
Hard Core: What Porn's Ubiquity Says About Men and Women - wallacrw
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2011/01/hard-core/8327/
======
axiom
"While sexual aggression and the desire to debase women may not be what arouse
all men, they are certainly an animating force of male sexuality. They may be
unattractive and even, if taken to extremes, dangerous, but they’re not,
perhaps alas, deviant."

That's a pretty ugly thing to say and requires a bit more evidence than just
the pervasiveness of online hard-code porn.

Inexplicably the author seems unaware of the contradiction in her article in
pointing out (correctly) that the various porn sites online are dominated by
mundane amateur content (housewives, random teenagers etc.) while claiming
that online porn demonstrates how the male psyche is fueled by the need to
hurt and humiliate women sexually (for example the double anal porn she cites
about 15 times.)

~~~
dejb
"This encounter proves an unpleasant fact that does not fit the feminist
script on sexuality"

The fact that the author chooses to generalise a 'proof' from a single
personal encounter shows what sort of low standard she has for evidence.

~~~
hackerblues
The feminist script she describes is 1990's notion that a couple can obtain a
satisfactory sex life through a process in which the woman overcomes the mans
negative sexist conditioning by using a verbal contract to stipulate her
limits. There some provisions made about people with no respect for women like
date rapists and people with the "frat boy" mentality.

The example she gives is of a man who is by external measures an enlightened
guy - wealthy, polite, and educated. We are given no reason to believe he is
disrespectful of women generally speaking. But when it comes to sex he is
unable to get it up unless he is explicitly pushing a woman beyond what she
feels comfortable doing. For emphasis: this is a part of his sexual experience
and not a part of his general attitude to women.

The fact that this single event occurred is sufficient to demonstrate that the
'How to have a mutually enjoyable sex life' script does not work universally
and so requires revision for a full explanation of the world. It proves the
unpleasant fact that dominance beyond enthusiastic consent can form an
integral part of a mans sexual identity.

In this section she establishes that a breach in this perception of sex has
occurred. In the rest of her article she uses online pornography to argue the
size of the breach.

tldr; lolz bitches hate logic right bro?

~~~
dejb
> The fact that this single event occurred is sufficient to demonstrate that
> the 'How to have a mutually enjoyable sex life' script does not work
> universally

I'm sure there are wealthy, polite, and educated necrophiliacs also and single
instances of sexual fetishes and requirements so strange as to be unimaginable
by most of us. Does his mean that we need to adjust our entire model of human
sexuality for each of these? Maybe for people so limited of thinking as to
believe that any one model of sex could achieve 100% coverage, this could
actually be useful information. But to automatically assume anything about
'ordinary' sexuality is ridiculous.

------
cosgroveb
The article talks a lot about how male sexuality has a darker side and
violence and coercion come in to play and perhaps is exemplified by porn. One
of the examples she uses is the scene from Last Tango in Paris where Marlon
Brando forces Maria Schneider's character to have anal sex... It gets a little
meta when you look up that film on Wikipedia:

"I should have called my agent or had my lawyer come to the set because you
can't force someone to do something that isn't in the script, but at the time,
I didn't know that. Marlon said to me: 'Maria, don't worry, it's just a
movie,' but during the scene, even though what Marlon was doing wasn't real, I
was crying real tears. I felt humiliated and to be honest, I felt a little
raped, both by Marlon and by Bertolucci. After the scene, Marlon didn't
console me or apologise. Thankfully, there was just one take."

~~~
wazoox
Just a passing mention : the scene is much rougher in the book, because he
actually convinces her to fist-fuck him IIRC, so that they are both "raped".

------
Mz
TL; DR: Woman with baggage projects her negative experiences onto the entire
world. (XXX) Film at 11.

My reason for saying this:

 _Armed with a “Take Back the Night” pamphlet, we were led to believe that, as
long as we avoided the hordes of date rapists, sex was an egalitarian
endeavor.

