August 31, 2005

Still Good To Be A Girl, Mostly

As I explained two short posts ago, one benefit of being a girl is all of the free pornographic fiction on the internet. Someone who attended this evening's Drinking Liberally and shall remain nameless (thpbffft ;), was too damn chicken to post a comment asking why fiction is preferable to pictures.

So for any other chickens out there (Hear that? CHICKENS!!!) who weren't around to have it explained this evening at the Montlake Ale House in Seattle, female people generally enjoy written porn in the same way that male people generally enjoy visual porn.

Links? Sorry, still no. All I'm willing to say is that on days when posting is light during the next few weeks, it's either because I'm in the process of moving and starting at a new college, or because I spent all my computer time that day reading internet porn instead of news. I found a motherlode, muthaf***as and I'm keeping it all to myself.

Though I almost wish the people at magazines like Playboy should fill the magazine half and half with pictures for the guys to look at and decently written pornographic fiction shorts of the kind women like to read. Their sales would double, there might be a generation of guys someday that could en masse quit hiding their porno mags under the floorboards (unless they were worried their other halves would just hog them) and for the first frakking time in history, it might be true that someone had bought the damn things for the articles. Also, maybe we could all quit lying to each other about this stuff and just chill out. Naaah. Never happen.

Though this just reminds me of the generally crappy nature of personal products for women and porn is no different. If you've ever read the dreck that passes for romance novels, you probably share my shock at their costing the same as novels whose authors weren't computer generated templates that repeated the same plot devices not only from novel to novel, but sometimes twice in the same damn story. A fast reader may find themselves too annoyed by this to get back into the flow. What's up with that? It's like a frakking bucket of cold water right in the middle of my goddamn porn.

But what it's really like is the underthings that can't survive two washes in cold water, the uncomfortable shoes that cost as much or more than shoes that might last through multiple years of regular use, the overpriced blouses with flimsy seams and fabrics that go all Wicked Witch of the West if you do anything with them but gently agitate them by hand in a bucket and hang them gently in the shower on the right size of hangar, unlined pants made of fabrics that you can only wear dental floss underneath, makeup that should qualify as toxic waste, a uniformity of pant styles that ensure the occasional two year block where there's no store in the country that carries the kind of pants that flatter your hip-waist combination, clothes for adult women in sizes above 4 that are cut for theoretical people with no curves, and an overall shabbiness when compared with similarly priced male equivalents.

Why the hell do so many women put up with this? I don't know, but my solution is sensible shoes and dirty, dirty short stories written by other chicks who've decided to share the love. Some people might think sensible shoes aren't sexy, but I'm here to tell you that any guy who knows what's what should see a sensible shoe as one less mood-killing subliminal aggravation he has to worry about.

BTW - Did you know that the first novel in history was a romance novel written by a woman?

Posted by natasha at August 31, 2005 02:44 AM | Entertainment | Technorati links |
Comments

Was Sappho the first erotic poet?

Posted by: Easter Lemming Liberal News at August 31, 2005 03:50 AM

Sorry to have missed that! Bawk! Bawk!

Also sorry to hear you're moving on.. You will be missed.

Posted by: John at August 31, 2005 09:17 AM

I think you look great in sensible shoes.

Posted by: Carl Ballard at August 31, 2005 02:07 PM

I wasn't too chicken to post a comment, I was too lazy. It certainly takes more nerve to ask a woman about porn in person than it does online.

Posted by: Goldy at August 31, 2005 07:14 PM

Two points -

1) Well, duh...Cassanova is almost always portrayed in lit or opera as a short, stocky guy with an odd nose or chin. But he knew how to seduce women with his words by the thousands. You don't need a line to snag a lady, you need to be lyrical and praiseworthy (but not too praiseworthy) concurrently.

2) True story. When I was married, my ex one day called me at work. We had a rule between us that we wouldn't buy more than $50 of something without at least telling the other (and the more expensive it got, the more we had to have the other's consent). She had found a sale on some higher-end stuff - bras, panties, etc...and wanted to chuck almost everything she had at home and buy a new set of undies and foundations.

"Why?", I asked.

"It's so _comfortable_", she replied.

Fortunately I was once, in college, a store detective for a couple of summers and heard the lament of poory-made womens' clothes many, many times. "Buy all you want", I said.

The next few weeks were very, very good to me.

Posted by: palamedes at August 31, 2005 08:59 PM

Novels cost the same because the author gets only a tiny share of the cover price, no matter how talented or how much of a hack.

Posted by: felice at August 31, 2005 09:12 PM

I'd respond to all your pithy and entertaining comments, but I have to get back to reading some porn. Lot of v. unpleasant dental work being done this week and I'd rather not dwell, so I'm sure you understand ;)

However, Felice, while I do know that, it still just seems so wrong.

Posted by: natasha at August 31, 2005 11:13 PM

the women don't get off on pictures argument gets made alot.

i disagree. first, because it's an essentialist argument. girls may prefer stories to visual porn, but i don't think it's natural. it might be that stories cater more to women and feature more egalitarian sexual situations, while visual porn is centered around degredation, violent power play, and really kind of unattractive (hyper-porn) people.

when there is good pics/porn (on our backs does great spreads of the ladies) i like to lookee lookee.

Posted by: good golly at September 1, 2005 02:29 PM

I didn't say that women don't like pictures, or even that men don't like dirty stories. It's just a general sort of trend. And stories have every bit the range of situations that pictures can, and then some.

Posted by: natasha at September 1, 2005 05:17 PM

Visual porn for women just isn't economical. It's not that we don't like pictures - they'd never have been able to sell things like 16 Magazine and Tiger Beat if that were the case - but when it comes to the actual sex part, it's just too hard to create sexually explicit material with mass appeal.

1. Women like scenarios. Women seem to be more dedicatedly kinky than men - not as easily impressed by the mere image of fucking and sucking. The scenario doesn't have to be "romantic" or - god forbid - "egalitarian" (sometimes quite the contrary), but there usually has to be more to it than "two horny people have sex". Men may or may not be kinky, but even the kinky ones will settle for a vanilla visual of two (or more) people having sex if they have to.

2. Women are more looksist than men, and don't have such broad tastes. Leg men will enjoy porn that doesn't even show legs; guys who like big breasts aren't turned off by women with small breasts; guys who like slim women aren't turned off by a woman who is overweight - but women who like slim women will usually be turned off by fat men, and vice versa. Generally speaking, straight men like women, and won't kick most women out of bed. Women, on the other hand, like a very small percentage of men and aren't very flexible about stepping outside of their range of tastes.

So it's just easier to create visual porn for men, because just about any old sex and any old actors/models will do. Women, on the other hand, are too easy to turn off with the wrong physique, the wrong clothes, the wrong facial features, the wrong style, the wrong scenario, etc.

For men, there is such a thing as "mainstream porn". With women, it's almost entirely niche marketing - and, therefore, not as easily marketable. The mainstream porn will carry the male market, but that's much harder to do for women.

Or so I have come to believe. YMMV.

Posted by: Avedon at September 1, 2005 07:40 PM

[Er, mind-o; I meant "women who like slim men will usually be turned off by fat men."]

Posted by: Avedon at September 1, 2005 07:42 PM