One year later, we're still here. Thank you, Seattle, for your resilience and readership throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Contributions from our readers are a crucial lifeline for The Stranger as we write our new future. We're calling up legislators, breaking down what's going on at Seattle City Hall, and covering the region's enduring arts scenes thanks to assistance from readers like you. If The Stranger is an essential part of your life, please make a one-time or recurring contribution today to ensure we're here to serve you tomorrow.
We're so grateful for your support.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
Sign up for the latest news and to win free tickets to events
Buy tickets to events around Seattle
Comprehensive calendar of Seattle events
The easiest way to find Seattle's best events
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Comments
For someone not concerned about what other people think of her she is extremely concerned about what other people think of her.
My gay ass has actually seen two or three girl/girl scenes in straight porn that did turn me on a bit. I wasn't interested in doing the girls (I hate when dudes walk in on girl/girl scenes and the girls decide they've had enough fun with each other and they can "get back to what they really want), but it was the rare scene where the girls were as close to truly bisexual as porn women get, and they were, y'know, kind of into each other, at least a little bit. Seeing two people who are really about fucking the liviing hell out of each other, regardless of gender tends to get my attention, but my interest still isn't as broad as the LW's, certainly not as a funciont of my individual sexual preference. I've seen way too much porn where I've found that M.F scene partners actually like each other off-set but have no chemistry at all when the cameras are on, as well as scene partners who can't muster any spark even when they're performing within their own preferences.
Any commenters have any insights?
That said, go easy on her. She's obviously a fierce LGBT ally who's just a bit overly enamored with her own enlightenment. She's good people.
Their membership structure is also friendly to those with limited budgets. $25 gets you access for a month, during which time you are free to download their catalog and keep the files after ending your subscription. I can't afford it on an ongoing basis but a month each year keeps me well supplied.
Women's sexuality is much more in tune with basic triggers of sexytime vs. non-sexytime. So if sex being had in the vicinity, that's the sex gong. And the turn on is how turned on everyone is, if they really need to get off. It's the sexual desire itself that's sexy to women. Of course women have particular kinks and turn-ons and are also visual creatures, but I don't think it's the same switch-flipping that goes on with men (Man see Woman, Man fill Woman up with spunk).
I may be way off, having never been male. I'm just struck by the similarities. Also the lack of control. I remember hearing my baby crying and then seeing spots on the wall six feet away and realizing it was coming from me. In that sense I think it's much harder for men to keep control of their sex drive, and how much it helps to have regular "milking".
Some Women's continuum more fluid. Maybe. Or we not so scared of our different erotic attractions, even if some of it is only expressed thru watching a DVD, cause we too came out of a woman and if we lucky, breast fed from one.
Still. There would be lots of lesbians who would never want to watch men fucking each other.
The male was a step removed.
For the male homosexual, he always knows he came from the female, so there's an added bite to his rejection of the female form.
Sorry. I'm stoned. These thoughts are probably very incoherent.
I'll just go back to thinking.
I think there are unforeseen difficulties if you deliberately blur the differences between traits that are divided 50/50, 75/25, 90/10 and 99/1 (arbitrary splits). Also, a post-gay world will quickly become a non-gay world.
You have no idea how freaky it is to realize that you have loved a man but that now all you can think about is sex with women.
(Not read the rest of the comments yet. I'm sure I will have more to say. Anyone surprised? heheh)
But then I asked myself, if I was going to watch porn, would I watch FF, FM, or MM porn? No hesitation, my answer was MM porn, because it's more taboo. At that moment it clicked in my head, and since then I've never borne any resentment towards straight guys who watch "lesbian" porn. My theory on which is they want to see sex happening, but they don't want to see the (huge) dicks in MF porn, which they (understandably) find intimidating. (Third admission: I find the huge tits in most porn involving women intimidating.)
So here's the bi girl's blessing for all you straight guys to continue to fap to FF porn :)
But I digress. I wonder - is the lesbian porn I like 'aimed for men'? I kind of don't think so - I prefer the stuff without heels, without an obsessive focus on toys, no men, lots of kissing... am I watching the right stuff? Or the wrong stuff but it feels right?
I think some focus-group research is called for.
@34 Almost by definition, mainstream porn is aimed at men. Men are just much more into porn than women are. Sex toys are the other way around.
I once had an on-line conversation with a hetero-curious gay-identified guy, whose interest had been prompted (in part) by a growing fascination with straight porn. I had to explain to him that asking a woman what porn she was into was not a good opener. I sent him a link to a story about the porn that men and women enjoyed, which made the following points: (1) Men are just much more into porn than women are, (2) Women are more likely to enjoy porn that shows cunnilingus (duh), (3) Women are more likely to enjoy porn that features attractive men (hence James Deen).
Then again, most studio porn is pretty terrible to me, no matter how cute the participants.
