Scarlet: the new sex magazine for women

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I found Lucy Mangan's article in G2 about this quite funny and refreshing. She's cute too ha ha.

Have you ever bought one of these sexy mags? What was that one they had a few years ago - For Women? With Linford Christie centrefold.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I've never quite worked out the difference between porn aimed at women and porn aimed at gay men. I know they SHOULD be different but I don't know quite how.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:27 (twenty-one years ago)

There's not so much man on man action in women's porn matt! it's all about the buttfuckin innit?!

― PinXorchiXoR (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Kate to thread?

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:28 (twenty-one years ago)

Sorry - mucked up the link.

It's http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1325985,00.html in case you hadn't figured it out.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:38 (twenty-one years ago)

What? Leave me out of this!

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:39 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, gah, from reading the article it looks absolutely VILE. Womens sex magazines seem eternally to be about what people *think* women should find sexy, but very little geared to what they actually *do* find sexy.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Well, that was why I called you to thread. From the little I know, I would say that what is usually categorised as gay porn is what does it for you, and that you'd therefore have a view on what women wanted etc.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:43 (twenty-one years ago)

Do most women really want porn, though? I ask, because I've never been out with a woman who showed much interest in porn. Whereas I think all men are basically interested in it.

― Meursault (Meursault), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Some women like porn. I'm not sure if this new Scarlet is porn or just has articles about exciting young and thrusting sex lives. I should check.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:47 (twenty-one years ago)

How many times do I have to explain? Slash != Gay Pr0n. It's written by women, for women. It's like saying all that soft focus "Muffy The Vampire Licker" crap is actual lesbian porn - it's not! It's made by men for men.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:48 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post and I REST MY CASE!!! This magazine is written for boys like N to read and wank over what they imagine the thrusting young woman is up to. It's not written for the *actual* young(ish) woman with the horn - i.e. me.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:49 (twenty-one years ago)

But slash isn't visual, is it? In terms of pictures and videos, what if anything is more likely to appeal to women? What would actual visual porn for women by women include?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:51 (twenty-one years ago)

This magazine is written for boys like N to read and wank over what they imagine the thrusting young woman is up to.

Oi! Leave me out of this. I think it sounds dreadful too.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:52 (twenty-one years ago)

What would actual visual porn for women by women include?

See, you are wrong from the very start. You have to get your head around a completely different idea of sexuality.

Female sexuality (OK, stereotypically) is *not* primarily visual, it's far more based on emotions, situations, characters, rather than body parts and camera angles.

I'm not saying that I'm not turned on by photos of hott boys, but the photo turns me on because of who the hott boy is, or what he symbolises, rather than because it is a photo of a HOTT BOY!!! HAVING SEX!!!

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:54 (twenty-one years ago)

but i'm exactly like that with pron4boyz, what the hott girls represent.. i.e. F1L7HY 5LUT5 WH0 L1K3S TO L1CK YR CU/\/\!!!!!!!!!

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Do most women really want porn, though? I ask, because I've never been out with a woman who showed much interest in porn.

I don't know about "most" women, but I know I enjoy it. I'm not sure, however, if women who DO enjoy it are that willing to ADMIT to enjoying it, and therefore wouldn't bring it up in conversation.

― Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 12:59 (twenty-one years ago)

Kate, I was referring in large part to the Libertines PICTURES you keep posting, not the written stuff!

Though it appears from your last post that I may have misjudged. Sorry about that.

Jeanne, are you willing to talk about the content of the pron you like?

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:02 (twenty-one years ago)

For purely academic reasons, obviously! < /alba >

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Huh? I wouldn't say something like that.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:03 (twenty-one years ago)

(Stop getting Alba wrong, everyone)

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:04 (twenty-one years ago)

I just had a look at their Web site and I find little to absolutely nothing new or different than any of the dozens of female-sex-oriented online magazines. They have sex experts offer advice, a women's plea against the Brazilian bikini wax, news on the latest sex toys, erotic fiction, etc.

― Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:05 (twenty-one years ago)

Mark, the Libertines pictures are hott because of what they represent, i.e. fetishisation of the rock'n'roll ~~lifestyle~~ Soap Opera, Hollyoaks with leather jackets and drugs. The pictures are terrible erotic, though there's very little nudity (OK, apart from the bath photo.) Funnily enough, most of the Alb10n f1c types have an EEUUUWWW GROSS!!! reaction to the nekkid (pornographic) photos because it removes some kind of fantasy. The *idea* of junkie rent boy sex is a lot more erotic than the actual bruised, scarred, bony-ribbed reality.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't forget the STDs.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I enjoy porn definitely. Kate is right that mostly with women it's not visual, but then sometimes it's a nice way to kick things off definitely!

― PinXorchiXoR (Pinkpanther), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:11 (twenty-one years ago)

We're not talking STDs, we're talking, like, Ringworm, Typhus, SCABIES scale diseases... ;-)

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't mean to do the whole gender generalisation thing, but I think with women and porn, what a woman finds visually attractive or sexual has to have some kind of personality behind it. Like take Pete Libertine -- he's vile, he's disgusting, he's not particularly attractive and he's a walking car crash and yet there's something really very intriguing about all of that to me. So I look at pictures of him and can first give him an identity and imagine he has a personality of some kind.

With men's magazines, porno or otherwise, the women all fit a certain mold. They look the same, they're posed the same, it's the dimmest reflection of what society finds "hot" at any given time. But you only ever see one dimension of them and there's a certain blandness to that.
I'm not suggesting that men can get off on blandness or that they don't need more, but traditionally, this kind of image or pictorial or model has satisfied the market.

To capture a woman's attention, or that of the female market, they're going to have to do more.

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Nick, you totally do make comments which could read as confusing or inappropriate and then post again a second later to excuse yourself or claim confusion on your own part! You do!

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh right yeah, I guess. I didn't realise you meant it that loosely.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:15 (twenty-one years ago)

This looks quite promising.

― snazz, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I hate to say it (because I'm still getting over her horrible "true confessions" crush of shame admission) but with regards to the rest of the post, Catty is OTM.

I have a friend who is a (female) professional writer who often dabbles in smut, and I'm trying to remember how she described good erotica... something along the lines of "if I don't care about the characters and their emotions, then I am never going to get turned on, no matter how hott the sex is."

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Seen it. Trucker hats with penises. xpost

― Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Aw, really? Dang. No trucker hats are in view on the site, and some of those "LA boys" looked all right.

― snazz, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:23 (twenty-one years ago)

I think that's why Black Lace has a specific women-only contributor policy.
And I've tried reading their books but I can't get past the horribly formulaic writing.

Jessica Hotley stumbled into the bar of the Four Seasons hotel and broke the heel off her Manolo Blahnik heel. 'Damn,' she said to herself.
Just then the incredibly rich and stunningly gorgeous Trip Manly caught her by the elbow. 'Jessica, darling,' he said in his smooth, buttery tone, 'I believe you promised me a threesome on my yacht.'
'Dream on,' she snapped, though a fire shot through her and ran down her thighs.

Bored now. Give me a sweaty Pete Libertine covered in bruises and melting black eyeliner. Hot cha!

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh, but check it out, anyway!! I mean, please ignore this jaded Brooklyn dyke. I'm not your best litmus test for straight-girl hipster pr0n. xpost

― Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:26 (twenty-one years ago)

Is that *really* what it's like, Catty? Sheesh, I'm glad I didn't submit anything, then. Sigh.

(Have you read the Catholic guilt one set in church, and "Sodomy is a sin, yeah?" Hot cha-cha-cha!)

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:27 (twenty-one years ago)

a bit. but that doesn't mean i've given up on sending in an MSS at some point. or maybe it's just the titles i bought.
which of course have the bog-standard S&M scenes, as well.

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Is it safe for work, that link? Since my parents are my bosses, looking at gay porn in the office would be doubly weird if I got found out.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:32 (twenty-one years ago)

surely them if anybody wouldn't be surprised by your gay pron habits.......

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:33 (twenty-one years ago)

You were supposed to lend them to me when you were done with them, Catty... sigh. (Should I mail you the link? I'm not posting it here!)

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:35 (twenty-one years ago)

1. 'in case you hadn't figured it out'. As if!

