Sissy porn is not gay porn in the sense that it is targeted at straight men; the point is to identify with the person being "feminized". It is only gay porn in the sense that it usually involves two males. (Sometimes it is a (cis) woman doing the feminizing.)
As with pretty much any porn, it's not advisable to go look at it unless it is s…
Sissy porn is not gay porn in the sense that it is targeted at straight men; the point is to identify with the person being "feminized". It is only gay porn in the sense that it usually involves two males. (Sometimes it is a (cis) woman doing the feminizing.)
As with pretty much any porn, it's not advisable to go look at it unless it is something you're specifically interested in. If you really want to know more about it, however, Andrea Long Chu's book FEMALES (which Eliza links to in the post (with what I think are rather unfair, out-of-context quotes, but that's a longer conversation)) contains a good verbal description of it (along with much else).
Unfair out of context quotes? What would makes these quotes fair and in context? How are they in any way defensible? Chu’s entire book is a treatise on sissy porn and autogynephelia in which he posits that it’s a base form of sexuality for anyone to desire to be female because females are what sex is. That’s pretty much the thesis of the book, and there’s amount of context that is ever going to rescue it from its hideous sexism.
I missed this comment. On the off chance you're still interested, here is an example. Chu is often cited as saying that "femaleness" is "an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes." Even aside from the fact that Chu is (with deliberate provocation) defining "female" in a way that includes *all* human beings—which definitely changes the context of anything she says about it—that sentence is simply out of context: Chu isn't saying that "femaleness" is "an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes.". Rather, she is saying that *the message of sissy porn*—about which she is clearly ambivalent, not whole-heartedly supportive—is that that is what being female is. (More particularly, sissy porn in the gif format.)
As for the book's thesis, I would say that the thesis of the book is that we are all constructed, against our will, by desire, and that both our own desire and others' desires shape us without our say-so. I don't think that that is a sexist claim. As for calling it "femaleness"—well, I don't think it was right or a good rhetorical move, but to claim that she is saying that that was femaleness is (in the sense that most people, rather than she, uses the term) is simply incorrect.
Sissy porn is not gay porn in the sense that it is targeted at straight men; the point is to identify with the person being "feminized". It is only gay porn in the sense that it usually involves two males. (Sometimes it is a (cis) woman doing the feminizing.)
As with pretty much any porn, it's not advisable to go look at it unless it is something you're specifically interested in. If you really want to know more about it, however, Andrea Long Chu's book FEMALES (which Eliza links to in the post (with what I think are rather unfair, out-of-context quotes, but that's a longer conversation)) contains a good verbal description of it (along with much else).
Unfair out of context quotes? What would makes these quotes fair and in context? How are they in any way defensible? Chu’s entire book is a treatise on sissy porn and autogynephelia in which he posits that it’s a base form of sexuality for anyone to desire to be female because females are what sex is. That’s pretty much the thesis of the book, and there’s amount of context that is ever going to rescue it from its hideous sexism.
I missed this comment. On the off chance you're still interested, here is an example. Chu is often cited as saying that "femaleness" is "an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes." Even aside from the fact that Chu is (with deliberate provocation) defining "female" in a way that includes *all* human beings—which definitely changes the context of anything she says about it—that sentence is simply out of context: Chu isn't saying that "femaleness" is "an open mouth, an expectant asshole, blank, blank eyes.". Rather, she is saying that *the message of sissy porn*—about which she is clearly ambivalent, not whole-heartedly supportive—is that that is what being female is. (More particularly, sissy porn in the gif format.)
As for the book's thesis, I would say that the thesis of the book is that we are all constructed, against our will, by desire, and that both our own desire and others' desires shape us without our say-so. I don't think that that is a sexist claim. As for calling it "femaleness"—well, I don't think it was right or a good rhetorical move, but to claim that she is saying that that was femaleness is (in the sense that most people, rather than she, uses the term) is simply incorrect.