these on the blog in the future.

And as expensive as it is to travel all that way I think I’ll have to go back in 2010. The festival is too much fun and far too useful to miss out on.

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.

I’m disappointed I missed it this year: International Gynae Awareness Day (and week) was on September 10. It aims primarily to encourage the breaking down of entrenched social, and cultural taboos, still surrounding most things ‘gynaecological’.

It was founded by Kath Mazella, who 15 years ago endured radical surgery to overcome vulval cancer; she had her vulva and clitoris removed to save her life. She’s now working to make sure this doesn’t have to happen to other women.

Now I considered myself to be fairly well informed about sexual health matters so I’m amazed I’d never heard of vulval cancer. And to be honest, it scares the crap out of me. Cervical cancer, ovarian cancer… we all know about those. But this? Losing your clit? That’s fucking dreadful! How do we check for this? Do doctors even know anything about it?

Thankfully, the GAIN site has information here.

One of the things Kath campaigns on is the correct usage of the word “vulva” to describe the female genitals. She, like me, is sick of people calling it the vagina.

Even today, we find it difficult to talk about our genitalia, and to use the correct name for these precious parts of our own bodies. The founder of GAIN – Kath Mazzella, a survivor of vulval cancer was surprised, then angry, and finally frustrated, to continually hear many, many women, the world over, refer to their “vulva” as their “vagina”!

Shockingly, Kath has even been told by government funding agencies to tone down her language because the word “vulva” is pornographic. “Vagina”, however, is OK. Can you believe the nonsense some people perpetuate?

In any case, this post is a plug for Kath and her good work. And also to show off that spectacular logo: isn’t it cute?

The Murdoch Newspapers have this week been plugging a book called Why Women Have Sex by Cindy Meston and David Buss. After surveying 1000 women they authors claim they know the “real reasons” why women have sex and say that desire, lust or attraction come a long way down the list.

The 1,006 women interviewed as research for the book gave some very surprising answers. One claimed she did it for a spiritual experience, because it is “the closest thing to God”. Others listed “cure for stress headache”, “to make my sexual skills better” and “for a clearer complexion”.

But the majority, 84 per cent, admit they have sex to ensure a quiet life or to bargain for their partners to carry out household chores. One said: “I have sex to relieve the boredom. Because it’s easier than fighting. Plus it gives me something to do.”

I’m not sure what to make of this research. I don’t doubt that women do have sex for a variety of reasons including keeping their husband happy. But this quote makes me a little suspicious:

“Research has shown that most men find most women at least somewhat sexually attractive, whereas most women do not find most men sexually attractive at all,” the authors, who are both psychology professors at the University of Texas, conclude.

Um, what research is that? Because I’ve never heard of it and it seems a ridiculously broad thing to say about “most women.”

Add to that the way that the Murdoch papers, such as this report in the Courier Mail, seem keen to ramp up the idea that all women are just manipulating men using sex. It’s also shocked that a woman would have sex for sheer pleasure. “Rather than love or romance, for many women sex is just about fun,” says their report. No, really? You’re kidding me?

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.

I should have blogged about this on the weekend but I was busy with a festival. In any case, the mainstream media are on the trail of women and porn again, thanks to this article by Violet Blue on CNN. Today it featured on the front page with a resulting surge in interest.

The piece gives a positive overview of the statistics and the reasons why more women are watching porn. Her mention of Tony Comstock’s films have given his sales a huge boost (you know, one day I’m going to have a film that Violet mentions in her articles as well. One day…)

Violet has also written about the article on her blog.

Despite the fact that the piece is a win for balanced stories about porn in the mainstream media, there is one glaring problem with CNN’s page – it happily provides a link to anti-porn crusaders Pure Life Ministries but does not link to either Maria Beatty’s site or to Comstock Films. No doubt this is due to some “NSFW” link policy but the question needs to be asked: why link to Pure Life at all? The article only mentions it in passing. Surely it would be better not to link to anyone if you can’t be balanced with your linking policy?

The Sun is practically exploding with excited bold print in this article (and I use the term loosely) about a survey into porn viewing habits.

They’ve found that 66% of women watch porn. Well, duh. This is compared to 88% of men, out of a survey of 1000 Sun readers. I must admit, the 66% figure is a lot higher than all the other surveys I’ve seen on this topic, but maybe it makes a difference that readers chose to fill in the survey and that they are in the demographic of “people who actually read The Sun newspaper.”