2. It is unfair of you to say 'she's cute' showing that you know and take pleasure in what she looks like and we don't.

― the bellefox, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:36 (twenty-one years ago)

hey, i'll bring them tonight!
yes please send link. borrrrrrred.

and i hold you completely responsible for this whole Pete Libertine thing, INCLUDING my purchase of this week's NME.

which, incidentally, Ruth says always smells like some old man magazine that someone's spunked up.

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:38 (twenty-one years ago)

WHAT?!?!??! Don't blame me for this! Naught to do with me! I'm actually sickened and horrified! You've gone too far this time!

Especially NME buying. Honestly. You know you're not supposed to buy it or indeed READ IT, you're just supposed to look at the pictures.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:40 (twenty-one years ago)

Markelby, if you mean the link to Sweet Action magazine, it is not quite worksafe. Sorry not to have said so in my post. It isn't gay, either, but your parents might be quadruply confused if your interest in what Jeanne accurately described as "straight-girl hipster pr0n" were noted.

xxxpost

― snazz, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:42 (twenty-one years ago)

sweet action -- didn't BUST do a recent feature on them?

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Do I even dare click on the Sweet Action link? Or will I just be horrified?

(Oh, and while you're there, Catty, be sure you don't miss the Harry Potter mash-up with "Juju Cubby-kins")

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes. I don't like BUST very much, though.

xpost

No, click on it, unless you are at work, in which case click on it only after ascertaining that no one is going to pop up and peer over your shoulder in the next minute or two. There's no full frontal nudity, but there's bare flesh, and a guy with his hand down his pants; also, the subheading is "Porn For Girls" (in near-illegible scrolly script). I doubt you would be horrified, either.

― snazz, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:50 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, it's not particularly work unsafe. But looks like it could go either way. A bit "readers wives" or should that be "readers husbands". Who knows.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:52 (twenty-one years ago)

Sweet Action is lame and features very little action, as far as I can see.

― Cathy (Cathy), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:53 (twenty-one years ago)

It's always the way.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:54 (twenty-one years ago)

Have you seen the actual magazine? I haven't, and am trying to make an informed consumer decision here.

xpost

― snazz, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:56 (twenty-one years ago)

sweet action needs harry potter mashups.

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 13:58 (twenty-one years ago)

I imagine most men use porn as an aid to wanking. Do women ever use porn in this way?

― James T., Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:00 (twenty-one years ago)

No, I just saw the site. It looks like a load of very tame photos of boring hipster boys.
x-post

― Cathy (Cathy), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Yes

xpost

― Penelope_111 (Penelope_111), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Any suggestions, then?

― snazz, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:06 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh no no no no no, oh no, never, not me, uh-uh, no way, wanking is bad, I would *never*! Heh.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:06 (twenty-one years ago)

― Penelope_111 (Penelope_111), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:07 (twenty-one years ago)

There's a certain amount of coyness on the part of women on this thread isn't there? I learn that some women like porn, that some women use it to wank with, but I still have no idea what porn they're actually looking at! I mean, is it pictures of people fucking, pictures of pretty boys, clothed or unclothed, or erect dicks or I don't know what? Or is my male mind just being way too literal about it all?

― James T., Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:11 (twenty-one years ago)

from what i've gathered from this thread, it's pictures of people in shit bands

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:13 (twenty-one years ago)

Coyness?!?!? I have been described as many things in my time, but never coy!!! Here is some Victorian pr0n, ha ha!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v212/venusbird/The%20Libertines/carl_xmas.jpg

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Or is my male mind just being way too literal about it all?

Yes!

Have you not actually read a single post by a woman on this thread? Pr0n for girls is not about just looking at pictures, but about the imaginings.

To the male mind, you look at the picture to get turned on. To the female mind, you look at the picture because the *bloke* turns you on.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:17 (twenty-one years ago)

That didn't really make sense, did it? Sorry, I'm way too distracted by all the pr0n I've got open in the other window.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:17 (twenty-one years ago)

Pr0n for girls is not about just looking at pictures, but about the imaginings.

that's what boys do too!!!!!!

