Sociological Images

If you’re looking for a documentary about the U.S. porn industry, PBS now has the entire documentary “American Porn” available for free online.

Bloggers and journalists have enjoyed reporting the findings of a recent study that showed that people in socially conservative states subscribe to online pornography websites at a higher rate than people in socially liberal states.  Here is some of the data from the paper:

The paper goes on to discuss what variables are correlated with higher versus lower subscription rates, but ultimately concludes:

On the whole, these adult entertainment subscription patterns show a remarkable consistency: all but eleven states have betweeen two and three subscribers to this service per thousand broadband households, and all but four have between 1.5 and 3.5.  With interest in online adult entertainment relatively constant across regions, there’s little sign of  a major divide.

The reporting on this study, which emphasizes the findings, but not the low variance, is a nice illustration of how studies can be warped when they are picked up by both journalists and bloggers.

Other state-by-state comparisons: obesity, sodomy law, home vs. hospital births, incarceration rates, the marriage market, minority kids, and percent of women in state legislatures.

Apparently Porn for Women, the book that suggested that what women really fantasized about was a man who would do housework, was so popular that they decided to publish a Porn for New Moms.  These pictures from the book (found here, here, and here), brought to our attention by Anna R., are a sad testament to what we actually think is realistic to expect from a father:

Text: “I told my boss I have to leave at 3:00 every afternoon so I can come home and give you a break.”

Text: “…and in just eight more hours, we can wake up mommy!”

Text: “Every time I see a cute, young coed these days, all I can think is, ‘potential babysitter.'”

So apparently fathers who take care of the child so moms can get some sleep, deprioritize their work, give moms a “break,” or stay faithful are unrealistic… even a “fantasy.”  Confirming this, a quote on the back cover reads:  “Finally, there’s erotica that’s guaranteed to fulfill every woman’s fantasy.”

Franklin S. sent in a link to a story at Mashable about how American Apparel has partnered with a website called Chictopia to use “real girls” in a new ad campaign. Chictopia is a site where people upload photos of their outfits and other users comment on them; you can also search for looks that might work for you.

From a press release quoted at Chictopia (brackets and grammar errors in the original):

[This campaign] rebels the notion that fashion is dominated by models held to unobtainable body standards. Chictopia’s tools give girls with no access to agents or expensive makeup and clothes the ability to segue into modeling for a major fashion company within just a few months. American Apparel, who is well known for refusing to use airbrushing in their advertisements, and Chictopia are showing that traditional media beauty standards are obsolete and inefficient.

Here is a feature from the American Apparel online store about one of the women chosen from Chictopia:

Here’s a second one:

Tatiana at Jezebel takes a dim view of this ad campaign:

…I object mightily to the notion that American Apparel is selling the experience of becoming one of their online banner girls as “modeling for a major fashion company.”…It’s unethical to paint this experience as some kind of entrée into fashion modeling.

There are some interesting things going on here. On the one hand, it’s always nice to see clothing companies using “real girls” in their ads (or “real boys,” for that matter). But…are these particular women that much of a deviation from the usual beauty standards? They’re quite thin, though not as thin as models usually are. If I saw these ads, I’m not sure it would have occurred to me that they aren’t professional models.

What about Tatiana’s concerns? Is American Apparel taking advantage of these women (or the women who will come to their website to look at the clothes in the photo shoots) by implying they’re providing a way to become a professional model? Is that any worse than the many other companies that promise people help becoming an actor/model, etc., such as those “model searches” malls often host that seem to mostly be about getting young people to pay for photo shoots to put together a portfolio?

Tatiana points out that American Apparel also unveiled a set of ads on certain websites that are even more sexual than their usual ads, some using porn stars. They are Not Safe for Work.

(more…)

Latoya P. of Racialicious sent in a link to a Compari calendar (found at Jezebel), which features Eva Mendes, Salma Hayek, and Jessica Alba. There are a couple of interesting and seemingly contradictory themes in the calendar.

