Fluent in Fag Loves Footnotes
I came across this gem while reading William Eskridge Jr.'s Challenging the Apartheid of the Closet: Establishing Conditions for Lesbian and Gay Intimacy, Nomos, and Citizenship, 1961-1981, 25 Hofstra L. Rev. 817. It's a footnote from a section discussion the regulation of gay pornography. For those with access to the article, it's footnote 323.
Apparently the heterosexual men, they like the woman-woman lovemaking.
I guess there's just something about the requirements of propriety in law review articles that precludes him saying something like:
Gripe 1: Eskridge says that the woman-woman porn was for "heterosexuals", when what he really means is "heterosexual men". Are women not heterosexuals? Somehow I don't think Eskridge was giving an unspoken nod to the "compulsory heterosexuality" theory. My guess: he's just not that into including women in this analysis. I am guilty of the same sort of thing, on occasion, but that doesn't mean I can't gripe about it when others do it.
Gripe 2: Eskridge's reference to "images of two women making love" really stretches euphemistic license. People in porn are sometimes faking it, sometimes having sex, but "making love"? On the other hand, maybe his editors made him do it. Or perhaps he was just poking a little fun at the prudishness of law review culture.
Discussion questions:
1) What's the world of porn like today? To what degree do audiences expect to see themselves in porn? Is porn still "targetted"? Is that "targetting" still effective? Can straight men consume and enjoy porn meant for lesbians, can straight women enjoy porn meant for gay men? Are bisexuals the perfect audience? Can/do trans audiences enjoy porn featuring trans performers? Can gay men and lesbians enjoy straight porn? Do androids enjoy porn with electric sheep?
2) Do those "straight guys" who jack off in "audition videos" for male cameramen/directors really think that this is going to launch their straight porn career? Given that these "audition" tapes are really going to be aimed at the gay male market and there is likely no straight porn film in the making, have these men been defrauded? Do they have a contractual remedy?
I am using the term pornography to mean erotic pictures or pictures-and-words, but not words alone. Also note that I advert only to gay (male) pornography. There was little photographic pornography aimed at lesbians; most images of two women making love were in products marketed for heterosexuals, as woman-woman lovemaking is highly erotic to many straight men.
Apparently the heterosexual men, they like the woman-woman lovemaking.
I guess there's just something about the requirements of propriety in law review articles that precludes him saying something like:
By gay porn, I mean pictures of men. There was no such thing as lesbian porn. Pictures of women getting it on were for straight men, who found such images majorly hot.
Gripe 1: Eskridge says that the woman-woman porn was for "heterosexuals", when what he really means is "heterosexual men". Are women not heterosexuals? Somehow I don't think Eskridge was giving an unspoken nod to the "compulsory heterosexuality" theory. My guess: he's just not that into including women in this analysis. I am guilty of the same sort of thing, on occasion, but that doesn't mean I can't gripe about it when others do it.
Gripe 2: Eskridge's reference to "images of two women making love" really stretches euphemistic license. People in porn are sometimes faking it, sometimes having sex, but "making love"? On the other hand, maybe his editors made him do it. Or perhaps he was just poking a little fun at the prudishness of law review culture.
Discussion questions:
1) What's the world of porn like today? To what degree do audiences expect to see themselves in porn? Is porn still "targetted"? Is that "targetting" still effective? Can straight men consume and enjoy porn meant for lesbians, can straight women enjoy porn meant for gay men? Are bisexuals the perfect audience? Can/do trans audiences enjoy porn featuring trans performers? Can gay men and lesbians enjoy straight porn? Do androids enjoy porn with electric sheep?
2) Do those "straight guys" who jack off in "audition videos" for male cameramen/directors really think that this is going to launch their straight porn career? Given that these "audition" tapes are really going to be aimed at the gay male market and there is likely no straight porn film in the making, have these men been defrauded? Do they have a contractual remedy?
posted by manoverbored at
7:35 PM
3 Comments:
haha, ZOMG, thank goodness i can post anonymously.
(1) as a relatively(!!?!?!?) straight man i have to say that i'm not very big on lesbian sex. i mean, outside of a pornography setting it's all very exciting but within a pornography framework i'd rather see some cock up in that biz so i can properly self-identify. i'm actually really fond of gonzo type porn where the cameraman is the one getting his doodle kerfluffled IF YOU GET MY DRIFT.
(2) although i'm sure it isn't a general rule, i'm surprised at how many "straight" actors i read about turning up in gay porn. i would imagine a lot of them are perfectly happy to participate in any kind of porn up to a limit, i.e. everything up to having their doodles kerfluffled.
By
Anonymous, at 10:19 AM
when women make love do they glow instead of sweat? (cue sweaty lady porn stars everywhere yelling "help help! get me down off this pedestal!"
i'm going to leave your second question alone, but wrt the first (and really only part thereof):
there is a porn star named buck angel who is a transman. last time i checked in, he was pretty low-budget. i certainly can't speak for everyone, but most of the trans guys i know who have seen his porn have sought it out just to check out what a member of the community doing porn would look like, how he deals with gender, etc.
maybe queers are more fluid about gender in their fantasy life, which allows them to be able to identify as many different members of the porn cast, such that a lesbian might get off on straight porn on a number of levels- because they could imagine both being the woman getting fucked and being the man doing the fucking (which requires a little bit of hand/strapon/cock transmogrifying, but with some folks that's what happens when they have sex anyway).
By
kommishonerjenny, at 2:17 PM
Chelsea sent me to you, me being a (relatively) new resident of (Berkeley which is near) San Francisco. So this would be my auto-introduction and hello! Best to reach me at marcus dot carr at gmail dot com (replace all dots with . and ats with @).
By
Anonymous, at 8:43 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home