From: mec6@quads.uchicago.edu (rini)
Newsgroups: alt.feminism
Subject: Pornography... (was: MacKinnon...)
Date: 8 Oct 92 04:08:14 GMT
Reply-To: mec6@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations

I wrote:

>> In my life, I have noticed that the softer the porn, the more likely it
>> involves [36-24-36] women only.  Take a look at the swimsuit issue of SI,
>> for example.  Then Playboy.  Then maybe Hustler (more likely to have
>> a male at least in the background.)  Then hard-core porn mags or
>> movies.  Once you get into hard-core, the % of men in the scene
>> jumps *way* up.  And then of course you get classic titles like "Fat
>> Mommas and Their Machines ."  The airbrushed Sex Symbol is missing.
>> 
>> Anybody else notice this?  What's the deal?  Theories?
  
To which Hillel offered (among other things):

>3) Quite a few beautiful girls who dream about being a movie star prefer
>   not to leave traces in hard-core porno.  The less beautiful girls (by
>   the main-stream standards) know that they will never be stars.

Similarly, Semhaza from Louisville writes:

>Theory 2:  Soft core porn is basically for the purposes of admiring and
>enjoying a woman's body. Hard core is for getting into the sex act itself, 
>thus it has to have sex (males are required). Beautiful women (36-26-36) 
>are rarer commodities, and can get into whatever part of the market they 
>like. They generally choose the soft end because it's less degrading (I'm 
>not saying anything about pornography, I'm just saying that it is perceived 
>by some as degrading to be in) and it's less likely to involve simulated 
>or actual sex.  Less "attractive" women can't get into the higher-class 
>soft core, snd the hard core makers have to take what they can get, hence 
>the Fat Mommas.
>
>Theory 1 is mine, Theory 2 is Shaitan's (my SO). I asked him because I 
>thought a male point of view might be more useful regarding a 
>male-oriented commodity.

Well, seems like there is some agreement here, but I find myself
wanting to disagree, nonetheless.  From my limited experience, these
(for lack of a better term) "Fat Momma" videos are not, umm, B-movies.
What I mean to say, it's not like they say, "Well, we couldn't find
any babes, so we got these fat ladies instead... they still do kinky
things, so maybe you'll like it anyway."  No, on the box it says, "You
like 'em! Big Fat Mommas, coming your way!! Hold on to your dxxk!"

So now I'm starting to think more along the lines of Hillel's other
suggestion:

>2) Hard-core Porno is far away from the main-stream standards while the
>   swimsuit issue is not.  May be the people who consume the porno
>   are different from the average person.

You know what I'm thinking?  I'm thinking that it's only the true pervert
(ie. hard-core fan, no offense intended) in our society that can 
possible come to think that having sex with fat women can actually be
fun and exciting.  That says a lot to me about both how our society
thinks about sex and about standards of beauty. 

I don't know what I'm trying to say, but it seems to be that there are
*elements* of a true feminist porn not in the muted soft-core stuff (and 
god, not in romance novels) but in the *hard-core* stuff...  I don't know.

I know, I know.  I'm not towing anybody's party line, and probably nobody
respects me anymore. :(  But that's what I (sometimes) think.

rini