The age demographics suggest that younger women are more likely to enjoy porn, but not that much more than women aged 26 and older.

65% of women said they’d watched porn with their partner or husband with a third of those saying they used it for foreplay.

The Independent has a he-said, she-said article discussing women and desire. Much of it rehashes the New York Times article from a couple of weeks ago, but I felt the need to blog these two paragraphs, just because I liked the sentiment.

So female desire can be a paradox – as Prof Chivers reports, we may want to be ravished roughly in an alley and also want someone who can be tender and caring. But I’m always amazed by how male writers manage to make that sound impossible, when really, women are not that complicated. Our sexuality just doesn’t parallel men’s; we can’t always be viewed through the same filter. So perhaps when they study women, scientists should drop the unifying theory idea.

As Mary Roach says, “[Scientists] saying that they want to increase orgasms, or boost libido is much more helpful than saying: ‘I want to understand women.’”

Catharine Townsend has a point. Why do men always find this complexity confusing? Surely they experience the same thing? Men and women are not automatons, we all want variety in bed and in our relationships. Everyone has their own kinky fantasies… so enough with the “what do women want?” question.

The New York Times has an extensive article on research into female desire and lust, profiling the hardworking scientists who are studying this relatively new field of human sexuality (i.e. nobody’s bothered to look into what turns women on. Go figure.)

What I found really interesting was the discussion about how the old ideas of romance and relationships aren’t what really get the juices flowing. It’s being lusted after that makes all the difference.

Definitely rings a bell with me.

The problem was how to augment desire, and despite prevailing wisdom, the answer, she told me, had “little to do with building better relationships,” with fostering communication between patients and their partners. She rolled her eyes at such niceties…

“Female desire,” Meana said, speaking broadly and not only about her dyspareunic patients, “is not governed by the relational factors that, we like to think, rule women’s sexuality as opposed to men’s.”

“Really,” she said, “women’s desire is not relational, it’s narcissistic” — it is dominated by the yearnings of “self-love,” by the wish to be the object of erotic admiration and sexual need. Still on the subject of narcissism, she talked about research indicating that, in comparison with men, women’s erotic fantasies center less on giving pleasure and more on getting it. “When it comes to desire,” she added, “women may be far less relational than men.”

For evolutionary and cultural reasons, she said, women might set a high value on the closeness and longevity of relationships: “But it’s wrong to think that because relationships are what women choose they’re the primary source of women’s desire.”

…

From early glances at her data, Chivers said, she guesses she will find that women are most turned on, subjectively if not objectively, by scenarios of sex with strangers… “I’ve often thought that there is something really powerful for women’s sexuality about being desired. That receptivity element. At some point I’d love to do a study that would look at that.”

There’s also some interesting speculation about why women will get physically turned on by all sorts of things, even if their mind doesn’t register it.

Genital lubrication, she writes in her upcoming paper in Archives of Sexual Behavior, is necessary “to reduce discomfort, and the possibility of injury, during vaginal penetration. . . . Ancestral women who did not show an automatic vaginal response to sexual cues may have been more likely to experience injuries during unwanted vaginal penetration that resulted in illness, infertility or even death, and thus would be less likely to have passed on this trait to their offspring.”

Evolution’s legacy, according to this theory, is that women are prone to lubricate, if only protectively, to hints of sex in their surroundings.

It’s a very interesting article, well worth reading.

I’m a bit late with this article but I do love what it’s saying: that women enjoy perving just as much as men.

The tiresome myth that women are not as visually aroused as men is used to justify everything from sexual assault to double standards about public toplessness, and it’s time to kill it dead.

If the oceans of female drool spilt over Obama (and Daniel Craig and Jude Law and Roger Federer et al) isn’t enough to convince you, consider the fact that women continue to have sex with men despite not being legally or economically or in any other way compelled to do so.

Hot pic is from For The Girls, of course.

Another year has flown and once again we’ve seen plenty of highs (and some lows) in the world of porn for women. 2008 saw more acknowledgement of women as consumers of adult material although things haven’t changed as much as I’d like.

I would say that the standout for this year has been the huge growth in the visibility and availability of authentic lesbian erotica such as The Crash Pad Series and Good Dyke Porn. And the world of sex toys has finally grown up and started offering women quality choices.

