Page 1 of 8

0714: "Porn For Women"

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:07 am UTC
by BeskarKomrk
Image

Title Text: Yes, there are a lot of longing looks across the bridge of Galactica first, but that's beside the point!

http://xkcd.com/714/

Not really laugh out loud funny, but I like the idea that somebody thought women were so different and didn't bother consulting, you know, a woman about it.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:10 am UTC
by TheGrammarBolshevik
Loves me some feminist xkcd. Course, I'm not quite sure what it means that a male author is speaking up on behalf of women here.

Oh, wow. Deleted my post since I was second, then noticed that this one lacks the appropriate link. Grr.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:10 am UTC
by BeskarKomrk
Ah sorry, I'll add the link.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:13 am UTC
by Lukeisheretic
i dont know if i like this comic...

i dont know about any of the comics randall has been posting in th epast few months... :|

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:13 am UTC
by firinne
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.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:14 am UTC
by Halrandir
This has been something that's bothered me (as a man) about that book series for a long time. What bothers me more is that some people actually think Porn for Women is a funny sort of feminine empowerment, while it just perpetuates the erroneous concept of women either not having or not SUPPOSED to be having libidos.

</soapbox>

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:15 am UTC
by Higgs Boson
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:Loves me some feminist xkcd. Course, I'm not quite sure what it means that a male author is speaking up on behalf of women here.
.


It means we're making progress. :D

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:16 am UTC
by lcdrambrose
I was literally just reading something about how romance novels are like porn for women (won't post the link, I don't want to be a spammer)
There were a number of good points though: they make women have unrealistic expectations of men, some women spend all of their time reading them, etc. I think the poster called it "emotional porn".
I think it's appropriate though. Men catch a lot of crap for being so easily manipulated by sex, and then women fawn over fictional vampires. Can't we all just realize that we aren't perfect?

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:25 am UTC
by aleflamedyud
So she's writing to Stephanie Meyer?

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:31 am UTC
by Omegaton
The hover text made this comic for me! Haha!

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:33 am UTC
by LassLisa
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?

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:33 am UTC
by BlueNight
lcdrambrose wrote:There were a number of good points though: they make women have unrealistic expectations of men, some women spend all of their time reading them, etc. I think the poster called it "emotional porn".


Us guys get an unrealistic idea of women from porn, too.

The difference between men and women is quantifiable. Whereas (most) men live in a world of material things and tasks to be performed, (most) women see such things as secondary to relationships and experiences. Thus, a man would find it stimulating for a random woman to randomly come up to him and initiate sexual acts, while a woman finds it stimulating for she and a man to build a relationship (no matter how basic), and as the culmination, perform those same acts.

(What I said above is a basic formulation not taking into account statistical outliers.)

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:38 am UTC
by dookiecheese
While not familiar with the subject matter, porn for women, I appreciate how this tackles the peculiar sexist assumptions we still live with but choose to not reconsider as they are of a presumably positive light. This example being that some women if not most seem to prefer to let the innocent image that was forced on them (by both genders let's be honest) live on. Seemingly harmless this only reinforces sexist beliefs of the opposite gender men, that we are somehow extremely perverted for looking at porn where "people fuck". It's tiring to think you're seeing prejudice die only to later see that is has in fact made a partial swing in the opposite direction. Such as the endless barrage of nearly completely bs child psychology studies showing women as better at nearly every characteristic or action that defines childhood intelligence. I quite clearly remember being handed a sheet in my high school psychology class where it listed quite thoroughly how girls developed faster, recognized various aspects of their surroundings including people faster, and remembered earlier, as well as the apparent lack of comparative progress among boys of the same age. It's like the statistic that says women are better drivers that I keep hearing about, that completely failed to take into account proportion rather then pure numbers as there were and quite likely still are more male drivers hence higher numbers of accidents etc...

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:43 am UTC
by ceruleanshipper
Dear Randall: UR DOIN IT RITE.

@Bluenight: Meh. I think most men and women want both a relationship and sexytimes. Now, at and soon after puberty, male sex drives seem to be a lot higher than female sex drives*, and as that's when most of us have our first relationships, our impressions of male/female desire for sex versus relationshippy stuff is heavily influenced by that fact, although I believe the male and female trends tend to converge after the early twenties so that by the age of 40, there's not very much difference between the average man and the average woman's needs for sex-versus-companionship.

*This is probably influenced by the fact that the clitoris is an elusive little bugger and for most women isn't directly simulated through classic heterosexual intercourse. That and American sex ed classes suck.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:46 am UTC
by Kalos
I AM RANDALL, A MAN. I KNOW EVERYTHING WOMEN WANT.

Way to stand up for... um... I don't really have any idea what he's trying to stand up for here. That traditional gender roles (an idea that's dying if not dead) are often not in line with what many modern men and women truly desire?

