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
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 » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:14 pm UTC

uncivlengr wrote:We're evidently still confused by the concept of satire; it's not intended to literally portray the desires of women... not their sexual desires, not their asexual desires. It's photos of attractive men with humour derived from captions that contradict fairly standard male stereotypes, nothing more.
Men don't like asking for directions, so let's show a guy willingly asking for directions. Men want to watch the Superbowl, so here's a guy who'd rather go to a craft fair. Ha ha.

That the author chose a provocative title to resell a fairly tired theme doesn't change that.

Wait, so you don't think that he title is part of the joke?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

yet another steven
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:22 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby yet another steven » Wed Mar 17, 2010 3:45 pm UTC

cactus box wrote:'porn for tired mums'

Yeah, that would have been a much more appropriate title :D Wish I'd thought of that.

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Mar 17, 2010 4:02 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
uncivlengr wrote:We're evidently still confused by the concept of satire; it's not intended to literally portray the desires of women... not their sexual desires, not their asexual desires. It's photos of attractive men with humour derived from captions that contradict fairly standard male stereotypes, nothing more.
Men don't like asking for directions, so let's show a guy willingly asking for directions. Men want to watch the Superbowl, so here's a guy who'd rather go to a craft fair. Ha ha.

That the author chose a provocative title to resell a fairly tired theme doesn't change that.

Wait, so you don't think that he title is part of the joke?
I think the title itself is a joke, in addition to the theme of the book.

As for the question I asked of you several pages ago: Did you look at actual examples from the book before making your initial comments in this thread?
I don't know what to do for you

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby sliverstorm » Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:01 pm UTC

BioTube wrote:First, I'd like to point out my handle's BioTube.

Whoops, sorry. The guy I was replying to had said u were Biosmith.

jakkofclubs
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 6:18 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby jakkofclubs » Wed Mar 17, 2010 5:44 pm UTC

My apologies Biotube, stupid mistake.

And the woman-on-top position remark comes from the so-called "sex experts". As you said, some females aren't comfortable with this position, but I was more pointing out that it doesn't take contortion to get into this position. Women's general response to this is insecurity that their partner can see more jiggling and bouncing from that direction as well as the issue of being the dominant partner. In these cases, patriarchy and self-esteem issues are cited to explain this by researchers/sex-scientists. Women being unsatisfied with sex comes from other reasons as well, such as lack of or insufficient foreplay. All of these things stem from many sources, such as (but not limited to) the portrayel offered by porn, which focuses on penetration but not foreplay (it's kinda boring to watch foreplay), to lack of communication on both sides, to our patriarchal society, to the farther past which emphasised women having no libido back to prehistoric where we assume that it wasn't important.

I'm aware that we can reproduce without satisfaction, I'm saying it raises the liklihood of pregnancy from the previous 15% to a higher one (I'm sorry I don't have exact numbers). As the vagina is fairly lethal place for sperm, they tend to need all the help they can get. I suggest the show "Sizing up Sperm" from National Geographic as a good show to watch if you're interested. Not only is it hilarious but you can almost taste the awkward. I was more popping in to suggest a fun position to try that increases chances of orgasm for the woman than to get caught in crossfire. Happy hunting

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby sliverstorm » Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:15 pm UTC

jakkofclubs wrote:I was more popping in to suggest a fun position to try that increases chances of orgasm for the woman than to get caught in crossfire. Happy hunting

Haha sorry, didn't mean to shoot you :wink:

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 » Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:41 pm UTC

uncivlengr wrote:I think the title itself is a joke, in addition to the theme of the book.

Wait, so the title is just... a joke... all by itself?

"Porn for Women."

Yeah, I guess I'm not seeing the humor in that.

uncivlengr wrote:As for the question I asked of you several pages ago: Did you look at actual examples from the book before making your initial comments in this thread?

Not the inside pages, but it sounds like xkcd's description of them is accurate. The additional information that you've provided doesn't affect the point of the comic.

I did look at the cover, which was both consistent with xkcd's description and worthy of the criticism offered here.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

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

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby eeeeaaii » Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:48 pm UTC

Okay everyone, turn off your flamethrowers, because I'm posting this to say that my mind has been changed completely, and I'm sorry for everything I said.

One problem with me commenting on stuff like this is that I don't have a TV and don't read much in the way of traditional "media" so I tend to forget what is really going on out there.

Talked to a friend about this and she sent me this link, you might enjoy:

http://current.com/items/89317322_sarah ... eaning.htm

Excerpts from cleaning product commercials, with commentary. Unbelievable! Sorry everyone, sorry Randall, I take it all back.

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:13 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
uncivlengr wrote:I think the title itself is a joke, in addition to the theme of the book.

Wait, so the title is just... a joke... all by itself?

"Porn for Women."

Yeah, I guess I'm not seeing the humor in that.
I didn't say "all by itself" - the book title could be something else entirely, and the captions they put on the photos inside would be just as funny (or bland and tired, as the case may be) as they are now. The title works off the contents, not vice versa.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
uncivlengr wrote:As for the question I asked of you several pages ago: Did you look at actual examples from the book before making your initial comments in this thread?

