0714: "Porn For Women"

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

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

BeskarKomrk
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:44 pm UTC

0714: "Porn For Women"

Postby BeskarKomrk » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:07 am UTC

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.
Last edited by BeskarKomrk on Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:10 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

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:10 am UTC

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.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

BeskarKomrk
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 8:44 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby BeskarKomrk » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:10 am UTC

Ah sorry, I'll add the link.

User avatar
Lukeisheretic
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri May 29, 2009 6:15 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Lukeisheretic » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:13 am UTC

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... :|

firinne
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 6:40 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby firinne » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:13 am UTC

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.

Halrandir
Posts: 30
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 3:58 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Halrandir » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:14 am UTC

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>

User avatar
Higgs Boson
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:11 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Higgs Boson » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:15 am UTC

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

lcdrambrose
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2010 2:31 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby lcdrambrose » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:16 am UTC

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?

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Porn For Women

Postby aleflamedyud » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:25 am UTC

So she's writing to Stephanie Meyer?
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Omegaton
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 6:23 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Omegaton » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:31 am UTC

The hover text made this comic for me! Haha!

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

Re: Porn For Women

Postby LassLisa » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:33 am UTC

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?

User avatar
BlueNight
Posts: 270
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:59 am UTC
Location: Albuquerque
Contact:

Re: Porn For Women

Postby BlueNight » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:33 am UTC

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.)
---------
BlueNight

dookiecheese
Posts: 22
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:50 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby dookiecheese » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:38 am UTC

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...

ceruleanshipper
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:18 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby ceruleanshipper » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:43 am UTC

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.

Kalos
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:45 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Kalos » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:46 am UTC

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.

User avatar
faunablues
Posts: 95
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 3:14 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby faunablues » Mon Mar 15, 2010 4:57 am UTC

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.

prometheus3737
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:42 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby prometheus3737 » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:00 am UTC

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."

kozzoz
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jan 29, 2010 4:10 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby kozzoz » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:03 am UTC

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
Last edited by kozzoz on Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:05 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Zylon
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 5:37 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Zylon » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:04 am UTC

My gut response to this one can be summed up in one word:

What.

Greatgreen
Posts: 35
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 5:35 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Greatgreen » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:05 am UTC

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.

Kayangelus
Posts: 262
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 5:37 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Kayangelus » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:06 am UTC

wow, now we could technically continue the off-topic feminism debate from the other thread, and actually be on-topic.

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

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Random832 » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:06 am UTC

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.
Last edited by Random832 on Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:13 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Kalos
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 6:45 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Kalos » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:07 am UTC

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.

BostonKaren
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:29 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby BostonKaren » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:36 am UTC

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?

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

Re: Porn For Women

Postby IreneDAdler » Mon Mar 15, 2010 5:50 am UTC

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.
Image

lunchtime.samurai
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:02 am UTC
Location: Satellite Two

Re: Porn For Women

Postby lunchtime.samurai » Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:01 am UTC

Are the men in the book shirtless or fully clothed? 'Cos option A *might* allow it to be classified as soft porn.
Scenes from the dim, dusty, back corner of Omegle:
Stranger: He's a loving, sensitive man.
You: He's a neo-nazi.
Stranger: Your point being?

(Grammar and spelling repaired for your protection)

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 6:16 am UTC

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.
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
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby cephalopod9 » Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:45 am UTC

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.
Image

User avatar
phlip
Restorer of Worlds
Posts: 7573
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2006 3:56 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Porn For Women

Postby phlip » Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:52 am UTC

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.

Code: Select all

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

Jenni Nikki
Posts: 8
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:21 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Jenni Nikki » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:03 am UTC

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?

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Woopate » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:09 am UTC

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.

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 7:19 am UTC

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.
Last edited by RockoTDF on Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:29 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
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
'; DROP DATABASE;--
Posts: 3284
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2007 9:38 am UTC
Location: Midwest Alberta, where it's STILL snowy
Contact:

Re: Porn For Women

Postby '; DROP DATABASE;-- » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:21 am UTC

My immediate reaction is that the book in question is a joke. Does it actually exist?
poxic wrote:You suck. And simultaneously rock. I think you've invented a new state of being.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Woopate » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:22 am UTC

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.

Alzhaid
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Aug 25, 2009 3:00 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Alzhaid » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:30 am UTC

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:

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 7:34 am UTC

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.
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.

Gammarad
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:49 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Gammarad » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:55 am UTC

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?

User avatar
LuNatic
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 4:21 am UTC
Location: The land of Aus

Re: Porn For Women

Postby LuNatic » Mon Mar 15, 2010 7:55 am UTC

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...
Cynical Idealist wrote:
Velict wrote:Good Jehova, there are cheesegraters on the blagotube!

This is, for some reason, one of the funniest things I've read today.

User avatar
Woopate
Scrapple
Posts: 503
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:34 am UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Woopate » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:10 am UTC

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.

User avatar
Mr. Burke
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Porn For Women

Postby Mr. Burke » Mon Mar 15, 2010 8:17 am UTC

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.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 101 guests