Apparently today is LadyPornDay. Like Ladies Day at Ascot, but without the hats. http://remittancegirl.com/discussions/ladypornday-and-the-male-gaze/
‘Porn for women’ is a contentious subject. According to Suraya, the editor of Filament Magazine, the lack of porn that suits women’s tastes is to do with the fact porn is on the whole made by men. She encourages women photographers to photograph men ‘erotically’.
Suraya on writing about LadyPornDay said: ‘A few re-occurring comments caught my attention, in which women agreed that finding explicit male photography online that involved an erection and was surely aimed at women was near impossible.
This is both disappointing as a fact, and comforting to hear. Half the time when I say ‘there’s sod all erotic photography of men out there that’s aimed at women’, I am told I’m obviously not looking very hard, or my absolute favourite, ‘Have you tried the internet?’’
Now. I don’t think the ‘female gaze’ or the ‘male gaze’ exist. I think people get turned on by a variety of different things, regardless of their sex, gender identity or orientation.
One of the main discussions on #ladypornday has been around how ‘gay porn’ doesn’t cater for women. It says ‘it is not for you’ according to quite a few women. As a lover of gay porn I find this weird. I can’t think of any other porn I really want to watch to be honest. I have been told I can watch it but it is not meant for me, I cannot ‘feel’ what a gay viewer would, because I don’t have a cock. Well that may be true. But I have all the other equipment required to enjoy gay porn. Including eyes. I think the ‘porn for women’ idea forgets as well that many gay men have had to watch visual material for many years, that ignores their ‘gaze’. And one of the wonderful things about changes to our culture, recently, is that gay men and straight or bi or whatever women, can see more material they all enjoy (and I don’t mean Sex In The City Films). Mark Simpson has pointed out how even James Bond, that macho figure of ‘heterosexual’ manliness, has become an object of desire, available to men and women. Even though he seems to think Bond belongs to him. I know thousands of women would fight Simmo for ‘Bond’s Blond Bollocks’… (but he still might win)
Simpson’s writing also brings into focus how we forget, when talking about looking, and desire, the existence of ‘bisexuality’. If some people are attracted to both men and women, surely ‘all’ porn is for them? And if some people are able to watch all kinds of porn, surely … er… anyone can? It seems so obvious to me. I know Filament magazine is partly about encouraging women photographers of men’s bodies. I think this is great. But when I asked her about Sporno-an area full of men’s bodies, she thought it wasn’t the kind of thing her readers would be interested in. So she is only interested in encouraging women to produce particular types of photography of men.
Today I chatted online to someone who said their mother had an electrician round who happened to be a woman, and she referred to her as a ‘lady electrician’. Sounds ridiculous doesn’t it? So does LadyPorn to my ears.
Here are some images of men. Do you think they are ‘aimed at women’, men, or anyone else in particular?