Not the inside pages, but it sounds like xkcd's description of them is accurate. The additional information that you've provided doesn't affect the point of the comic.

I did look at the cover, which was both consistent with xkcd's description and worthy of the criticism offered here.
Right; literally judging a book by its cover. I suppose if you read it in a webcomic, there's no point in investigating something in any detail before forming an opinion of it.
I don't know what to do for you

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 » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:16 pm UTC

So is my perception of the book inaccurate, or do you just like talking about me?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

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

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby IreneDAdler » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:29 pm UTC

eeeeaaii wrote:Okay everyone, turn off your flamethrowers, because I'm posting this to say that my mind has been changed completely, and I'm sorry for everything I said.

One problem with me commenting on stuff like this is that I don't have a TV and don't read much in the way of traditional "media" so I tend to forget what is really going on out there.

Talked to a friend about this and she sent me this link, you might enjoy:

http://current.com/items/89317322_sarah ... eaning.htm

Excerpts from cleaning product commercials, with commentary. Unbelievable! Sorry everyone, sorry Randall, I take it all back.

Haha, awesome clip, thanks for posting it :)

That basically sums up the situation fairly nicely. Perhaps that's the type of satire the "Porn for Women" people were going for, but they fell way short of the mark. The message I get from that clip is "There's a pervasive social norm that makes all women into indentured servants and it's bullshit," whereas the message I get from the "Porn for Women" books is "Haha men will never care about what you want, isn't that hilarious?"

This one Amazon reviewer said it the best: "It's not serious enough to be a blow to feminism, but women who are the presumed audience of this book don't need gags -- they need divorce lawyers." This book does nothing but subversively reinforce current social norms by accepting them as fact and not challenging their validity.
Image

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:37 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:So is my perception of the book inaccurate, or do you just like talking about me?
I think most people that jumped on the opportunity to be offended by the book as it's presented in the comic have an inaccurate perception of it - if you're actually concerned about it, take the time to look at the link I posted around page five or so - it has several pages of the book.

When you do that, come back and explain to me how anyone might be under the impression that it's intended it to represent a woman's "deepest fantasies", as the comic suggests.
I don't know what to do for you

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

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby IreneDAdler » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:40 pm UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:So is my perception of the book inaccurate, or do you just like talking about me?

To be completely fair, the pictures in "Porn for Women" don't all deal with household chores; however their overall theme is domestic. I looked at one of the product pictures on the Amazon page and the caption says, as best as I can make out, "Why don't I get a minivan so YOU can drive something fun?" There are a couple ways you can interpret that sentence but the one that makes the most sense to me is that the guy is buying the minivan for the woman because she thinks they are fun. And the picture talking about going to the crafts fair. The overwhelming sense I get from this is that they assume all women are June Cleaver, and that perception is only reinforced by the fact that the book cover is all pink and has swirly hearts.
Image

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

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby IreneDAdler » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:48 pm UTC

uncivlengr wrote:When you do that, come back and explain to me how anyone might be under the impression that it's intended it to represent a woman's "deepest fantasies", as the comic suggests.

The comic doesn't suggest that, the title of the book does. As many people have said in this thread, the word "porn" is usually associated with desires, and very commonly with unrealistic ideals. Basically, by slapping the title of "Porn for Women" on the pictures, the book is saying two things: 1) Women's psyches center around domestic matters, and 2) Men will never care. The comic is expressing disagreement with the first statement.
Image

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby uncivlengr » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:49 pm UTC

IreneDAdler wrote:There are a couple ways you can interpret that sentence but the one that makes the most sense to me is that the guy is buying the minivan for the woman because she thinks they are fun.
They're obviously talking about two vehicles; the man get's a minivan to drive the kids around, while the women get's something "fun". The only way your impression would make sense is if it said, "Why don't I buy you a minivan so you can drive something fun?"

As many people have said in this thread, the word "porn" is usually associated with desires,
and has been already pointed out, the fact that these things are just a bunch of cliches about men vs women, rather than the actual sexual desires of women, is the JOKE.

Take another example: John Hodgman's "The Areas of My Expertise", which he describes as "An Almanac of Complete World Knowledge".

The book clearly doesn't contain "Complete World Knowledge" - the fact that it's inaccurate is intentional.
I don't know what to do for you

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

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby IreneDAdler » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:09 pm UTC

uncivlengr wrote:
IreneDAdler wrote:There are a couple ways you can interpret that sentence but the one that makes the most sense to me is that the guy is buying the minivan for the woman because she thinks they are fun.
They're obviously talking about two vehicles; the man get's a minivan to drive the kids around, while the women get's something "fun". The only way your impression would make sense is if it said, "Why don't I buy you a minivan so you can drive something fun?"

That interpretation doesn't make as much sense to me, because why would what the guy drives have any impact on what the woman drives? How does him getting a minivan help her drive something fun if they don't already own something "fun," in which case it doesn't matter what the guy buys, cuz the woman would just drive what they already own anyway? Furthermore, even assuming that you are correct in your interpretation and this particular photo is just a poorly-delivered joke, that does not detract from the overwhelmingly domestic picture that the book as a whole, and all its related merchandise, paint. The product description of the coupon book I mentioned earlier that is from this same product line only reinforces the notion that women are under-appreciated domestic servants.