<SNIP>

This is an intellectual swindle that leads women to misjudge male sexuality,
which they do at their own emotional and physical peril.

<SNIP>

At the heart of human sexuality, at least human sexuality involving men, lies
what Freud identified in Totem and Taboo as “emotional ambivalence”—the
simultaneous love and hate of the object of one’s sexual affection. From that
ambivalence springs the aggressive, hostile, and humiliating components of
male sexual arousal.

Never was this made plainer to me than during a one-night stand

<SNIP>

in a moment of exasperation, he asked if we could have anal sex. I asked why,
seeing as how any straight man who has had experience with anal sex knows that
it’s a big production and usually has a lot of false starts and abrupt stops.
He answered, almost without thought, “Because that’s the only thing that will
make you uncomfortable.” This was, perhaps, the greatest moment of sexual
honesty I’ve ever experienced—and without hesitation, I complied. This
encounter proves an unpleasant fact that does not fit the feminist script on
sexuality: pleasure and displeasure wrap around each other like two snakes._

(Before I am accused of misogyny, please note I am female.)

------
ryanpers
As a male who was raised by a feminist and in an all-female household,
including the pets, I have a lot of things to say about this matter.

First off I find that a lot of feminism in the 80s was implicitly anti-male.
Take back the night is great for women, but what is the message you are
sending to young boys who are often there? It's a subtle message and may not
be a big influence on all males.

Or the anti-rape messages? The more extreme is the mis-attributed quote "all
men are potential rapists". This is a horrible message to be sending to young
men, not as bad as "women are things", but if our goal is to raise fully
formed males, "you are a rapist" is not a good one to give.

Bringing it back to the subject at hand, this author reminds me a lot of the
kinds of messages, rhetoric and material that was common in the mid to late
80s feminism. The material I grew up suffused in. I think it is very harmful
for the normalization of male-female relations. Are there differences between
male and female sexuality? Yes. Does this article overplay them? Yes
absolutely.

As long as we have articles describing male sexuality as a negative force that
must be controlled and tempered I don't think the goal of a better society
will be reached. The implicit message of "female sexuality is normal and
healthy" and "male sexuality is dark and evil" is really disturbing to me.

In the end this article is completely and utterly sexist. If we reversed the
genders we'd just have tripe from the 1800s about how female sexuality needs
to be controlled and how women are evil. If that isn't acceptable, then why is
this?

------
praptak
_"One of the most punishing realities women face when they reach sexual
maturity is that their maturity is (at least to many men) unsexy. Indeed, we
now have an entire genre of online smut politely called “Lolita Porn.” This is
not actual child pornography, a genre still blessedly beyond the reach of the
casual Web browser."_

Ok, but for _any_ X, X is (at least to many men) unsexy, as there's a lot of
porn based on the opposite of X. Young age and beauty included, as evidenced
by "mature" and "ugly" porn categories.

So the above statement does not really add much information, except maybe some
indication of the author's bias. Picking this particular fetish of _some_ men,
associates the whole group with socially unacceptable behaviour. Moral panic,
anyone?

~~~
yummyfajitas
It's particularly silly given that the author also talks about "aging moms in
shabby corsets" to make porn seem unappealing.

Which is it? Are those evil sex crazy men chasing lolitas or milfs?

~~~
keegangrayson
The latter.

------
Qz
Sometimes I fantasize about strangling my boss. Do I want to _actually_
strangle my boss? No. Not because I'm worried about the repercussions, but
because there is a fundamental difference in the way we process fantasy and
reality. In almost all cases, porn is about fantasy and should not be
considered indicative of what men _actually_ want.

(disclaimer: I don't actually have a boss)

~~~
mikedmiked
If you are your own boss then it would be autoerotic asphyxiation, which would
likely increase your enjoyment of porn.

