0714: "Porn For Women"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby SirMustapha » Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:26 pm UTC

I find it weird that today's comic is a criticism of a demeaning sort of "Porn for Women", yet, as a comic, it is exactly a demeaning sort of "Porno for Feminists".

I have heard that Porno for Women is actually, in itself, a joke; that alone would completely invalidate the comic.

nahkaimurrao
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:18 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby nahkaimurrao » Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:43 pm UTC

Poppy Appletree wrote:
Well, I've researched it a fair bit, so I don't keep track of all the sources I see. I usually look at statistics for the UK and US, which tend to be fairly consistent - rough estimates are fairly easy to acquire by Googling, though, such as the first result for "rape statistics", which gives this.


I don't get it . . . it says rape is not always an act of violence and then says "Rape is an act of violence and domination and anger".

It also says that Myth: lack of resistance equals consent. Wouldn't anyone resist physically if they were being raped?

Also, shouldn't the 1 in 7 women coerced into sex include the 1 in 4 raped.

Please educate me, I want to be relieved of my ignorance.

User avatar
verbingthenoun
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 7:05 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby verbingthenoun » Mon Mar 15, 2010 3:48 pm UTC

So for some bizarre reason, the board keeps timing me out, but I think I should be able to post now.

Yes, this comic is awesome! Yes, Porn For Women, the book, is a joke, but the point of the joke is exactly what this comic thinks it is. I've picked it up and read it in a store. The whole idea of it is that women want (cute) men who will do their chores for them. So there is a role reversal which is supposedly "feminist". But the thing is, the idea that women fantasize about not having to do housework is just as problematic as the idea that we fantasize about doing housework, because it still focuses the fantasy around the home and chores and the suggestion that women's fantasies are absolutely, quantifiably different from men's. And that porn as it exists does not hold interest for women. Sure, some porn is sexist and degrading to women, but certainly not all of it, and in reality, porn for women is porn.

PS: I am a girl. I write/read/look at porn. People fuck in it.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:09 pm UTC

SirMustapha wrote:I find it weird that today's comic is a criticism of a demeaning sort of "Porn for Women", yet, as a comic, it is exactly a demeaning sort of "Porno for Feminists".]

How?

nahkaimurrao wrote:It also says that Myth: lack of resistance equals consent. Wouldn't anyone resist physically if they were being raped?

Not if, e.g., they feared greater violence if they resisted, or if they weren't in the mental state to resist.

nahkaimurrao wrote:Also, shouldn't the 1 in 7 women coerced into sex include the 1 in 4 raped.

Being coerced into sex is a category of rape, but not vice versa. For example, requiring sex in exchange for passage at a border is coercion and rape, but overpowering someone would be rape but not coercion.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby Griffin » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:11 pm UTC

It also says that Myth: lack of resistance equals consent. Wouldn't anyone resist physically if they were being raped?

Also, shouldn't the 1 in 7 women coerced into sex include the 1 in 4 raped.


Some women are not violent people. Their response may be simply to go limp, to cry, etc. Fear can do an awful lot to stop someone from even considering resisting, and not just fear of physical violence either. They don't consent, but they know that if they resist things will just go worse for them - in the face of certain situations, many people just "leave" and mentally go somewhere else as a sort of protection.

The obvious one, though, is date rape drugs - a person who is drugged into a stupor obviously isn't resisting but obviously isn't consenting either.

And the exact meaning of "coercion" is a hell of a lot more variable than the meaning of rape, but basically it is a situation where a women has sex only to avoid some specific consequences the other party is threatening, either implicitly or explicitly (ex. sex or lose your job from a boss)

I personally don't think coercion usually counts as rape, but I also think it extends on a scale that goes right up to "just as bad as", so any disagreement with those who do is mostly semantic and/or about drawing categorical lines.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby Sprocket » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:20 pm UTC

I was just thinking about how I would want porn for women (more precisely, with my tastes in porn) to be, and then thinking that it might be pretty awesome to go that way as a director. Ok this is a first for me .... GET OUT OF MY HEAD, RANDALL! (..get into my film?)

