Why isn’t he looking at me?
~
Women Are Visual, by Remittance Girl
It’s a commonly repeated fallacy that men are visual and women aren’t. This is total bullshit. If you give a woman something worth looking at, she’ll look. The problem is, there’s hardly anything to look at.
In 2008, erotic writers Mathilde Madden and Kristina Lloyd started a blog called Cover Watch, and asked one single question: if 80 percent of all buyers of erotic fiction are women, why is it that all the book covers feature sexy naked women instead of sexy men? You’d think that would have been a pretty innocuous question, but apparently not. It sparked a rather acrimonious interchange between some of erotica’s best known anthology editors.
Besides Maxim Jakubowski, editor for the Mammoth Books of Best New Erotica, and M. Christian, the vast majority of erotic anthologist are women, as are the bulk of people working in the erotic fiction publishing field.
The tradition of putting a sexy female body on the cover is so ingrained, that it was a very hard habit to break. It was argued that readers wouldn’t recognize the books as erotic unless they had female figures on the cover. Others argued that when women buy erotica, the sexy woman on the cover is a kind of avatar, standing in as proxy for the reader.
In recent years, some of the publishing world has shifted. Xcite book covers now feature a lot of beefcake. Cleis Press has started to feature couples on the covers.
Ironically, it was the romance genre – often maligned for its conservatism – that always had a good sense of what women really wanted and delivered. Hunky men. Admittedly, I always thought the costumes and the mullets were a bit of a turn-off, but you couldn’t fault them for understanding their market. Erotic romance has followed the same model. These people know exactly what their buyers want.
But that is, after all, textual product.
I’m talking visual stimulus here. And I’m distraught to have to say that images of a woman’s face with her lips stretched around a massive cock and her big, almost manga eyes, looking up into the camera, doesn’t do it for me. In shots like this, the POV of the camera is the gaze of the man who owns the cock, who is looking down at the woman with the cock in her mouth.
And yet I know a lot of women who are turned on by pictures like this. These women don’t wish they had cocks. They’re not lesbians. So, although these types of photographs were produced for men for whom this POV would be sexually natural, heterosexual women have managed to repurpose the images. My theory is that these women are so accustomed to having sexual content presented from a male point of view, that they have learned to perform a quite astounding mental contortion and imagine themselves the girl sucking the cock. They become the object of desire of the object of desire. Quite the back-flip, ain’t it?
Well, perhaps not. We’re actually born seeing the word upside down, and within the first week of lives, our brains learn to flip it right side up. Our agile mind will make do with what is available and perform whatever adjustments are necessary to accommodate our requirements. So perhaps what these women are doing is not that strange after all.
You think I’m exaggerating? Go to Tumblr and search ‘eating pussy’. There is not a single shot of cunnilingus where the camera POV is of the woman receiving it looking down at the man doing it. Even in the girl on girl porn, the shot is side-on. The picture never situates me as the woman getting eaten, the woman receiving the pleasure. At best, I’m the woman doing the eating. At worst, I’m the woman watching other people get it on. Again.
When I complain that there is almost no visual porn made for women, I’ve been told to stop whining and pointed to either lesbian porn or to gay porn. Very generous of them, but I’m not a lesbian and I’m not a gay man.
I have had a number of wonderful affairs with women, but I have to be honest: I am, for the most part, sexually attracted to men. So when I see porn where the main focus is a desirable woman, I can appreciate her beauty and her sexiness, but it doesn’t turn me on. I can’t use it as an aid to masturbation.
So why can’t I be happy with gay male porn? That’s a harder question to answer, but I’ll try.
First, most gay porn comes in two flavours: either extraordinarily over-muscled or very delicate, pretty looking men. There is a focus on aesthetic perfection that is so acute, it puts me off. Truthfully, the men I am attracted to don’t look this way.
Secondly, there are some standard poses to a lot of gay porn which belies an essentially ‘homosexual gaze’. The object of desire is either looking away from the camera as if we – the viewers – are voyeurs looking at the forbidden or the unattainable, or the object of desire is staring straight into the camera with a glare that shouts, “so, you think you’re good enough to fuck me?” or “so, you think you deserve my dick in your ass?” In both cases, the object of desire is essentially passive.
In the case of the objects of desire who appear to be studiously unaware of the camera, my theory is that this is born of a social reality. No matter how accepting society has become of homosexuality, it is still quite dangerous for a gay man to simply approach and engage a man who attracts him. If the object of desire is straight, the reaction may be socially awkward, unpleasant, or even violent. So this surreptitious gaze reflects an everyday reality for gay men. I can again, appreciate the poignancy and aesthetic of it, but it’s not my reality. It doesn’t turn me on.
In the second case – the gaze that challenges my sense of adequacy – again, I feel that it has evolved from specifically gay male experience. I can’t say I even begin to understand it, but as a woman, it puts me right off. There is an implicit demand that I prove myself worthy of this god. The last thing I want in porn is something that heightens my feelings of insecurity and inadequacy.