In The News

* The big porn for women event was the demise of Playgirl magazine, which announced its closure in August. Plenty of media scuttlebutt followed, including inside stories from the women who worked at the magazine, claiming they’d be stifled by the men in upper management.

* Oprah drew attention to porn for women again this year with her show “237 Reasons To Have Sex”. The show included the assertion that “in the $12 billion adult entertainment industry, $1 out of every $4 is spent by a woman.”

* The Sex and the City film gave media pundits everywhere an excuse to once again talk about women embracing sex toys and porn. I could do without it, to be honest.

* In Texas a court overturned the ban on sex toys

* Heidi Fleiss made headlines by opening an “eco friendly” brothel for women in Nevada

New Adult Movies for Straight Women

2008 didn’t match the previous year for female-friendly film releases, although there were still plenty of new titles to keep us interested.

* In March Petra Joy released her third film Feeling It! which I confess was my favourite film of the year. She also released an R-rated compilation called Sensual Seduction.

* Erika Lust released her erotic documentary Barcelona Sex Project. I was honoured to interview Erika and also post some behind the scenes pics on the blog.

* Comstock Films finally released the long awaited Bill and Desiree: Love Is Timeless to much gushiness from me and other reviewers.

* Tristan Taormino released Chemistry 4 (and I got very distracted by the video equipment) and the latest in her instructional series, the Expert Guide To Positions.

* Inpulse Pictures released Intense Desires.

* Tina Tyler continued her male masturbation odyssey with Handyman 5 6 and 7.

* Playgirl kept churning ‘em out, releasing a new movie every month, all year (complete list). This year they also hired the lovely Jamye Waxman as a director on a number of vignettes.

* Innocent Pictures’ 2007 feature All About Anna went platinum in Europe and has been nominated for a bunch of AVN awards.

Authentic Lesbian And Queer Porn Hits Its Stride

2008 saw lesbians really emerge from the shadows and embrace porn in distinctly visible ways.

* Shine Louise Houston extended her creative vision with the launch of The Crash Pad website, based on the hugely successful film of the same name. She then released 3 separate Crash Pad Series DVDs. Her latest film, Champion, is due for release early in the new year.

* Bren Ryder’s Good Dyke Porn has also gone gangbusters and received a special Golden Beaver Feminist Porn Award to boot.

* Trans Entities by Morty Diamond wowed audiences at numerous festivals around the world and received rave reviews as well as two awards in Toronto.

Books and Their Covers

There were an enormous number of erotica books released over the last year. Erotic fiction for women is booming, it seems.

* Rachel Kramer Bussell proved herself the queen of erotic publishing with her regular In The Flesh reading series and her editorship of vast number of short story anthologies. This year I reviewed Dirty Girls and her oral sex themed Tasting Her.

* Violet Blue again edited Best Women’s Erotica for 2009 and I’m pleased to say one of my stories is featured in the anthology.

* Erika Lust released a book called X For Women in both English and Spanish. The book discusses porn from a woman’s perspective.

* Two erotic fiction authors have made waves this year by questioning the ongoing sexism of erotic book covers. Namely, the fact that they all feature near-naked women. Their blog questions the persistence of the male gaze, even when the books are aimed at straight women.

Awards and Shows

* The 3rd Annual Feminist Porn Awards held in Toronto were a success once again. The ceremony featured screenings of nominated films and a range of live acts. The award for Best Film went to Erika Lust’s Five Hot Stories for Her while queer films dominated a lot of the other cateogories.

Naturally the media reports of the awards prompted much debate on the feminist boards with the usual assertions that porn can never be feminist yada yada yada.

* The 2008 AVN Awards were something of a disappointment when it came to female-friendly porn. While plenty of good films were nominated, few made it to the podium. Candida Royalle’s Aphrodite Superstar picked up a gong for Best Music and that was it. Same ol’ same ol’.

* The Venus Trade Show and e-Line awards in Berlin saw Petra Joy awarded for Pioneering Achievements in Porn for Women and Erika Lust taking out Best Erotic Documentary for the Barcelona Sex Project. Interestingly, Erika has since claimed that the Berlin awards are a commercial transaction with the organisers making up categories as they go along.

* Petra Joy also made waves at The Erotica trade show in London, conducting workshops for women who want to make their own porn and attracting a lot of media interest in her work.

Surveys and Statistics

A quick look at some of the damned lies and statistics that emerged this year.

