Slate writer Vanessa Vitiello is concerned about the dire state of lesbian pornography. Why isn't there more of it? she wants to know. And why don't more of us watch it? Vitiello was unable to find any research into the porn-viewing habits of queer ladies, and I haven't had any more success — science, we're gonna need you to step it up — but in the meantime, as a non-porn-watching lesbian, I have some thoughts on why this might be.
First of all, as Vitiello points out, most of what's described as “lesbian” porn is made to be consumed by straight men, and it is... awful. The inch-long fingernails? The insanely awkward cunnilingus, which primarily demonstrates how far porn stars can stick out their tongues? The lack of diverse body types and gender presentations? Nope, nope, no thank you. If this substandard product is your first exposure to on-camera girl-on-girl action — as it is for nearly everyone, since you can hardly turn on your computer without seeing the stuff — no one could fault you for swearing off porn forever and only masturbating to Buffy reruns or white-noise machines.
More important, though, is a factor Vitiello hits on but doesn't explore in depth: Ask five lesbians what sex is — the specific physical acts that constitute a really good lay — and chances are, you'll get five different answers. Some queer girls find strap-ons indispensable; others consider them wholly unnecessary tools of the patriarchy. Some are enthusiastic, practically evangelical proponents of fisting, while others would rather not even think about it. Some of us just aren't that into oral. And of course, nothing will start a brawl in a lesbian bar quicker than asking, “So what does everyone think about scissoring?”
While straight people can and do have interesting, varied sex lives, ask five straight people what sex is and at least four of them are going to say P-in-V. Making porn that appeals to straight people, therefore, is not much of a guessing game. Besides, since the market is so enormous, there are thriving niches for people who don't want to see P-in-V, or who want to see it in specific ways or performed by specific types of people. Since 93 percent of respondents were heterosexual, that's a lot of straight women getting off to girl-on-girl action — very possibly more than the number of lesbians who watch it. I wonder if that's because it tends to depict more cunnilingus and other clit-centric activities that, in straight porn, might be relegated to foreplay.
Porn for queer women, on the other hand, doesn't have the same kind of common ground to start from. Of course, there are great production companies making porn by and for queers, and theirs is a high and noble calling, but it's got to be difficult to create a popular product when your target audience is so small to begin with and can't reach any kind of consensus regarding what — or who — is sexy.
While Vitiello bemoans the lack of compelling Sapphic erotica, I suspect that its absence actually points to something positive. My tenuous understanding of supply and demand suggests that there's not much good lesbian porn because we don't really want it. When there are so many more options in real life than could possibly be portrayed in one video, what's the use? Porn is, of course, always a pale imitation of the real thing, but for lesbians the gap between representation and reality is especially broad. And if porn can't keep up with the variance and complexity of our actual sex lives and fantasy lives, I have no problem leaving it in the dust.
No comments: