A question for my fellow lady webmasters.

Ms Naughty · 2006-05-11, 11:03 PM

Makes perfect sense Linkster. Every woman is different.

To bring this back to a porn context, I think it comes back to the mistaken belief that "what women want" is all the same, and the idea that "porn for women" equates only to soft lighting, log fires and romance.

This idea tends to get some women upset (if you've read my long argument with Furrygirl on another board, you'll see what I mean). Things get all tangled up with feminism, and "stereotypes", and other fun bits of theoretical social deconstruction. I can understand that they may be frustrated, but often their arguments end up disparaging or negating other women's legitimate experiences. Thus, Jackie, my rather riled up response.

The fact is that there should be a variety of niches within "for women" porn, just like there are with men, but we haven't quite got there yet. (Give me time.) There's still a majority of people in the industry don't even believe that women like porn at all. So, right now, "porn for women" still tends to mean naked beefcake men, Candida Royalle movies and relatively vanilla hetero couples.

If you look at the full-on hardcore stuff, all the language still targets it completely at men. There's no acknowledgement of a female audience whatsoever. So until that happens, I believe "porn for women" needs to exist as a concept.

OK, enough philosophy.

tickler · 2006-06-02, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grandmascrotum

So, right now, "porn for women" still tends to mean naked beefcake men, Candida Royalle movies and relatively vanilla hetero couples.

From a female reporter looking for 4-Women porn.

Porn should keep a pulse on women’s needs
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/...s.asp?id=37442

2006-05-11, 11:03 PM	#1
Ms Naughty old enough to be Grandma Scrotum Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 1,408	Makes perfect sense Linkster. Every woman is different. To bring this back to a porn context, I think it comes back to the mistaken belief that "what women want" is all the same, and the idea that "porn for women" equates only to soft lighting, log fires and romance. This idea tends to get some women upset (if you've read my long argument with Furrygirl on another board, you'll see what I mean). Things get all tangled up with feminism, and "stereotypes", and other fun bits of theoretical social deconstruction. I can understand that they may be frustrated, but often their arguments end up disparaging or negating other women's legitimate experiences. Thus, Jackie, my rather riled up response. The fact is that there should be a variety of niches within "for women" porn, just like there are with men, but we haven't quite got there yet. (Give me time.) There's still a majority of people in the industry don't even believe that women like porn at all. So, right now, "porn for women" still tends to mean naked beefcake men, Candida Royalle movies and relatively vanilla hetero couples. If you look at the full-on hardcore stuff, all the language still targets it completely at men. There's no acknowledgement of a female audience whatsoever. So until that happens, I believe "porn for women" needs to exist as a concept. OK, enough philosophy. __________________ Promote Bright Desire