Porn Perspectives

An article in ELLE, brought to my attention by Jezebel ( <3 ), reports that men actually find emaciated women attractive. Sexy, even.

Here's the thing--they actually don't. Jezebel does a decent job of belittling this article via an example of a woman who lost tons of weight due to a parasite, but enjoyed increased male attention. I'll go out on a limb with a theory developed in conjunction with my Pop Feminist sistah.

In general--and I know I'm super generalizing here--men aren't really attracted to super-thin women. Waist-to-hip ration has been documented in many different cultures as the single greatest determining factor in the sexual appeal of a female body. As in, curvy always wins.

So what's up with the popularity and supposed sexiness of the gaunt form? Status, my friends. The fashion industry (spearheaded by gay men, who, dare I say it, may prefer an androgynous silhouette to a fecund feminine one) has popularized a thin aesthetic, and in collusion with Hollywood and the tabloid media, has made it a status symbol.

Thus, the same way a Rolex watch = status, so does skinny arm candy. Think about it--do you really find Paris Hilton, Nicole Ritchie, or Kirsten Dunst actually sexy? They may be attractive, appealing, fancy, fragile, aesthetically pleasing or whathaveyou--but sexy they ain't. (Edited to add: Compare to women like Salma Hayek, Kate WInslet, or Catherine Zeta-Jones--sizzle sizzle, right?)

So the ELLE article is a bit misdirected. Sure, men may report feelings of attraction to extra thin women, and skinny minnies may enjoy more attention at parties, but the pull is status more than sex drive.

I would be interested in seeing a sociological survey of women's bodies in porn, with a specific focus on the market towards which the movie is generated and the featured women's measurements. I can't say for certain, but I have a feeling that porn directed at the "gentleman" demographic (think Playboy) as a rule employs more svelte women than porn aimed at simply getting guys off with little regard for their desired economic status in society.

What do you all think?

When business is slow, porn is always there for you. Remember that, kids. Only, when you become successful, you need to denounce porn and run as far away as possible.

Paypal did it, and in so doing incurred my eternal wrath (I mean, who would have used Payapal back when it was brand new, but for porn consumers? God bless them). As have others.

A recent strategic decision by CinemaNow, a struggling movie-download service backed by prominent companies such as Microsoft, to enter the porn market has triggered my rader. I'm not saying that CinemaNow is necessarily going to love 'em and leave 'em, but I've noticed a questionable pattern wherein struggling companies turn to porn consumers for survival, and ditch out as soon as they become big enough to survive on their own. They ban "adult transactions" and distance themselves as much as possible from this segment of the economy. This segment, by the way, is huge, growing, and largely resistant to recession (I'm just saying...). The excuse is often that porn customers are supposedly difficult, and often dispute charges on their credit card (often when wives get ahold of the bill). This is purely anecdotal, but I know a few adult businessowners who have stellar credit, and who almost never have chargebacks. I think it's just simple conservatism and fear that advertisers/investors won't want to do business with a company who caters to the porn market.

It's a shame to see conservatism and fear win out, and even more of a shame to see businesses opportunistically prey on porn consumers, with so little loyalty. I'll certainly watch CinemaNow's progression with interest. Let's see where they go...

Haven't we all wished for a product like this? ...and yet, it's not anything you'd ever EVER cop to owning.

----

In more encouraging product news, the thong is officially on its way out, after a slow and steady decline. Hallelujah!

No one really gets what it is. Isabella Rossellini has written, directed, and starred in a series of one-minute short films called “Green Porno” to premiere on the Sundance channel sometime in the near future. They feature her dressed as various insects, copulating.

Yes.

I think the Onion’s The Hater encapsulates the world’s collective reaction:

Short of Leonardo Di Caprio dressing up like a slab of ore and making an educational documentary about the extraction of metallic iron, or maybe Hal Holbrook doing a video short about the post office and depression while wearing a giant envelope costume and crying, or, I don't know, Amanda Bynes dressing up like George Washington (but with a wig made of cotton candy) and starring in a commercial for a funeral home, I can't think of a weirder juxtapostition of ideas than this one.

Desperately searching for something—anything—to indicate what the hell this is all about, I came across a short interview Isabella did at Sundance.

Isabella Rosellini is hilariously matter of fact about the project, as though it were only natural she would create a series of shorts depicting herself as a male insect having sex with much larger paper mache representations of female insects.

The interviewer, who clearly is not comfortable talking about sex, at one point asks Isabella: “Is it true that the lady praying mantis eats the head of the man praying mantis after they make love?” These last words breathily eak out.

Lady praying mantis. Isabella is unfazed.

“While they make love,” she corrects. “The female eats the male’s head and the male keeps copulating even without the head.” She emphasizes this point with an index finger aimed at the now quivering interviewer, who, I kid you not, jumps back in her seat.

Charging ahead, Isabella reports that she has, in fact, portrayed this very scene: “I play the male, and the paper mache (female) eats me. And then I am seen without my head, still making love to the female cut-out.”

The clip ends with Isabella as a male spider, fingering a spider web with trepidation but clear desire.

“She is very very big, and very very aggressive,” the spider laments. “If I shake the web, she might think she caught a fly, and eat me.”

This spider could be a New Yorker contemplating pick-up lines in a bar.

Isabella directs the interview towards tech theory, discussing the “third screen” (i.e., the itouch and other personal technology devices) and how it will inspire a new art form and reach new audiences.

This is true but entirely tangential to what’s going on here. (I have a feeling Isabella is trying to downplay the sexual overtone for the comfort of advertisers.) As an aside, I will acknowledge that it is not the obligation of the artist to tell us what it means—they need just create the art. Interpretation is the job of us sniveling masses, and I cannot yet offer an assessment without seeing these films in their entirety--BUT. I have a feeling that "Green Porno" could be a strangely subversive way to get something perhaps not visually pornographic, but conceptually pornographic, on television. Perhaps Isabella means to underscore the draw of female sexuality, using the animal kingdom as allegory. These films are also completely NOT about insects, despite the claims of the press release. 

Whatever their ultimate purpose, there is some importance in the fact that a 55 year-old woman renowned for her beauty is generating these films. I have no doubt she acutely feels the effect of aging and my dearest hope is that these films represent some kind of statement (message?) from one of the great beauties in the world to the next generation.