Porn, Porn for Everyone! – An interpretation of the female gaze

This is not necessarily another blog post about the negative effects the porn industry is having on society. It’s not solely on the sexual objectification of womyn in the porn industry; although this is clearly a widespread, continuous issue. It’s not directly a feminist criticism of how harmful porn is towards womyn and sexuality. This post is a declaration, a proclamation, a demand for the porn industry to evolve and transform. To reflect and promote a diverse, healthy representation of womyn and sex through embracing the female gaze. This is about EROTIC INTELLIGENCE!

Pornography can be defined as “the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction” (wiki). However, is it truly erotic satisfaction? Mainstream porn is easily accessible. You can go to your friendly Google search engine, type in Porn and voila! Before you will be displayed a number of free porn websites you can curiously penetrate. Now, the initial perception may be the appearance of choice and difference. Don’t be fooled. There may be a colorful array of categories before your eager eyes but it’s practically the same, mundane performance.

These are some of the main characteristics of mainstream pornography:

  • Oppressive gender roles are intact.
  • Dominance and submission power relations are performed, often serving the male character.
  • ‘Dirty’ talk is necessary (Most of the time targeted at the more feminine character).
  • Lesbian sex is NOT really lesbian sex! Rather it is constructed through the heterosexual, commercialized male fantasy.
  • Male cum on the female face (Yes, I’m sure most womyn enjoy this depressingly instilled act).
  • WOMYN ARE RARELY, IF NOT EVER, FULLY GRATIFIED!

I cannot stress the last characteristic enough. I don’t believe the idea of porn is the problematic issue here; rather, it’s the way it’s depicted. The subject matter and visual content not only caters to the seemingly insolent male ego and pleasure, it completely eradicates womyn out of the sexual experience. She stands alone as object. Not human. The focus is not on the whole man in most mainstream pornographic videos but on the penis. However, the penis is active, moving, exerting, spilling, procuring. The whole man is not necessary. The whole womun is exposed; yet composed of chronic emptiness.

A commercial perspective for this poignant situation is that if males are the main consumers of pornography, then we must primarily tailor the content to their virtual voyeuristic desires. I have written and researched numerous essays, articles, theories on pornography throughout my academic career and for my own personal endeavors. My inquisitive mind led me to question approximately 100 men through survey research design on what they thought about mainstream porn. These are the prevalent answers I received:

It’s an easy release, I don’t take it that seriously.

It’s one-dimensional, but it does the trick.

I don’t sexually objectify [womyn]. I’m not sure why porn videos show this frequently. Does it matter?

[Womyn] in subservient positions don’t always excite me. Sometimes I get bored watching this.

As you can see, it does not seem climatically satisfying or realistic to them. I’m not negating the idea of fantasy, a form of sexual escapism. However, that is not what is being displayed here. Why should porn be this easy, inadequate, dead-end masturbatory session? Surely, it can incorporate creative and innovative imagery and story-lines which transcends, provokes, and entices us both mentally and sexually. Most porn focuses on gender roles where womyn are usually extremely dominant or subservient. There is no complexity or intricacy in the design. Calling womyn and the occasional man a slut, dirty, a whore along with belittling the vagina to a ‘pussy’ doesn’t stimulate my emotive or cognitive self. Our minds are connected to our sexual organs. Some of the best orgasms begin and are manifested in the brain – located primarily in the hypothalamus. Sexual arousal is a mosaic phenomena. Therefore, why shouldn’t the visual stimuli be more satisfying to the mind?

I do not believe most men are particularly erotically charged by mainstream pornography. If I am wrong, then men must be universally obscene, one-dimensional, obtuse, semi-misogynistic, prosaic creatures. I choose to be optimistic.

I will now provide solutions to an essentialized issue. The porn industry needs to change in these areas:

  • Portray womyn and men as equals by implementing strategic and elicit actions. Don’t let the sex organs dictate perceived and conditioned gender roles.
  • Display diversity in an all-encompassing, healthy manner and language. Don’t continue to use words like ‘gang bang’ or ‘fucking a 18-year-old pussy.’
  • A creative, sensual, variation with a flair of intellectualism to appeal to a wider demographic. This surely would generate more revenue for the business and allow womyn to participate in consuming porn.
  • Focus on female pleasure and do it naturally.

