Erotica Readers & Writers Association Blog

Monday, January 18, 2016

Is Fifty Shades of Grey the Only Porn Women Get?

By Donna George Storey

I just finished Dirty! Dirty! Dirty!: Of Playboys, Pigs and Penthouse Paupers, An American Tale of Sex and Wonder by Mike Edison (Soft Skull Press, 2011). It was a quick read and a nice change of tone from my usual research for my historical erotic novel these days. The book is about the history of sexually explicit magazines for men; the tone is funny, fearless and conversational, which you don’t usually get in studies of the apartment house in New York in the early 1900s. The familiar, cozy tone is no doubt due to the fact that over the years, Edison worked at Hustler, Screw and Penthouse, so he knows most of his stuff from the inside (and which may be why Hugh Hefner is presented with less affection than the other publishers).

I bought my first Playboy in a bookstore in downtown Washington, D.C. while on lunch break from my summer secretarial job at the IRS between high school and college. Yes, I was self-conscious as I stood in line to pay, although I wasn’t worried I’d be carded or anything. Eighteen wasn’t the hard cut-off it’s become in this day. The middle-aged guy behind me seemed bemused, but hey, it was the “Women of the Ivy League” issue, and I was headed to Princeton. Granted my later purchases have been a few vintage issues from the 1950s, and my enduring interest is in the mass presentation of erotic fantasy and the sensibilities of the men who made fortunes feeding on the sexual desires of men in our fairly repressed society. But frankly, I was thrilled to have my work published and generously compensated for by the Playboy Cyber Club and the print version of Penthouse under its new owners in the 2000’s. I wish I could tell that guy behind me in the bookstore what my brave purchase would lead to....

So, maybe I am unusual compared to the average woman, but I would argue that even though these magazines were not aimed at women as consumers, we, too, were profoundly affected by the new availability of erotic images and especially the manner of their presentation. Playboy, Penthouse and others defined what was sexy in a woman in our culture. It taught us what red-blooded straight men “really wanted.” Over the years I’ve had talks with men about their responses to these magazines, and it’s certainly more complicated than mere slavish acceptance of what Hefner or Guccione liked. However, we must acknowledge that these nationally distributed magazines helps shaped the erotic imaginations of millions, whether we like it or not.

There’s a lot I could say about Dirty! Dirty! Dirty! It rightly points out our debt to the men’s magazine honchos for battling for our First Amendment Rights with their sweat and treasure, for example. But I’ll mention two things that I'm sure I'll remember, the takeaways from my reading. First, I got a new insight into the role of Hugh Hefner in the grand story of moving the heterosexual erotic impulse from the closet into the public sphere in the twentieth century. I’d always felt Hefner was a good example of how money and power make you weirder than you might ordinarily be, and it’s not just the round-the-clock pajamas. Edison spared no report of Hefner’s weirdness. He even had an epiphany while watching an episode of Playboy After Dark—which aired way back in 1969-1970--and that is: Hefner “hates women.”

Which of course is ironic because someone who celebrates the female form and has slept with thousands of women might be assumed to “love” women. Edison’s epiphany made a small light bulb go on in my head as well. I get where he’s coming from but the word “hates” is a blunt instrument. “Fears” is closer. Hefner created a world where real women are kept at a distance, controlled, their beauty airbrushed into a safe, predictable, tasteful form. By packaging these smooth, clean, unthreatening girls-next-door with decent journalism and “the best” of contemporary literature (every one of the “great” authors Edison mentioned as appearing in Playboy are men), Hefner allowed America to dip its toes in the shallow end of the pool. Hustler and even Penthouse were too raw, low-class and possibly honest about the fantasies of the Average American Male. History shows us that middle-class self-indulgence always seem less threatening to society. We know that proper upper-class men can handle mistresses, French postcards or a glimpse of Pompeii’s brothel art without going mad and raping every woman in sight, unlike their working class brothers whom we must keep carefully in line. So that’s what Hugh did for us: he eased the door open for the millions with a generous greasing of “good taste.”

Bravo Mike Edison for giving me a new look at Playboy. But I have a beef with him as well. When describing the many business mistakes made by Penthouse publisher and chief Pet photographer, Bob Guccione, Edison pointed a big fat finger at Viva magazine, co-edited by the Gooch’s wife, Kathy Keeton. He described Viva as “a porn magazine for women (always a bad idea).” He hinted that the main readership of Viva was gay men, as is often claimed of Playgirl as well, and this is why it failed.

Sorry, Mike, I think you and society at large may be guilty of the very same failing you attribute to Hefner—that he never listened to real women or cared what they really wanted. We hear it over and over again. Women don’t like pornography. Women don’t respond to erotic images. Don’t waste your time trying to make tons of money from women’s sexual fantasies. It’s a mistake.

I loved Viva as a teenager. Maybe gay men were buying it, but so was my older sister, who made no effort to keep her issues from my curious hands. I didn’t question the magazine was meant for women to read. I figured young, worldly women were interested in the content: sexual fantasies and sexuality itself and feminist politics and sophisticated articles about the waning glory of England’s Royal Family and other provocative discussions of the early 1970s. I spent some very enjoyable summer afternoons perusing the articles, the “analyzed” sexual fantasies, and the pictorials. I learned a lot about myself and my desires.

Now I will agree the photographs of nude men didn’t do it for me the way Playmates and Pets apparently seared into the libidos of my male peers. But one very important reason may be that all the penises were flaccid. Even in my state of inexperience, it struck a false note. Looking back through the issues now, I get anxious when I see these beautiful young nude men and women embracing (including Melanie Griffith and Don Johnson as very young lovers) and the guy’s dick is soft. Something is wrong here and it’s hard, so to speak, to get drawn into a lustful fantasy when the man clearly is not aroused. 

