“A vision of new porn”

Professor Sabo presents an article that makes it clear that the movement of re-visioning porn is well on its way. Feminist porn producers Candida Royalle, Span and Erika Lust create, in many different ways, a discourse for the new generation of young women ready to embrace their sexuality and push beyond the barrier of traditional male-centered porn. This article shows that porn is not only becoming more centered around women’s pleasure but also more gender conscious. In her article Sabo explores “what porn can offer young women (and men) as they try to establish and express their gendered identities in a world that is itself shifting in its boundaries” (222).

Professor Sabo touches on Simon Hardy’s belief that porn “can be a ‘means of establishing a female subject who might play a decisive role in transforming the traditional balance and pattern of heterosexual eroticism” (223). Hardy raises questions of how to change the existing power relations and how to create a new erotic expression. I agree that feminist porn will help change this current discourse, but I also think that what we find erotic, what “works” for us, as a culture of sexually repressed people is so ingrained in the fundamental elements of our once Puritan society. How do we change the ground rules that set up our culture? How long will it take feminist porn to become normal?

Sabo uncovers (Haha….sorry) a view of porn made in the United States. Candida Royalle, one of the largest producers of porn, is known for her quality films. Her films, focused around a woman’s point of view, are more realistic and believable. They invite viewers to sympathize with the characters sentiments, which are not always a violent lust for a penis fucking them hard, but rather ones of longing, fulfillment, and romance. Sabo admires how Royalle not only has “a capacity to avoid the phallic gaze, but to capture a gaze that is mutual and democratically exchanged between two individuals” (226). She also brings to light that Royalle’s way of dealing with the current hegemonic discourse is to “engage it reflectively and ironically” (226). I really appreciate that Royalle is working on “a new gaze”. Although I have not viewed any of her films, I am glad that she is attempting to change degrading the way we objectify each other. It seems that in her film, Under The Covers, she is making what our culture sees as the common / boring / ordinary sex “sexy”. By making porn videos about things that less fantastical and that more people can relate to, she is opening up more doors for communication between partners.

Sabo goes on to talk about how the Norwegian magazine, CUPIDO, did not want to buy Under the Covers—most because it is gung-ho about Anna Span’s productions. As CUPIDO’s best selling producer, it is obvious that Span’s porn speaks to many people. Apparently this is due to the comfortable way she approaches sex. The Norwegians seem to be attracted to Span’s work seeing as how it speaks to “a new generation of more sexually active and self-confident females” (230). Sabo compares and contrasts Royalle and Span’s work, and in doing so suggests that Span moves away from the romantic and cuddly sex to the more let’s just have fun kind of sex. I think that it is great to portray both kinds of sex. But the kind of sex that is most often viewed in porn is the fun, crazy, totally erotic and fantastical kind of sex. Is it not the point to convey a new kind of porn? Something different than that? Let’s redefine what is “sexy” and “erotic”.

At the end she states that overall the message we receive when viewing Royalle’s porn is that we should embrace our sexual desire without any inhibitions. Whereas Span’s porn is more geared toward people whom are already very comfortable with their sexuality and are looking for the fun element to having sex that we should embrace. There is also a difference in humor. Royalle uses it as a political commentary and Span’s is more to build sexual tension. With the lack of music, good film quality, and elaborate plots, Span’s porn seems to lack a professional quality that Royalle truly grasps. On the contrary, Span does a great job of more intimate close up shots, and uses the camera in an unrestricted egalitarian way, allowing perspectives of both genders. Span porn productions seem to reach out to this a new generation of women who are confident, intimate and are not shy to put their own pleasure first.

Sabo goes on to talk about Lust Films, a company made by an intelligent young Swedish woman, Erika Lust. Lust films are known to be a higher quality with its very intentional lighting, framing and music that comprise each movie. Unlike Span, each shot is carefully constructed to create a certain mood. Lust films do a good job of including different kinds of women (however most of the same class) giving the public more opportunities to relate with the characters. Lust “points to the vulnerability as well as the empowering excitement of women and men in a time of changing gender arrangement” (232). I’d like to see the issue of class addressed within the porn industry. As much as women need to be able to relate to many different kinds of women this should reaching out to a different class than middle and upper.

In her conclusion she remembers to point out the positive effects of porn. It can be a great outlet for women who feel empowered by viewing it. Porn is now something both men AND women can use to break the barriers of traditional gender roles in our hetero-normative world. It is hard to state my opinion about these productions when I haven’t viewed the porn myself. As someone who had a bad experience with an initial viewing of porn, it is promising that I am excited to see what these women have to offer.