I suspect the smut is of a different sort from that which appears occasionally on this livejournal :))
I suspect that's actually going to work as one of the main points of my argument: How is word-porn not porn? (Rhetorical.) Since it is porn, is it exploitative of women? Answer: another question. How can it be exploitative of women when it's primarily marketed *to* women, written *by* women, and prominently *features* women, which is a hell of a lot better than any other genre of literature, by the way. (Side note: can porn be literature, and vice versa?) Since I don't think it can be exploitative if it's by, for, and about the people it's supposed to be exploiting, I'm going to say no, it isn't exploitative.
Assumption: If it is porn, then it is exploitative. Assumption, worked out above: It is porn. Therefore: It is exploitative. Assumption, worked out above: It is not exploitative. Therefore: It is exploitative and it is not exploitative. Therefore: One of the assumptions must be wrong (Reducto Ad Absurdam) The only assumption not already established as being true is the first one. Therefore, the first one must be the incorrect one.
Now, are there a hell of a lot of problems with the current pornography industry? Hell yes! Women *are* exploited to make the films; they are used for ridiculously low amounts of money, as most films are *not* made with the big-name stars; they are coerced, if not forced, to have sex in ways which are at best uncomfortable and at worst seriously dangerous.
It's a Bad Scene. But that's a problem with the *industry*, not with pornography *itself*, and if there weren't such a very great stigma attached, *some* of those conditions (although by no means all) would be bettered. Additionally, if video and visual porn were marketed to women--which would include changing production techniques and "story lines" to include more emotions and character and fewer orgies and cumshots--then it would go a long way toward fighting the assumption that women are supposed to be "pure", aka dead below the waist unless owned by a man.
I have a theory that it's effect and cause, not cause and effect on this one. There was the stigma that women aren't supposed to like sex, so porn was made by and marketed to men (and when I'm talking about "made by" I mean directors and producers, not actors). Because it was made by and marketed to men, it was made in a way which *is* exploitative of women, because the male ideal features pretty much TNA and runs screaming from the thought of commitment. Because it's the way it is, women don't like it. Well, no shit, Sherlock! But if porn *had* been made for both genders, then you would get two genres, and women *would* like porn, and any perceived problems would be with the industry, not the product--as is, in fact, the case.
The analogy that springs to mind is anime: most series marketed to young viewers can be split into two categories, Shojou and Shonen. The former is marketed to young girls, and generally features love triangles, female heroes (sometimes only one, but sometimes a group of several), less-developed bodies, and pink (?!!). Shonen anime usually figures a male hero along with sexy female side-characters and either a) fighting arts (Dragonball Z), b) giant robots (Gundam. Pick one.), or c) both (Power Rangers, and yes, that was originally Japanese). No one says either kind is better, although all of my favorites are marketed to both (I lie. I forgot Akazukin Chacha, which is *embarassingly* girly); it's just a different style. That's all.
And, just as there's nothing wrong with girls watching cartoons, there's nothing wrong with women focusing on a faceless ideal to get orgasms!
I agree with you about the problems related to the current porn industry, but wonder if they are somewhat inherent to porn involving real people. After all, if women ran the porn industry, I would assume that at least some of the output would be similar in style and content to slash fiction, and issues would certainly arise with coercion of the male actors into acts they feel uncomfortable with, just as this occurs with women in today's industry. Also, I think the exploitation issue came up even before the advent of video and the Internet when porn was much more expensive to produce and distribute.
In your last point, I'm not sure I agree that there's nothing wrong with women focusing on faceless ideals to get orgasms. I think in some ways there may be something inherently wrong in the use of a faceless ideal. However, on the substantive point, it is no more wrong for a women to focus on a faceless ideal than it would be for a man to do so.
I suspect that's actually going to work as one of the main points of my argument: How is word-porn not porn? (Rhetorical.) Since it is porn, is it exploitative of women? Answer: another question. How can it be exploitative of women when it's primarily marketed *to* women, written *by* women, and prominently *features* women, which is a hell of a lot better than any other genre of literature, by the way. (Side note: can porn be literature, and vice versa?) Since I don't think it can be exploitative if it's by, for, and about the people it's supposed to be exploiting, I'm going to say no, it isn't exploitative.
Assumption: If it is porn, then it is exploitative.
Assumption, worked out above: It is porn.
Therefore: It is exploitative.
Assumption, worked out above: It is not exploitative.
Therefore: It is exploitative and it is not exploitative.
Therefore: One of the assumptions must be wrong (Reducto Ad Absurdam)
The only assumption not already established as being true is the first one. Therefore, the first one must be the incorrect one.
Now, are there a hell of a lot of problems with the current pornography industry? Hell yes! Women *are* exploited to make the films; they are used for ridiculously low amounts of money, as most films are *not* made with the big-name stars; they are coerced, if not forced, to have sex in ways which are at best uncomfortable and at worst seriously dangerous.
It's a Bad Scene. But that's a problem with the *industry*, not with pornography *itself*, and if there weren't such a very great stigma attached, *some* of those conditions (although by no means all) would be bettered. Additionally, if video and visual porn were marketed to women--which would include changing production techniques and "story lines" to include more emotions and character and fewer orgies and cumshots--then it would go a long way toward fighting the assumption that women are supposed to be "pure", aka dead below the waist unless owned by a man.
I have a theory that it's effect and cause, not cause and effect on this one. There was the stigma that women aren't supposed to like sex, so porn was made by and marketed to men (and when I'm talking about "made by" I mean directors and producers, not actors). Because it was made by and marketed to men, it was made in a way which *is* exploitative of women, because the male ideal features pretty much TNA and runs screaming from the thought of commitment. Because it's the way it is, women don't like it. Well, no shit, Sherlock! But if porn *had* been made for both genders, then you would get two genres, and women *would* like porn, and any perceived problems would be with the industry, not the product--as is, in fact, the case.
The analogy that springs to mind is anime: most series marketed to young viewers can be split into two categories, Shojou and Shonen. The former is marketed to young girls, and generally features love triangles, female heroes (sometimes only one, but sometimes a group of several), less-developed bodies, and pink (?!!). Shonen anime usually figures a male hero along with sexy female side-characters and either a) fighting arts (Dragonball Z), b) giant robots (Gundam. Pick one.), or c) both (Power Rangers, and yes, that was originally Japanese). No one says either kind is better, although all of my favorites are marketed to both (I lie. I forgot Akazukin Chacha, which is *embarassingly* girly); it's just a different style. That's all.
And, just as there's nothing wrong with girls watching cartoons, there's nothing wrong with women focusing on a faceless ideal to get orgasms!
Reply
In your last point, I'm not sure I agree that there's nothing wrong with women focusing on faceless ideals to get orgasms. I think in some ways there may be something inherently wrong in the use of a faceless ideal. However, on the substantive point, it is no more wrong for a women to focus on a faceless ideal than it would be for a man to do so.
Reply
Leave a comment