As many people have said in this thread, the word "porn" is usually associated with desires,
and has been already pointed out, the fact that these things are just a bunch of cliches about men vs women, rather than the actual sexual desires of women, is the JOKE.

I never said that the pictures were meant to portray SEXUAL desires, and in fact, the complete rest of my post which you cut out in your quote makes a point that is not at all dependent on whether I did. Only a complete dumbass would think that the book literally means women get off on thinking about guys in polo shirts dusting the furniture, besides the fact that whether or not the pictures are meant to be sexually arousing is completely irrelevant to the problem with these books. The crux of the joke is based on the assumption that the pictures show things that women actively wish men would do, and that men would never do them, which, as you admit, are tired old stereotypes which this book does nothing but reinforce. The "joke" isn't that this book isn't about sex, the "joke" is that women are treated like scullery maids and that's the way things always will be. Again, perhaps the people who put these things together are trying to satirize these stereotypes, but they fail abysmally at it.
Image

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

Re: Porn For Women

Postby totallydude » Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:53 pm UTC

hotaru wrote:
sliverstorm wrote:How exactly does someone sticking up for you imply you can't stick up for yourself? You're saying you'd rather men not support women's rights? What exactly would you have us do then?

women have more rights than men in a lot of the word now, including the part i happen to live in.


i literally cannot think of a single place on planet earth you could be from, sry2say.

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

Re: Porn For Women

Postby IreneDAdler » Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:06 pm UTC

totallydude wrote:
hotaru wrote:
sliverstorm wrote:How exactly does someone sticking up for you imply you can't stick up for yourself? You're saying you'd rather men not support women's rights? What exactly would you have us do then?

women have more rights than men in a lot of the word now, including the part i happen to live in.


i literally cannot think of a single place on planet earth you could be from, sry2say.

Maybe he comes from the parallel world they talked about on that one episode of Sliders.
Image

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby phlip » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:40 pm UTC

uncivlengr wrote:and has been already pointed out, the fact that these things are just a bunch of cliches about men vs women, rather than the actual sexual desires of women, is the JOKE.

But it's a joke at the expense of women, not a joke at the expense of the clichés. The comparison was drawn to "Powerthirst" a while back... but noone ever looked at Powerthirst and thought "it's funny because it's true, men really are like that". Whereas, on the other hand, that's the only way that Porn for Women could be funny. Powerthirst takes stereotypes, pushes them past the extremes, and, by reductio ad absurdum, makes humour at the expense of the stereotypes, and the energy drink commercials it's parodying. Porn for Women takes stereotypes, and simply restates them, trying to make humour at the expense of the people those stereotypes are about.

Another analogy that came up a couple pages ago was a magazine about computers being described as "Porn for Geeks"... which is a bad analogy for two related reasons. Firstly, "geeks", as a group, are defined mostly by interests... people without interests in things like computers are much less likely to identify with the geek sub-culture. As such, it's reasonable to make sweeping generalisations like "geeks like computers" and be mostly accurate. Women, on the other hand, are defined by gender... so it's much less reasonable to make sweeping generalisations about their interests.
Secondly, following on from that, computers are an actual interest of a large majority of geeks, whereas housework is only a stereotypical interest of women. A much better analogy would be something that's only a stereotypical interest of geeks, like, say, a magazine full of photos of pocket protectors, or something. And done in a way where the humour is "ha, geeks really do like their pocket protectors", and not "ha, that stereotype is really stupid".

And, for the record: yes, I have read that extract on Amazon you linked to. My impression is still the same. Surprise! It's possible for people to disagree with you without being misinformed.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

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

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby IreneDAdler » Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:53 pm UTC

phlip wrote:Another analogy that came up a couple pages ago was a magazine about computers being described as "Porn for Geeks"... which is a bad analogy for two related reasons. Firstly, "geeks", as a group, are defined mostly by interests... people without interests in things like computers are much less likely to identify with the geek sub-culture. As such, it's reasonable to make sweeping generalisations like "geeks like computers" and be mostly accurate. Women, on the other hand, are defined by gender... so it's much less reasonable to make sweeping generalisations about their interests.

Yep, I completely agree. A much more suitable analogy would be like a "Porn for Latinos" book that consisted of pictures of white people jumping fences and hanging out in front of hardware stores. No one would think for a minute something like that was funny, and it would never get published. That fact just speaks volumes about current social attitudes towards women that something equally retarded could get published and actually gets positive reviews from people.

Edit: An after-thought to jakkofclubs: If the porn you're watching makes foreplay look boring it's because they're doing it wrong.
Image

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

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby totallydude » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:01 am UTC

phlip wrote:
uncivlengr wrote:and has been already pointed out, the fact that these things are just a bunch of cliches about men vs women, rather than the actual sexual desires of women, is the JOKE.

But it's a joke at the expense of women, not a joke at the expense of the clichés. The comparison was drawn to "Powerthirst" a while back... but noone ever looked at Powerthirst and thought "it's funny because it's true, men really are like that". Whereas, on the other hand, that's the only way that Porn for Women could be funny. Powerthirst takes stereotypes, pushes them past the extremes, and, by reductio ad absurdum, makes humour at the expense of the stereotypes, and the energy drink commercials it's parodying. Porn for Women takes stereotypes, and simply restates them, trying to make humour at the expense of the people those stereotypes are about.