You really pwned 1950 there, Randy. I'm sure your grandparents are thoroughly astounded by such thoughts as female sexuality.

Aren't those "porn for women/brides/wives" things already played of as a comedic thing anyway? So, also way to point out that something that's not intended to be serious doesn't hold up to analysis as if it were serious? That's uh... certainly an accomplishment I guess.

BlueNight wrote:(What I said above is a basic formulation not taking into account statistical outliers.)

I'd like to see the sample data and a basic run-down your thorough survey techniques. "Shit I learned from sitcoms and pop-psychology" does not equal statistics.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:57 am UTC
by faunablues
Let's say there's a book called Porn for Men, and it's full of pictures of attractive women in traditional roles, with captions indicating that all she really wants is to please you/stay home/make you cookies. It might be a joke, but it's not very funny from a feminist perspective.

Now if those books had *naked* men doing housework (or anything)... that might be a different story.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:00 am UTC
by prometheus3737
This comic I felt was sort of "meh" but that's just me. The feminist issues that all you others are mentioning don't bother me one way or the other, what does bother me is that nobody else has pointed out that Galactica does not have a bridge, it has a "C.I.C."

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:03 am UTC
by kozzoz
dookiecheese wrote: It's like the statistic that says women are better drivers that I keep hearing about, that completely failed to take into account proportion rather then pure numbers as there were and quite likely still are more male drivers hence higher numbers of accidents etc...


Insurance companies use these statistics all the time. 'Women have fewer accidents, therefore they are better drivers'.

In stats class at uni, the lecturer demonstrated the first bit of this as being fundamentally correct yet wilfully ignoring other data, and the second bit as being patently wrong.

Men are far more likely to
- drive commercial vehicles (cabs, trucks, vans, courier cars, utes etc)
- drive a work vehicle
- drive the family car in a one-car family
- drive the car when there are 2 or more people in the car
- drive a car (the stats in Australia at least indicate that there are more men on the road).
- crash and claim insurance
- and the kicker: BE THE PRIMARY INSURED PERSON ON THE FAMILY CAR

Per km driven and per time spent on road, men are statistically *less* likely to be involved in a car crash**. But because they spend more *time* on the road, are more often the primary insured person, and are more likely to claim, they're more likely to be involved in an insurance claim based on a car crash. Therein lies the rate difference - which is presented in an inaccurate way.

To represent this as 'men are worse drivers' is pure fallacy, and in my book it's quite unfair...not casting aspersions as to the driving ability of either gender, but at least represent the data accurately. Goddamned marketers***.

**except for the 18-25 age group
***I work in marketing

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:04 am UTC
by Zylon
My gut response to this one can be summed up in one word:

What.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:05 am UTC
by Greatgreen
prometheus3737 wrote:[...] what does bother me is that nobody else has pointed out that Galactica does not have a bridge, it has a "C.I.C."


I think that is the only thing wrong with this strip.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:06 am UTC
by Kayangelus
wow, now we could technically continue the off-topic feminism debate from the other thread, and actually be on-topic.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:06 am UTC
by Random832
I will note that there _is_ a precedent, in some areas, to broaden the term "porn" beyond - well, to stuff that's not conventionally considered porn in any sense, and that broadening is along the spectrum of "overly graphical" rather than "deepest fantasies"

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SceneryPorn
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... inuityPorn
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CostumePorn
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... nologyPorn
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Gorn
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GunPorn
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... =geek+porn
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... ter%20porn
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cgi+porn
http://wiki.43folders.com/index.php/Productivity_pr0n
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_porn

EDIT: Wow, I figured there would be like five things max on that list when i started making it

Kalos wrote:Aren't those "porn for women/brides/wives" things already played of as a comedic thing anyway? So, also way to point out that something that's not intended to be serious doesn't hold up to analysis as if it were serious? That's uh... certainly an accomplishment I guess.


It is, however, widely understood that analyzing something not intended to be serious as if it were serious makes for good comedy.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:07 am UTC
by Kalos
faunablues wrote:Let's say there's a book called Porn for Men, and it's full of pictures of attractive women in traditional roles, with captions indicating that all she really wants is to please you/stay home/make you cookies. It might be a joke, but it's not very funny from a feminist perspective.

Now if those books had *naked* men doing housework (or anything)... that might be a different story.


So sexualizing men while putting them into "domestic" roles is magically different than sexualizing men while putting them into "domestic" roles while naked? Kind of defeats the purpose of making a widely acceptable joke if there's dongs everywhere, isn't there?

