This is a comment by Web on the post “Everyone’s Got Their Own Favorite Smut“.
You know, this is something I had genuinely never thought of. That women’s erotic fiction is perfectly acceptable, no matter what the fantasy, but men’s pornography is controversial and borderline misogyny. The difference being in imagery vs literature.
And maybe this is the underlying root of the conundrum: Focusing in on the physical and ignoring the verbal.
- The reason men’s sexual attraction is considered unacceptable for being more appearance-dependent, while women’s sexual attraction can be just as superficial, but is more accepted.
- The reason people will see a depression as a social problem, but violence as little more than personal immorality.
I know it’s a long shot, but when two subjects as similar as erotica and pornography are compared side-by-side with such differing responses, you close one of the degrees of freedom.
(In mathematics, this would be considered a dependent correlation. By holding one variable constant (sexual content) the other two variables (Medium, Public Response) are codependent. With sexual content held constant, the public response must be dependent on the medium.)
Photo credit: Flickr / rachelkramerbussel.com
About the Editors
If men preferred erotic fiction and women preferred images, we would hear virtually the same criticism, just in reverse. The visual would be perfectly acceptable while the written word would be considered disrespectful of women and misogynistic.
The nature of erotic fiction is different, there is written porn, then there are novels that happen to have a sexual element, both can be described as ‘erotic fiction’ and those that view porn as bad view it as bad whether it’s written, filmed or drawn, but I must ask them where they draw the line between the ‘evil evil porn’ and their so called ‘harmless erotic fiction’
Eric, that is so true. I mean think about the book 50 shades of Grey, if there was written from the perspective of the man, there would be cries to have it banned.
What makes a difference is not just the sex of the protagonist but the (apparent) sex of the author.
People call something “women’s erotic fiction” usually when the author is (to all appearances) a woman, regardless of content.
I think a lot of people just find it more acceptable and by definition “not porn” when the author is a woman, because of course men would only write such a thing for exploitation while women would only write such a thing for empowerment.
Actually, the naïve reader doesn’t even need to know for sure that the author of a particular book is a woman. All you need is a female pen name on the book and you can just assume that the author is a woman and therefore feel reassured that this isn’t some “creepy guy” writing it.
Write the same book under a male name and you’re a vile pornographer. Write it under a female name and you are something of a pioneering heroine.
Browsing the feminist blogosphere I’ve probably seen more negative criticisms of Romance novels than porn videos, though that’s mostly because of the Twilight series, which was called a “Feminist’s nightmare” for good reason, and the fact that a female feminist is more likely to come across a romance novel.
On the other hand, the previous generation of feminists are known for a whole movement that was basically against the very idea of pornography. Catherine Mackinnon essentially defined pornography as “erotica + misogyny” while simultaneously making a career out of calling porn misogynist.
Back on the first hand, the current crop of feminists are far more sex positive. Though even the sex positive feminists will note that mainstream porn will rot your brain and they strongly suggest wholesome organic feminist pornography, AKA woman directed, women friendly, possibly gender bending queer porn.
There are lots of different variants of porn.
Even within the genre that could be called erotica there is definitely a large spectrum between things that could simply be called good clean dirty fun and things really misogynistic.
I used to be a fan of the porn of the 80′s and 90′s. The so-called porn with a plot.
Today’s porn which mini-sex only session after session shot in a studio to make an 80 minute movie are just desensitizing.
I think the porn with a plot roots (on VHS rather than on film) was not so bad. It basically just reveled in the male fantasy of women wanting sex so badly (or the male star being so handsome) that the women initiated.
Everybody wants to feel sexually desirable–but that is something that a great deal of men get very little of in this society. For that reason, I think a lot of the porn with a plot type porn was actually very tame and to some extent healthy.
If we could somehow combine this “I think the porn with a plot roots (on VHS rather than on film) was not so bad. It basically just reveled in the male fantasy of women wanting sex so badly (or the male star being so handsome) that the women initiated.”
with a denouement of the man being somehow romantically thrilled with the woman, that there was a respect (if not relationship) then we might have the perfect type of porn for both men and women.
In the older porn-with-a-plot vhs movies, no it didn’t seem like what was taking place was in the confines of a relationship, or even necessarily romantic. However, that was on both parties parts.
IN these movies, the female actor played a role in which she was hitting on the guy (which feeds into the fantasy most men have but get very little of in real life of feeling sexually desirable).
The primary thing was it was typically the woman who expressed lust, initiated, changed positions etc..
The ultimate male fantasy is one in which he is seen as desirable by women, not (necessarily) one in which he treats women badly.
There should be a middle ground that everybody enjoys.
Agreed.
“If we could somehow combine this “I think the porn with a plot roots (on VHS rather than on film) was not so bad. It basically just reveled in the male fantasy of women wanting sex so badly (or the male star being so handsome) that the women initiated.”
with a denouement of the man being somehow romantically thrilled with the woman, that there was a respect (if not relationship) then we might have the perfect type of porn for both men and women.”
