Visual erotica for women

[SparklingExplosionGoldBrass]

Because the discussion on this at Ladyfest was fascinating but didn't go on long enough, I fancy continuing it here.
Soo, iirst off, why aren't there proper erotic magazines (with pictures of naked men in them) for heterosexual women?

filament is a womens erotic magazine

INdeed, and an excellent one (it was Filament's editor leading the workshop) but in what other category is there only one, difficult to source, magazine?

It's a pretty poor show, isn't it? Any kind of "feminist" mag seems to have problems attracting advertising, so I think they find it harder to expand. Also, I know some women, while being interested, would find it embarrassing to go into a newsagents and buy one.
The ladyfest discussion sounds interesting, what kind of points were made?

The discussion was a lot about the myths around women's porn, that women aren't visual, that the mags don't sell and don't last. S (the editor) had done some proper research and it was fascinating stuff - overall what her investigations showed is that, 'the patriarchy' is really threatened by the idea of women having any kind of autonymous sexuality ie one which isn't dedicated to the goal of 'keeping' one man per woman.

interesting...
I agree with the fact that women are just as visual as men, and are just as turned on by certain types of porn..

I'm still having a big problem with the supply side, though: the idea that someone is acting out sex to a script, for money .

I would be interested in some real feminist-led erotica. not directed and casted by males...but say an all-woman crew (no sneaky male power going on in the background/boardroom) and a woman with her boyfriend/chosen partner- that sort of thing

I worked in a supermarket for 15 years. During that time there were about 7 different erotic publicatations for women released on to the market. All of them failed and only sold a handful of copies.

I feel very uncomfortable with the idea of porn for women.

I always felt that feminists disliked the objectification of women. Is it now acceptable because we can do it to men too.

Surely two wrongs do not make a right.

Lynli: OK, For Women (the one that was launched in 1992 with the most press attention) sold 300,000 copies of its first few editions. It lasted for over 8 years. THere have been a lot of problems with the selling of these mags but it's not purely been a matter of 'Women don't like them.'
Some shops hide them under the counter, some put them on the shelf in the middle of the men's porn titles where women are unlikely to see them, some shops refuse to stock the itle despite being repeatedly asked for it because there's , er, 'no demand' for it.
INdividual men's porn magazine titles don't actually sell in huge amounts, certainly not these days. THough they are churned out because they are very cheap to produce and have a long shelf life etc etc.

If you believe that looking at pictures of people naked presented in a sexual context is inherently wrong then there's no hope for you well, up to you, but the point is, the alleged 'differences' between men and women given as a justification for why these mags don't exist or don't 'succeed' are as bullshit as the insistence that women are genetically hardwired to like pink fluff and sparkly things and be unable to read maps.

it seems like they're sabotaged, if that doesn't make me sound too paranoid.

I think Lynli is right. I don't think there is the same degree of interest from women in porn as there is with men.

It would be interesting to know how well internet sites for women do (where there is no problem about whether shops stock the magazines and where there is no embarrassment about buying in person) e.g. playgirl.com etc. How many women subscribe to porn sites compared to men? How many women ring up sex chatlines compared to men? I wouldn't blow my money on these things.

SEGB I speak from personal experience that women's adult magazines sold by the company I was working for did not sell. We promoted magazines aimed at women, we stocked them, displayed them. Those that were sold were sold to gay men. This is a fact.

I am not worried that you think there is no hope for me. I don't have any interest in porn it does nothing for me.

I was just raising the point that It was my belief than feminists do not approve of porn. Maybe that is incorrect, I am sure you can correct me.

'Those that were sold were sold to gay men'

very interesting. I thought that might be the case.

Some were sold to gay men, because (for one thing) a lot of the pictorial material then that was used in the mags had been shot for a gay male audience (and was being reused by the women's ,mag publishers for economic reasons ie the stuff was available and cheap).
Lynli: I am not denying your experience re sales in your particular supermarket, obviously. I'm speaking from my own experience as someone who worked on several of the mags in the 90s and saw first hand how much sabotage (yup, Jedi, you're right) went on.
However, it's another myth that 'feminsts' all hate sexually explicit material. Feminists are no more united on that issue than they are on whether or not it's OK to be a SAHM, or wear make up, or listen to gangsta rap or whatever.

Lynli - some feminists are anti-porn. Some are pro-porn. Some might not know where they stand. I would say most I come across are 1, and 3.

I'm interested in the intersection between objectification and porn. Does porn have to objectify? Personally I am anti-porn, but I think that it is to a large degree cos I can't envisage a non-exploitative, non-objectifying porn. And the context surrounding porn that makes it a bad thing is unlikely to change for a while. So I don't really give much thought to an 'acceptable' porn; I figure if we ever get to the point of removing all the context stuff then I'll think about it then.

