More Porn for Women, Women for Porn
A couple of shout-outs this morning.
The first goes to Audacia Ray of WakingVixen.com. Audacia says she jerks off to our “gorgeous films featuring the sexualities of very real couples.” In addition to having excellent taste in stoke material, Audacia is also a New Yorker with a wicked sensiblity, a fantastic body, and a penchant for exhibitionism. Some ideas starting to brew…
Also a shout-out to Flutterby of KissingInPublic. Flutterby says Comstock Films “is the kind of porn that turns me on!”. Flutterby is also a New Yorker, by way of the Agulhas current.
If you go and read these women’s blogs you’ll quickly see that these are women who love cock, who love to fuck and who love to get off; and approbation from these and other women raises a question. If making “porn for women” means making films that make women like Audacia and Flutterby get all warm and squishy in their girlie parts, why would I want to make porn for men?
-T.C.
April 29th, 2005 at 9:05 pm
And thanks to you TC for the mention.
I have alot to say about porn for women. I’ll be writing a post about it this weekend.
April 30th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
“For women” has a long tradition of being used as code for “second rate” and whenever I hear the phrase “porn for women” I can’t help but think of George Cukor. (I, of course, would be thrilled if my body of work someday included just one directorial outing that could stand along side Cukor’s “women’s films”.)
I look foward to reading what you have to say on the subject, Flutterby!
-T.C.
May 1st, 2005 at 11:42 am
Regardless of who the porn is “for” I think it’s important that in some way a company is “for” the performers themselves - you can shoot high quality films with good lighting and angles that show full interactions til the cows come home, but if the performers aren’t enjoying themselves, its not going to be much good.