Alison wrote (and Fiona said something very similar):
>It would have a relevance to women if it changed the way men related to them
>in real life. For example if a man thought that a woman saying she was a
>lesbian (for instance in a work context) meant she was up for a threesome. I
>do think this sometimes happens.
>If men came away from other kinds of pornography thinking that 'no means
>yes' and so on, it could also affect real women in an adverse way. I think
>all these worries mainly apply to the sort of men who only have male
>friends, and don't really talk (or converse via email) to women that much.
I see what you mean. I do wonder what proportion of men actually fall into this category though.
>You know some men don't even talk to their wives about sex.
Uh, yes, I was married to one for most of the last decade....
Fiona wrote:
>Yes, agreed, but also feel that it's more complex than that. IMO a
>financially and sexually independent heterosexual woman, bi woman and
>lesbian are all threats to the patriarchy, but in rather different ways. The
>lesbian because she is demonstrably living without men; the heterosexual
>woman because she is demonstrating that it is possible to live within the
>heterosexual norm and still be independent, and the bisexual because she
>has the best of both, as it were :). I'd say all three are also affected by
>m-o "lesbian" porn as well, but in different ways.
Broadly agreed, I suppose. I'd also say that men can (and do) challenge patriarchal attitudes too.
Tavia