SirMustapha wrote:I have heard that Porno for Women is actually, in itself, a joke; that alone would completely invalidate the comic.
Yeah, I assumed those pics were a cute joke.
Last edited by Sprocket on Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:26 pm UTC, edited 3 times in total.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

peanutdustbomb
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:41 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby peanutdustbomb » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:21 pm UTC

Edit: I'm removing all comments made in this pornography discussion. In the future, I'll remember to keep heated discussions to 4chan.
Last edited by peanutdustbomb on Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:36 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby Sprocket » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:27 pm UTC

peanutdustbomb wrote:Is there some kind of Godwin's Law by which any internet discussion of feminism inevitably involves rape statistics, regardless of their relevance?
Does it make me a bad person that this post makes me laugh even though I definitely give a damn about the seriousness of violence and social inequality towards women?
Last edited by Sprocket on Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:29 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

eeeeaaii
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:05 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby eeeeaaii » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:28 pm UTC

Seems like there are a lot of unmarried/young people on these forums, who just don't get it (the cartoonist included).

I haven't seen the books, but I get it immediately. "Porn for Women" has nothing to do with sex. If you're even talking about sex, you're completely missing the point of the joke, and you're probably not a woman.

Here's the deal: most men just don't think they have to do housework. In fact, they don't even really realize that housework exists. Most men feel that their main job in life is to go in to work, earn some money, and then go home and turn on the TV or XBOX or whatever and relax. Meanwhile, somehow, the dishes are supposed to clean themselves, the laundry somehow does itself, and they can blissfully ignore it all.

Then you have "feminist" men. The ones who think they are into equality. Those men pick one or two chores, and do them regularly -- probably with gusto, since they self righteously think they are "feminist." Meanwhile, since the typical household requires hundreds of things to be accounted for, tracked, managed, and thought about, they are still not really doing shit. But women often applaud this behavior. Good lord, at least he's doing SOMETHING.

Even men who think they are "clean freaks" are almost never clean. Usually they focus on cleaning certain things, and maybe their apartment looks "organized," but you can always find a faint, weird "locker room" smell in one of the rooms, or a thick coating of dust on top of something they never even noticed.

The fact is, most men are big babies and basically expect their wives to step in and take the place of their mothers and take care of everything for them, and the ones that try not to be still have a hard time managing a household. It's a lot of work. It isn't easy at all.

I'm a man and I've been married for eleven years. I learned all this the hard way, and I'm still learning. Look (male) kids -- there's a LOT more housework to do than you could every imagine. If you think you're doing enough, you're probably not. The "Porn for Women" thing is a joke, and is funny, because women are just fucking goddamn frustrated and pissed off. If you want to do yourself a big favor, go home and make a list of 50 things that need to be cleaned. If you can't think of 50 things, then you're not thinking hard enough. Then clean them -- not half-assedly, but well. Get them spotless. And then maintain your house in that state. Every single damn day. I guarantee after a few months of really putting yourself in a woman's shoes, and being exhausted every night because of all the work you have to do, you'll get the joke.

masakatsu
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 3:02 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby masakatsu » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:32 pm UTC

LassLisa wrote:Yes. This comic hits on pretty much how I feel about those books/websites/memes. I've seen those books ("porn for women" with men doing housework, "porn for brides" with men participating in wedding planning, etc), and yes, I'd LOVE a shirtless buff model to come wash my windows (note: not a euphemism. Well, maybe.) But it's the equivalent of the "sexy french maid" idea, not somehow a substitute for wanting sex, or something that's on the level of porn...

I also agree with what Halrandir said - it's annoying because it buys in to this cultural dialog that women aren't in to sex. And people embrace it like "wanting a fair distribution of housework" is somehow this cute little womanly quirk, and isn't it nice that we/they indulge it with these pretty pictures?


As judged by the number of different men that have been in my roommate's bed (who is a woman), I would say observed phenomina has proven that the common wisdom is wrong.
I will not attack your math, just your epistemology.

