Originally posted by PalynkaOh, there is room for everything: American Idol, iPads,
Why does it need to be an "inherent behaviour"? Is football? Is playing chess? Which forms of entertainment are "inherent behaviour"? That's a too stringent criteria.
Women like sex. Is this really news? Nope. Do women like porn? I don't see why they shouldn't, especially if made to cater their fantasies too. There are some surveys out there that seem to ...[text shortened]... est that they like different things in porn (as expected) so there room for female porn.
hamsters up the bottom, you name it.
What is your point exactly? Mine is that re-engineering
an old product for "female audiences" is a big cliché...
like specially female-geared food, gyms, holidays, etc.
For crying out loud: it is porn. It has always been. It will
always be. Just like food, holidays, TV shows, you name it.
I mean, come on, what a uncreative way of fostering
consumerism.
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
Originally posted by PalynkaYou are. obviously, correct. That doesn't automatically mean that the site in question is equally so. If they produce porn for women, catered to female tastes, fine. But if they, as was quoted, claim to "make love, not porn", then they're being hypocritical. If they made love, not porn, they wouldn't sell it. You can only sell sex, not love. Love is an emotion, and can't be bundled and transported, whereas sex is an act which can be. Sex and love (often) have to do with one another, but they're not the same. Pretending to sell "love, not porn" conflates them, and is dishonest to the customer; pretending to buy ditto, dishonest to oneself.
Women like sex. Is this really news? Nope. Do women like porn? I don't see why they shouldn't, especially if made to cater their fantasies too.
By the way: porn with a female slant is far from a new thing. It's been around for decades, probably longer. And I'm not even talking about Mills & Boon; I mean actual porn, made by women for women. Most of which is honestly labeled "porn". So it's not as if this is a revolutionary idea, either.
Richard
1 edit
Originally posted by Shallow BlueI agree wholeheartedly.
You are. obviously, correct. That doesn't automatically mean that the site in question is equally so. If they produce porn for women, catered to female tastes, fine. But if they, as was quoted, claim to "make love, not porn", then they're being hypocritical. If they made love, not porn, they wouldn't sell it. You can only sell sex, not love. Love is an labeled "porn". So it's not as if this is a revolutionary idea, either.
Richard
Including the remarks about the hypocritical nature of that quote in Erika Lust's website. However, the article talks about others who are pretty explicit about labeling what they do as porn. There's a big contrast between what Petra Joy and Erika Lust say and I think Joy's quotes ring more true and direct to me. Erika's comments could be tainted by the fear of feminist backlash ruining her business (or a curious appeal to the anti-porn brigade using softer wording).
I'm also not saying it's a radically new idea, more a comment about how overdue the "mainstreamization" of it is and how it seems to be under way.