* The Porn Report, the result of several years of research and surveys into people’s use of porn in Australia, found that most Aussies don’t have an issue with consensual legal porn and – gasp – women like it too. 17% of those interviewed were women and the authors found that women were more likely to watch a DVD and to view it with a partner.

* A book called The Sex Lives of Australian Women says that 1 in 4 Aussie chicks will look at porn at least once a month.

* A survey of over 14,000 Israeli women found that 71% consider themselves to be liberal and daring in bed and half of them say they enjoy watching erotic materials including films, websites and books. 37% specifically said they liked pornography.

* A survey of Swedish “yummy mummy” mothers found that 28% of them enjoyed online porn – and they had rather raunchy sex lives to boot.

* According to the headlines on one lot of research, women aren’t turned on by naked men. The study did find, however, that women do get turned on by images of sensuality and graphic images of sex – no matter what gender the participants in the photos were.

* A survey found that given the choice between the internet or sex, women would rather have the web.

The Spectre Of Censorship

This issue, more than any other this year, has dominated the writing in my blog (check out the censorship category). Governments want to control and censor the internet, and they’re using the spectre of child porn to do it.

* In January 2008 the Australian government announced plans to introduce a mandatory ISP filter in the name of “protecting the children.” Senator Stephen Conroy immediately pissed opponents off by saying that “If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd-Labor Government is going to disagree.” In October news of the filter hit the mainstream and those opposing it got their act into gear. There’s since been protests, petitions, heaps of cash raised and plenty of online commentary. Aussies are finally standing up for their right to free speech! The filter is still having money thrown at it, the battle will continue into 2009.

* An Australian bloke was charged with importing porn into Australia after customs police tracked his mail. The told media that “the DVDs featured abhorrent sexual practices including bondage”, a quote that gives a concise view of exactly how backward Australia’s censorship laws are.

* In Britain the law banning “extreme porn” was passed, even though most lawyers and police have no idea how to define what’s illegal. Plenty of women from the BDSM community spoke out against the law and its infringement on their liberty.

* Tony Comstock discovered that Google’s Safe Search considers the word “penis” to be “safe” but “clitoris” is beyond the pale. Obviously it’s a word that will corrupt your children.

* This year saw numerous examples of how concern about child abuse has stepped over a boundary into very shady legal territory, leading to numerous prosecutions for thought crime. Prosecutions have occurred over written material and cartoons. In all cases the material was offensive but no children were involved or harmed in any way.

Meanwhile the Bill Henson saga in Australia raised many hackles over the definition of art, porn and whether police should be raiding photography galleries. And Wikipedia was banned in the UK for a short time thanks to a 30 year old Scorpions album cover. It’s a complicated issue, of course, but it seems to me like hysteria is starting to replace rationality when it comes to the problem of child porn.

Highlights from Ms Naughty and For The Girls

* For The Girls turned 5 in June and our annual short story competition was another big success. We featured interviews this year with Erika Lust, Tina Tyler and the lovely indie porn queens Trixie Fontaine and Kat Vixen. And we also got a fabulous new tour.

* In March I attended Sexpo in Brisbane and had quite a good time (including being publicly tied up by the guys from the Hellfire club).

* In October I attended the Berlin Porn Film Festival and thoroughly enjoyed myself. The full report appears at For The Girls but there’s a shorter video and post here.

Some of my longer posts:

The Ugly Conundrum – a discussion of how the word “ugly” is often a weapon
Porn for Women – The Backlash – a look at why some people don’t like the “pfw” phrase and why it’s still important
The sex film to end all sex films – A look at Last Tango In Paris and how mainstream films rarely portray explicit sex in a positive light.
Housework and childcare as porn – more musings on the “Porn for Women” book and its sequels
Naomi Wolf has definitely lost it – My response to Wolf’s defense of the veil – and the way her “Porn Myth” article keeps getting recycled.

It’s been a big year for me and I probably didn’t post as much as I should have. But there it is, the rundown for 2008. Porn for women is still moving forward and people are starting to respect female creators of sexually explicit material and to understand that offering something different from the mainstream is a good thing.

Here’s to a fabulous 2009.

So a survey has revealed that 46% of women would rather give up sex than their internet connection.

The U.S. survey, which queried 2,119 adults last month, found that the gap grew even wider for both men and woman who were 18 to 34 years old. For woman, the percentage of those willing to skip the sheets in favor of the Web rose to 49 percent, while it climbed to 39 percent for men.

