Saturday, May 17

Porn for women

To me, it’s quite surprising that even decades after the pill and the sexual revolution people seem to think women are, to a certain degree, asexual beings. How else could it be explained people are so surprised about “porn for women”? (Gods, my father could be reading this post, I probably should vanish into earth right now, but I still think it’s an important topic.)

I have to admit I sometimes find it difficult to act on my need as well. Only recently I have visited a sex shop for the first time (and I’m over 30 already, mind you). It was an interesting experience (and one I will be having again for sure), but also quite sobering. While there are some areas in the shop I found entertaining or interesting, the large section of porn movies (or the magazines and books) did not exactly fall into it. It’s quite obvious most of it is directed at men and nobody else. Why?

This brings me back to the topic as a such. “Porn for women” is exactly what the name suggests, of course: pornography done in a way to be pleasing and stimulating for women. I know that’s not too easy – women don’t ‘function’ like men, as far as their lust is concerned. We’re a lot harder to please. Still, I read and contribute to an adult thread in my favourite forum and there porn movies are discussed quite vividly (together with strange sex toys and other adult topics). Quite some of those discussing them are women (which suggests they’re actually watching the movies, too). But finding something that’s directed at women? No fat chance. (Not even a slim one.)

On the other hand, we’re living in a free market economy, aren’t we? That means the demands of the market dictate the products and services offered (if I remember my lessons about it correctly). About 50 percent of mankind (even a bit more) are women. Quite a lot of them live in ‘free’ countries in which they can speak their mind and basically do as they please. They earn money (though less than men, on the average), they spent it. But not on porn. Why?

For one thing, there’s not much around which women would find worth their money and time. If there’s nothing offered, then you don’t buy anything – sounds obvious, doesn’t it? That surprises me a bit – especially the porn industry usually reacts rather quickly to the demands of the market. So why are they leaving out 50 percent of their possible customers? Search me…

The second reason, I guess, is the upbringing women go through. We are not taught to voice our needs (especially when it comes to such a difficult topic as sex). And if we don’t say what we want, how can we get it?

Women definitely are harder to please when it comes to porn. They need the stimulation of the fantasy far more than the stimulation of the actual picture. In addition, the porn movies usually depict women as the objects of sexual wants and needs. (You could argue, though, that the male actor in such a movie is an object as well, after all he’s just doing what the male viewer wants to do.) Objects do rarely get granted any wishes. And today’s society is hardly going to objectify men, just to please women. Sad but true.

If you know what to look for (try googling “clitrature”, for instance), porn for women is there. It just isn’t as obvious and far spread as the kind for men.

Tuesday, May 6

She did it again (Ooops)

As if two books (one of which I still haven’t finished and one of which I don’t even own - or plan to buy) about the ‘natural place’ of women weren’t enough, Miss Herman has decided to write a third one, this one as a fake interview. ‘Fake’ because, from what I’ve read, the questions are only playing into her hands, allowing her to portrait herself as some sort of martyr. Saint Eva ... or something.

To be honest, I’m slowly getting sick of this. I’m getting sick of the way she always turns up again ... pretty much like Dracula in the “Hammer” movies. (Which I like a lot better than Miss Herman and her books.) Were she a vampire, it surely would be easier ... I’d just have to tip off van Helsing (or one of his descendants) and things would be taken care of. No such luck with her, though, that would be murder - and a bit gross, just for writing stupid books about a stupid theory.

This is especially true as Miss Herman’s ideas about the ‘natural place’ of a woman aren’t exactly new. And neither are the enemies she chooses for herself. The first book I’ve read which claimed it was only natural for women to stay at home and take care of the household and the kids instead of working or having a career was written in 1903 by a Dr. P.J. Möbius (a descendant of the inventor of the Moebius Loop). He was using the argument “nature never intended women to use their brains” to speak sharply against women studying, working or, God help us, being granted the right to vote. And since even before that women who spoke for feminism and against the old powers of patriarchy were demonized, belittled and humiliated by their enemies (usually men and high up in the patriarchal system or women who like the way things were going). So, instead of writing three new books, Miss Herman could just have taken his book, given it a new title, fitted in a few new topic (and discreetly taken a few old ones out), written her name on the cover and published it. Nobody would have realized, I guess. But, of course, she could not have lamented that much about her own dark fate (having a career while her child at home was crying into the phone every evening) that way. Möbius did not do that, naturally. He was a man after all and not supposed to stay at home.

And yes, I know I’m sounding terribly mean right now. I can’t help it, by now Miss Herman is to me what a red piece of cloth is to a Spanish bull: I see it, I lower my head and I charge.

But back to the main point (and away with all that meanness ... could I be related to Dr. Gregory House? ... no, surely not).

Was it really necessary to write three books about a theory that’s been old already when my grandmother got married? (She was born in 1911, if I remember it correctly.)

I say “No”. I could have very well lived without them altogether. But I would not be as poised to attack as I am, had she left it at one instead of recycling her ideas again and again and again.