You think you have it bad, I teach Intro to Project Management to Undergrads.

canadianbird
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby canadianbird » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

I'm sorry. My boyfriend does the dishes, and not because I think it's hot or charming. He does them because I will do them when we run out of dishes and he will do them when he thinks the kitchen is to gross to cook in. Which is... a lot sooner than we run out of dishes. I'm pretty sure it's not our gender that determines who does the chores.

CanusDivinus
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:22 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby CanusDivinus » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:45 pm UTC

I'm the only guy at a business with almost a dozen women, and (don't ask how it came up) I can say with some certainty: most women don't enjoy regular porn. Not to say they don't enjoy sex, but the idea of watching other people fuck is gross to them (again, referring to most). Women generally prefer to use their imagination when it comes to sexual self stimulation, which is why romance novels sell better than Playgirl. A picture of a guy with his dick out doesn't do much, but the idea of coming home to find your thoughtful, hot husband/boyfriend cleaning the house is a great jumping off point for sexual fantasies, not the whole thing. Even if the series wasn't a joke (which it is). it's not called "Porn for ALL Women. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM." Some are bound to enjoy it, so get over it.

That said, I mildly enjoyed the comic. If it's intended to be taken as-is, with it only representing the fictional girl shown, okay. If it's supposed to be read into and speak for all women, not okay. I guess if you have a love for "quirky girls" you might lose track of what aspects of personality are just individual quirks and which are broader gender-based traits.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Red Hal » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:49 pm UTC

peanutdustbomb wrote: Look at the more well-established immigrant groups in America. The Irish haven't been 'Patties' for decades, .
Heh, I've never heard the Irish called that before. Is that a U.S. thing? When I was growing up the word was 'Paddies'.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
RockoTDF
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:08 am UTC
Location: Tucson, AZ, US
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby RockoTDF » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:04 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Rocko, you're imagining things. I asked "what it means that a male author is speaking up on behalf of women." There have been plenty of responses that have seemed perfectly reasonable without invoking teh sexisms. Your post, minus the "get over yourself," would be one of them. Anyone labeling this comic sexist is your own invention.



My own invention? There are plenty of posts (albeit not a majority now) calling the comic sexist, or at least a tad bit ignorant.

The comment about experimental psych was not meant to say that I am an expert, but to say that being of either gender does not make one an expert on sexism and sexist issues.

firinne wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Course, I'm not quite sure what it means that a male author is speaking up on behalf of women here.

Well

as a woman, I highly prefer it to male authors not speaking up on behalf of women.


There is a difference between standing up for women and men speaking *for* women (not letting them speak on an issue for whatever reason). Men have to be able to stand up for women without retribution if you want a less gender focused society. I find it a sexist that you think men shouldn't be allowed to say "you know guys, women probably aren't sexually aroused by things relating to housework" but its ok for women to say the exact same thing.
Just because it is not physics doesn't mean it is not science.
http://www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com <---- A collection of humorous one liners and science jokes.

graatz
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:24 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby graatz » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:04 pm UTC

nahkaimurrao wrote:Please educate me, I want to be relieved of my ignorance.


I think what you're hung up on is that you're only looking at one type of rape. As in, woman is jogging alone at night, rapist jumps out of the bushes with a gun and forces her to drop trow and take it. It's also a form of rape for, say, a family member or trusted adult (teacher, babysitter, etc.) tell a child to engage in sex play. It's also a form of rape to go to a party, get your date drunk, and verbally bully her into putting out. Rape is non-consensual sex, and there are various ways of getting someone to engage in sex against their will. A gun is just one extreme way of doing so.

User avatar
RockoTDF
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:08 am UTC
Location: Tucson, AZ, US
Contact:

Re: Porn For Women

Postby RockoTDF » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:13 pm UTC

nahkaimurrao wrote:I don't get it . . . it says rape is not always an act of violence and then says "Rape is an act of violence and domination and anger".


The idea that *all* rape is about violence and dominance has never sat well with me. Stephen Pinker's "The Blank Slate" has a really good chapter on rape, where he debunks the notion that *all* rape is about control/violence etc. He sums it up as basically guys who slip things in girls drinks are not trying to commit an act of violence, they are losers who can't get sex any other way. He then goes on to say that we are never going to be able to combat many types (such as date rape) of rape effectively if we make the same assumptions as we do about violent rape (abusive/controlling spouse, rape during genocide and wartime).
Just because it is not physics doesn't mean it is not science.
http://www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com <---- A collection of humorous one liners and science jokes.

Andromeda321
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:31 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby Andromeda321 » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:43 pm UTC

Just wanted to post how much I loved this comic. I am a young woman and *gasp* love having sex to the point that most men can't keep up, but it is downright irritating how many guys around me refuse to believe women actually like having sex. There is a bit of a correlation between geeky guys who have been turned down by women in this department and their belief in this myth, of course, because I guess it's kind of hard to realize she just doesn't want to have sex with you vs all men. My best advice here if you fall in this category to guys is always of course pay attention to your partner's needs, if she's worth it she'll be doing the same, and remember that women more than men respond to different stimuli in different ways. Like in anything communication goes a long, long way.

As for the porn thing yes, most women prefer using their imaginations over actually seeing any specifics (when long distance I love it if my guy will write me something naughty, he'd much prefer a picture). But hey, not like I'd want us to be the same right? :wink: And as for the housework thing, there are a lot of guys out there way neater then me. I've also noticed that the younger generation of women is much less likely to handle a guy who won't help out (to me it's just another type of laziness) but since most guys spend a few years living alone anyway they tend to know what housework involves.

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Sprocket » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:49 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:
peanutdustbomb wrote: Look at the more well-established immigrant groups in America. The Irish haven't been 'Patties' for decades, .
Heh, I've never heard the Irish called that before. Is that a U.S. thing? When I was growing up the word was 'Paddies'.
People still call it the "paddy waggon" and don't worry about being offensive, because the people here of Irish ancestry are white and in the majority and don't really have to fear marginalization anymore I suppose.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

karlzt
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:33 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby karlzt » Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:52 pm UTC

sometimes I foget why this comic is popular among hackers

User avatar
Raptortech97
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:39 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Raptortech97 » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:39 pm UTC

Alzhaid wrote:
RockoTDF wrote:
Alzhaid wrote:I can't see the image of the comic, not even from this thread... Is there any problem or our proxy is blocking the image because is too porn? :roll:


There is nothing pornographic about the comic itself. Just someone typing at a computer. Oh, and the word "fuck" is used, but I don't think your blocker bothers to do handwriting recognition.


Trying to access the .png directly, I receive the message: "The page you are trying to access cannot be visualized, because it belongs to a not allowed category: [entertainment|pornography]"

I guess it's because the png is called porn_for_women.png. I hope I won't get fired because I tried like a thousand times to load it :mrgreen:


Have you been able to access xkcd before? At my school, when I accessed *any* xkcd comic it said it was blocked under the categories "comic" and "pornography," probably because of that one in the restaurant, where the people said, "Get out of here! This is a family friendly establishment!" I forget the name of the comic. And now for something completely different:

1) I am a heterosexual male. I am not all heterosexual males. Please take my comments with this in account.
2) I do not know the wants/needs/fantasies of all women.
3) It is my understanding that Porn For Women contains pictures of fully clothed hot men doing household chores.
4) Most women do not find these pictures actually sexually stimulating.
5) Some porn directed at men is of shirtless or fully naked girls fixing engines or washing cars or such.
6) I like porn of beautiful, naked women washing cars. I find it sexually stimulating. The girls, of course, do not actually focus on washing the car so much as showing me as much of their body as sexily as possible.
7) I would also like beautiful, naked women, say, baking cookies, in a similar way to number 6.
8) it is my hypothesis, then, that some heterosexual women may find it sexually stimulating for the book Porn For Women to be modified by removing all clothing. I do recognize that this assumes that my tastes for porn are similar to some women's taste for porn.

Can any lady verify that number 8 is true?
Last edited by Raptortech97 on Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:08 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Keldaran wrote:The Church assents to the Creation of House RaptorTech97

05e90f00779bcbe450a05c4c6c044787 Please crack this NTLM hash
In case anyone cares, I am looking for the "share your proofs" thread. I knew it used to be around somewhere...

