The double standards in erotica and porn
This link is courtesy of Jodi over on facebook :) Really loved the article because it touches something I’m quite sensitive about.
It’s about Filament, a UK women’s magazine that is trying to publish some visual erotica for women:
Issue 1 featured three photo sets of men, none of whom removed their trousers. While some questioned whether women would even buy visual erotica, Filament’s readers soon put them straight. Not only were women buying it, they were asking for more explicit pictures.
That demand brought Filament smack up against the biggest problem in providing visual erotica for straight women: the pervasive nervousness about depictions of aroused men. Previous attempts to offer erotic imagery to women flopped when publications such as For Women and Playgirl offered only photography that many believed fell short of what women wanted from an adult mag.
Filament, responding to reader feedback, had planned to include a photo set of an aroused man in their second (September) issue. It’s not illegal to print images of erections but the Obscene Publications Act is notoriously vague. After taking legal advice, Filament intended to make a test case of sorts. Its printers, however, refused, citing potential objections from “the women’s/religious sectors”. As a new, independent publisher, Filament can’t yet afford more liberal-minded printers willing to tackle the taboo on tumescence.
It’s the second major hurdle for Filament, which has already been turned down by numerous UK distributors refusing to handle a women’s magazine with a man on the cover.