On the other hand, I have to admit if Mike Edison means the type of pornography produced for men is unlikely to be profitable if the exact same thing is slapped with a label "for women" without deeper inquiry, then I agree with him. But “women don’t like pornography” suggests we don’t enjoy erotic images at all. That is not true for me. Is it true for you?

So instead of saying all women don’t like pornography, how about this? Maybe women don’t “like” or buy what has been on offer, because it’s a spin-off of the recipe for males and we respond to a different sensibility? Women don’t buy jock straps or mustache combs because they aren’t made for our needs. Has there ever been mass-distributed pornography that has “listened” to women’s wants and desires without fear? Who and what in our society are threatened by the idea that women might genuinely get turned on by erotic images?

Instead we get Fifty Shades of Grey. It certainly made plenty of money and caused nearly as much to-do as Playboy and Penthouse in their day. The heroine of the Fifty Shades is the special one-and-only rather than the endlessly replaceable pet of the month. The woman’s experience is important and she gets lots of orgasms, perhaps not won honestly for a virgin who never masturbated, but still. Oh, right, and those muscled torsos on erotic romance covers, which seem rather too literal of a riff on the Playboy centerfold, all unnatural bulges and oiled tan skin. Perhaps we need our own female version of Hugh Hefner to get that revolution going, with or without the twenty-four-seven pajama look?

I guess what I really take away from Dirty! Dirty! Dirty! is that the public acknowledgement of our culture’s sexual desires is still in its infancy. We have so much more to learn about female and male desire, if we can resist the temptation to retreat to worn formulas and truisms—women all like this and don’t like that, men want this and never want that. Each story we write or cover we choose can take that exploration further. In some sense, that discovery is what’s kept me writing for almost twenty years now.

Let’s keep making history!

Donna George Storey is the author of Amorous Woman and a collection of short stories, Mammoth Presents the Best of Donna George Storey. Learn more about her work at www.DonnaGeorgeStorey.com or http://www.facebook.com/DGSauthor

8 comments:

  1. I do love your reviews, Donna!

    Research has shown that women do indeed react to, and report being aroused by, nude images of men--and of women, even when they identify themselves as straight. Another finding is that for women, context plays a more important role in the level of arousal. I interpret this as saying that women are more sensitive to the "story" behind the images.

    There's a good review of the current literature here:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2739403/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "story" is very important to me! Thanks for that link, it's worth reading. Of many relevant supporting quotes:

      "Women who viewed clips from erotic films made by women or men reported higher levels of sexual arousal to the woman-made films (Laan et al., 1994). However, their subjective response was not reflected in their physiological response as they showed similar genital response to both woman- and man-made films. This discordance may reflect that these women also reported more negative emotions, such as aversion, guilt, and shame, in response to the man-created compared to the woman-created films. These negative emotions may result from the fact that man-created films involved no foreplay and focused almost exclusively on intercourse while the woman-created film had four of 11-minutes devoted to foreplay."

      Of course, there are those studies that say both men and women respond genitally to sexualized situations even if they aren't mentally aroused, and in the case of women it prevents some bodily injury in incidents of rape, but anyway, glad to see there is some serious attention to this issue!

      Delete
  2. I was in high school when Playgirl debuted. I used to buy it and bring it to my mom's store where she sold clothing. I would show it to her, and all of the middle-aged women there would gather around and ooh and aah over the pictures. Of course they'd be saying things like, "That's disgusting!", but they would eagerly turn the pages to look at the next image.

    I, too, was turned off by the flaccid state of the guys' dicks. I like when they're big and hard and ready for action. But I'm grossed out by porn that seems to present huge penises that would actually be painful for most women, as the norm. And the non-stop slamming that goes on in most porn is disturbing rather than erotic...I keep wondering how many bruises that poor woman will have tomorrow.

    Lisabet is right about stories, because the porn husband and I have enjoyed together has an actual story line, even when it's thin. And you enjoy the sex because you sense that these two people (or more) really want to fuck. Now that's entertainment!

    BTW, I got my husband to drop his Playboy subscription when we were dating by giving him a Polaroid Instamatic camera and promising to pose in lingerie anytime he wanted me to. And in return, I dropped my NOW membership, but not my feminism. Win-win for both of us!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fiona, the world would be a happier place with more people like you--and your husband is a fortunate man! The ladies saying "eeuw" while eagerly turning the pages is a familiar scene for me, too. The slamming is a total turn-off and a bad example for the real world for sure. And yes, when two people are hot for each other, it's the best. I'm finding that gratifying in my current attempt to write an erotic romance, which is about courtship to a greater degree than "plain" erotica and certain porn.

      Delete
  3. What a great review and great article! Thank you for providing me perhaps a glimpse beyond those stale ideas thrown at us from our male-centric culture. Yes, I suppose those few that understand the differences and similarities between what women and men find arousing are the ones finding true success.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Glad you enjoyed it! There is definitely a lot of room for development in this area :).

      Delete
  4. Donna, this is such a great article that I don't know where to start commenting! It seems true that no one ever asks women what they want, but a better argument is that didn't seem to occur to (some) men (the ones creating porn for women) to ask women, but women have been creating escapist fantasy for women for years. I would also argue that so many women rely heavily on imagination and fantasy to reach orgasm that we're already pretty adept at taking the "starter kit" (romance novels) and running with it. They didn't need to fill in the gaps for us.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brilliant--romances as a "starter kit" because they do make women the center of it all as nothing else does. I also agree that fantasy and escaping from the everyday world, which denies or degrades female sexuality, is critical to reaching orgasm for most/many/me women. Of course, even the starter kit is denigrated, but how many of us really follow the rules anyway?

    ReplyDelete