~~~
electromagnetic
Now, now, it might not necessarily be an erotic thing. He could simply have
self-loathing issues mixed with dominance issues. Strangling is considered to
be one of the most dominant ways to kill someone (due to the proximity). I
wish... it would be such an interesting psychological study to read.

Alas, I believe he was simply illustrating a point.

------
ErrantX
Oh god, not this old chestnut again (admittedly wrapped in some stylish
writing).

The horrid fallacy is that pornography doesn't really tell you all that much
about male sexuality and how they act in the real world.

Take another example; how people act in anonymous online forums. Often pretty
douchy right? Does that tell us anything dark about how they are in the real
world; well, probably a little, I could guess that a really awkward guy on a
forum is likely a bit awkward in the real world.

But not as bad as he is when arguing random nonsense over the latest and best
video game.

The internet emphasises those darker aspects of our personality; do men watch
porn that humiliates women - sure. Do they want to humiliate their lovers in
real life? Probably not.

It gets even worse because the assumption is that the style of porn created
and posted on the internet is representative of the desires of most men.

Of course, it isn't really. It represents the desires of a subset of men - for
whom internet porn is often their sex life. Other men may use the content, but
is it about convenience and fantasy, not a critique of their bedroom desires.

Look at it another way; lots of people adore fantasy films - say Lord of the
Rings. Would you actually, in reality, want to live a fantasy epic? Probably
not, the reality wouldn't be all that fulfilling (no internet for one thing!
:)). Same applies to porn, I think.

And what of female sexuality? When I'm poking about in peoples computers
(legally, for work) women's computers don't usually contain porn. They contain
idealised erotic stories about alpha males who also have a soft sensitive
side. Their internet history is usually crammed with hunks with their tops
off. It's still "pornography" (in how it is used); it's just that some people
prefer the sexuality of the unknown (i.e. clothed). There are dark fantasy
aspects to female pornography too; the male is often a love slave, dominated
by his desire for the woman.

Bottom line is: _Sexuality is not simple_. And the internet is not a good way
to make broad judgements about male or female sexuality.

~~~
randallsquared
_Does that tell us anything dark about how they are in the real world; well,
probably a little, I could guess that a really awkward guy on a forum is
likely a bit awkward in the real world._

How people act when they're completely anonymous is, in some sense, how they
really are. Once you tie some traceability or accountability to their words or
actions, words and actions change to manage image and status.

~~~
derefr
There's this thing in game design called the "magic circle": the "barrier"
between what is socially understood to happen _inside_ a game, vs. _outside_.
It's entirely a social construction, and therefore entirely a voluntary
agreement entered into by the players, for the explicit purpose of detaching
consequences inside a game from those outside.

The reason people seek to create such a construct, is that, when you don't
have to worry about consequences "leaking" from the game, you're free to adopt
an _entirely different utility function_ within the circle, or even a variety
of different utility functions, to explore the game rules' (and the other
players') reaction to the particular mode of play. Through this, we can
_learn_ , in a safe environment, what the consequences are to adopting various
roles (such as that of the "griefer" or the "twinker".)

We evolved in an environment where there was no separation between the ideas
of "action stripped of identity" (i.e. anonymous interaction) and "action
stripped of consequence" (i.e. game-play). Thus, most socially-adjusted humans
learn to see all anonymous interactions as game-play, and thus to apply their
knowledge of in-game interactions: agents who seem sociopathic are really just
Playing to Win (<http://www.sirlin.net/ptw>), agents who keep repeating the
same stupid actions over and over are likely looking for exploitable bugs in
the game rules, etc.

This even crosses over into what most would term "real life": children on a
playground who haven't integrated the idea that they're playing a semi-
consequenceless social game 100% of the time they're at school, will usually
report being bullied (by someone who does understand the concept, and is
exploring the position-space in the game.)

~~~
randallsquared
_This even crosses over into what most would term "real life": children on a
playground who haven't integrated the idea that they're playing a semi-
consequenceless social game 100% of the time they're at school, will usually
report being bullied (by someone who does understand the concept, and is
exploring the position-space in the game.)_

I do not know how I can politely convey the depth of my feelings about what
you have said, here.