IreneDAdler
Posts: 29
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:10 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby IreneDAdler » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:53 pm UTC

eeeeaaii wrote:Seems like there are a lot of unmarried/young people on these forums, who just don't get it (the cartoonist included).

I am one of the women in the supposed "target audience" of this ridiculous book. I've been living with my boyfriend for over 9 years, and he is not the neat kind of guy. Laundry has been my sole responsibility from the get-go, and since we've graduated college and gotten our own place, I've had to deal with housework as well for the last 5 years. Am I annoyed that he doesn't do any housework? Yeah, a bit. Would I appreciate some help? Absolutely. Do I fantasize about him offering to help? Fuck no. Yes, these jokes are quite obviously not intended to be serious commentary on female sexuality, but the premise of the "joke" is that women to feel so strongly about housework that they actively fantasize about men doing it. And that is the crux upon which the comic is commenting, the idea that housework is so central to a woman's mind. The comic doesn't miss the point of the books, it just says that it's dumb, and I completely agree.

While I was searching Amazon, verifying the existence of this retarded book, I also found the whole series of books and related merchandise, one of which was a coupon book. As far as I could gather from the product description, it's a book of "coupons" wherein the woman stipulates a reward for certain household chores done. Now, obviously these are not serious coupons, meant to be used for extortion, but I still find the underlying concept infantile if not outright disturbing. Oh ha ha women are so under-appreciated for the housework they do. Well, if they are, do you think a passive-aggressive coupon book is gonna do anything to help the issue? Setting aside the premise that all housework everywhere is done by women (which is obviously not universally true, though admittedly a valid trend), the premise that all men everywhere are ungrateful is even more troubling. It is perhaps natural that all the day-to-day work pass under someone's notice, but if the person doing all that work feels unappreciated, he or she should speak up, and talk about it to the other person (or people). The underlying premises of these "joke" books and coupons are serious issues and should be addressed in a mature manner, not taken as fact and made the subject of a weak attempt at humor.

Also, have you guys taken a look at the covers? WTF is up with the swirly hearts and all that pink? Disgusting.
Image

CyberCod
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:39 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby CyberCod » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:01 pm UTC

Loved the comic, found it quite funny.
<soapbox>
That being said, to hell with feminism. Feminism itself is a sexist word, and i can't believe no one else has noticed.

Any organization dedicated to equality of the sexes shouldn't take one side of the issue as its name.

Feminism is not about equality, it is about the advancement of the female viewpoint, and advancement of women in society, and it will continue to be so even after the scales have tipped in favor of womankind, which it does tend to do in small pockets here and there. If a point of balance is ever reached, the Feminist movement will not just say "Okay, we've reached the goal, we can stop being hardcore bitches to everyone now."

If Feminism were called Equalism, it wouldn't have such a hard time recruiting males to the cause of equality.
I am an Equalist. I believe in equality between the sexes, not in promoting one over the other and calling that fairness. I base my opinions of people on what they themselves do and say, not what is between their legs.

As a group, men and women both have positive and negative qualities. There is no clear "better" sex. We're all just people, doin what we do.
</soapbox>

User avatar
SirMustapha
Posts: 1302
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 6:07 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby SirMustapha » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:15 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
SirMustapha wrote:I find it weird that today's comic is a criticism of a demeaning sort of "Porn for Women", yet, as a comic, it is exactly a demeaning sort of "Porno for Feminists".]

How?


Basically because this comic has NO attempt at wit, cleverness, intelligence or even humour per se; it's just a hamfisted, heavyhanded delivery of a "White Knight" attitude that is as dumb and obvious as it looks. It's pretty much like drawing a "kids: Just say NO to drugs" poster and putting it up as a comic; and this is made worse by the fact that xkcd taking a supposedly feminist stance looks like such a bold, daring attitude.

In short, the comic says "Women, I totally support your cause. I'm a noble man. Please sleep with me."

Makri
Posts: 654
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 4:57 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby Makri » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:17 pm UTC

In short, the comic says "Women, I totally support your cause. I'm a noble man. Please sleep with me."


Right. And this your claim is so not sexist. I mean the last sentence of it, in particular.