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:18 (twenty-one years ago)

What turns me on? Looking at pictures of boys that turn me on.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:20 (twenty-one years ago)

Where has Catty gone? I am probably never going to hear from her again now I've sent her the link for that site... Sigh.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:24 (twenty-one years ago)

Male-orientated porn is designed to stimulate the imagination as little as possible because the male brain and male genitalia don't really work properly at the same time as each other.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:26 (twenty-one years ago)

< /more received wisdom>

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:27 (twenty-one years ago)

2. It is unfair of you to say 'she's cute' showing that you know and take pleasure in what she looks like and we don't.

I only know what she looks like from her byline picture. 60p will get you this. Or a crafty peek in the newsagent.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:27 (twenty-one years ago)

i disagree with that.. it just means that men uses more thought on what's going through the minds of the girl as she's doing whatever the porn shows her doing, rather than wasting it on imagining what her nipples look like

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:29 (twenty-one years ago)

With men's magazines, porno or otherwise, the women all fit a certain mold.

Yes, with men's magazines, no with porno. There's a magazine for every kink, particularly if your kink is "normal-looking women".

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:32 (twenty-one years ago)

"Normal-looking" is going to open one hell of a can of worms.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Also I'm taking it as read that the article is better than anything that will ever appear in Scarlet.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Normal people aren't into worm porn.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:34 (twenty-one years ago)

Er, I don't understad. Will "average looking" do instead?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)

Look, if there is a niche market for pr0n involving "Crack Whore Rent Boys Sucking the NME's Cock (With Random Appearances By Morrissey)" then I am willing and prepared to accept that *every* kink is catered for!

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:35 (twenty-one years ago)

I suppose I don't really regard pictures of pretty boys in bands as porn, just as I don't regard pictures of pretty girls in bands as porn. To my mind, porn is more explicitly sexual.

― James T., Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Desire is imagination, isn't it?

N., I would not spend 60p on that.

― the bluefox, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:38 (twenty-one years ago)

But the whole point made upthread is that for women (or the women posting mostly on this thread at any rate) the stimulus is more emotional-mental than visual.

Also assuming there are a far greater range of preferences than just 'pictures/story of hot bloke getting it on' is there any place for female-orientated porn in the mass marketplace? I'm assuming the answer to this might be 'no' because all previous attempts seem to have failed.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:41 (twenty-one years ago)

James, have you seen some of the pictures that I've posted? You want to talk about bands presenting themselves as sex objects... Two boys tounging each other onstage, I think that crosses the line from "pretty boys in bands" to outright pr0n.

But then again, I think that is part of the nature of female desire vs. male desire. It seems like male pornography has to be explicitly sexual while female porn doesn't necessarily have to be.

I once had a FULL COLOUR ILLUSTRATED BIOGRAPHY type book of a different pop band which I used to keep covered up in a plain brown wrapper because my housemate and I insisted it was pornography, even though they were fully clothed in every picture. It very definitely was pornography. Anyway...

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:42 (twenty-one years ago)

I am willing and prepared to accept that *every* kink is catered for!

That's what I'm saying.

http://prodtn.cafepress.com/6/8295796_F_tn.jpg

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Was it The Cure?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Funnily enough, no. Blur.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

Erotica vs. Porn again? *Yawn*

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

Note to girls - some men find the hackneyed cliches of het porn (tired old fake-titted harridans in stilletoes and stockings making animalesque sex pouts) pretty repulsive.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

No, this is NOT the old erotica vs. porn debate. It's a debate about why men find it so utterly perplexing to learn what women actually get off on.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:49 (twenty-one years ago)

There's my birthday outfit out the window.

xpost haha

― Liz :x (Liz :x), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:50 (twenty-one years ago)

It's not perplexing in the slightest! Well, it isn't for me at any rate.

I had a real Alba-esque STOP GETTING ME WRONG! moment just then.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:51 (twenty-one years ago)

I get off on explicitly sexual porn in pretty much the same way that men do.

― Penelope_111 (Penelope_111), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:55 (twenty-one years ago)

Kate, I think whatever gets you off is cool. Porn, erotica, music, food, whatever.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:57 (twenty-one years ago)

kate getting off gets michael white off

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 14:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Nobody gets off till EVERYBODY GETS OFF!!!

WOO! WOO! WOO!!! yyyyeeeeaaaaaAAAAHHHHH!!! WHITE GOLD!!!

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:00 (twenty-one years ago)

Some of this has been semantic confusion. I was assuming porn meant explicitly sexual - ie nudity, people getting it on, etc. So what I suppose I was really wondering is whether women get turned on by explicitly sexual images. Penelope says she does. I expect she's in the minority though.