~~~
elmindreda
Let me try.

Real human beings are scarred for life by this "game". If that's not a
consequence then I don't know what is.

~~~
derefr
I meant that it was consequenceless _for the bullies_ ("consequence" being a
term from decision theory, where you can compare a consequenceless Prisoner's
Dilemma—where everyone should defect—to an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma—where
people can take revenge for slights in past rounds, and so everyone should
cooperate.) The problem is really that we throw a bunch of kids together who
aren't yet socialized, have one another far outside their monkeyspheres, and
likely won't see the same faces next year (let alone after graduation), and
expect them to play this game without role-models (i.e. mixed-age play) or
useful/just arbitration. The bullies are just a symptom of a broken system.

(And, if you're wondering, I was on the receiving end of this. The
internalization of the idea that, for them, it was truly _just a game_ ,
actually somewhat reversed any sort of scarring that could have occurred,
although I do admit feeling quite suicidal in sixth grade.)

------
donaldc
From the article: _The granting of sex is the most powerful weapon women
possess in their struggle with men._

I'm pretty sure I don't want to be having sex with any woman who views
"granting" me sex as a weapon in her struggle with me. That's just wrong on a
number of different levels.

~~~
wazoox
For what I've seen of countless couples (including some past relationships of
mine) this is the way it works for many people.

~~~
tsotha
I could never understand why guys put up with it. I'd rather be alone than be
with a woman like that.

------
nkurz
This is a really good article, and just the fact that it's published in a
mainstream publication like The Atlantic shows how much internet pornography
has changed American sexual mores in the last few years. And I think the
author makes a good case that it indeed is technology that has changed the
thinking:

"When a 13-year-old girl can sit in math class, hide her Hello Kitty smart
phone behind her textbook, and pull up such an extreme video in less time than
it would take her to text a vote for her favorite American Idol contestant,
we’ve certainly reached some kind of new societal landmark."

The writing is solid and bold. I'm impressed. Author's website is here:
<http://www.natashavc.com/?page_id=62>

~~~
JoachimSchipper
Given the subtitle, "The new world of porn is revealing eternal truths about
men and women", I'm not sure that your interpretation is complete - as far as
I can see, the author is arguing that porn _reveals_ (and partially
legitimizes) male... appetites.

I must admit to being somewhat taken aback by the "males are aggressively,
dangerously sexual" undertone. Is this a common (female) attitude?

(For context: I'm male, living with my wonderful girlfriend.)

~~~
erikpukinskis
_I must admit to being somewhat taken aback by the "males are aggressively,
dangerously sexual" undertone. Is this a common (female) attitude?_

Are you thinking there is no aggression whatsoever in your sex life?
Aggression and power are complex things. The way they play out can be quite
subtle. Many things men consider to be "human" or "neutral" are in fact norms
that exist to reinforce male hegemony. And those things play out in the
bedroom.

~~~
yummyfajitas
_Many things men consider to be "human" or "neutral" are in fact norms that
exist to reinforce male hegemony._