The point of comedy is to make light of things, you're making fun of basic male desires with that, therefore it's comedy (even if it's not a very funny joke, but that's often subjective). The reason why an audience would find this funny is that there is the element of truth in it (who wouldn't want all their daily chores willingly done by someone who genuinely enjoys it?) combined with a subversion of the full truth or expectations. Like the "Porn for _____" not actually being porn, as well as the sexualization of things that... you know... aren't sexual.

This comic: HA HA, POINTING OUT THINGS THAT AREN'T SUPPOSED TO BE ACCURATE TO PEOPLE AS A WHOLE AREN'T ACCURATE TO PEOPLE AS A WHOLE.

What brilliant fucking comedy.

Random832 wrote:
Kalos wrote:Aren't those "porn for women/brides/wives" things already played of as a comedic thing anyway? So, also way to point out that something that's not intended to be serious doesn't hold up to analysis as if it were serious? That's uh... certainly an accomplishment I guess.


It is, however, widely understood that analyzing something not intended to be serious as if it were serious makes for good comedy.


It's a fine line between "comedy" and "nitpicky twat". You have to actually do something with the concept to make it funny. This just simply points it out... woo. Might as well watch another banal "[Genre] Movie" to remind me that pop-culture things exist without actually making a joke... it's the same level of comedy.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:36 am UTC
by BostonKaren
I think both the author and a lot of the posters are missing the point: it isn't that women don't like/want sex; or that we don't enjoy porn! It's just that the thought of a man actually doing housework is so appealing as to be a HUGE turn on! Anyhow, wasn't the original Porn for Women written by a woman?

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:50 am UTC
by IreneDAdler
I really liked this comic, though I do have to agree, the punchline is in the alt-text. I hadn't heard of these books before, and when I read the comic, I thought for a minute Randall must have made that book up, because I couldn't imagine how it could possibly exist, because I couldn't imagine that many people could be functionally retarded enough to think printing something like that would be a good idea. I still don't completely understand Anne Geddes books but whatever. This is just... monumentally fucktarded.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:01 am UTC
by lunchtime.samurai
Are the men in the book shirtless or fully clothed? 'Cos option A *might* allow it to be classified as soft porn.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:16 am UTC
by RockoTDF
The point of the comic is to say that it is ok for women to have similar sexual interests of men, and that it might be sexist to say that doing chores around the house is something that women enjoy. He isn't "speaking on behalf of women" he is saying that "as a male, this situation seems odd, and I could see a woman writing a letter like this."

It's not sexist. Get over it. It's progress because a man is trying to see the world through a woman's eyes. It doesn't mean he will do it well, but it means he cares enough to try.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:45 am UTC
by cephalopod9
Kalos wrote:So instead of sexualizing men while putting them into "domestic" roles is magically different than sexualizing men while putting them into "domestic" roles while naked? Kind of defeats the purpose of making a widely acceptable joke if there's dongs everywhere, isn't there?
The joke is that it's Not Porn. It's a really stupid and irritating joke.
Not funny, not a good meme, decent comic.

IreneDAdler wrote:I really liked this comic, though I do have to agree, the punchline is in the alt-text. I hadn't heard of these books before, and when I read the comic, I thought for a minute Randall must have made that book up, because I couldn't imagine how it could possibly exist, because I couldn't imagine that many people could be functionally retarded enough to think printing something like that would be a good idea. I still don't completely understand Anne Geddes books but whatever. This is just... monumentally fucktarded.
The really tragic thing is that it's still in many ways better than PlayGirl. (That is to say, genuine attempts to make porn for women tends to disappoint me about as much)

Also, people need to stop with the pop psychology; trying to explain to me how men and women are just sooo different! women are emotional! they like romance novels! it makes me want to stab someone.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:52 am UTC
by phlip
Kalos wrote:traditional gender roles (an idea that's dying if not dead)

If only. Oh, if only.

prometheus3737 wrote:what does bother me is that nobody else has pointed out that Galactica does not have a bridge, it has a "C.I.C."

Original Galactica had a bridge. It's only the remake where it's all submarine-but-in-space.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:03 am UTC
by Jenni Nikki
RockoTDF wrote:The point of the comic is to say that it is ok for women to have similar sexual interests of men, and that it might be sexist to say that doing chores around the house is something that women enjoy. He isn't "speaking on behalf of women" he is saying that "as a male, this situation seems odd, and I could see a woman writing a letter like this."

It's not sexist. Get over it. It's progress because a man is trying to see the world through a woman's eyes. It doesn't mean he will do it well, but it means he cares enough to try.


I agree, I don't feel that this is comic is sexist. You, however, are explaining your viewpoint of it as if speaking to a child. You are speaking as if the opinions of women who feel differently are invalid and you know better than them. Do you really think you know what is and is not sexist better than women?