I’ve met quite a few women who get off on gay porn. But I’m going to propose a bold theory on this: women who are turned on by it are essentially sexually aggressive. They aren’t put off by either the elusive and unattainable, or by the challenge to prove their own sexual attractiveness. They are women with extremely robust and very healthy sexual egos.
But for the rest of us, there is almost nothing. It’s not that I don’t know what I want. I do! A reasonably attractive naked male with an erection who is looking into the camera with aggressive desire in his eyes. His expression should say: ‘I want to be inside you. Right now.”
There have been some attempts to fill this gap in porn. But most of the efforts are embarrassing and laughable. Have a look at this ‘Porn for her’ trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y1PSL9rh5g . Filament Magazine proudly touts itself as a magazine aimed at the female gaze, and they occasionally do get it right, but too often the male models they use are clearly gay porn models moonlighting as hetero men or they photograph hetero men who can’t seem to really engage with the camera. The object of desire is still pictured in a passive, come-and-get-me way. Nakedmenhappywomen.com is just way too penis-focused. In the same way that men want more than just a succession of beaver shots, I really require a little more context with my cock-shot.
The bulk of examples of the porn for women I’ve seen make one or more of the following false assumptions:
- Women require romance with their sex to be aroused.
I don’t want the man in the picture or the video to stand there with flowers or light candles or tell me he loves me. I want him to look like he’s horny and wants to fuck me.
- Limp cocks are sexy.
There is nothing remotely sexy about a photograph of a man holding his limp cock. To me that simply says: ‘sorry, babe. I can’t get it up for you.’
- Conversely, erections are ultimate proof of desire.
I know what Viagra is, and I know what fluffers are. Please don’t assume that a man looking bored or smug with an erection in his hand is going to do it for me.
- Shy guys are cute.
The world is full of insecure men. Please keep them out of my porn.
- Goofy grins are sexually alluring.
After many years of having sex with many men, I have noticed that when they’re truly bent on ravishing you, they don’t grin. Real lust doesn’t smile.
So, if you have stumbled across any visual porn that doesn’t make one or more of these ridiculous mistakes, I’d really like to know about it. In the meantime, I’m going to stick to reading erotic fiction. At least with text, I can direct the film in my head: they’re not promising me undying love, they’re not grinning like idiots, not pretending to be virgins, not posing like body builders, not obsessed with their clothing, and the erection is attached to a body with a head with eyes. And those eyes are looking at me with desire.
~Remittance Girl
~
ABOUT REMITTANCE GIRL: Remittance Girl is a scholar, a writer and a deviant. She lives in exile in a small Southeast Asian country where she teaches and grows obscene looking orchids. Her fiction has appeared in more than a dozen erotic fiction anthologies: most recently in Violet Blue’s “Best Women’s Erotica 2012″. Her novels are published by Republica Press.
Do you have a positive example? There has to be one. *wistful thinking* And yes, I know that look you’re talking about, the one where a man’s focus shifts entirely to sex with you. Not just sex, but with you. Desire, I think, it what we’re looking for.
I have run across them, very occasionally. I don’t have an example readily to hand, but you’ve described the aesthetic perfectly anyway.
Hahah, great article. I disagree on a few minor points (I expect there are many variations of what kind of men women like to look at). But as for the rest of it I can’t believe people really are still peddling that ‘women aren’t visual’ nonsense. Surely, surely we’ve got over that by now?
I thought that we’d at least reached the stage where sellers/publishers/etc admitted that they use and will continue to use naked women as a universal signifier of the erotic *despite* acknowledgement of the surely quite obvious fact that women are visual, like to look at things, and those things include naked hot men. No?
Damn. I’d felt at least a little gratified to have my preferences explicitly ignored and not provided for, rather than the prior tendency for other people to tell me what those preferences were (‘no, women aren’t visual, if you say you are you’re a freak and/or lying’).
Hi Nikki,
I’m pretty sure your theory of a naked chick on the cover being a ‘signifier’ for erotic content is spot on. So I can understand the marketing argument. However, I’ll bet there is a percentage of women who would buy erotica IF the covers were tamer, because they don’t want to be seen reading something with a cover like that on the bus.
With the rise of kindle and electronic readers it will be interesting to see how things change. Covers still matter for identification purposes, but only the reader can see it once they own it.
Brave new world!
“When I complain that there is almost no visual porn made for women, I’ve been told to stop whining and pointed to either lesbian porn or to gay porn. Very generous of them, but I’m not a lesbian and I’m not a gay man.”
Thank you! Yes!
For book covers, I guess I see it as a signal going “Hello! I’m a book in the erotica genre!” and not an attempt to turn me on. Which is a cheat, not an answer, because then the question is, “And why is a woman’s body the only thing that can signify that?”
I remember in high school being sent a copy of Playgirl magazine, and being so disappointed to find all the men limp. When I asked someone older and more experienced about that, she said it was because of pornography laws–an erect cock is more naked than a limp cock, see. Kind of like how in art and movies, a naked man is more naked than a naked woman (another rant for another day…). Actual porn, though, should have already decided that it is actual porn, and therefore show us the good stuff–a healthy guy with a healthy appetite who can look like lust.