― James T., Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:01 (twenty-one years ago)

Cum together, right now...over me?!?!?!?!? *Flees*

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:02 (twenty-one years ago)

INDEPENDENT LOVE SONG!

― jel -- (jel), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:03 (twenty-one years ago)

I would probably find pictures of people I found *attractive* getting it on turned me on. (Don't make me dig up that Carl Barat orgy photo.) But pictures of random people getting it on? No! Why would that turn me on? I don't know these people! It's just bits!

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:07 (twenty-one years ago)

So you wouldn't be interested in projecting onto them any fantasies?

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:09 (twenty-one years ago)

But the men in standard porn are generally nowhere near my "type" physically or otherwise. How am I supposed to project fantasy onto that?

Then again, I suppose, depends... those photos of Pete Libertine and Wolfman ~~shooting up~~ getting it on in a sleezy hotel room? I don't find either of them the remotest bit attractive, in fact, far the reverse. But the situation made it really really sleazy frinky HOTT!!!

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:12 (twenty-one years ago)

I like pr0n. I own pr0n and watch pr0n. I would even like to write and direct pr0n, because I feel there's a market out there for other women with my tastes.

But as for what turns me on most? No. Regular straight-up pr0n won't do at all. The guys in gay pr0n, while a thousand times better looking than most guys in straight pr0n, are almost never really my type physically, but I do tend to enjoy gay pr0n more than straight. It has almost everything to do with the plots, though.

I can get more turned on by discussing the attributes of a male I find attractive with another female friend in AIM than watching regular pr0n. No visual aids at all. Just all the naughty possibilities in my brain. Lust will go into overdrive if there are other things to admire about the lust-object. Now, if a fully clothed lust-object, doing nothing that would normally be considered sexual at all, can produce the kind of reaction in me that siliconed bimbos frolicking in standard pr0n can produce in many males, I can consider it pr0n too.

― kaliflwr (kaliflwr), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:12 (twenty-one years ago)

Speak of the devil and she will appear...

Kaliflwr, what about the Blur book? Was that pr0n or what?

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:13 (twenty-one years ago)

OK, James, Michael, et. al. - would you consider this photo pornographic, then?

http://www.andrewkendall.com/images/photographs/bandshoots/peteandwolfman_220404/main/pete_wolf_35.jpg

(And I am actually asking, I'm not just using this as an excuse to post the picture again.)

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:16 (twenty-one years ago)

No.

― Penelope_111 (Penelope_111), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:18 (twenty-one years ago)

Okay, but if I masturbate to paintings of the virgin mary, that wouldn't make them pornography, would it? (that's an example, by the way, not a fetish) Surely there must be an aspect to the media being used (i.e nudity) and/or intent on the part of the producer or user.

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)

What if there was Dirty Dronerock Boy Porn? Would you buy that?
Naked pics of dirty dronerock boys?

― DDB, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Kate,

I think the men in mainstream straight porn are often castso to be as un-offensive as possible to easily deflated straight male egos so I don't blame you. It's funny that you project fantasies onto people that you 'know'(à la slash)whereas I would tend, in regards to porn, to project fantasies onto people I absolutely don't know because to my (possibly limited) imagination the possibilities (accents, turn-ons, sounds, smells, tastes) are greater.

x-post

Pornographic? No, but it does have a certain hottivity to it.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:20 (twenty-one years ago)

The Blur book was indeed pr0n, Kate. Dangerous it was. ;)

And hey, I've been resisting this thread all day! I could no longer do so.

― kaliflwr (kaliflwr), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:22 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't really find that photo pornographic. Two people kissing? If it were a man and a woman kissing, would it be pornographic or is it just the gay frisson? If one of them had their cock out or something, then I'd think it was pornographic.

― James T., Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:25 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, black socks + brown shoes make me flaccid.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:26 (twenty-one years ago)

yeah, more genitalia required

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:27 (twenty-one years ago)

Hrmm. I have to point out, however, that I don't *KNOW* any of these people that I lust after. They are silver screens already onto which I have projected my own fantasies. It's not a question of "knowing" it's more a question of being... *conceptually* turned on by them. (Gah, that is clumbsy, but it's kind of a combination of emotionally and intellectually... well, finding them appealing on that level, rather than just purely physical.)