"While the subjects watched on a computer screen [the scientist] measured their arousal in two ways, objectively [swelling in men, genital blood flow in women] and subjectively [participants rated how aroused they felt. [...] Males who identified themselves as straight swelled while gazing at heterosexual or lesbian sex and while watching the masturbating and exercising women. They were mostly unmoved when the screen displayed only men. Gay males were aroused in the opposite categorical pattern. Any expectation that the animal sex would speak to something primitive within the men seemed to be mistaken; neither straights nor gays were stirred by the bonobos. And for the male participants, the subjective ratings on the keypad matched the readings of the plethysmograph. The men’s minds and genitals were in agreement. All was different with the women. No matter what their self-proclaimed sexual orientation, they showed, on the whole, strong and swift genital arousal when the screen offered men with men, women with women and women with men. They responded objectively much more to the exercising woman than to the strolling man, and their blood flow rose quickly — and markedly, though to a lesser degree than during all the human scenes except the footage of the ambling, strapping man — as they watched the apes. And with the women, especially the straight women, mind and genitals seemed scarcely to belong to the same person. The readings from the plethysmograph and the keypad weren’t in much accord. During shots of lesbian coupling, heterosexual women reported less excitement than their vaginas indicated; watching gay men, they reported a great deal less; and viewing heterosexual intercourse, they reported much more. Among the lesbian volunteers, the two readings converged when women appeared on the screen. But when the films featured only men, the lesbians reported less engagement than the plethysmograph recorded. Whether straight or gay, the women claimed almost no arousal whatsoever while staring at the bonobos."
@38 - that's hot!
Plural @38 what bugs me about that analysis is that it seems to prioritize the blood flow over the women's experience. If my genitals respond to something, that could just as easily be preparation for some expected unpleasant sexual event (ie rape). If I say I wouldn't want to fuck the ape, why do the scientists seem to be saying that I must be wrong, or at least that my genitals do want to fuck the ape? Maybe my genitals just worry about the ape wanting to fuck me.
Re bi/lesbian women liking MM porn, I wonder if it correlates with bi/lesbian women who enjoy dildos/strap-ons. Seems to me that if your sex life frequently involves non-bio-cock, then maybe you would find lots of bio-cock fun to watch. I know I like MM porn, though I haven't ever analyzed why.
The device isn't well-thought of for research, BTW.
@40, Great to have an actual lesbian in the discussion! What would you consider to be "well-made" F2F or F2M porn? I agree that a woman who doesn't appear to be "into it" is a turn-off. And I don't understand the impulse of some men to see women degraded. Oh, and see @27.
Men can definitely be coerced or disrespected by other men. I was once more-or-less sexually assaulted by another man.
@41 I assume you enjoy receiving cunnilingus?
Anyway, my purpose was simply to point out that some of the analyses presented in the article can inform this discussion, not to advocate for any particular right or wrong interpretation.
Just had to put that out there.
Although Dan is correct that such sites tend to focus on the men.
I once had an e-mail correspondence with a gay-identified man who had, by watching straight porn, become fascinated with cunnilingus. He really wanted to try it, and was looking for a MMF threesome. By his own description, he was basically a Kinsey 4 or 5 who hadn't had much experience with women.
And then there's the issue that I'm mostly interested in breasts, and so I really don't need a close-up of someone's balls, or of someone's butthole, or of someone's dick (seriously, the number of straight guys who presumably like porn where the penis is prominently displayed on the screen may relate to the straight guys watching guy-on-guy porn), and I really really really wish that whoever thought women covered in oil was sexy had thought something else instead. Seriously, who the hell thinks it's sexy to smear oil all over your skin?
So I feel the answer was completely missing the question. And while many females do like M2M porn, it's true that we're apparently not supposed to. I get lots of comments and am expected to justify myself if I mention liking it. I always point out to the fact that straight men like F2F porn so why wouldn't I, a straight female, like M2M porn? But the answer is always "it's not the same!". Not sure how or why. Seems like the same to me.
So I think it really comes down to the idea that women aren't supposed to enjoy porn (or if they do it's with a male partner so why would it involve M2M porn?) and women aren't supposed to masturbate, or whatever. I mean, sure, society's getting a bit better about it. But it's still equating "woman who masturbates" with "woman go gets around". There is no such equation with men.
Plural @45, when one is called "objective" and the other is called "subjective," I think that sets a certain tone of dismissiveness towards the subjective response. Why isn't the woman's stated preference also considered "objective"? The observer-scientist's subjectivity isn't at play (as it would be if the observer-scientist were evaluating wines, for instance).
but i'm a 100% straight female into M2M gay porn, along with many other kinds, once in a while. its not all i watch but there is something super duper freaky (the good kind) and sometimes "entertaining" if not "funny"--think SatC when carrie got that gay porn video when she met the hot aussie guy) about male homoerotic video.
i hope that doesn't come off as insulting...don't mean it that way at all.