And for women 35 to 44 years old, the figure jumped to 52 percent.

Count me in. Although I’m not sure if I should be part of this analysis, considering the internet IS sex for me. And it’s work too.

But really. Unless I’m on holiday and deliberately disconnected, I miss the internet terribly when I don’t have it handy. And I use it all the time, to work, to write, to look up recipes, the weather, what’s on TV… Whereas sex… it’s only an occasional thing. And there’s no way to Twitter.

MSNBC has a relatively balanced article on the rise of female executives within the porn industry. The author goes to a fair bit of effort to point out how women are trying to make porn better.

Surprisingly, many women who work in the business say they don’t like porn — at least not the porn that takes up most of the shelf space in adult stores or is downloaded from the Internet. They do not object for moral reasons, they just think it’s a crummy product and often far too misogynistic.

Nice to see I’m not the only one who thinks this way.

Unfortunately the story doesn’t give much creedence to the rise of porn for women:

…Several groups of women have tried to create explicit productions, whether for cable TV, online distribution or DVD purchase and rental that appeal specifically to a female sensibility. But aside from Candida Royalle’s Femme series, which gets a big boost by being distributed through mail order giant Adam and Eve, such efforts have been slow to take hold.

They may never take hold. Sensuality, seduction, plot, even good lighting can cost money. “The bulk of pornography is being produced for $17,000,” Holland told the forum. “My budgets are $60,000 for a day-and-a-half shoot. We do two movies in three days and each budget is approximately $60,000. That is astronomically high right now.”

So while more women are calling the shots, they have to respond to a market of primarily male consumers, many of whom find plots simply a waste of time.

Hey… fuck plots. Give me some decent lighting, a good looking male actor and some sex that actually looks believable or pleasureable and bingo. There’s your profit.

Well, I think Naomi Wolf has lost it.

I was less than impressed with her endlessly-repeated article about porn which relied heavily on assumptions about what men think. And I was also puzzled by her fascination with the idea that Jewish Orthodox modesty was “so hot.”

Now she’s taken that concept and run with it, declaring that Muslim women are far freer in the expression of their sexuality while covered head-to-toe in a chador than we stupid Western chicks.

A few quotes:

This may explain why both Muslim and Orthodox Jewish women not only describe a sense of being liberated by their modest clothing and covered hair, but also express much higher levels of sensual joy in their married lives than is common in the West. When sexuality is kept private and directed in ways seen as sacred – and when one’s husband isn’t seeing his wife (or other women) half-naked all day long – one can feel great power and intensity when the headscarf or the chador comes off in the the home.

Among healthy young men in the West, who grow up on pornography and sexual imagery on every street corner, reduced libido is a growing epidemic, so it is easy to imagine the power that sexuality can carry in a more modest culture. And it is worth understanding the positive experiences that women – and men – can have in cultures where sexuality is more conservatively directed.

and

When you choose your own miniskirt and halter top – in a Western culture in which women are not so free to age, to be respected as mothers, workers or spiritual beings, and to disregard Madison Avenue – it’s worth thinking in a more nuanced way about what female freedom really means.

I’ve got more than a few problems with what’s being said here. It’s hard to know where to start.

I should begin by saying that I am philosophically opposed to Islam. I’m an athiest, for a start, so that means I’m not keen on any kind of religion or the ridiculous rules they impose on people.

I’m also opposed to the sexism and entrenched discrimination that exists within the Muslim religion and within societies that are primarily Islamic. I’ve read the Koran and it (like the Bible) has numerous edicts that explicitly deny women their human rights. As a feminist, I cannot support that.

I reject the Islamic stance on sexuality and male-female relations – the very thing that Naomi Wolf is defending. This view of the world sees all men as sexual predators and all women as sexual prizes. It essentially defines individuals according to preconceived ideas about how men and women will interact if they are allowed to mingle freely with each other. In Islam, all men are rapists, and all women are victims (sounds a bit like Andrea Dworkin, now I think about it.)

Women must be protected, hence the veil, hence the curtailment of their freedom, because their virginity and sexual useability are the only thing considered valuable by Islam. Men, meanwhile, cannot be trusted to control their lustful, animal instincts. Even the sight of a woman’s ankle will incite a man to rape.

But, of course, if he does rape, it’s not really his fault. And the woman will need four witnesses in a court to prove otherwise, according to the Koran. And her testimony is only worth half that of a man’s.