...
¬□(∀♀(∃♂(♀❤♂)⟷∃♂(♂❤♀)))

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:38 pm UTC

I disagree lots. One thing a lot of critics here seem to have in common is an assumption that xkcd isn't worthwhile unless it's funny, or that the only valuable statements it makes are those intrinsically tied to its humor. And yet this has never been true of xkcd, so the assumption that the observation made in this comic was meant to be "witty, clever, or humorous" is unfounded.

As for "intelligent"... well, I'm not sure how Randall sees this particular comic, but I think it's a worthwhile observation regardless of how "smart" it is. And since it is published under a Creative Commons license on a public webpage, there's no need for the analysis to live up to the standards we might expect from a cultural studies journal. Anyone who's been to a protest recognizes that sometimes just saying things is more useful than making sure that you only say the most profound things evar.

tl;dr: There's no need for the comic to be any of the things you've asked it to be, and no reason to conclude that it's an attempt to get laid.

Re: equalist guy: FFS. You know how there's this big increasingly-more-vocal gay rights movement? It should be pretty obvious that it doesn't get its name from a secret plot to subjugate straight people (HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA O NOEZ). Same deal with feminism: the movement has the name it does because it encompasses present and historical efforts to expand women's rights and roles — not because women want to become your new feminine overlords, but because women have been and still are the victims of substantial discrimination, and that can't be changed without women gaining a lot of ground. Absent any evidence that a substantial number of women want to actually turn the tables on oppression, you're just strawmanning.

Rocko: I perhaps interpreted your comment as more directed at me than it really was. Did I quote you as saying "get over yourself" before? I honestly thought you had said that, but now I see that those words weren't in your original post. Mea culpa.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

LassLisa
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2007 5:44 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby LassLisa » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:39 pm UTC

IreneDAdler wrote:Yes, these jokes are quite obviously not intended to be serious commentary on female sexuality, but the premise of the "joke" is that women to feel so strongly about housework that they actively fantasize about men doing it. And that is the crux upon which the comic is commenting, the idea that housework is so central to a woman's mind. The comic doesn't miss the point of the books, it just says that it's dumb, and I completely agree.


Yes. The comic seems like it's just in the same vein as many other XKCD comics - putting a different angle on a common thing. Sure, they're meant to be a joke - but it's a DUMB joke. If I start finding them funny it's a sign that I'm spending too much time thinking about housework. (And that I need to do yet more work separating my sense of self-worth as a responsible adult from the cleanliness of my home. Gender socialization: more insidious than you'd think.) Actually, that's one of the reasons I'm opposed to the cultural memes/jokes/beliefs expressed in books like these - it's another thing normalizing the idea that women _should_ be obsessed with the state of their home, and that if you're unconcerned by dust and leaves and dirty dishes there's something wrong with you.

So I, as a geeky non-conformist woman, LOVE this strip for having someone like me as the protagonist. Yay! It was an "Oh me yarm Randall get out of my head!" moment, with all the wonderful overtones of acceptance and community that implies. And for all the people going "man this comic is so unfunny" maybe it just doesn't speak to your own experiences? Because I laughed out loud.

Edit to clarify: The "common thing" I reference above being the "Porn for Women" images/books. I've seen it in about a dozen different forms, whether it's an internet image with a man vacuuming or the books themselves; I guess if there are lots of men out there who haven't encountered the joke it would explain why everyone who sends me these links has that "oh wow this is so clever!" attitude...

peanutdustbomb
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:41 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby peanutdustbomb » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:47 pm UTC

Edit: I'm removing all comments made in this pornography discussion. In the future, I'll remember to keep heated discussions to 4chan.
Last edited by peanutdustbomb on Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:35 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

TazTheTerrible
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:16 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby TazTheTerrible » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:50 pm UTC

CyberCod wrote:Loved the comic, found it quite funny.
That being said, to hell with feminism. Feminism itself is a sexist word, and i can't believe no one else has noticed.

Any organization dedicated to equality of the sexes shouldn't take one side of the issue as its name.


