Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Using James Deen to Normalize Porn for Straight Women

It is not hard to look at media outlets and see the molding of the female mind with regards to gay men and gay marriage. Whether sitcoms, movies or teen magazines, gay men are an accessory for single women. They are completely non-threatening like a pet chihuahua. They also are victims that need to have the right to get legally married and divorced. Behavioral molding works as well as single motherhood is now a virtuous struggle, and the problem of bastards is just now (decades late) slowly creeping into the NY Times approved public concerns space. Female bisexuality has gone from a very marginalized group due to its small numbers to an expected phase of youthful experimentation (LUGs). Scratching my head over press coverage of male porn performer James Deen, the latest molding or sales pitch is for women to watch more pornography.

Whether through great self promotion at the right time or part of a campaign to get respectability for the industry, the perfect storm of Jenna Jameson moving from the fringe to someone you could sell to mainstream America along with technological changes was profitable timing for the porn pushers. Feels like a similar thing with Deen. It's as if there is a coordinated campaign amongst the edgy online press to give this guy good publicity. GQ did a profile on Deen with plenty of markers that the industry is fine, people read David Foster Wallace between scenes, and only Rick Santorum types are against it. Only a "Rick Santorum idiot" would see any danger with porn. It is also comical to read each article enjoy joking about stereotypes or mentioning how he is Jewish when normally joking about someone's ethnicity is frowned upon. The extra laugh is that these journalists do not realize how many Jews are higher profile porn performers. Who could the real intended target be? What is the real message? Women because continuously expanding their sexual horizons is the utmost concern for HuffPo Women or Slate's XX. HuffPo has really been on it, discussing even addiction to porn while linking to sites that contradict their claims.

Was he really a female favorite and big name with women before the media got involved? Maybe in porn world but not in the real world. Recall the share of women watching any online porn was 2% of women polled by Pew in 2011. A quick check of Google trend search history finds that his porn name "james deen" does not kick off with big search numbers until the GOOD article by Amanda Hess. That might not be the best view of women looking for his videos so trying "james deen video" and "james deen videos" reveals even fewer searches, but once again, nothing picks up until that article in November 2011. If he had such a female following and women secretly make up more porn watchers than you simple reader realize, wouldn't he have had higher search numbers? Would not search have risen slowly to a critical mass for Hess to write about? To put the "under the radar but smoking hot" fanbase searching for him in perspective, compare his google trends search numbers to a female performer your friends (or you) know. Go to a tube site and look at the top 25 popular names and plug and play. The numbers for those women are much higher than Deen. Grab a name of someone newer and compare. They are on par with Deen's numbers despite his numbers being boosted from mainstream press exposure and Bret Easton Ellis pimping his name. His search numbers also bumped due to filming a shoot with one of the MTV Teen Moms. Yet the media machine is trying to spin a reported fantasy world where women view 40% of online porn (per HuffPo, not backed by the author's own link), so why are his numbers not higher? If they keep saying it, eventually it may become real.

When one reads the articles of feminists pledging their devotion to him, there is the usual claim that he looks so boy next door compared to the other guys. Paraphrased: "Like, he really makes it look like he cares about them. OMG, it's intimate and romantic," (hamster wheel spins 100mph). True, but a lot more guys filming today look like normal attractive young men compared to 1985 performers because the demand has changed and a blue pill makes reliable equipment unnecessary. The other interesting thing is the debate amongst the feminists, including lesbian Nitahsa Tiku, who fight the discussion as just sending women to lady friendly porn and state that women SHOULD be watching hard S&M films. If my opinion on women's matters less because I am a man, what the hell is a lesbian doing discussing what should and should not be watched for straight pornography? The doublethink on display from feminist writers who proclaim that prostitution (money for sex) equals rape while simultaneously proclaiming pornography (money for sex on film for distribution) is not rape and actually "good" is amazing with how smooth they write.

A mention of Deen turns into something more, as the hook pivots away from Deen's appeal and why (easy: women can easily project themselves into a scene banging the boy next door) to what, expanding the deviant acts on film women should push themselves to watch. By searching for Deen, women will find his performances in the "Pornstar Punishment" series where a man is betrayed or angered over something a woman does to him and gets his revenge in rough sex with consent optional (NSFW review here). You do not have to be a genius to see the subtext that appeals to thousands, or millions, of voyeurs. One would expect feminists to claim this contributes to rape culture, which they say is everywhere in America. This is not part of rape culture though because Nitasha Tiku and her minions said so. It's just voyeurism, fantasy and art.

The aggravating idiocy of the media's coverage is that in late 2013 they will report on the growing consumption of online pornography by women (up from 2% now to 8%, but secretly much higher, just trust Slate) is that they will take no culpability or credit for that change. It is all just a trend that is happening and growing without any effort or input from the tastemakers. The media wants it to be true to complete another gender parity for the sake of ideology checkbox. It is also fake rebellion as Deen mentioned the attack on him on Nightline and mentions how they went easy on him despite what he has publicly said and has filmed. If they truly wanted to bury him and the industry, they could, but they do not want that.

They want women watching porn. Educated, middle class or aspiring types who read those feminist online rags. The decade long selling of the Playboy logo on merchandise and sweatpants with "porn star" on the ass could play to female narcissism of being desirable enough to be considered one, but it would not get them watching. It would also be a bit trashy and beneath them. The other tough fact is that the women in porn, especially Playboy's type, are in way better shape than they are. The sales pitch has to be about sexual liberation (because the world is so oppressive today) and a cute boy next door that enough media tastemakers repeatedly give the blessing to for them to fantasize and project themselves doing dirty things. Women will buy it. The media told them David Schwimmer was attractive for years, and they bought that. The key is to get that first click to get the later click. Eventually, the next click for Deen is an S+M scene because after all, 50 Shades of Grey is publicly okay + cool and James Deen is publicly okay + cool, so it's all good. Jezebel said it was cool. It doesn't mess with anyone's brain.

5 comments:

Podsnap said...

The media told them David Schwimmer was attractive for years, and they bought that.

Gold.

Aaron said...

Google itself is a beneficiary of this media "tastemaker" process, as was Myspace, Facebook, and Twitter. I remember around 2000 or so when Newsweek wrote a BJ piece promoting Google at the expense of Yahoo.

Son of Brock Landers said...

Aaron - I sent a tweet out asking people in college in '99 if they had Google homepage photocopies slapped up around campus. At my college, there were all of these photocopies of Google's homepage set up at spots on walkways with heavy traffic. I just remember thinking "Do I feel lucky?" was one helluva hook to get me to try it out.

Yahoo lost the 'cool' edge to Google but they also goofed what couldve been gold in creating an alternative news source. Their sports news division is surprisingly great and well paired with their fantasy sports stuff but they missed a great opportunity to be an alternative to traditional news media. Not just in terms of politics but style. Long form journalism, deep analysis, chasing longer stories through to their end. They didnt go that route and it hurt them.

Aaron said...

Good point. The media can only act as an accelerant but first Google had to be Google and Yahoo had to be resting on its laurels.

eah said...

Some good info on the effects of pornography at Mangan's blog.