Another analogy that came up a couple pages ago was a magazine about computers being described as "Porn for Geeks"... which is a bad analogy for two related reasons. Firstly, "geeks", as a group, are defined mostly by interests... people without interests in things like computers are much less likely to identify with the geek sub-culture. As such, it's reasonable to make sweeping generalisations like "geeks like computers" and be mostly accurate. Women, on the other hand, are defined by gender... so it's much less reasonable to make sweeping generalisations about their interests.
Secondly, following on from that, computers are an actual interest of a large majority of geeks, whereas housework is only a stereotypical interest of women. A much better analogy would be something that's only a stereotypical interest of geeks, like, say, a magazine full of photos of pocket protectors, or something. And done in a way where the humour is "ha, geeks really do like their pocket protectors", and not "ha, that stereotype is really stupid".

And, for the record: yes, I have read that extract on Amazon you linked to. My impression is still the same. Surprise! It's possible for people to disagree with you without being misinformed.


YES THANK YOU. perfect explanation. the point isn't that we (meaning those who think the series "porn for women" is stupid and the comic "porn for women" is genius) don't understand that the book is a joke. it obviously is, as is the comic -- only the former is making a joke at the expense of womenfolk, and the latter at the expense of sexist stereotypes.

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 » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:38 am UTC

IreneDAdler wrote:
i literally cannot think of a single place on planet earth you could be from, sry2say.

Maybe he comes from the parallel world they talked about on that one episode of Sliders.[/quote]

Am I the only one that thinks women ruling the world would not magically make it a better place? I do think that there might be less war and a few other things, but I seriously doubt it would be a utopia.
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.

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

Re: Porn For Women

Postby IreneDAdler » Thu Mar 18, 2010 1:44 am UTC

RockoTDF wrote:
IreneDAdler wrote:Maybe he comes from the parallel world they talked about on that one episode of Sliders.


Am I the only one that thinks women ruling the world would not magically make it a better place? I do think that there might be less war and a few other things, but I seriously doubt it would be a utopia.

Sit down and shut up, slave!
Image

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby uncivlengr » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:16 am UTC

phlip wrote:noone ever looked at Powerthirst and thought "it's funny because it's true, men really are like that".
It's the same thing, though, only in this case, it's just "it's funny because men are the opposite"

In the book, the man doesn't care about football, alluding to the stereotype that men only care about football. He does all the housework, alluding to the stereotype that men do none of the housework. Always makes sure the toilet seat is down, whereas the stereotype is that men always forget and leave it up.

These aren't stereotypes of women, they're the stereotypical faults of men repackaged in a different way. You can throw a tennis ball and hit half a dozen female standup comedians that have made these observations a billion times for as long as there have been standup comedians. Watch Everybody Hates Raymond or that King of Queens show - all making the same dumb jokes about dumb men not doing what they're supposed to.

For some reason, though, associating this everyday, mundane observational humour with porn means the author is implying that these represent the most important personal values of a women.

phlip wrote:Another analogy that came up a couple pages ago was a magazine about computers being described as "Porn for Geeks"...
The analogy was made only to demonstrate that "porn" isn't always used in a literal sense. In the "porn for geeks" example, it's simply hyperbolic way of saying it's something that "geeks" may appreciate. Will it necessarily appeal to every single "geek"? Certainly not. Is that a reason to get offended? Certainly not.

phlip wrote:And, for the record: yes, I have read that extract on Amazon you linked to. My impression is still the same. Surprise! It's possible for people to disagree with you without being misinformed.
I didn't post any link to Amazon, but assuming you did view the examples in the link I posted, do you feel that the author intended the photos/captions to represent the "deepest fantasies" of women?

IreneDAdler wrote:Sit down and shut up, slave!
I'm starting to see your point of view - jokes about doing the laundry are crude and inappropriate, but human slavery jokes are fair game. Fascinating.
I don't know what to do for you

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby phlip » Thu Mar 18, 2010 2:44 am UTC

uncivlengr wrote:It's the same thing, though, only in this case, it's just "it's funny because men are the opposite"

I guess you missed the part where I implied that "It's funny becase men are like that/are the opposite" was a bad thing for it to be?
uncivlengr wrote:In the book, the man doesn't care about football, alluding to the stereotype that men only care about football. He does all the housework, alluding to the stereotype that men do none of the housework. Always makes sure the toilet seat is down, whereas the stereotype is that men always forget and leave it up.

OK, but again, the book isn't poking fun at the stereotypes... just repeating them, and thus reinforcing them. There's a world of difference between "This stereotype is silly, let's laugh at it", and "this person follows the stereotype, let's laugh at them" or "this hypothetical person doesn't follow the stereotype, let's laugh at how nonexistant they are".

uncivlengr wrote:I didn't post any link to Amazon

I'm sorry, you're right, that was TheSkyMovesSideways... you posted a link to a similar excerpt elsewhere, which I also looked at. The point is, I'm not just basing this off the comic and the cover, as you keep accusing people of.
uncivlengr wrote:but assuming you did view the examples in the link I posted, do you feel that the author intended the photos/captions to represent the "deepest fantasies" of women?