I once actually got to know the subject of one of my hot-horny-gay-boys-want-your-sex fantasies, and that was the weirdest thing ever. I could no longer read or write any kind of FF about him after that. Destroyed the mystery or something.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't think the definition of pornographic can be totally subjective. If it's an image that most people will find innocuous and you wouldn't mind showing your 12 year old niece, then it's not really pornographic.

― James T., Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:28 (twenty-one years ago)

i mean, is this pron????

http://www.newmastersgallery.com/ArtistsA/Ard-First%20Kiss-24.25x18.5.jpg

DON'T ANSWER THAT

― ken c (ken c), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:29 (twenty-one years ago)

x-post, I WOULD have posted the naked pictures, but Alba has asked me not to stick them on random threads because it gets him in trouble at work.

x-x-post I wouldn't show that picture to my 12 year old neice. No way.

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:29 (twenty-one years ago)

x-x-x-post... OH NO, BROWN SHOES AND BLACK SOCKS IS A FASHION FAUX PAS?!?!? OH GOD, I'VE GOT THAT ON RIGHT NOW OH NO!!!

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:30 (twenty-one years ago)

What kind of luatic goes aroud showing random pictures to their relatives anyway?

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:31 (twenty-one years ago)

Well I phrased that wrongly. I mean wouldn't actually show the picture to my 12 year old niece, but if she came across it in a magazine I wouldn't snatch the magazine away from her or anything, I really wouldn't care. It's two fully clothed people kissing, for chrissakes.

― James T., Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:34 (twenty-one years ago)

It's the drugs that I object to more than the kissing. Or rather the giant abscess on his toe. But whatever...

DAMMIT, STOP TALKING ABOUT THIS, I HAVE TO GO TO REHEARSAL!!!

― Danger Whore (kate), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:36 (twenty-one years ago)

This isn't really a random thread. It has sex in the title. So post pictures if you want.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:38 (twenty-one years ago)

Whose toe? I can't see any toes.

― JimD (JimD), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Also, wrt to the original article, the second result in a google seach for Lucy Mangan takes you to "spanked personalities". I feel very bad for her.

― JimD (JimD), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:45 (twenty-one years ago)

Don't spank my personality, you eejut, spank my ass!

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:49 (twenty-one years ago)

That piccy of two guys kissing was kinda nice, but it wasn't pr0n.

Yeeuurgh! I clicked the SA link. Was impatient at how long the page took to load (ner ner).

I'm so glad that the page wasn't explicit.

I guess lameass hipster heroin junkie isn't my type at all. I actually felt physical illness from the pit of my stomach. Yes, I honestly felt an unwell lurch in my stomach when I was able to see the full picture.

It's not because I'm prudish. Having worked in the pr0n industry and having seen more tits than a dairy farmer has, more weiners than a hot dog vendor has...well, you'd be wrong to call me a prude who can't handle explicit depictions of sexuality.

I've screened stuff that made Zamora the Torture King (this guy who puts skewers through his flesh for spectacles such as the Jim Rose Freak Circus) freak out about its weirdness while I just said "uh huh" and noted the typically poor lighting of the shot.

I'm female, and I used to enjoy pr0n. I liked watching people (especially naturally curvy women in non-garish make-up) fuck, but they have to really look like they're into it. Most male-oriented mainstream porn fails at this since it often gets by on gyn exam shots, lousy performers, and poor technical quality.

Damnit, pr0n is so lame because the main audience (het males) have such low standards -- if the "Real Doll" (TM) has big (silicone or saline inflated) tits and lets a guy fuck her arse, it sells. Gay male pr0n can be pretty cheesy, but it is miles ahead (ahem) of straight male pr0n.

I don't enjoy pr0n much now, certainly not the mainstream product because it just reminds me of the loathesome commodification of pleasure and desire. It's not fun or erotic. Pr0n means only one thing to me now -- boring, soul-crushing work. It's all about WORK being the ultimate four-letter word. Grrr!!! That's what's wrong with pr0n in my opinion. I'm such a goddamn hippie about capitalism being the primary evil of pr0n. Oh, the self-loathing over being a hippie!

Now I've got Cilla Black's version of "Work Is a Four Letter Word" stuck in my head. Uuurrggggh.