When this is the sort of attitude that lies behind the idea of “the veil”, I find it very difficult to feel sympathetic towards it. And yet that’s exactly what Naomi Wolf is asking us to do. She’s suggesting that this kind of philosophical opposition is just “Western misunderstanding”.

She talks about choice, saying that some Muslim and Jewish women who choose to cover up feel that they are treated more as individuals and less as sexual objects by others. Note, by the way, that she really is only talking about some women, but she writes as if ALL of them feel that way.

It’s certainly an interesting idea and I can respect their choice to live according to their own beliefs. At the same time I think they’re buying into a world view that still defines them according to sex. I mean, think about it. You walk around covered up from head to toe and wearing a head scarf, you’re essentially saying that every man you meet is only interested in your body. And you’re signifying your belief that you can only be taken seriously if your skin isn’t showing.

I don’t know about you, but I like to think that men aren’t quite that bestial.

And I think that Naomi’s defence of choice is problematic in this context, simply because the vast majority of Muslim women in the world aren’t given the option. Wearing the veil is either written into law or it’s considered the cultural norm, to the point that those who don’t cover up are harassed, abused or worse.

And let’s think about those little girls who are also made to wear the veil and denied the freedoms that their brothers enjoy. Where’s the choice or the sexual freedom there?

The whole concept of “modesty” might be a little more acceptable if it were applied to both sexes and if individuals were freely allowed to make that choice, but the fact is that it’s only women who are required to hide their bodies and hair. It’s the women who get the rough end of the stick. Why defend that as a feminist virtue?

I take umbrage at the idea that a hidden sexuality is somehow better than one that is freely expressed. I think it all depends upon your point of view. You get good and bad marriages within Islam and within the Western world. If a relationship is happy and successful it doesn’t really matter what you wear, I suspect. And if either partner develops feelings of jealousy because the other is looking (looking) at the opposite sex, I would say that it’s not the clothes that are the problem.

I also reject the idea that Western women are “forced” to wear skimpy clothing or to be overtly sexual. This assertion is part of that whole “raunch culture” moral panic which interprets autonomous female sexuality as merely an expression of victimhood (i.e. women only pole dance or watch porn to impress the guys, they never make that decision just to please themselves). Yes, you can argue that fashion and popular culture are fairly determined to dress women up like Barbie dolls, but that doesn’t mean we have to actually do it.

And yes, there are men out there who are determined to treat all women like sex objects. But why should their opinions impact upon how I live my life? Why should I restrict my own movements or change my dress because of what they think or say? Fuck them, is the correct answer here.

I’m a Western woman. Most days, I wear clothing that is decidedly unsexy, mainly because I find it comfortable – and I don’t give a damn about what other people think of me. I don’t bother with makeup or high heels and I don’t spend hours doing my hair. I just wear clothes and go out, very much in the same way that men do.

You could argue that I too am treated as an individual rather than as a sex object because I’m wearing my sensible shoes, trousers and unfashionable top. I do understand what those Muslim women are saying about not having to adhere to a certain expectation of “femininity”.

But I don’t feel that my choice of clothing magically enhances my sex life and I certainly don’t think I’m somehow morally superior to those who may be wearing less clothing, for whatever reason.

And when it’s summer, I myself will be wearing less clothing, again because it’s comfortable (even if Naomi says that I’m actually brazenly walking around “half naked”). And I have a major problem with anybody or any religion that tells me I’m a “whore” or not truly free because I might wear a halter top in hot weather. I have a choice and I take responsibility for myself. That’s the whole point of feminism, right?

Naomi’s assertion that Western men are suffering from reduced libido is not based on any research or statistics that I’m aware of. I think her whole argument relies on vague anecdotes and – dare I say it – her own yearnings for the old-fashioned notions of noble marriage as described in romance novels.

If Naomi is genuinely concerned about women’s freedom and sexuality, she needs to go back to addressing attitudes and societal expectations about how women should look and behave and how men should treat women. And she needs to take a more critical view of religion and its role in how women are treated around the world.

Those women who are able to choose the chador or the veil are welcome to it. It’s their life. Just as I reserve the right to wear what I want and to hold my own beliefs. But I will not accept the assertion that their choice and their life is somehow more feminist or free than mine. I think that covering up and hiding sexuality merely gives in to (and feeds) existing sexism, rather than fighting it.

Pic is from this blog page, I can’t find the original image or the artist, unfortunately.