Well, given they specifically claim that in the book, yes, yes I do. Even granting them hyperbole, they're still claiming that a man that helps with the housework, and all the other things is something that a large majority of women consider a strong fantasy... (which they get across by hyperbolically claiming that all women find it their strongest fantasy)... which is still ridiculous, and still claims that housework et al are one of the more important things in a woman's life (because, let's face it, housework is what women are for, amirite?).

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

sliverstorm
Posts: 25
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 11:10 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby sliverstorm » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:02 am UTC

RockoTDF wrote:
IreneDAdler wrote:
i literally cannot think of a single place on planet earth you could be from, sry2say.

Maybe he comes from the parallel world they talked about on that one episode of Sliders.


Am I the only one that thinks women ruling the world would not magically make it a better place? I do think that there might be less war and a few other things, but I seriously doubt it would be a utopia.[/quote]
You're not the only one. For starters, if matriarchal societies were so inherently superior to patriarchal ones, why did they die out? Not to say they are INFERIOR, but if they were superior why are they gone?

(If your answer is the patriarchal ones invaded and killed everyone, that sounds like a pretty good reason to stick with patriarchal. Oh, yes, maybe it'd be fine and dandy if the entire world converted to matriarchal and thus there were no invasions anymore, but it's like communism. Never gonna happen.)

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby uncivlengr » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:16 am UTC

phlip wrote:
uncivlengr wrote:It's the same thing, though, only in this case, it's just "it's funny because men are the opposite"

I guess you missed the part where I implied that "It's funny becase men are like that/are the opposite" was a bad thing for it to be?
No, I suppose I focused on the fact that you explicitly said it was written at the expense of women - given that all the things are stereotypical faults of men, how is it at the expense of women?

phlip wrote:OK, but again, the book isn't poking fun at the stereotypes... just repeating them
In other words, observational humour at the expense of men. Do you feel as strongly about Home Improvement?


phlip wrote:Well, given they specifically claim that in the book, yes, yes I do. Even granting them hyperbole, they're still claiming that a man that helps with the housework, and all the other things is something that a large majority of women consider a strong fantasy... (which they get across by hyperbolically claiming that all women find it their strongest fantasy)... which is still ridiculous, and still claims that housework et al are one of the more important things in a woman's life (because, let's face it, housework is what women are for, amirite?).
You're very astute, being able to so keenly peer into the author's mind and determine the precise level of intended hyperbole like that.
I don't know what to do for you

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7572
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby phlip » Thu Mar 18, 2010 3:29 am UTC

uncivlengr wrote:No, I suppose I focused on the fact that you explicitly said it was written at the expense of women - given that all the things are stereotypical faults of men, how is it at the expense of women?

OK, granted, my bad, I shouldn't have been so specific. To clarify: humour at the expense of stereotypes = good; humour at the expense of a stereotyped group = bad.

uncivlengr wrote:In other words, observational humour at the expense of men. How would you "poke fun" at these stereotypes in a non-offensive way, exactly?

One way would be to do it the same as the Powerthirst example you brought up - show a person / narrator / voiceover / product / whatever, that believes the stereotypes (nb: not follows them, but believes others follow them)... possibly a taken-to-logical-extremes version of the stereotypes... and then make said person/narrator/voiceover/product/whatever the focus of the joke, show how ridiculous they are for believing the stereotype.

uncivlengr wrote:You're very astute, being able to so keenly peer into the author's mind and determine the precise level of intended hyperbole like that.

When did intent suddenly matter?

But really - that's the most hyperbole I could possibly grant without the name being simply wrong... no longer metaphorical, or making a humorous comparison or anything... just flat wrong. And any less hyperbole would make the book even worse.

Code: Select all

enum ಠ_ಠ {°□°╰=1, °Д°╰, ಠ益ಠ╰};
void ┻━┻︵​╰(ಠ_ಠ ⚠) {exit((int)⚠);}
[he/him/his]

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5447
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby Pfhorrest » Thu Mar 18, 2010 7:42 am UTC

totallydude wrote:the former is making a joke at the expense of womenfolk, and the latter at the expense of sexist stereotypes.

Or to paraphrase Sarah Silverman (who was speaking regarding comedy and race, rather than gender): One is a sexist joke, the other is a joke about sexism.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby cephalopod9 » Thu Mar 18, 2010 9:42 am UTC

uncivlengr wrote:
phlip wrote:
uncivlengr wrote:It's the same thing, though, only in this case, it's just "it's funny because men are the opposite"

I guess you missed the part where I implied that "It's funny becase men are like that/are the opposite" was a bad thing for it to be?
No, I suppose I focused on the fact that you explicitly said it was written at the expense of women - given that all the things are stereotypical faults of men, how is it at the expense of women?
Because
1. being bad for men doesn't make it good for women
2. "stereotypical faults of men" tend to be ones women are expected to compensate for
2a. like not being able/willing to take care of the house, being emotionally immature, in the sit-coms, these things become the responsibility of women to take care of and put up with (and when they do, it's often as nagging spouses).
3. joke or not, calling "the opposite" a fantasy is still presenting it as something that shouldn't be expected, or is ridiculous (does any of "The Joke" make sense if these are things women are expected to get often or at all?)
4. It's directed at women (as far as I can tell, I can't imagine men of any demographic passing this stuff around) and presenting it as an in joke, "haha you get this, men don't" presumes a hell of a lot about Women (it's not "exhausted stay at home spouse" porn, or "tidy person" pronzors, or "domestic interests" erotica, it's Porn for Women)
5. it's insulting to both genders to present they're interests as at odds, calling men worthless slobs and telling women to keep dreaming in the same breath, and labeling it For Women isn't nice for anyone.

