This is a nice contribution to the conversation about feminist porn. I enjoyed reading the above comments as well. I agree that in many ways feminist = humanist, with the exception that feminism notes that there is still more work to be done on behalf of women and other non-male groups of the population to attain equality. As to the comment that it would be equally important to feature convincing male orgasms, I agree. Mutuality is key. My own criteria sidesteps the dilemma of whether or not it would be okay to fake the orgasm: as long as it's portrayed convincingly and I as the viewer think it's real, and that the actor performed as such consensually, I'm satisfied with that. As to your comment to my guidelines that "they don’t leave space for low-budget/homegrown productions, nor for feminists who wish to explore their kinky, violent or nonconsensual fantasies in a progressive way," I would beg to differ. It is true that I emphasize esthetic quality, but I don't require high budget. A lot can be done with limited resources; Louise Lush of For the Girls has shown as much. And when I include "subversive role-play, critically appropriating, revising, and playing with erotic fantasies" in my criteria, I also refer to kinky, violent or nonconsensual fantasies in a progressive way; I give a few examples of this in my book. FYI, Good Vibrations Magazine has moved to a new site, so this is the correct address to my definition of feminist porn: http://goodvibesblog.com/part-i-my-very-brief-guide-to-feminist-porn/ I also read your post on fairtrade porn and enjoyed it very much!

Add your comment:

Post as:


(or log in to post with your own username)

(optional)

(optional)