beled_el_djinn (
beled_el_djinn) wrote2008-05-20 09:37 am
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I am the new way to go; I am the wave of the future...
I view a lot of porn for work which is something I don't think I'd ever be able to say after abandoning my plans of setting up a porn site. Something I've noticed in all the sites I have to look over is that there seem to be only three* categories of porn site. 1) the kind that caters to straight men, 2) the kind that caters to gay men and 3) the kind that caters to both gay and straight men (although most of them segregate their selection so that there isn't much in the way of overlap). So something that has been sort of bugging me is why I don't see more sites geared toward straight and gay women? Is there just not a market for it? Have I just missed it in my years wandering teh internets? Or is it that most women who surf porn pull from the same three pools that the rest of us do?
*x-tube (WARNING, NSFW) sort of breaks this in that there is definitely content put up specifically for women, by men, but as far as I've seen, that is the only site that does this.
*x-tube (WARNING, NSFW) sort of breaks this in that there is definitely content put up specifically for women, by men, but as far as I've seen, that is the only site that does this.
After the flesh!
I think it's been historically true that women just try to find the best out of what's available as they can. Mind you, this is probably true of many people whatever their gender and persuasion.
Reposted a related article on an eleet filter yesterday with the intent of writing something of my own latah; let me know if it's appropriate to offer you this eleet access.
Re: After the flesh!
And I'd be totally down with your offer of eleet access as I likes teh innerestin articles, I does. That and I'm a total slacker chode who forgot to opt in when the opting in was offered.
Re: After the flesh!
Oh, and before I sleep, I should fix the actual technical part of access. And at some point I swear I'll write the part from my point of view I was meaning to write before I got onto the tangent of finding this particular article.
no subject
Mine are threefold, in the best mystical tradition.
1) Society sucks where women and sex are concerned; women have been told that they shouldn't, or don't, like the pr0n, so they don't buy it, so there's not much market for it, so they don't buy it *more*...
2) Female sexual pleasure is less, um, visual/visceral than the male equivalent. Sure, women can show arousal, but it's way harder to tell if said arousal is genuine, and there's not the immediate visual of "Oh, that's *clearly* having an effect".
3) Somewhat relatedly, men in porn are from the narrow pool of guys who can get it up on camera, last for a long time, *and* get off in front of several people and the Viewers At Home. I don't know if this skill actually has a negative correlation with attractiveness, or if it just means that porn casting directors take what they can get. All I know is that the majority of men in porn are *fugly*.
The existence of cute men in gay porn may negate this, though. So might the fact that most mainstream porn women aren't what I would consider attractive, either, because Paris Hilton with bigger tits and three-inch-long fingernails doesn't do it for me (or, IMO, anyone sane)...so.
no subject
...I'll be Over Here.
*dies*
no subject
You can make small text with the "font-size" style parameter...for next time you want to share your fan-art interest. :)
no subject
no subject
no subject
But seriously though, I agree with I about womyn not be socialized to like it. Also, it's also possible than men are more visusally fixated while women are more tactile/smell orientated.
no subject
*And everything else passes inspection. Duh.
no subject
I would say that there should be a "porn selected by women" movie night, but that might be too...hmm...awkward? ;)
no subject
jilljerk with a bunch of my friends. So if it were kind of like a 'porn club' night where there was discussion about the videos, that could certainly be interesting.no subject
no subject
I think fugly guys are more common in motion picture/video/internet porn. That is where you need the guy that can get off hundreds of times. Photographic guy-on-girl porn usually involves the non fugly.
no subject
no subject
But I do actually think the ugly guy thing is partly about that. That, the performance deal, and avoiding the ever-present straight male fear of ZOMG finding someone with a penis even marginally attractive.
no subject
2) True, but with the invention of viagra and it's theoretical presence in the porn industry, can any arousal be said to be genuine? ;P Now I'm going to have to re-watch the one lesbian porn (directed by lesbians) I have to see how they work in the arousal bit and deal with the less visually oriented question.
3) See my comment to
heiressstripper is crying, after all.no subject
Also, for whatever reason, women who want porn (or at least the porn-lovin' straight women that I know of) seem to be more into the fanfic/fanart aspects. I don't like the "women want an emotional connection and a story and touchy-feely blah blah blah" aspect, nor do I think it's true, so I'm not sure what the story is there.
2) Hee, yeah. Plus, the guys could be-and probably are-thinking of someone else during.
3) I suppose there are, theoretically, people out there who find La Hilton attractive. I don't understand them, but...yeah.
On the other hand, I take a certain gleeful joy in the idea of P.Hilton in a humiliation fuck. But that's because I'm mean and wrong.
no subject
no subject