Actually you're not nearly the first person to have noticed. Many feminists dislike the term, but keep on using it because it is a)recognized and b) to the point that it's making a statement about gender and the fact that women are still the disadvantaged gender. A very typical and instinctive reaction of men to a feminist opinion is "but what about the men?". It's a valid question in a sense, because patriarchy hurts men too, but it's also derailing and often carrying a fair bit of entitlement.

CyberCod wrote:Feminism is not about equality, it is about the advancement of the female viewpoint, and advancement of women in society, and it will continue to be so even after the scales have tipped in favor of womankind, which it does tend to do in small pockets here and there. If a point of balance is ever reached, the Feminist movement will not just say "Okay, we've reached the goal, we can stop being hardcore bitches to everyone now."


Uhm... wow... really? This is how you perceive mainstream feminism? Might I humbly suggest visiting say http://www.girl-wonder.org/ (a site I frequent myself) and chatting up the locals in a friendly manner? I think you may find a lot of them are quite reasonable, egalitarian people.

EDIT for that response post I missed: Taking radical feminism as a representation for mainstream feminism seems to be slightly unfair, if not an outright logical fallacy. You see the adjective "radical" in that article title, did you look up just plain old regular feminism in the process?

SirMustapha wrote:In short, the comic says "Women, I totally support your cause. I'm a noble man. Please sleep with me."


Exactly where do you read this into the comic? Or is that simply your default interpretation of any man taking a feminist or vaguely feminist viewpoint? You really do seem to be making a fair bit of assumptions in your post.
Last edited by TazTheTerrible on Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:57 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

CyberCod
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:39 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby CyberCod » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:56 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Re: equalist guy: FFS. You know how there's this big increasingly-more-vocal gay rights movement? It should be pretty obvious that it doesn't get its name from a secret plot to subjugate straight people (HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA O NOEZ). Same deal with feminism: the movement has the name it does because it encompasses present and historical efforts to expand women's rights and roles — not because women want to become your new feminine overlords, but because women have been and still are the victims of substantial discrimination, and that can't be changed without women gaining a lot of ground. Absent any evidence that a substantial number of women want to actually turn the tables on oppression, you're just strawmanning.


I knew what I was saying. As per your link, one can be an Equalist or Humanist or Feminist without being all three. I agree and felt that way before posting. I am an equalist, and I am anti-feminist... which I hope you can see is not the same thing as anti-female. So, like the article that you linked me to, I stipulate that I am an equalist, without being a feminist.

Loser4Now
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:48 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby Loser4Now » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:59 pm UTC

Let's try a thought experiment, shall we?

First, I say PORN.

What do you think of? People fucking, right?

Now, I say PORN FOR MEN.

What do you think of? People fucking, right?

Now, I say PORN FOR WOMEN.

At what point does porn become anything other than people fucking*? Why is a guy sexist for pointing that out?

*okay, so there's other stuff ( build up and excitement, cars and girls washing them, girls and toys, boys and animals, hell, one time when I was much younger man before the intrawebs existed, porn was a stiff breeze and the shadows of the trees) but really, my point still stands

TazTheTerrible
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:16 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby TazTheTerrible » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:00 pm UTC

CyberCod wrote:I knew what I was saying. As per your link, one can be an Equalist or Humanist or Feminist without being all three. I agree and felt that way before posting. I am an equalist, and I am anti-feminist... which I hope you can see is not the same thing as anti-female. So, like the article that you linked me to, I stipulate that I am an equalist, without being a feminist.


I think he wasn't so much objecting to how you identified as he was to how you perceived/identified feminism in general.

User avatar
Hungry_Myst
Posts: 16
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:12 pm UTC
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby Hungry_Myst » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:01 pm UTC

It seems as though a lot of people are missing the point. Not to mention all of the people who seem to completely miss the point of gender equality in general.

Even as a joke the "Porn for Women" series is sexist because it re-enforces gender stereotypes, whether those stereotypes are positive, negative, very or hardly harmful, etc. is irrelevant because they are still stereotypes. It suggests that men never clean or perform any sort of household chore while women do (to the point of fantasizing about it), that women do not desire sex or posses any sort of functional libido, and just generally reinforces the idea that men and women are fundamentally different.

