I was reading a post on Violet Blue’s blog and she mentioned that Fleshbot (Gawker’s Sex and Porn blog) was doing a series on requests for sexual material that the readers want to see. I thought “cool” and checked it out, only to disappointedly discover the series has only been of women bodies. Sure, they had redheads or small-breasted women, but considering how hard impossible it is to find decent quality free pics of het guys for het women, I would have expected some of that.
But, as I would soon find out, my expectations were based on faulty assumptions. Because curiously, the tabs at the top of the main page say “gay” and “straight.” Guess what images are in the “gay” section? Naked men. And to their credit, just glancing down the 1st few archived pages, it seems like most of them are either actually gay or at least do gay male porn. The images in the “straight” section? Glancing at the first few archived pages, all women. One het couple, that was clearly focusing on the woman’s dirty bits. And several female couples or groups.
Silly me. Why should I have expected that “reader requests” would include het men on a site where gay=male viewer and straight=male viewer, and where lesbian imagery is classified as straight, not gay, just like the malestream Adult Video Awards. If my math is right, when men are shown in the “gay” section and women are shown in the “straight” section, that means that the assumed Fleshbot viewer=male , even thought their tagline, “Since 2003: where sex, porn, and the web collide,” doesn’t specify: mostly for if you’re a dude or a chick who only likes mainstream porn made for dudes. I mean, kudos (I suppose) for having a site with both gay and straight porn; if only your definitions of gay and straight weren’t so, well, male-centered.
I’m so f-ing sick of the blatant ignorance and erasure of female desire (het or queer) when it doesn’t comply with the “liberated girls [sic] take off their clothes!” and “liberated het chicks [sic] think other chicks are hot!” bullshit. Not that those aren’t/can’t be true. But there’s much more to women’s sexuality than what appeals to het men’s sexuality. And I find the refusal to allow het guys for het women to mingle in the “straight” section with all the stuff made for men, lest the het men might get threatened, or even worse, turned on! Heaven forbid a guy might actually have to look at a sexualized man’s body, or find out he might actually admire another guy’s sexuality. Or have to deal with his female significant other looking at porn focused on or equally focused on guy parts and not just lady parts. Cuz I guess it’s hot when your het girlfriend recognizes a woman as sexy but gross! gay! if a het guy does. Oh the double standards! Oh the repressive legacy of a half-assed sexual revolution that masquerades as “liberated”!
How about this radical idea, Fleshbot? How about divide your categories by content , i.e. solo male, solo female, group male, group female, and not by subject position , then viewers of whatever gender or sexuality can decide what content suits their desires instead of you heteronormatively and sexistly (yeah, I made that word up) deciding it for them, K?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Fleshbot: where men are for 'gays,' lesbians are for 'straights,' and the viewer is MALE.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/8052
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
[sarcasm] Oh duh, women don't watch porn. [/sarcasm]
This is the single most irritating thing for me about porn. I am a straight woman and, in my e-travels, I have found little to nothing geared towards me except for written erotica. While the erotica is nice... sometimes I just want a nice picture to look at. I am a woman and a sexual being. This is NOT a contradiction. I'm a market, too, dammit!
AWESOME POSt
"Sure, they had redheads or small-breasted women..."
How, exactly, do redheads as an entire entity fit into a category that, judging from your comment, would not be included in traditional porn sites? I was unaware that the unhealthy world of porn, which devalues women who do not look perfect or, for example, have small breasts, also thought redheads were somehow less desirable than both blondes and brunettes. That was news to me, and also seems irrelevant. I understand your problem with the site, and its heteronormativity, but you yourself could be criticized for so cavalierly endorsing typical porn standards by suggesting small-breasted women or redheaded women are some kind of special category not usually found sexy. There are, for better or worse, hundreds of websites to prove you wrong. Stick to the issue at hand--the lack of male pics for het women--and try to avoid contributing to the devaluation of women who do not look like playboy bunnies. I know that wasn't your intention, but your casual, implicit rating of "redheads or smallbreasted women" doesn't help anyone.
And before anyone says that porn standards are gross and corrupt and shouldn't matter anyway--I'd like to point out that you were looking at porn, so such a claim would be disingenuous.
I was unaware that the unhealthy world of porn, which devalues women who do not look perfect or, for example, have small breasts, also thought redheads were somehow less desirable than both blondes and brunettes.
Consider yourself aware. I've also been informed this recently by several men I've conversed with: attractive, natural redheads by and large are considered hard to find. In mainstream (porn and life) redheads are typically only considered attractive so long as they're not too freckled.
And I wasn't even rating the quality of any human being or their attractiveness. The "feature" was about what readers wanted to see porn of that is not so prevalent in mainstream porn. Did you see anything in that sentence that implies value? No, just rarity. And yes, small-breasted women and redheads are rare in mainstream. And even if that was a value statement, I in no way ever endorse porn standards, just report them.
And by the way, I'm reporting what viewers on a site think are non-mainstream representations...and also what a sex columnist thinks. Shoot the messenger much?
And when I say "sure, they had...", I was saying, hey it's good they're posting some female porn anomalies, but where were the men? That actually IS a value statement...being glad they're including mainstream porn anomalies.
Did you actually READ the post or just skim it? Try reading it again. I think you took offense where none was written.
And before anyone says that porn standards are gross and corrupt and shouldn't matter anyway--I'd like to point out that you were looking at porn, so such a claim would be disingenuous.
This is not logical. I was interested to see what they would post as "reader requests for atypical porn images." If I enjoyed porn standards, why oh why would I check that out? Also considering I'm an academic studying sexuality in popular culture, with a special focus on the erasure of lesbian women, I find your insinuation that my interest in the site is perverse and primarily for sexual arousal to be insulting.
(oh, and PS. I happen to think small-breasted women are way sexier than large breasted women)