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:09 am UTC
by Woopate
Jenni Nikki wrote:
RockoTDF wrote:The point of the comic is to say that it is ok for women to have similar sexual interests of men, and that it might be sexist to say that doing chores around the house is something that women enjoy. He isn't "speaking on behalf of women" he is saying that "as a male, this situation seems odd, and I could see a woman writing a letter like this."

It's not sexist. Get over it. It's progress because a man is trying to see the world through a woman's eyes. It doesn't mean he will do it well, but it means he cares enough to try.


I agree, I don't feel that this is comic is sexist. You, however, are explaining your viewpoint of it as if speaking to a child. You are speaking as if the opinions of women who feel differently are invalid and you know better than them. Do you really think you know what is and is not sexist better than women?


I think he would have explained it the same way had it been a man making the argument he was discussing.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:19 am UTC
by RockoTDF
Jenni Nikki wrote:
RockoTDF wrote:The point of the comic is to say that it is ok for women to have similar sexual interests of men, and that it might be sexist to say that doing chores around the house is something that women enjoy. He isn't "speaking on behalf of women" he is saying that "as a male, this situation seems odd, and I could see a woman writing a letter like this."

It's not sexist. Get over it. It's progress because a man is trying to see the world through a woman's eyes. It doesn't mean he will do it well, but it means he cares enough to try.


I agree, I don't feel that this is comic is sexist. You, however, are explaining your viewpoint of it as if speaking to a child. You are speaking as if the opinions of women who feel differently are invalid and you know better than them. Do you really think you know what is and is not sexist better than women?


My outburst came as the result of me being sick of how certain individuals on the fora are very quick to label things as sexist when they clearly aren't. I'm just sick of it. Some of it is childish. If I think an opinion is childish, then I will probably respond to it as such. People are entitled to an opinion. Nowhere in that construct does it say that my opinion can't be "their opinion is poorly thought out and in fact runs against the kind of progress they want to see in the world."

As for "knowing what is sexist": Don't you think that as a male it is probably a good thing I know what does and does not constitute sexism so that I do not commit sexist acts, or tolerate those who do? Claiming that women should have some monopoly on determining what is and isn't sexist is like saying that only victims or a crime can define what a crime is. It just doesn't add up. I have been the victim of sexism far, far less in my life because I am a male. That is certain. But as someone with a background in experimental psychology, I place little or no value on anecdotal evidence or personal experience.

Woopate wrote:I think he would have explained it the same way had it been a man making the argument he was discussing.


I don't think the comic would have made sense if a man had been the one writing the email.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:21 am UTC
by '; DROP DATABASE;--
My immediate reaction is that the book in question is a joke. Does it actually exist?

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:22 am UTC
by Woopate
Yes, the book exists. And you can get "Porn for Women" Calendars and such. Usually they are intended as sexist jokes to make women laugh and men cough uncomfortably.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:30 am UTC
by Alzhaid
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:

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:34 am UTC
by RockoTDF
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.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:55 am UTC
by Gammarad
Well, it's been so long since I posted here that I forgot my username/password/email address I used and so on. So I got a new one, hope I can remember it this time :)

After reading the thread here and the comic, I feel as though no one 'gets' the 'Porn for women' joke at all, at least, not the way I used to (up till fifteen minutes ago) think was dead obvious.

Let me unpack it and see if it makes sense to anyone else.

'Porn for women' uses the word 'porn' to refer specifically to the concept of porn as what males want women to do but can't get them to do. In other words, men who want freaky sex acts but find it just about impossible to get their partners to go along with it. So they look at pictures.

The joke is that females in these relationships feel the same way about trying to get the men to do housework.

This is, of course, a sex-stereotype and in that sense sexist, but it is certainly not mean to imply anything about specifically sexual fantasies of women. It's more meant to imply that women (in this stereotype) have an easier time getting men to actually go along with their sexual fantasies, so they don't need 'porn' of it.

Doesn't this strike anyone else as the obvious meaning of 'Porn for women' as described in the comic?

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:55 am UTC
by LuNatic
Wait, so the best way to attract a girl is to offer to wash her dishes?

So tempting to post an image of 'The Todd' from Scrubs...

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:10 am UTC
by Woopate
LuNatic wrote:Wait, so the best way to attract a girl is to offer to wash her dishes?

So tempting to post an image of 'The Todd' from Scrubs...



No, it's that you should be married before doing her dishes, and even then only for procreation. And no gloves.

Re: Porn For Women

Posted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:17 am UTC
by Mr. Burke
Gammarad wrote:'Porn for women' uses the word 'porn' to refer specifically to the concept of porn as what males want women to do but can't get them to do.

Of course, that's just silly. Most of the stuff done in porn is of the “don't do that home” variety. After all, it's done for best visuals, not most enjoyment. We like to look at it. We also like to look at people running after a round piece of dead pig or crashing a car at 250 kph into a wall.