Today's subject is porn, more precisely, the differences that I see (and therefore they are factual and real) between hetero and gay porn.
Aside from the bloody obvious differences like there are no cunts in gay porn or cocks in male asses in hetero porn, (I didn't have to point that out did i?!) there is a whole undercurrent of "Stimmung" (kinda mood) that underpins these two peons of visual entertainment.
Hetero porn is nasty. It just is. No matter how much porn meisters try to make it look as tho women are willing particpants, in control of what is happening to them, or really and truly getting off (yeah right) women in porn just look used and undignified. To be quite honest with you, the whole thing's kinda embarrassing. Why?
The fact is, that like it or not, men have greater muscle mass, we are physically stronger. All dynamics of hetero relationships are poised (usually rather indelicately) upon this fact. As Foucault posits, and Marx understood, power is the determinent in all relationships. Say, do what you want, there is no getting away from this.
What this means is, is that power equality between genders is impossible as we now imagine gender status and relationships to be. Forget it girly, it ain't gonna happen. You might well wield the bottom line in a boardroom, you might well be handy with a spanner in a garage, but any shared personal space with a "him" always places you in a position of inferiority.
The reason is, he can enforce his will by breaking your bones or pushing your head onto a hot plate. It happens. You can enforce your will, by how? Appealing to the minions of the law? Sure, if they can get there in time, sure, if they in their heart of hearts give a fuck about a screaming chick.
You may at this point, begin to wonder if this article is inspired by misogyny, you may think "what would you know, you fucking wannabe woman faggot?" Well, a quick look thru the statistics of any given nation (for which said statistics are available, and then realistically comparable with one another etc and so on it goes) will reveal the following biases: shelters for abused women are choc full to bursting point. Violence experienced by women is MOST OFTEN at the hands of a man CLOSE to them, ie they share private space, stranger to stranger violence is still statistically rare. (Not rare enough if you happen to be Trayvon Martin)
What conclusions can be drawn from this? The way we now imagine relationships between genders is not a statistically healthy option for women. I think this is why no matter how "empowered" the woman in porn is portrayed, it's kinda like a false veneer. A Potemkin Village. You know it's all shit, cuz underneath, the reality ain't like that. It's one of the reasons why I find hetero porn unwatchable. It's just sad.
The undercurrent of gay porn is different. No matter how rough it gets, there's always an atmosphere, a general concensus of cameraderie, men just getting it on with men. There's no pretence of "oh yeah, I respect you" there's no need for it. I think tho, this can break down where racial stereotypes are exploited, but even then, there's never that sense of unease that a physcially weaker animal must be shown to be a willing and happy participant in what in the back of many mens' (and womens' minds) is degrading. Don't think so? If it wasn't considered degrading, words like "slut" "tramp" and "whore" wouldn't exist. Wide spread censure of womens' sexual behaviour is as old as time. No, I don't think it's desirable. I suppose from a hetero man's point of view, if you don't control her sexuality, God knows how many brats she will pop out by other men. And if a woman chooses to opt out of the private "monogamous" sphere, it's much harder to control her.
To make the point a little clearer, if a woman lives in a private home with a man, accepts him as her only partner, she runs the (real) risk of experiencing violence at his hands or becoming subservient to him in tacit, creepy cognizance of his superior strength. The "don't get him angry, he might wig out" scenario.
If I were a woman, I wouldn't get married. I wouldn't ever trust my fate to someone who can, if he has a mind to (and you never, ever, ever know what someone is made of, you never ever ever know what's going on in the mind of another person. You can barely ever be certain what's going on in your own mind) could add force to his argument via superior muscle mass.
This might all sound very nhilistic and cynical, but if you visit even a few womens' refuges, hostels and safe houses, you'll see, there's nothing cynical about it. Oh and don't forget to check hetero marriage stats. 1. women are walking out of marriage in droves 2. men do better in marriage and women don't (both psychologically and physically).
I remember once a rather naive (American) woman said to me on twitter (I got rid of her, her naivity and thick headed stupidity became intolerable for me) "any woman can bring a man to his knees" I replied, "sadly, I don't think that's true, unless you can show me the statistical bias for refuges for battered men?"
But that's it. That's the Dreamland many women appear to live in. They kid themeselves they have power, they don't.
I don't know how women can address this power imablance. what i do know,is that heterosexual sex is unnatural, if God wanted men to have sex with women, he'd have given women cocks. ;)
Cheerz n Luv.