Second, yes. Exactly. I may be a straight man with all sorts of privilege and male-gaze superpowers, but I was pretty annoyed by the condescending implication that the women in that study were lying or didn't know what they wanted because their genitals were lubricating in response to stimulus that they said didn't turn them on. The article uses the word "excitement" for both, but they're not the same thing. Increased blood flow to the genitals presumably correlates well with lubrication, which can be a response to a desire to have sex, but is also a pretty good step to avoid injury if sex is likely, whether or not the female in question has any desire for that sex.
Better terminology might be to refer to whether the women reported arousal or desire and whether their vaginas lubricated.
Non-consensual sex is a real thing throughout much of the animal kingdom. It has apparently been a real thing for a lot longer than there have been humans. If a body has the ability to lubricate and doing so can reduce the risk of injury during sex, it would really be surprising if evolution didn't provide a mechanism for lubrication to occur in response to the potential for non-consensual sex.
So women presented with humans and non-human primates mating lubricate, even if the sex involved is not of a type M-M, F-F, ape-ape or whatever that they say they're not into. That's really about as surprising as hearing that water is often wet.
Also dicks are fun, cocks going into holes are fun and visually arrousing. IRL, I also enjoy strap-on/penetrative sex as both a top and a bottom, and giving/receiving head with silicone cocks...this maybe taps into the same visual stimulation? There's definitely some layer of taboo at play, as well, as I have very little desire for real dicks in my life. Yes, there is quality queer porn out there, which I also consume to a lesser degree (the Crash Pad series as an example), but it's more expensive (rightly so, queer performers need to make a living, too!). It also generally takes more time to navigate, sift through to find what I like, and the content is longer, more involved, and takes its time getting to the point. Sometimes I want to take my time getting to the point, sometimes I want to tune in, turn on, and get off quickly cuz I got shit to do.
I'm always hearing that lesbians into MM porn is a common thing, and yet I've also experienced judgment from partners who don't get it, and apparently didn't get the memo that it's a thing. As Dan has often said, the things that turn us on in fantasy aren't always the things we're interested in acting on in reality.
Thanks for the kind words!
@35: “Women are more likely to enjoy porn that features attractive men” – Well, another duh. We don’t want to fuck ugly men, why would we want to watch ugly men fucking?
@38: One theory behind this is not that women actually find monkey sex a turn-on, but that the vagina subconsciously lubricates as a pre-emptive response to the suggestion of sex of any kind, as a defense against rape. If a woman is wet, rape is less painful. (See also @41 and @53.) I have to say, my vagina lubricates at random intervals. If I feel myself getting wet while grocery shopping, that does not mean heads of cabbage turn me on.
@39: So, no, in that light, it’s not hot at all.
@48: Thank you! I agree. And thanks for providing evidence against the “100% of men like porn” stereotype.
It would be interesting to follow up on that disconnect, or at least ask more relevant questions to the participants. Personally, as a very straight girl (who also doesn't enjoy porn, but does enjoy watching sexual encounters between various gender pairings outside of porn), this is what it feels like to me. I don't get anything directly out of a lesbian encounter, though I do find myself personally invested in the characters and watching their enjoyment reminds me of what it feels like to enjoy someone like that, and that's hot.
While it's possible that the percentage of straight women into M2M porn is as high as (or even higher than) the percentage of men into F2F porn, my guess is that that's not the case.
I've never been with a woman who was into (or at least admitted to being into) M2M porn but then only one of the women I've been with was into porn at all (she was bi and liked both M2F and F2F porn.) If I was with a woman who was into M2M porn, I'd watch it with her even though it's something I wouldn't watch by myself. I'd watch it with her because I'd get turned on by seeing her get turned on.
Re porn, as soon as I found amateur stuff in the 90's, I find pretty much everything else unwatchable.
I remember finding Dana DeArmond on Burning Angel in the early Oughts, when it was all still photos, and though the Bettie Page thing has been done so much it's starting to come out the other side, she pulled it off. I dumped my membership after a month, but later, hearing that not only was there actual video, but of Ms D and that perfect ass being seen to, I signed back up so fast I'm pretty sure my keyboard smoked.
Well. I could stand about 15 seconds of the caterwauling and staring at the camera, then had to log off, a broken husk of a man... Their other videos were much the same. I get it that the director or whomever is coaching this, but no thanks. These days, it's women who have always wanted to try porn, don't think doing it's a big deal, and who genuinely enjoy getting fucked.
Hey, there's a lot of crappy literature on the shelves out there (my local library has not one but Two copies of the latest John Ringo, god), but we don't say 'books suck.'
Tell me you think 80%+ of published literature is not much good, I can't argue.
*All participants willing, and 18 or over. Proof of age on file.
That assistant, brown hair, about 5'7?