Can you explain what this means, and tell us some non-bedroom "human" or
"neutral" activities which really reinforce male hegemony?

~~~
lmkg
As part of the societal trend towards equality of the genders, there's a
tendency to take the standard or model for men, say that women are now allowed
that standard or model, and declare equality to have been achieved. Saying
these standards "exist to reinforce male hegemony" is an exaggeration, for the
most part men aren't actively trying to oppress women, they're just not
succeeding in achieving true equality. From a women's perspective, it's the
same result, although sensationalizing doesn't really help their cause.

As a somewhat abstract example, when women are compared to men in the
workplace, they're usually seen as cautious or passive. Now, this is true,
that the average female is more cautious or passive _than the average male_
(leaving aside nature vs nurture for a second). But that bolded part is
critical--most people, when making the observation that women are more
passive, don't realize that they're using a male standard as a basis for
judgment.

It's important to note, that the differences attributed to women are not
necessarily bad ones. One could just as easily say, men are rash and
compulsive. And, this would also be true, in exactly the same fashion: the
average male is rash and compulsive _compared to the average female_. But,
because of historical male hegemony, the average male is taken as the ideal or
the standard. Difference from this standard, even when neutral or
situationally advantageous, tends to be perceived first as a deficiency.

Here's a slightly more concrete example, which I don't know if it's true but
it could be: until recently, men drove cars and women were mostly passengers
(this is still true in other countries). Cars were physically designed around
the average male body. When women started driving, that meant that they were
allowed in the driver's seats, but those seats were still designed for men.
The pedal and mirror placements were sub-optimal for their generally smaller
bodies. Even though women have achieved nominal equality in the area of
driving, until car makers update their design constraints, women operate cars
at a disadvantage because they must conform to a standard that was designed
without them and that does not fit them. On the one hand it's unfortunate, but
on the other hand it's inevitable, because it's not a good business decision
to design a car for people who don't drive (until they do).

~~~
philwelch
_But that bolded part is critical--most people, when making the observation
that women are more passive, don't realize that they're using a male standard
as a basis for judgment._

Thist is an important insight, but one should be careful with it. Taking it
too far leads to the exact same kind of backwards thinking where (taking race
instead of gender) reading books is "acting white". If one group in society
(men, whites, etc.) is dominant, and society continues to function, then
obviously the dominant group is doing something right, and forcing or
pressuring the oppressed group into doing something wrong. In the racial case,
that "something" is education. Whites oppressed blacks; whites were educated
while blacks weren't. The answer is to educate blacks and stop oppressing
them; it isn't to tear down education itself as an artifact of white
oppression.

Back to your example, sometimes someone in a traditionally male occupation
_has_ to be assertive. It's hard to imagine a passive salesperson or a passive
Prime Minister being very effective, male or female; agree or disagree with
them, Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir were not passive women by any stretch
of the imagination.

(Thatcher and Meir may have certainly been _bad_ PM's in the sense of doing
bad things, depending on your political views; I don't want to argue it either
way. But they were certainly effective; if one agreed with and wanted to
pursue Thatcher's agenda in the UK 30 years ago, Thatcher would undoubtedly be
the best candidate for PM. Likewise, one can be an extremely effective
salesperson while selling useless crap no one really needs.)

------
MBlume
Ugh. Slightly interesting for the first third, then a random swerve into
misandrist bullshit.

~~~
Swannie
Whilst I won't attack it quite so strongly(!), I must admit I got bored and
didn't finish reading the last third.

The writing style was a bit too full on and did verge off into ranting.

------
sev
> He answered, almost without thought, “Because that’s the only thing that
> will make you uncomfortable.

I think this article is well written, albeit a little extreme with some of
it's points. The behavior of the man the author had anal sex with is obviously
not the norm, and yet she uses the event as a way to describe the norm.

~~~
erikpukinskis
She described his behavior, asking to make her uncomfortable, as uncommonly
honest, so she agrees with you it's not the norm. I think her point is that
the underlying desire is the norm, while the open and respectful request for
consent as not.

~~~
sev
I just don't think that the underlying desire, to make women uncomfortable, is
the norm.

~~~
philwelch
It seems more like the author wants to be debased as much as men want to
debase her--note how she describes aggressive, debasing, apparently non-
committed sex as "the best sex [a woman's] had in her life", and describes her
own reaction to that particular encounter as complying "without hesitation".

~~~
SapphireSun
I think her compliance is simpler than that. If I believe something for a long
time, and finally someone admits it, I cut them some slack, partly because
it's funny.

------
kiba
I believe she suffer from the typical mind fallacy, thinking all males have
overly aggressive/violent sexual desire.

Note: I am a male.