Am I the only one who's been browsing through a bookstore and picked up a red book that'd lost it's dust jacket thinking "hm, maybe this is like that Violet Blue stuff I've heard about, maybe this is something intelligent commenting on the porn industry" and been immediately thrown into a WTF rage? I even flipped through just to make sure none of them got naked. (they don't!)

Oh man, OH MAN!(pay attention to me dammit)

Does anyone want to make some "No Seriously, Porn" ? Like, working from the PfW captions?
I can sort of draw, but I don't have a good site to post things to (or men). I'm going to go scrawl something in msPaint, brb.
Image

yet another steven
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:22 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby yet another steven » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:17 am UTC

It's directed at women (as far as I can tell, I can't imagine men of any demographic passing this stuff around) and presenting it as an in joke, "haha you get this, men don't" presumes a hell of a lot about Women (it's not "exhausted stay at home spouse" porn, or "tidy person" pronzors, or "domestic interests" erotica, it's Porn for Women)

I've been trying my hardest to make this point a couple of posts back, but it didn't really have much of an effect. I then decided to try and reduce the amount of bickering in this thread by not going into this anymore. O wait, shit, what am I doing? I'll shut up now.

cephalopod9 wrote:Am I the only one who's been browsing through a bookstore and picked up a red book that'd lost it's dust jacket thinking "hm, maybe this is like that Violet Blue stuff I've heard about, maybe this is something intelligent commenting on the porn industry" and been immediately thrown into a WTF rage?


Clearly Randall had a similar experience :D
Looking forward to your porn.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby cephalopod9 » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:36 am UTC

Haha, oh dang, these captions (with my twisted mind) get X-rated much to fast. "I love to clean house" (Also their site seems to be covered in stylized vulvae, and suggestive crap like this Image Tell me I'm not the only one who sees that. I think I might animate that for a new avatar if that wouldn't get me in trouble)

In the mean time, here's some paint scrawls (seriously, trying not to draw well) I made of "Porn for Men":
Spoiler:
for men.gif

Only I didn't quite capture the way men in there (and in real porn) tend towards this vaguely threatening, overly self aware posture and facial expression.
Image

yet another steven
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:22 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby yet another steven » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:55 am UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:In the mean time, here's some paint scrawls

Ha ha! Love them! Ha ha ha!

*ahem*. Sexist, stereotyped. As if that's all that men really care about! Deplorable.

makomk
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2010 5:16 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby makomk » Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:00 pm UTC

ishkabibble wrote:Yes, there are a lot of cultural and legal obstacles that prevent male victims from receiving help. But female victims face the same obstacles.


Except the whole point is that they don't. Compare the availability of facilities, often Government-funded, for male rape and domestic violence victims to those available to female ones. Male victims have often literally been laughed out of police stations - if/when this happens to female victims, you get a major campaign for reform. Or consider the fact that male domestic violence victims calling advice lines are frequently told they must be abusers; if any group did this to female victims there'd be an uproar.

ishkabibble wrote:Despite the "advantage" or being female, women still face cops who don't believe them, a media culture that loves to blame the victim ("she was drunk/dressed like a slut/came on to him,") and groups that actively lobby against them.


Yeah, male victims don't get that treatment because the media often doesn't even consider the possibility there's even a victim to blame. There's no need for the "dressed like a slut/came on to him" excuse in heterosexual cases - being male means that you always want sex. (Male-on-male is different, possibly due to homophobia.) That's not exactly better now, is it? I mean, have you seen the treatment of the Mary Kay Letourneau case?

ishkabibble wrote:The point isn't that one type of victim "wins" over the other, it's that there's a universal lack of support for all victims of sexual assault.


That argument is only brought out when there's a suggestion that male victims specifically have a problem. When there's a campaign to to improve things for female victims only, suddenly that same reasoning becomes the anti-feminist "what about the menz" argument. (Similarly, the idea of mutual domestic violence is anti-feminist victim blaming... except when it's used to discredit male victims of female-perpetrated violence. To be clear: it's still victim blaming if there's evidence of mutual violence, and it's used against male victims despite no evidence of violence by them. This came up most recently with regard to the Tiger Woods rumours.)

ishkabibble wrote:Regardless of whatever shitty criminal code is in place now, effective legislation doesn't have to favor one group over the other.