Personally I can't imagine wanting to look at porn, and I found the pictures in that mag link so don't do it for me. But I don't know why. To say women just aren't interested seems like a total whitewash to me. Interested to hear more views on why. Mind you I don't think I'm a visual person (nothing to do with gender, just to do with me)

It's because 'naked men look like partially decorated Christmas trees'.

Lynli - I am a feminist and I am not pro porn or anti. what I am anti about is that it is all so one sided. Men do not have to put up with going into shops and seeing pictures of young, fit men in their faces! I have actually asked young men if they would put up with what women have to and they have all said no!

Do they show erect penises (penii?) in Filament? I ask because I was under the impression that erect penises counted as "hardcore" and you couldn't have them in a magazine sold in a normal shop.

And frankly, who wants to look at a flaccid penis?

And if they haven't got them out at all, what's the difference between that and a david beckham calendar?

It's not a subject I am expert in TBH

On women looking at porn on the internet, I think that most look at "standard" sites ie ones not specifically women (so by default for men).

Flaccid penii look bloody stupid

not erotic at all

in fact, I don't think erect ones are either

Last line not clear.

I mean that you won't be able to tell how many women are looking at porn on the net if you assume that they will be looking at sites specifically for women. Reading MN most women who use porn use the mainstream sites.

Yes, Filament does show erections.
BTW it is not actually enshrined in law that the presence of an erect penis renders visual material 'illegal hardcore' - it was always magazine distributors who insisted that there were to be no stiffies in the mags.

Also, media objectification isn't an inherently awful thing. When we see an actor portraying a doctor or a parent in a film, we don't consider whether or not the actor (as opposed to the character) has children or is phobic about hospitals or whatever. That isnt harmful. Engaging in sexual activity as part of a paid performance to be depicted for others' pleasure is not inherently harmful (the objections to porn that is made by coercing people are the only valid ones).

But what interests me about this aspect of feminism is how clearly it shows the strength of patriarchal determination to convince women that they are naturally monogamous, don't like sex for its own sake, need 'love' from men and will have sex in order to get it...all in order to keep women available for domestic and emotional service and breeding purposes.

"Engaging in sexual activity as part of a paid performance to be depicted for others' pleasure is not inherently harmful (the objections to porn that is made by coercing people are the only valid ones)."

Get the first bit, and don't know whether I agree or disagree. But then the bit in brackets, are you saying that the only valid objection to porn is coercion? For me that is a red herring and the one that gets used as 'well she consented to doing it so it's OK'. Alas as the individuals involved in porn do not live in a vacuum and impact on the lives of everyone through the ways women are then seen and subsequently treated, I can't agree with that. Maybe in a world of equality that could be true, but we don't live in one so the context is crucial.

Alice: Yes, the only valid objections to porn are the ones about performers being coerced/having poor working conditions.
As to 'ways women are seen and subsequently treated' this is only a valid objection if you apply it to all media: mainstream media depicts women in all sorts of ways which send a far more toxic message than 'having sex is fun'.

I agree with AliceWorld. Objections to porn are not only about whether the performers have been coreced, they are also about the effect that porn has on the mind of the viewers and the effect that this has on society. The objectification of women in porn has an effect on how male viewers perceive women.

'it shows the strength of patriarchal determination to convince women that they are naturally monogamous, don't like sex for its own sake, need 'love' from men and will have sex in order to get it...all in order to keep women available for domestic and emotional service and breeding purposes.'

Not liking porn has got nothing to do with not liking sex. Do you really think that prominent feminists like Germaine Greer and Gloria Steinem (both of whom were not constrained by patriarchal thinking) buy porn mags for women or subscribe to porn on the internet, made for women? I doubt it.

I agree with Germaine Greer's view on porn

The spread of porn is a poison

But SGB, lots of porn doesn't send out the message that having sex is fun (for women - for men of course, yes it is).

It sends out the message that having sex is humiliating, degrading and dirty. For women. (Not for men)

I really object to having it hammered home time and again on these threads that because I don't like porn, I don't like sex

I don't care from what mindset you repeat that statement from, sgb, but it stinks

Some porn does send out negative messages about women and sex. But nearly all mainstream media sends out worse ones (that a single woman is a failure, that women really like aggressive sexist men, that every woman 'gives in' to a man in the end, that transgressive (in any way) women deserve to be punished, sometimes even with death).
And when people repeatedly insist that 'Waaah, all porn is eeeevil' and refuse to engage with the possibility that, actually, when the performers are willing and indeed enthusiastic as well as being properly treated by the directors and producers, when the sex depicted is not 'humiliating and dirty' but simply shows people having fun, then there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS.... well then you have to start wondering what their problem is

Most organised opposition to porn trades on the fact that a lot of people haven't seen very much of it, and therefore are easy to convince that it's all wicked and horrible.
Is it so hard to take a break from that mindset and consider what is being demonstrated by the resistance of some of the people who profit from porn as well as many of those who oppose it, to any attempts by independents, particularly women, to make stuff that's more interesting and transmits different messages?