~~~
joezydeco
Yet, if you watched any porn these days, the males are always agressive and
the females almost always take the submissive role. The advent of "gonzo" porn
hasn't helped matters.

This material is training a generation, _from puberty_ , how to act sexually.

~~~
anamax
> Yet, if you watched any porn these days, the males are always agressive and
> the females almost always take the submissive role.

There is tons of male submissive porn. Google "femdom", "mistress porn", and
so on.

There are several genres, including male-sub BDSM, cuckolding, tease and
denial, and so on.

People sexualize everything, so saying "there's no {x} porn" is false for
almost all values of x. (Google "balloon porn" and "clown porn" for examples.)

~~~
mfukar
> There is tons of male submissive porn. Google "femdom", "mistress porn", and
> so on.

Especially Japanese.

> People sexualize everything, so saying "there's no {x} porn" is false for
> almost all values of x. (Google "balloon porn" and "clown porn" for
> examples.)

True, there's even Lego porn.

------
Eliezer
Thinking that the flood of badly made, poorly scripted porn on the Internet
reveals the secret darkness of male sexuality, is like thinking that an
endless succession of awful movies from Hollywood reveals that people secretly
want a poorly scripted sequel to the last blockbuster. What it reveals is that
making good movies is _difficult_. It's like thinking that a flood of nitwit
Web startups reveals that the economy really wants nitwit Web startups. If
you're a venture capitalist, you may want better, but you'll have trouble
finding it. Likewise if you're a movie viewer. And likewise if you're a man.

If you look at what the Internet has done to written pornography, you see
exactly the reverse effect as what the article describes. I once picked up a
book of published erotica that _wasn't_ online, and holy crap was the quality
vastly worse than what I now expect. Tawdry, pointless, plotless, emotionless,
needlessly violent encounters - because, I presume, that is what the
_publishers_ think men want, because the _publishers_ conceive of pornography
as a sordid dirty thing and imagine themselves as exploiting it. But if you
look at what men write, and what men want, when they are free to produce their
own written erotica, then you find that the rise of the Internet has created,
from scratch, the genre which I think is now known as the "erotic romance
novel" and means, roughly, "well-written sex stories with plots and emotions
in them". Publishers of erotica are only now just _beginning_ to think about
trying to sell books like that, after the Internet _showed_ them there was a
huge pent-up demand.

"Seduction is always more singular and sublime than sex and it commands the
higher price," said Jean Baudrillard. In the days when written erotica was
produced by publishers who looked down on it, no publisher knew how to write
seduction. And today, when visual erotica is still seen as a tawdry and
exploitive affair by the people who _produce_ it, who still see themselves as
pandering to the _base_ desires of men, who still see plot as the domain only
of real movies, there is no seduction in that visual erotica. You cannot find
it, no matter how hard you look online. There are big-budget porn productions
but not productions that spend more than five dollars on the script.

But in the domain of written erotica where getting started is as simple as
owning a keyboard, and people don't bother writing if they're not having fun
writing, and _the producer is a lot like the consumer_ \- people who like
erotic literature - there you find plot. You find seduction. You find the
"erotic romance novel".

That's not what all men want, I suppose; not what all men want all of the
time. But it's what I demand as a matter of routine in my written erotica, and
what I can't find in online movies (even if it's advertised as big-budget or
woman-made, it just doesn't seem to exist).