[...] I’ve spent the last two years coming to terms with the enjoyment of visual pornography as a pretty-much-straight woman. I’ve read some decent books on the subject, and it’s been blogged about beautifully, here. [...]
The male and female visual nature argument seems to be another one of those large generalizations that holds true for many people, but not all. It’s as though it’s forgotten that turn ons are as varied as the individuals that have them. It’s annoying and frustrating at times to be a part of the audience that isn’t catered to, since we are a minority that isn’t as profitable, as a whole, to market to. I can’t count the number of times I’ve turned down an erotic or pornographic recommendation because of the horrible vocalization or generally trashy appearances of many of the women in mainstream porn, only to be chided about being so strange for needing more than a naked female to arouse me.
A psychologist once explained to me that for males, the visual itself is what is arousing. While for females the visual can convey a message that is arousing. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of investigation in this area, as it seems the only research present, is market based, which just means that what sells is obviously what everyone wants.
I have frequently joked that if there were more women entrepreneurs in the industry, there would be a larger array of products appealing to women. I’m beginning to think that the remedy may be as simple as that to counterbalance the traditions and mindsets that rule the entirety of the erotic industry.
Hi Nick,
Well, would it surprise you to know that a great deal of psychological theory regarding the female sexual response has been based on very sexist, male focused assumptions? Early on, someone tried to suggest that because men were the ‘hunters’ (in prehistoric times) they were more visually aroused. In truth, hegemonic and sexist ideology dominates a lot of the sciences and colours the questions they ask, and the interpretation of the results they get.
However, you do brush on an extremely relevant issue. What we do know is that women, historically, culturally, are not likely to spend their money on pornography in the same way men do. And this probably is a much more salient answer as to why there is so little female-centered porn. That, I would guess, will be changing radically very soon.
This is generally quite a good article. I also think it’s really important to point out that you’re totally, in fact vastly, incorrect that “male models [Filament magazine] use[d] are clearly gay porn models moonlighting as hetero men”.
By far the largest group of men who appeared in Filament were the boyfriends, partners and husbands of the female photographers – they’d make up probably 3/4 of the models. I’m only aware of one guy who’s appeared in Filament who’s ever appeared in gay porn (although he only seems to have relationships with women), and one guy who is gay, but hasn’t appeared in gay porn. That’s from over 45+ photoshoots. There’s also a more compelling reason as to why gay porn models wouldn’t be interested in appearing in Filament: we never offered any money for modelling, so there is literally no incentive for them to do so.
It seems like a very obvious thing to say: just because you think a guy looks gay it doesn’t mean that he is. But I think there is a deeper thing that must be understood here. The ‘he looks gay’ problem isn’t unique to Filament – people talk about it with every sort of erotic male photography: Playgirl, For Women, Cosmo, cologne ads, French rugby team calendar, that picture you have up top there. They all look gay, because the act of photographing a guy as an erotic subject does seem to make many people classify a guy as less than manly and even gay. I think we need to see this for the problem it is – one of viewer perception – rather than assuming it’s something to do with the prejudices of the makers of erotica, or the sexual orientation of the models.
It’s still an issue though, and I don’t know what the solution is. I can’t say I’ve ever personally seen an erotic picture of a guy so ‘manly’ that someone can’t pick it up and automatically say, ‘he must be gay’. It’s almost like it’s a defence mechanism for us, somehow.
Suraya
Former editor of Filament Magazine
Hello Suraya,
I owe you an apology if my post sounded like I think Filament did a bad job. Honestly, I think it does the best it can in a world where the ‘female gaze’ is so undefined.
You said: “It seems like a very obvious thing to say: just because you think a guy looks gay it doesn’t mean that he is.” This is absolutely true. And you’ll notice that I didn’t they looked ‘gay’. I said that some of them looked like gay porn models – which is entirely different. In fact, a model’s sexual orientation may very well be irrelevant. The elements that make a particular photograph more appealing to gay men or straight women are a set of very hard to pin down interactions between the subject and the camera and the photographer.
I suspect it is an incredible challenge to convey an ‘aggressive’ object of desire, photographically. It’s fair to say that there aren’t a lot of male models used to projecting heterosexual erotic desire with their eyes, in the set of their bodies, etc., and there aren’t many photographers who’ve spent years capturing it – as is the case in either porn for het men or gay porn.
I really didn’t mean to come down hard on Filament, because – and perhaps I didn’t state it forcefully enough – it has come closest to addressing the issue.
Hi
I really am not going to get into this argument but I am just registering my disagreement with the thesis here.
And recommending Metrosexy by Mark Simpson (on amazon kindle I won’t link it I’m not spamming) which shows how contemporary culture is *saturated* with images of hot men.
Best
QRG
I don’t think it’s a question of argument. And perhaps I’m just a freak, but ‘Metrosexual’ men don’t do it for me. If they do it for you, QRG, then that’s great and you can be a happy camper!