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?

I had a look at that FIlament.

Now, I don't know if it's because women's naked bodies are everywhere and men's aren't, but flaccid penises simply do not look aesthetically pleasing. NOt beautiful at all. One thing is true, men just aren't as beautiful as women. They don't have curves and circles and they've got these bits that just stick out like, well, spare parts, really.

SGB, you would make your case better if you actually saw other people's point of view, rather than pretending your talking to right-wing wackos on here. NObody thinks sex is inherently wicked. The Karma Sutra, for example, or pornographic cave paintings, are fine because there were no real people involved. As soon as you get real women involved, the debate changes.

This quote of yours, for example:

"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."

YOu sound like a man . A man who doesn't like women very much, and who thinks that women are actually like this stereotype. It's a stereotype of women, that you appear to have fallen for

If you get over this, then I'll be able to take your arguments more seriously.
IT's like those prostitutes who come on MN and start telling me that feminists don't like prostitution because they're jealous that prostitutes are shagging their husbands

.

i reckon most women who want to look at porn are already making use of whatever is already on the market.

women are generally less likely to buy a porn mag of any description (stigma?) so porn mags for women are never going to be a huge success.

and i agree that women can be just as 'visual' as men when it comes to stimulation but have been told for so long that they're the 'emotional' gender when it comes to sex, that they start to believe it.

in my experience men and women are about equal emotionally and visually when it comes to sex.

I'm afraid I think the 'informal patriarchal conspiracy' is at work here. When Cosmo launched it carried a male centrefold - the first one was Burt Reynolds iirc! The centrefold was dropped due to pressure from advertisers and distributors, not the reader, who enjoyed them. For Women suffered a significant amount of blocking activity, despite a healthy balance sheet. A collective of film-makers - I've forgotten the details - failed to raise sufficient backing for their woman-centred, soft-focus projects despite having plenty of big-name support. Business, it seems, likes women to be sexy but not to have sexy feelings of their own.

There is another aspect to this, though. If you remember the study that was done (last year?) on visual arousal, you'll recall the disparity between the female subjects' physical responses and their 'felt' reactions. The women became physically aroused at a far wider selection of visual triggers than the men did. However, they said they'd felt nothing. We are so out of touch with our own sexuality, we don't even know when our bodies are aroused. Kinsey remarked on the same phenomenon, as I'm sure other studies have. This can only be due to massive social conditioning - which, in itself, would prevent the majority of women from acknowledging a sexual response to the stimuli. For that reason, the "women's porn" market has limited potential.

Generations of women, however, have been made very happy by Mills & Boon, Black Lace & their stablemates. There's a reason why historical TV dramas keep getting made, and it's got more to do with repressed lust than historical accuracy. My theory is that these actually reflect women's sexuality - the suppression, social navigation and so on - better than straightforward porn. It's an interesting topic. AF, I'm neither a porn fan nor a user but I am very interested in female sexuality and how it is used/abused. I think it's a shame we're not "allowed" to be horny the way men are.

Oh Come on, I'm the poster child for "informal patriarchal conspiracy". MUmsnetters, including SGB, take the piss out of me at every opportunity regarding this.

BUt when it comes to feminists being anti-porn, suddenly they're the "product of a patriarchal consipracy" ?

Please

If anything, it's the other way round.

Porn and sex are very. very different things.

If you think they're the same in any way then you might be more uptight and brainwashed about sex than you think

And again, the only people on here who have said that porn doesn't turn women on is SGB and IfGraceAsks

interesting post IGA

I've looked at the Filament pics. I am going to answer this without going into the ethics of porn debate as we've had so many threads on that.

I do not find the images appealing because:

1. A lot of the men are a bit old.
2. Their hair is poorly cut.
3. They aren't very pretty.
4. They look poorly groomed and have unsightly body hair.
5. They are badly dressed.
6. They are photographed in visually unappealing situations.
7. They lack any sense of personality or ability to convey something to the audience.

Obviously I can't speak for all women. As SGB said, lots of women buy calendars, and lots of women watch films and tv because of the attractive male characters. I think if people want to sell magazines with pictures of half naked men in, then perhaps they should look at the kind of mainstream images that women like, and use that as a starting point.

At the moment my understanding is that women don't buy these magazines because the magazines are not very good.

Also, you have to remember that there are a number of posters that only seem to post on the porn and prostitution threads, as is their right. But considering that porn and prostitution are industries then you have to bear in mind that there are a lot of stakeholders who have a vested interest in making sure the masses think porn and prostitution are okay, even though they exploit women, and lots of men make millions of dollars off the backs of women.

The only patriarchal conspiracy that I can see is that feminists are being kept quiet about porn/prostitution

Agree with your last post MillyR. MAybe the truth is that nobody really knows what women like to look at because nobody has really asked, and they assume women like the same things men do.

I'm still shocked that my gay friend thinks David Beckham is attractive. To a woman, he so isn't. Is he?

if it's their right, what's your point sakura?

are you implying in our presence are stakeholders in porn industries?

I'm not implying anything. I'm stating that because porn and prostitution are industries then you have to bear in mind that some people are going to be disingenuous about their intentions when they state their opinions.

Same as if someone goes on an Education thread with a pro-TOry political agenda, for example.

It's one thing to have a chat about your beliefs, and it's quite another to push and argument that benefits you personally and might even be lining your pockets

an argument

so you are implying that someone on this thread works for the porn industry.

now, who's being disingenuous.

i can tell you i don't. sorry to disappoint.

Good to hear, blinks.
I'll repeat my very valid point:

"I'm stating that because porn and prostitution are industries then you have to bear in mind that some people are going to be disingenuous about their intentions when they state their opinions."

blinks, you were very disingenuous when you said that being a stakeholder in the lucrative porn/prostitution industry is the same as being a mum on mumsnet with a side interest in feminism

Not equivalent are they?

you'll have to run that past me again, sakura. it makes little sense as i said no such thing.

you said I was being disingenuous for stating that there are lots of stakeholders in this industry, whereas I would argue that that is a valid feminist POV

It is all a bit back to front. If pornographers want to sell us something, they need to do a bit of research, put a lot of money behind employing genuinely talented photographers and creative set designers, make up artists, market it well and so on.

They can't just stamp their feet and complain that we are in the wrong for not buying their mediocre products. All companies, even companies selling baked beans understand that they have to create an emotional bond with the consumer. It is ludicrous to say that women are somehow wrong for not wanting a bit of emotion with their sex if it is sold to them. All advertising and sales involves emotion.

It really isn't about the anti-porn movement at all. People have ethical concerns about many products but industries manage to overcome those concerns through clever marketing. If the porn industry really wanted to overcome ethical concerns amongst women it would do so by making a product that bypassed those concerns, like every other industry does.

Gosh, anyone would think you personally had a problem with the statement that people with a personal vested interest in making profits would have an agenda
Why does that POV bother you so much?

i said you were disingenuous for not stating who you were referring to instead of just coming out with it.

hinting and implying that within our midst there may be a poster who's aim is to promote porn and prostitution as they may have a vested interest, is pointless unless you have the guts to say who you're referring to.

i found it a pointless thing to say considering this is an anonymous forum for mothers (primarily).