And before anyone writes the obvious dumb reply, yes I have a girlfriend and
no I do not apologize for consuming the form of art known as erotica anymore
than I apologize for writing Harry Potter fanfiction.

~~~
araneae
"But if you look at what men write, and what men want, when they are free to
produce their own written erotica, then you find that the rise of the Internet
has created, from scratch, the genre which I think is now known as the "erotic
romance novel" and means, roughly, "well-written sex stories with plots and
emotions in them". Publishers of erotica are only now just beginning to think
about trying to sell books like that, after the Internet showed them there was
a huge pent-up demand."

But men _didn't_ invent the erotic romance novel. Women did. The _vast_
majority of erotica writers AND readers are female.
([http://www.ehow.com/way_5192600_tips-writing-sensual-
books.h...](http://www.ehow.com/way_5192600_tips-writing-sensual-books.html))

You are an unusual example of your gender. You must know that.

Maybe the fact that most men prefer the plotless hardcore scenes found on the
various you- and -tube sites, and its the women that are writing and reading
erotica, is a coincidence.

But I tend to think it does indicate something about a difference in male and
female sexuality, innate or otherwise. The fact that you are an exception to
the rule doesn't make it true that men, in general, are consuming written
erotica.

P.S. Obviously men do write and read some erotica, but even here there are
differences. My favorite erotica writer, Morgan Hawke, wrote a blog post about
the differences: <http://www.darkerotica.net/WhatGuysWant.html>

P.P.S. Would you be willing to read the second draft of my first novel, a sci-
fi erotica with plot lines around programming? :D

~~~
roc
> _"Maybe the fact that most men prefer the plotless hardcore scenes found on
> the various you- and -tube sites, and its the women that are writing and
> reading erotica, is a coincidence."_

Or it's just an artifact of how society dealt with historical pornography that
the different genders had access to over time.

There's no shortage of textual porn for men, nor has there been as far back as
I've seen porn. Penthouse Letters wouldn't be legendary and universally
beloved memory if men went only to the pictures.

It seems to me that that men looking at dirty pictures is just something that
society grudgingly accepted. And women reading romance novels is something
that society grudgingly accepted. And the rest is selective reporting of what
fit the stereotypes, and reinforcing by marketers and porn purveyors who had
to carefully aim their productions and so followed 'conventional wisdom'.

If I had to hazard a guess, I'd pin the whole mess on the larger social push
to posit women as the fairer, more evolved gender. Thus women are cast, taught
and expected to need _more_ than 'crude' pictures; to be _better_ than
'simple' men.

Anecdotes being what they are, I've never seen any evidence that 'women don't
like graphic porn' anymore than I've seen evidence for 'women don't like
videogames' or 'women don't like sport'.

And feeding my theory above, I also note that the adjusted positions of those
who have accepted women gaming and women sport is that women are, again,
_better_ , more _advanced_ and more _pure_ than men. 'Women want more from a
game than shooting aliens', 'Women athletes have better fundamentals', etc.

~~~
araneae
Apparently you didn't read my post carefully, because I said "innate or
otherwise." Your point would be about the otherwise bit.

However, since you wanted to argue this when I was specifically avoiding it, I
would point out that females are the sex more reluctant to mate in almost all
species, with the exception of a few species that prove the rule. It has to do
with the expected costs of mating. Females bear most of the cost of child
bearing in almost all species, so they are also a bit more choosy as to how
often and to whom they mate with.

~~~
roc
I wasn't trying to contradict. I was trying to flesh out a potential
'otherwise' with my own observations and theories.

Not every reply is an argument.