Perfect porn or perfect relationship? Isn’t that like what people assume the early stage of many relationships are like?
I would disagree and say that this view is tragically naive. I don’t really read women’s erotic fiction, but the small bits I have read and have seen features many taboos and misogyny.
I mean, look at Twilight for instance. Sure there are millions of people who love it but there are plenty of people who are offended by:
– Necrophilia
– Bestiality
– Rewarding engaging in romance with your stalker
Other common offensive aspects that come out:
– Incest
– Romanticising abusive relationships (including rape leads to romance)
– Rewarding gold digging and learned helplessness
– Ridiculous career expectations
– Remaking people how you like them
The iconic BDSM romance story, Story of O, was written by a woman and has inspired multiple pornographic films and a BDSM web site.
The reason these don’t reach the mainstream media more often is that frankly the mainstream media rarely cares about romance novels because it’s women’s stuff and they figure there’s better impact in talking about what’s made for straight white males.
There are also plenty of porn creators out there that focus other forms such as romantic pornography, woman dominant pornography and of course, just about everything you can find in regular heterosexual you can find in gay porn.
Both genres represent the expression of fantasies that parties feel are not accessible. Personally I think the major cause of the division is that society generally coaches women to aspire to unattainable romantic relationships while telling them that all they have to do get sex is open their legs (but they shouldn’t do that unless it leads to unattainable romance) while coaching men that romantic feelings are for women and that they approach sex with a conquest mentality (and that successful men should be able to have sex on demand with anyone they want).
In true capitalist fashion, we then promote this to keep up the demand for the products that we market to the unsatisfied people on both sides. Behold the wonder that is humanity.
Another quick point I wanted to throw out there, in response to a tweet I saw about how porn generates real abuse victims where as erotic fiction does not, is one set of male erotic fiction that challenges that ideal.
John Norman’s Gor series.
Many feminists consider this series to be very damaging because after the first three books it basically turns into misogynist rhetoric which is consumed and internalised by many people. It has had a huge impact on many people’s lives, personal philosophy’s, view of their sexuality etc.
Likewise there is the demographic who are not considered victims of assault directly, but who stay in abusive relationships due to values taught to them in early romantic media (you can fix up abusive men, true love conquers violent tempers, women should serve their man, etc) and continued to be re-enforced in adult and erotic literature.
So if Gor can inspire people to found cults devoted to male domination of women, I think it’s worth considering what other erotic literature might project onto other people. Porn is more easily digestible, but literature usually gets more in depth. Both are worth considering the pros and cons of.
What is also still somewhat controversial among different feminist viewpoints is the issue of “domination” as a consensual sexual practice, which is in some ways closely connected to the question of whether porn can be feminist. If there is a sexual fantasy of a woman being dominated, can that be a harmless sexual fantasy, or is it by its very nature an exploitation of women? Different feminists have different opinions on the matter. Can one consent to be in a submissive role without furthering your own exploitation? If the Gor fantasy novels inspire sub/dom fantasies, does that therefore mean that it is inherently dangerous to women? I would argue that it is not inherently dangerous to women, but I can see how alarming it looks.
What I am more concerned about is the apparent fear of particular “consumed and internalized” cultural products that society has to be protected against for its own good. The idea that if we read too much of the “wrong” things then we as a society will become more violent, rape more, care about people less, and it’s just a quick, slippery slope from space barbarian fantasies to real-life sex slavery “cults.” I’m not saying that’s your argument, just that the “internalization” part has never really been completely convincing to me.
Hey Kim,
Regarding your hit list, I agree. But, this hit list seems to be what women want.
I would say that romantic/erotic literature is women’s equivalent of men playing video games all day.
People want men and women to change, but they continue to want what they want.
Of course, the important thing to remember is that this is fantasy.
Regarding your hit list you said:
– Romanticising abusive relationships (including rape leads to romance)
I don’t know how many are old enough to remember Luke and Laura of General Hospital. When I was a teenager since my mother worked (dad was not in the equation) me and my sister spent summers at my grandparents house when we were small. My grandmother loved her general hospital of which I would catch many episodes (she had a window air conditioner in the living room, so I would often try to stay indoors rather than stay in the heat of the outdoors).
The storyline went that Luke raped Laura, and she later fell in love with the man who treasured her so badly he had to take her whatever she wanted.
I don’t think that women who read romantic/erotic literature or loved Luke and Laura plot-line from General Hospital truly want to be raped. They are just in love with the idea of being so beautiful that a man is inflamed with uncontrollable desire. The man in the fantasy is really a blank slate. The story is all about her, and her beauty, and her being made to submit.
You could call the male role leading.male.stereotype pirate/lord/brigand/indian chief/warrior. The story isn’t really about him at all. Like a woman’s wedding day it’s all about her.
There’s plenty of pro-porn feminism out there, and there’s plenty of anti-porn rhetoric that is not at all feminist. To bundle together feminist and anti-porn views is, at best, a gross oversimplification.