On the one hand, there are several photos that show women in apparent positions of power over men. While many alcohol (and cologne) ads show men in bed with more than one women, here we have the reverse, with Mendes cavorting in bed with several men:

I’m sure the bottle pointing near her crotch isn’t symbolic.

Here’s another. Perhaps she is releasing them into the wild? Or planning to let them drown as the tide comes in.

I find the first ad especially interesting because it appears to put a woman in a position of power and to reverse the more common gender equation in liquor ads targeted at men,  the fantasy of having several hot women service a man at the same time (here’s an example). But somehow the image doesn’t seem like it’s targeted to women or meant to represent a female sexual fantasy. To me, the image is still targeting men and the feel is less “men serving women’s sexual needs” than “hot chick who’ll have sex with you and all your friends.” This theme shows up in porn (see the documentary “The Annabel Chong story”) and in the rumors that circulate in most high schools about some group of guys “pulling train” with some girl…rumors that don’t usually portray her as empowered but rather as slutty and/or pathetic (whether or not she feels that way about the experience).

What do you think? Do images such as the first one challenge the power relations found in the more typical two-girls-and-a-guy ads ore reinforce them?

While those two images show women in positions of at least theoretical power, some other images from the calendar seem more threatening. Maybe the guy on the left is just super-broody, but it looks like he’s considering killing her:

Here’s one with a werewolf:

I guess she likes it rough?

And maybe these nice gentlemen are just taking a tired or drunk Salma Hayek home for a cup of tea and then safely to bed for a good night’s sleep:

The image is similar to this ad Lisa posted recently in which a woman looks sort of drunk or off-kilter but the man/men don’t seem to be. Salma Hayek looks concerned. From the Jezebel post:

The tipster who sent these images to us used the words “gang rape.” While that is not entirely clear, you do not, from this image alone, get the idea that this woman is safe, in control, or comfortable.

It’s not obvious that this image is meant to imply any sexual coercion by the men, or that Eva Mendes is in danger in the other two. But it’s also obvious that Campari doesn’t mind too much if you think that’s what is happening.

Thanks, Latoya!

UPDATE: In a comment, Dubi says,

As a concluding remark, I would like to point out that women’s empowerment as it is often portrayed in the media still requires them to be constantly sexual – so it isn’t really empowering at all. A powerful woman in popular culture is a female version of the macho, rather than an articulate, smart, self-sufficient individual (I’d use the word “independent”, but even that word has been subverted to mean “sexually liberated” in most places I see it). The catch is that men easily adjust to see “sexually empowered” women as, yet again, sexual objects, so even though women who seek out Sex and the City-like empowerment may feel liberated, this liberation is false: women are simply being allowed to travel between two points that are still exciting for men (the timid wife or the “strong” temptress).

The question, then, shouldn’t be which party is the “stronger” one in this patently sexual scene, but rather why are women always required to be portrayed as at least potentially sexual (I’d link back to that ad where the woman “scientist” is transformed into a dancing bombshell by whatever it was, but I’m lazy).

I think that’s an excellent point, although I think we’re talking about the same thing in a slightly different way, which is that while the women might be “liberated” to be sexually aggressive, they’re still constrained by sexualization and the need to be appropriate feminine, something we don’t usually see in quite the same way for men (though that varies, of course).

Thanks for putting this in a much better way than I did, Dubi.

In this hour-long talk, Gail Dines makes an anti-pornography argument. Along the way, she discusses the role of pornography in spurring technological innovation, the relationship between pornography and “regular” mass media (as if such a distinction makes any sense), and more.

Simon O., who sent in this ad for high-speed internet, tells us that the text reads “just suck it down.” He also tells us that the Austrian government pulled the plug (so to speak) on this advertisement.

But seriously… there is good evidence that pornography has driven a great deal of the innovation in communication techology since… well, since communication technology existed.  Here’s a Guardian article on how it’s doing so even now.