------
Herring
> _the Internet porn aesthetic verges on unvarnished realism._

I'm thinking she doesn't know much about Internet porn.

~~~
klbarry
It's about 50/50, depending on what sites you view, between the gritty and the
professional.

------
macrael
The most interesting writing I've seen on this subject came from McSweeneys:
"The Conflicted Existence of a Female Porn Writer". You can find her first
column here: <http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/pornwriter/column1.html>

------
Tycho
Some people look at sex-drive as something like a God-given gift, whereas
others see it as basically a (fun) evolutionary side-effect. Varying degrees
of sanctimony ensue.

------
sdenheyer
Noticing all the hidden assumptions - if a woman does amateur porn and puts it
up on xtube, she's trying to please her husband - can't be that _she's_ turned
on by it.

Somehow, even cuckoldry fantasies are about the _male_ being dominant.

Paul in Last Tango is a brute, but no mention of Jeanne being a status-
climbing bitch for abandoning him when she finds out he's poor - she may have
pointed it out obliquely, but all judgment-loaded language is pointed firmly
toward the y-chromosoned.

------
SkyMarshal
Does anyone else just not grok the idea that sex is about all these terribly
negative things? I have never in my life desired to degrade or debase women
through sex or any other means.

I know it's hard for women these days, and there are probably more screwed up
guys out there than normal ones, but I feel like the latter are getting tarred
with the same brush as the former.

I can't think of any guy in my immediate social circle that's not a true
gentleman inside and out, not even a suppressed, closeted woman-hater.

Reading feminist articles like this usually makes me go WTF. On the hand I'm
very sympathetic to the fact that it's not easy being a woman, but on the
other I can't help but suspect the author has been a victim of bad luck with
men and is projecting on the entire sex.

------
WalterSear
That woman is ignorant to everything that I have observed my male sexuality to
be.

~~~
JonnieCache
The article isn't about you dear.

~~~
derleth
No, it's about the author. The sad thing is that the author fails to realize
this.

------
PostOnce
Girls watch porn too. That fact apparently eludes the author.

------
marcusbooster
I agree with the author's characterization of rhetoric in the 1990's, though I
wonder if the reexamining of the whole "communicating boundaries" thing is a
result of these women now raising boys of their own, or a more general
societal trend that emphasizes aggression.

~~~
tsotha
>...or a more general societal trend that emphasizes aggression

Eh? I don't see it - from what I can tell the trend has been going the other
direction since at least the '80s.

------
johngalt
I wouldn't describe this article as misandrist. In many cases the author hints
at female desires being worse.

"...the sex that occurs in between relationships or overlaps with
relationships where the buffers of intimacy or familiarity do not exist: the
raw, unpracticed sort. If a woman thinks of the best sex she’s had in her
life, she’s often thinking of this kind of sex, and while it may be the best
sex in her life, it’s not the sex she wants to have throughout her life or
more accurately, it’s not the sex she’d have with the man with whom she’d like
to spend her life."

So debasing sex is great so long as it's not with someone you care about?
Sounds like men and women aren't that different.

------
lizzard
Literary and artistic fashions are quite different across cultures and across
time. They're a poor data source to come up with an essentialist view of
gender, if you pick one time and place. If you look at how, say, romanticism
was gendered at first, it was described as essentially masculine --
tempestuous and powerful. Over time that perception changed and the very same
material was described as something essentially womanly that reflected how
women "are". While I have plenty of other criticisms of this article, this is
the most basic one that I don't think has been expressed here yet.

------
RyanMcGreal
> at the heart of human sexuality, at least human sexuality involving men,
> lies what Freud

And I'm done with this steaming pile of misanthropy. An essay on sexuality
that falls back on Freudian ideas is beyond redemption.

------
anamax
I wonder if Mz. Vargas-Cooper is related to
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Vargas> .

------
nlavezzo
Why exactly is this on Hacker News?

~~~
epochwolf
oops, accidentally upvoted

From the submission guidelines: <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

> On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes
> more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the
> answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

------
gribble
Banning links to The Atlantic would greatly improve the quality of the site.

------
metal
I'm not sure what the author is trying to say. Just because porn is easier to
get now than before (as has been since day 0 of porn), so what? Yet another
jee-whiz look at what the internets have done to us article.

~~~
drndown2007
Do you seriously think there are no effects at all? How can you be so naive as
to think this hasn't and won't change anything when such a giant portion of
the population is experiencing sights/sounds/shows that no other generation
ever has?

Whether you see that change as good or bad, this will change personal
relationships, and societies are nothing more than the sum total of all
personal relationships.

~~~
deadmansshoes
Other generations in history probably had more chance of the real thing.