It *is* true that there’s a relation between feminism and the fact that (women’s) erotic literature is (now) culturally acceptable. Making it acceptable for women to (publicly) enjoy sex(uality) and eroticism has after all been a major drive for the feminist movement. It’s not that long ago that things were quite different; Nancy Friday’s “My Secret Garden” was highly controversial when originally published, as was other women-POV erotic literature published during the 70′s.
There has been much less focus on the acceptance of porn in the feminist movement – in part because there’s all kinds of views on porn among feminists, and the fact that *some* porn is exploitative. And there’s been no other popular movement pushing a “viewing porn is not shameful” agenda.
On the other hand, porn has become infinitely more accessible (due to the net), and porn-like imagery is becoming increasingly common and accepted in movies, advertisement, etc. So, while porn may be controversial in debates and the “letters-to-the-editor section”, a lot of people have voted with their feet. It’s fair to say that porn and porn-like imagery is far more accepted today than every before.
Great points here. There are a lot of issues getting conflated all together when they are actually somewhat distinct. I even detect a little circular reasoning sometimes, like:
Pornography disempowers women, so if women produce a work of porn it is not porn anymore.
Or,
Pornography disempowers women, so no women would make porn if they had a choice. They would only make erotica.
Fortunately for me, my tastes are rather pedestrian. All I need is the American Apparel ads on this GMP website. A great example of the way that porn is incredibly hard to define….
Just so. It’s the same thing as sex toys: it’s perfectly fine for a woman to own a vibrator, but the man who owns a fleshlight is a creep, a perv, and obviously can’t get laid.
Agree with the dynamic you mention: woman owning vibrator = empowering (there’s even hints to this affect in media). Man owning a sextoy = pitiable.
However, I have to at least say that I haven’t seen the 2nd portion of that sentiment come from feminists but from men and women in general.
Not that you made this claim, but several seem to be discussing sex-positive vs sex-negative feminists and what their views mean.
Where I do see feminists (either rightly or wrongly) kicking up a fuss is when men own sex dolls. I have tripped across articles like that several times on feministing and other sights.
However, I have to at least say that I haven’t seen the 2nd portion of that sentiment come from feminists but from men and women in general.
No not that they are pitiable but a presumption of owning a sex toy being some sort of objectification (reducing her to the pleasing bits).
One reason that sexually explicit text seems more socially acceptable than sexually explicit images is that our society fortunately still has some degree of reverence for the printed word. To the majority of people there is still something nauseating to the idea of banning or burning a book. If it’s “smut” but it’s bound and printed in traditional font then there is a certain respectability to it. Meanwhile, destroying a poster or video or taking down a website is hardly taboo at all. We generally make a subjective technological distinction about which media are more sacrosanct — burning books is Orwellian, but shredding DVD’s is just a cultural critique.
Another reason for the arbitrary distinction is the “secondhand” factor. If you’re in the seat in front of me on the bus looking at a centerfold, I can see what you see and then I can get all offended at the way your behavior makes my eavesdropping uncomfortable. I’ve been “exposed” to your tastes in smut. But, if you’re reading a text-based work, then as the outside observer all I see is a book, so I can’t get immediately offended. Erotic fiction “spares other people” from your consumption. This is why a huge percentage of “romantica” for women readers is consumed in e-book form – people around you can’t see the cover or title of the book you’re reading, and from over your shoulder they can only see text.
It’s the old “I know it when I see it” standard applied in corollary form: no one actually sees what I’m looking at, so they can’t say it’s pornography.
I’m just saying what I think the common reasons are for making this distinction, not that they’re sustainable or logical. I think these are really lame distinctions between text and visuals, just as there is often a very lame distinction people make between “erotica” and “pornography.” I also think it’s hysterical that anyone would try to create any kind of policy that would distinguish between a story with some sexually explicit scenes and a story organized around sexually explicit scenes.
Let enough time pass, and today’s explicit images and language become classical and quaint. Walt Whitman’s poems made references to ejaculation. That’s just bedrock American literature right there….
All very valid points, but think about this secnario. The other night a woman was reading Fifty Shades of Grey while sitting in the kids section of Barnes and Nobles (her son was running around looking at books) and no one said a word. But if a man was reading Penthouse Forum (all words also) he would be escorted from the store by store security or the police.
The reason men’s sexual attraction is considered unacceptable for being more appearance-dependent
Sigh. Let’s generalize about “men’s” sexual attraction because obviously we’re all the same.
(And please don’t respond with some meaningless statistics from some bullshit study.)
I’m going to disagree with the statement that started this discussion. I write erotic books. The way I’ve been treated for it has been downright appalling a few times. Even if I dont admit I write but just read the books it hasn’t been a socially acceptable thing to say. Sure things like 50 Shades are making it a little more friendly to talk about books with erotic content, but there’s still plenty of hate to go around.
I wonder if somebody can explain to me the difference between watching people have sex and watching ballet or football?
Apparently not
If you think having sex is like playing football you’re doing it wrong. Also, I’m concerned for your partner. I hope you give her a good helmet.