The porn industry must attract a wider, more diverse audience by instilling creativity, intelligence, passion, and inspiration in their imagery and content. I’m not proposing a Danielle Steel novel or that porn to be interpreted exclusively through the female gaze.

I am demanding integrated, intensified, compelling, sensational, mentally stimulating, emotively triggered, raw, organic, explosive ORGASMs from viewing pornography!

P.S. Free of charge!

3 thoughts on “Porn, Porn for Everyone! – An interpretation of the female gaze

  1. I think it sounds like you should A. check out Wicked the porn company owned by a woman and B. direct your own porn, I would so watch it.
    PS Women are taking over the ownership of porn companies increasingly, check the stats

  2. Oh Jesus Christ…

    I typically never blog. In the immortal words of Truman Capote, ‘That’s not writing, it’s typing.’

    Someone referred me to these blogs and in reading the comments I see the typical responses (save a few) from white men placating the exact opposite behavioral set that you portray in them. What is their agenda? Are they masochists? Do they actually agree with you? Is it their subconscious or conscious way of shining on a pretty face? Well, since I am a man (and a white man no less – egads!), I will give a more genuine point of view. And rest assured, I will not try to invade your blog and take it over, only to enslave the indigenous blogger in the process in an effort to fly the flag of my own blogger nation. I am busy on Wednesday nights at the Garryowen with Will Hutchison’s writing group doing that, but only after a few too many Harps.

    You seem to derive your thesis from a good bit of preconceived notion, one that you seem wholly unwilling to venture from, either due to theological stubbornness or ideological safety. These notions, to me anyway, are not progressive; they are re-inventive.

    Because, quite frankly, all of our opines and motivations are subjective in nature. Though since white men seem to be an easy target for bashing and to blame for all things oppressive (not wholly undeserved but the phenomenon more so yoked onto innocents due to simplistic generalizations), I will not feign pleasantries in that regard.
    I don’t find this sort of circular logic progressive but an insult to those who are truly progressive. I find it to be young, and suffering from all the missives that that implies. Nature tends to sort things out, and it is humans who are ill-engineered to hear the inaudible hum of our own existence born from that nature. Yet I do not believe that we are supposed to hear it. Behavioral traits can indeed be taught, but there is something to say about the natural order of things as well. The way men and women interact is not based solely on oppression or the like, but on nature. In fact oppression itself is based on a natural trait in man, mankind, or hu-mynkind if that’s the sort of redefinition in which we find comfort.

    However, if a womyn wants to have sex doggy style, then why would this be seen as a subconscious behavior due to oppression or oppressive behavior directly forced onto her? If during a sex act male cum goes on a womyn’s face and it is consensual, then why is this seen as oppressive? Maybe some men mean it to be oppressive. I personally think it’s just sex and let the consensual partners sort out the rest. From a female perspective, maybe you do not care for that. But you do not speak for all women, or womyn. And if a womyn does not like this, would men force these things on them? In most cases I doubt it. And if during sex a woman wants to be on top, what more beautiful a notion could be had by a man? I bet men would not decline, nor see it as oppressive or being oppressed.
    But I see your point in all of this, going to the common denominator (mankind) and changing its DNA from the onset (hu-mynkind).

    I get it.

    Why not re-engineer the behavior of every species on the planet to suit this model then? Why stop at humans – sorry, hu-myns? Let’s don lab coats and fill beakers with our own secret sauce until it congeals to a specific behavioral set that stodgy nature obviously has yet to exceed.

    I feel that the attempt to re-engineer behavioral sets beyond socio-economic equalities is something more akin to oppression itself. For instance, in your own words:

    • Portray womyn and men as equals by implementing strategic and elicit actions. Don’t let the sex organs dictate perceived and conditioned gender roles.