Try telling that to the groups that demanded legislation that did just that - and it's intentional. They didn't want women who were violent towards their male partners arrested, since they were assumed to be abuse victims that were either fighting back or trying to control the abuse. This was based on an ideological definition that explicitly framed domestic violence as something that could only be male-on-female.

ishkabibble wrote:By far, the majority of posts on Feministing re: sexual violence are about violence towards women. This is a result of Feministing's culture and the general lack of coverage of male victims in the media. I would suggest the solution is to add your voice and concerns to the conversation. Several of the posts below are simply lists of links to other blogs and news sites. It would be great to have someone elaborate on those headlines and develop full posts for them - this is how many of the full length items on the site develop.


It's a result of feminism's culture more like - since domestic violence in particular is defined as a result of male patriarchal power, men can perhaps be victims of other men (though that's considered a minor issue) but never of women. Feministing doesn't even have a category for it - there's a "Violence Against Women" category, but no "Violence Against Men" or "Domestic Violence" one. The other problem is that Feministing's just not a safe space for this - too many comments about male victims being a distraction, or the impossibility of real violence by women against men.

ishkabibble wrote:"When Men are Sexually Assualted, Let's Call It What It Is: Rape"
http://www.feministing.com/archives/014813.html
http://www.feministing.com/archives/010283.html

Males are the Primary Victims in Sexual Assaults in Juvenile Prisons
http://www.feministing.com/archives/010068.html

Why Media Fails to Acknowledge Male Rape
http://www.feministing.com/archives/019884.html

Victim Blaming A Male Student Raped By His Teacher
http://www.feministing.com/archives/009587.html

Male Rape victims in the Congo and South Africa
http://www.feministing.com/archives/017382.html
http://www.feministing.com/archives/017123.html
http://www.feministing.com/archives/016191.html

sexual assault of male prisoners in Abu Ghraib
http://www.feministing.com/archives/015718.html


Ah. The rape of men is treated as seriously as an individual issue - that is to say, if a man is raped, most feminists do consider it to be both horrible and wrong, though perhaps not as serious as a woman being raped. What it doesn't generally receive is treatment as a systemic problem that needs a solution. (The main exception is the rape of male prisoners by other men, though I suspect that's more because the idea of rape as punishment makes a lot of feminist women feel uncomfortable even if it's aimed at men. Likewise, rape of men as a weapon of war argues in support for the usual feminist perspective of the rape of women - as an act of male-perpetrated violence.) The usual theme is that the rape of women is far more common and more important than the rape of men. The more common bit is based on really dodgy statistics, and the more important bit on ideology.

Also, 016191 is about male rapists, not male victims. Understandable since you run into a lot of stuff about the former whilst searching for info on the latter.

yet another steven
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 10:22 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby yet another steven » Thu Mar 18, 2010 11:25 pm UTC

I don't know if I should be the one to respond to this, but hey, I'm interested in these issues as well so I thought I'd give it a shot.

makomk wrote:
ishkabibble wrote:Yes, there are a lot of cultural and legal obstacles that prevent male victims from receiving help. But female victims face the same obstacles.

Except the whole point is that they don't.

Yeah, ishkabibbles argument does seem a bit weak there. If I had been raped I'm pretty sure I'd rather be a woman. On the other hand, I don't know much about rape statistics; I have one close male friend who was sexually abused, once as far as I know, when he was a young kid and that was pretty horrible. But kids are defenseless. I think defenseless groups like children and handicapped people, and to an extent women (who are physically weaker than men after all), tend to be victimized more often. I'd like to know - how often are men raped compared to women? If the figure is very different, then it is perhaps not that unfair that one kind gets more attention than the other: it's simply a more common problem.

makomk wrote:
ishkabibble wrote:The point isn't that one type of victim "wins" over the other, it's that there's a universal lack of support for all victims of sexual assault.

That argument is only brought out when there's a suggestion that male victims specifically have a problem.

Here I think you are being too polemic. I completely agree with iskabibble that this shouldn't be some contest over who is being treated more unfairly. As a woman, ishkabibble naturally identifies with female victims more than with male victims, and is rightly of the opinion that they are often treated pretty damn poorly. You do the same from a male perspective. I think you are right that men are probably treated worse than women after they've been raped; let the contest end there. I'm also not sure that feminists specifically are the people you should try to convince of the plight of men. Of course we should object, strongly, if a feminist starts with the tired old "men are bad" stuff, but I really don't think ishkabibble was trying to do that. I actually think that we men have not the feminists, but ourselves to blame when it comes to a lack of public awareness of male victims. Although many men feel that there are societal rules and norms that give men an unfair disadvantage (I'm thinking of things like laws for alimony and custody over children in a divorce), we never started a big movement to protest against all that. Now whose fault is that?

makomk wrote:
ishkabibble wrote:By far, the majority of posts on Feministing re: sexual violence are about violence towards women. This is a result of Feministing's culture and the general lack of coverage of male victims in the media. I would suggest the solution is to add your voice and concerns to the conversation. Several of the posts below are simply lists of links to other blogs and news sites. It would be great to have someone elaborate on those headlines and develop full posts for them - this is how many of the full length items on the site develop.


