There has been a lot of talk around the Internet of late about a site called Make Love, Not Porn that seeks to reveal to the masses the "truth" behind what passes for "porn sex" and how it supposedly differs from what is "real sex".
Well...others have throughly dissected their mythology with relish, and so, I decided to take a crack at it.
Because of the nature of the material, though, I decided to dust off my more...adult Lady Chatterley Boudoir blog from the 2 year ashes as a venue for my fisking. Read and enjoy.
The Lady Chatterley Boudoir: "Make Love, Not Porn??? Really??? How About Making Love AND Porn Together??
A sanctuary for supporters of sexual free expression and the adult sexual media.
My Indignation Filter must be broken, because my only thought was
ReplyDelete"Holy pink things, Batman, they actually admit that some women DO like anal sex, rough blowjobs, and dirty talk. I want to give them a cookie."
Yeah, the "no woman comes from penetration alone" bit is totally silly misinformation, but on the whole I was impressed. Admissions that everyone's different, and the preachiest part of it is the site's name.
Now, it could *get* worse, but... I call this one a tentative sigh of relief.
Yeah, I kind of agree with Trinity, it certainly could be worse. I think its based on some pretty wrong-headed assumptions about what viewers take away from porn or about what all porn is like, but at least it isn't completely based on "real women don't do X and Y, unless they've been brainwashed by the patriarchy/sexually abused as children" – which is the assumption that most anti-porn folks seem to fall back on to some degree or another.
ReplyDeleteI think the page that's most off is the one on anal sex. It basically asks men to empathize with how women might feel about being anally penetrated by asking how they would feel about a guy anally penetrating them. Which totally ignores the whole issue of sexual preference – duh, most straight men aren't going to be into being penetrated by other men because they're not into other men. Obviously, a gay or bi man or straight or bi woman might feel differently (not that 100% of that population is into being penetrated, or penetrated anally either). Hence, the answer to that question mixes up two different issues – sexual preference and feelings about being penetrated.
Here's are the news articles about who's behind Make Love Not Porn:
ReplyDeletelink
link
link
Apparently, this is not coming from the usual anti-porn crowd, or from the prudish wing of the "sex educator" lot, but from Cindy Gallop, an advertising/web design maven and cougar who's less-than-pleased about the porn-derived lovemaking techniques of her younger boyfriends.
This site may not end up being an entirely bad thing, though if the "Stop Porn Culture" folks the anti-porn blogosphere get their hooks into that site (which I could easily see happening with the sites reader submission feature), the whole thing could really go south.
IACB and Trin:
ReplyDeleteI acknowledge that Cindy Gallop's site wasn't meant to be an attack on porn as in the Price of Pleasure/typical GenderBorgian style, and I did specifically give her and her site her props for not going there and praising sexual diversity.
My whole point, though, was that while MLNP does have its progressive moments, it's still marred by some gross overgeneralizations about what represents "porn sex", and how that translates into their model of what "real sex" is addressed. That's what I tried to address in my essay.
It tends to reduce the concept of "porn sex" to narrow subgenres (such as facials or clitoral stimulation or "dirty talk" and confuses particular subgenres centered toward a particular audiences who prefer that particular kind of act or kink as if they portray what ALL women SHOULD do, rather than the fantasy of what the particular user of that subgenre seeks to have.
Plus the whole "Make Love, Not Porn" theme tends to imply a superiority of her version of "making love" as a step above what "porn sex" is alleged to imply (merely "fucking"???)
It's not the usual preachfest or denial or jeremiad, however...and I will give her just due credit for that.
Anthony
Also...see Aspasia's critique of MLNP here.
ReplyDeleteAnthony
Oh...and also Melissa Gira Grant's critiqu, including an exchange in the comments section between Melissa and Ms. Gallop, here.
ReplyDeleteSorry about the bloggerhea.
Anthony