    Books like ‘1984’ by George Orwell (Eric Blair) speak to these sorts of things. A bit dated I admit but no less applicable.

    We are not androgynous creatures. All that mankind does is born from that inaudible drone of living, for better or worse. As a white man, even as just a man, a husband and a father, I find these sort of notions narrow-minded and lacking a certain traction that would give the proper breadth and grounding to an otherwise interesting discussion.

  3. David,

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts about this particular post along with my forum/blog in general. I always appreciate the engagement.

    I must say, I’m not sure what the quote wishes to imply exactly, but I should state that the purpose of this blog and the topics I write on is to create an egalitarian society along with providing solutions to complex systematic processes. You can check out my ‘About’ section if you haven’t already done so. I don’t just ‘type.’

    Which ‘preconceived notions’ are you referring to you exactly? Also, you’re distinction between progressive and re-inventive puzzles me. The definition of progressive is:
    1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.
    2. Making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc. (dictionary.com)

    To re-invent is: To invent again or anew, especially without knowing that the invention already exists.

    As you can see, I am not proposing a re-invention of anything per se, especially with the knowledge that the invention already exists given the content I write about wouldn’t pertain to this definition. I think you have expressed an opinion of how you feel about my ideas and solutions, but you’re not using the terminology correctly or legitimately. I would disagree with your statement – all of our opinions are subjective in nature. I conduct thorough research and consciously attempt to provide an analysis based on the relevant research and study which does formulate into an opinion to some extent, but it’s not exclusively a subjective, organic opinion. I tend to think highly of myself, but not highly enough to say all these opinions are my own original ideas. I struggle to fully understand what you mean by truly progressive given you don’t provide an interpretation of this at all. Also, I am not blaming each individual white man/men, but addressing the issues from an objective lens when I write about patriarchy in general. Admittedly, I can be quite facetious, direct, and flippant with some of my comments, but that’s just a voice I’ve chosen to use to appeal to certain demographics. In other words, I wouldn’t use the same voice/style in my thesis on feminism, etc.

    It’s going to be difficult to argue nature vs. nurture with those like yourself who lean more towards the natural order side of the spectrum. I tend to lean more towards the social conditioning/social constructionist views and beliefs in regards to deconstructing systems, hu-man behavior, etc. I can send you empirical and theoretical studies to prove my point/s, but at the end of the day, most are not persuaded to deviate from their standpoint in this crucial area. The matter of choice is another area people bring up when discussing these types of social issues. I entirely disagree with the notion that womyn have the choice to have, for example, cum on their faces or prefer sex doggy style, etc. This may be interpreted as a radical view, however, choice is an illusory concept. In the realm of gender construction and from a feminist perspective, womyn have never been able to exercise their potentialities, abilities, empowerment, and true subjective nature if you will. Once oppressed for long periods of time throughout his-tory in every facet of one’s life, one continues to be oppressed unless they continue to battle and dissect every thought, feeling, and behavior. It’s exhaustive which is why the oppressors continue to prevail; however the oppressors don’t necessarily benefit all the oppressors in the realm.

    In other words, even if womyn decide to indulge in these seemingly male orientated activities, it’s because it has been presented to them from a source. That source is essentially the root of the socialization process. It infiltrates our minds, captivates our feelings, and controls our behavior. It is not truly subjective and of one’s own will in nature. Perhaps you can say this about anything then? That we don’t really have a choice on a subconscious or unconscious level. I venture to agree with this. This is why I propose a continuous questioning, critique, awareness, and application both internally and externally. I am not saying womyn will always be victims then, but it’s going to take both womyn and men to make this transformation and transition.

    Finally, your opinion that hu-mankind is not androgynous in nature is fine. I obviously disagree given I solely believe that gender is a performance, and sexuality is often affected. It’s something that is learned, and hardly anything about it is ‘natural.’ Again, not that I don’t believe in some natural processes, but it’s quite minimal. Thank you again for your comments, and I hope you make future contributions!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s