Also, it is not impossible for a man to be feminist as you don't need to be a women to be able to see sexism. Pointing out said sexism isn't self-righteous and implying that by doing so you expect that women will owe you sex is unbelievably sexist in and of itself. Perhaps some people just don't like sexism even if it doesn't directly impact them self.

TazTheTerrible
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2009 4:16 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby TazTheTerrible » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:10 pm UTC


totallydude
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:07 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby totallydude » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:12 pm UTC

I am anti-feminist... which I hope you can see is not the same thing as anti-female.


hmm. i don't exactly have the words to even respond to this. let me say that i disagree that those aren't the same thing.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:16 pm UTC

peanutdustbomb wrote:But there are actual man-hating feminists out there. I've had college classes with a couple of them, and, no, I don't believe they represent the whole feminist movement, but, yes, I do believe they exist.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Absent any evidence that a substantial number of women want to actually turn the tables on oppression, you're just strawmanning.

And the closest you come to evidence for this is:

peanutdustbomb wrote:There is an extensive Wikipedia article on Radical Feminism and Seperatist Feminism, and none whatsoever on Radical Homosexuality.

I have issues with both of those movements, but they do not include "they hate men and want to rule them." I mean, sure, you can point to those articles, but have you read them?

Speaking of which, "lesbian separatism" is just a page down on one of those articles.

TazTheTerrible wrote:
CyberCod wrote:I knew what I was saying. As per your link, one can be an Equalist or Humanist or Feminist without being all three. I agree and felt that way before posting. I am an equalist, and I am anti-feminist... which I hope you can see is not the same thing as anti-female. So, like the article that you linked me to, I stipulate that I am an equalist, without being a feminist.


I think he wasn't so much objecting to how you identified as he was to how you perceived/identified feminism in general.

This.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
RockoTDF
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:08 am UTC
Location: Tucson, AZ, US
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby RockoTDF » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:22 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Rocko: I perhaps interpreted your comment as more directed at me than it really was. Did I quote you as saying "get over yourself" before? I honestly thought you had said that, but now I see that those words weren't in your original post. Mea culpa.


The words "get over yourself" is in my first post, however I wasn't quoting anyone and not targeting you specifically, just making a general statement. I should have not said it or said "get over yourselves" so no one person could have felt targeted.

SirMustapha wrote:
In short, the comic says "Women, I totally support your cause. I'm a noble man. Please sleep with me."


This is the most sexist comment made during this entire discussion, I think. The idea that nice guys or guys that care about rights for women is one of the most damaging stereotypes about men that is a barrier to equality and the advancement of women. How are men supposed to not be sexist when their attempts to support women are all frowned upon?
Just because it is not physics doesn't mean it is not science.
http://www.iomalfunction.blogspot.com <---- A collection of humorous one liners and science jokes.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:24 pm UTC

Well, I thought you said that, too, but looking back the quote is "Get over it."
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

the zedmeister
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:56 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby the zedmeister » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:29 pm UTC

Chrysalis wrote:
Monika wrote:I like this comic very much, but I don't get the hover text at all.

Omegaton wrote:The hover text made this comic for me! Haha!

Can you or someone else enlighten me? There were no men vacuuming the bridge of Galactica ... or were there?


I second this, someone please explain? Does Galactica fall into the "porn for women" category, too because it has women playing significant roles for a change?


The joke is that the porn the girl in the comic consumes is in the form of explicit Galactica fanfiction. :mrgreen:

peanutdustbomb
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:41 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby peanutdustbomb » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:30 pm UTC

Edit: I'm removing all comments made in this pornography discussion. In the future, I'll remember to keep heated discussions to 4chan.
Last edited by peanutdustbomb on Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:34 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:32 pm UTC

Flounce!

The joke is that the porn the girl in the comic consumes is in the form of explicit Galactica fanfiction.

Yeah, and this also relevant to the anti-essentialist/reductionist argument that the comic is making.
Last edited by TheGrammarBolshevik on Mon Mar 15, 2010 9:36 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CharonPDX, Mikeski and 55 guests