Loving you is driving me crazy
People say that you were born lazy...
Why do you say Work is a four letter word?

This thread will end now, won't it? I'm getting a complex about being a thread-stopper party-pooper.

― Melinda Mess-Injure, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:53 (twenty-one years ago)

Oh my god, how do I pitch a magazine to emap?

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 15:59 (twenty-one years ago)

....but without the pictures of abcessed toes. because really, eyew.

― Catty (Catty), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Great post, Melinda.

― Markelby (Mark C), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 16:02 (twenty-one years ago)

Melinda,

Not to worry you hippy thread stopper party pooper. ;)

I won't deny having dismally low standards and I do have a straight man's love of the tittehs but what's with the weird, unnatural pornistas with their anorexic bodies sprouting huge, fake, bowling ball breasts? Arse fuxoring or not, the weird tits = floppity.

― Michael White (Hereward), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 16:04 (twenty-one years ago)

Is the quality of porn really so low? I mean, is the good:bad ratio less than in films or music? Maybe because they produce so much of it...

― Kevin Gilchrist (Mr Fusion), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 16:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Of course if it's porn for women or gay people it does not demean men and it's okay to champion it on ILX. Not like those nasty smut peddlers who sell Men Only and such like. Disgraceful they are!

― Factual Fred, Wednesday, 13 October 2004 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't feel the same way as Catty and Kate at all. I'm plenty visual. I wouldn't want to start talking in depth about what kind of porn I'm in to or not into because I'd feel pathetic and sleazy, like I was trying to turn on a bunch of internet strangers (sorry for anyone who has a genuine academic interest).

― Cathy (Cathy), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 16:17 (twenty-one years ago)

male-male pr0n does nothing for me. i feel left out of the party. my enjoyment of other types of pr0n mostly depends upon how convinced i am that all involved parties are legitimately having a good time. it's not so much about looks with me -- average, unglamorous people can be very sexy when they're getting it on. it's all about imagining that they've been working hard at their shitty jobs all day and need a thorough shagging to blow off steam. i'll drink to that!

― Cynthia Nixon Now More Than Ever (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 16:23 (twenty-one years ago)

(there. that wasn't so incriminating.)

― Cynthia Nixon Now More Than Ever (Jody Beth Rosen), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 16:24 (twenty-one years ago)

it's not so much about looks with me -- average, unglamorous people can be very sexy when they're getting it on.

That's OTM. And it's clearly not a gender-specific belief.

― JimD (JimD), Wednesday, 13 October 2004 16:37 (twenty-one years ago)

i got every issue of sweet action thus far (ok 2). and though i love the ladies for trying, i really found it unarousing. awkward half-naked hipsters or disembodied penii shots. i'm a typical girl i guess. much more driven by concepts, emotions, stories or personality types. visual concepts too - but concepts, not anatomy/biology.

the only kind of 'porn' i could maybe be into is if they made an equivalent of slash/fiction or if they did what they do with 'lesbians': have it be 'gay' but with straight guys. ie. not fey, not sculpted, hairless, submissive, etc. does that exist? i don't like looking at those weird blow-up people. i admit i haven't tried much, but none of it draws me in.

― lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Thursday, 14 October 2004 04:00 (twenty-one years ago)

disembodied penii shots

!!!

This is awful. Just awful.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 14 October 2004 07:03 (twenty-one years ago)

Interesting choice of words, to say the least lc.

― AaronHz (AaronHz), Thursday, 14 October 2004 07:25 (twenty-one years ago)

hmmm sorry. i thought that not be the exact right phrasing. how about tightly cropped? oh, that might not work either. extreme close-ups? either way it's kind of anti-sexy. i like people not parts.

― lolita corpus (lolitacorpus), Thursday, 14 October 2004 18:19 (twenty-one years ago)

Do gay men not write slash at all? I know that femslash seems to have a pretty even male/female ratio, tho the worst, crudest stuff is invariably by men (but there's some great male writers, too!)

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Thursday, 14 October 2004 22:47 (twenty-one years ago)

the Libertines pashing photo is nowhere near pr0n, but it is very sexy (the guitar between Doherty's legs is gold). does Kate draw a distinction?

― kit brash (kit brash), Friday, 15 October 2004 04:58 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.