It's a result of feminism's culture more like - since domestic violence in particular is defined as a result of male patriarchal power, men can perhaps be victims of other men (though that's considered a minor issue) but never of women. Feministing doesn't even have a category for it - there's a "Violence Against Women" category, but no "Violence Against Men" or "Domestic Violence" one. The other problem is that Feministing's just not a safe space for this - too many comments about male victims being a distraction, or the impossibility of real violence by women against men.

This is really quite unfair. Before feminism changed our perceptions of gender, women were pretty much seen as children who could hardly do anything if they weren't told to do so by a man, unless it was cleaning the house and fixing dinner. Certainly in the past people would have been even less ready than now to accept that perhaps a man might have been victimized by a woman. Of course, feminists did sometimes generalize quite horribly; to me it seems that feminism needed (needs?) to be counterbalanced by men providing their perspective. But we never did; we just took it all in stride, perhaps feeling a bit guilty, perhaps being a bit resentful, without ever saying what we think is unfair about the status quo.

So I think it's very refreshing that you're trying to do that now, but I don't think there is any need to blame a feminist website. If anyone, you'd need to blame the rest of us men for not standing up for ourselves.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby Random832 » Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:37 am UTC

IreneDAdler wrote:That interpretation doesn't make as much sense to me, because why would what the guy drives have any impact on what the woman drives? How does him getting a minivan help her drive something fun if they don't already own something "fun," in which case it doesn't matter what the guy buys, cuz the woman would just drive what they already own anyway?


You've got a strangely idealistic idea of the division of automobiles - yes even though they both own both cars equally in the technical legal sense, that doesn't change the fact that one of them is going to be "his" and the other is going to be "hers" in terms of the default choice of which one each of them gets on any given day, who sets the radio presets / seat adjustment / etc on each one, maybe even who carries the keys to them if they don't both come with two sets. One of them is going to mostly drive the minivan, and the other is going to mostly drive the sports car. (by default - it'd certainly be possible to apply effort to a more equal division - say, they flip for it, or switch on alternating tuesdays - but it's _easier_ for one vehicle to go to one person and the other vehicle to go to the other person by default)

The assumption here is that they're going to get two vehicles, and one of them _has_ to be a minivan (or an SUV, which is really just a slightly taller minivan without a sliding door), and the secondary assumption, of each person being "assigned" a vehicle, isn't being questioned.

cactus box
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:47 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby cactus box » Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:03 am UTC

The problem with the comic is that it misses one of the major implication of the book series 'porn for women'. The major implication is not that
A) the series is implying that women lack more animalistic sex drives
B) the series is advancing the notion that women's identities are tied up with housework (although this is also highly problematic)
It's that there are scores and scores of women who shoulder the bulk of the responsibility for maintaining the household, without recognition or gratification, and they're tired. The idea of a hunky spouse who's considerate enough to do his fair share of the work is indeed alluring to them. More alluring perhaps than the idea of 'fucking'. Maybe they're too tired to 'fuck' from working all day.

In reducing the issue to one about 'sex drive', that fact is brushed over.

cactus box
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:47 am UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby cactus box » Fri Mar 19, 2010 5:12 am UTC

'but it's clearly not porn (as in masturbatory material)!'
'but it's clearly not for all women!'
no kidding...

'but it's setting up this ideal of considerate men as a distant and unattainable fantasy'
maybe...depends on the individual gaze of the reader though.

'but it's implying that women are supposed to do the housework'
it plays off of the fact that a lot of women do do all the housework, but it doesn't say 'this is the way things should be'

User avatar
uncivlengr
Posts: 1202
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2008 10:35 pm UTC
Location: N 49°19.01 W 123°04.41

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby uncivlengr » Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:57 pm UTC

phlip wrote:When did intent suddenly matter?
The comic indicates that a book entitled "Porn for Women" should represent a woman's "deepest fantasies"... I asked if this was a valid assumption, given the actual nature of the book.

You recognize that the title isn't literal, it is hyperbolic, that's what I was looking for. But then you went into some silly distinction on whether the author suggesting that they're "strongest fantasies" or "strong fantasies", and that's where you start making assumptions on the author's intent.

phlip wrote:But really - that's the most hyperbole I could possibly grant without the name being simply wrong... no longer metaphorical, or making a humorous comparison or anything... just flat wrong. And any less hyperbole would make the book even worse.
Take the previous example of John Hodgman's "Almanac of Complete World Knowledge"... the title is very clearly hyperbolic to the point of being "wrong", and it's intentional - you wouldn't suggest that Hodgman is implying that his 200-some page book actually represents 75% of complete world knowledge, 25%, or even 0.1% of complete world knowledge.

There's no "standard" or "practical" limit to hyperbole, as you seem to suggest. I'm 10^19034678954 % sure of this.
I don't know what to do for you

marketdoctor
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:19 pm UTC

Re: "Porn For Women" Discussion

Postby marketdoctor » Fri Mar 19, 2010 2:13 pm UTC

If anyone saw last night's "30 Rock" (airdate March 18 2010), they used the same premise with a different outcome. I'll spoiler it in case you haven't seen it:

Spoiler:
Near the end of the episode, Jack comes up with an idea for a new porn channel, (also called) Porn for Women, where handsome men seem to be listening to women's problems, and saying "you're right", "I understand", etc.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArgusPanoptes, da Doctah, Leovan and 67 guests