« Message of the medium | Main | Faith in men »

Race/marketing/desire

June 26, 2006

A few weeks ago, I was on the phone with a friend of mine giving her a status update on my casting and telling her about the challenges of finding sexy and willing people who want to fuck on camera and have chemistry with one another. I made an offhand comment about the challenges of dealing with race: trying to hire people of color and asking potential scene partners if “race is an issue” – the universal tip-toeing sex industry phrase – which meant that I was giving them the space to say “yeah, I don’t do [fill in ethnic group of your choice.]”

She was a bit appalled, “Wait, you can do that? Isn’t that racism?”

Well, yes, but it’s cleverly described and disguised as personal preference. And this is where things get tricky. The question is – do you not find people of a certain race or ethnic background attractive simply because on the aesthetic level they don’t appeal to you, or does this preference belie ugly facts about race and beauty in this grand country of ours (something not at all “simple”)?

And then, throw some marketing into the whole thing and goodness me. A veritable minefield.

It is ignorant in that white liberal I-see-no-race-only-people way to assume that race is not an issue for performers and for consumers. It is and will continue to be. But the big question in my mind is how to acknowledge the desire for otherness or the desire to see interracial action – it is a real one – without pandering to that whole fetishization of the other thing (this is of course based don the perhaps faulty assumption that most porn buyers are white, though there is a an ethnic industry). And here’s the thing about “other” – in the world of sexuality but especially in the world of porn (which is much less nuanced than sexuality at large), the line between appreciation of difference and lecherous fetishizing of deviance is very, very thin.

Last week I was flipping through the Genesis Hot 100 Porn Stars special, and the girls of course are consistently thin and blonde – a few exceptions to the blonde thing, but the thinness is uniform. The exceptions are just that, and it’s a niche marketing thing in the business sense, not unlike alt porn. “But these are (brunette, black, asian, etc) people! Real people, not products!” you protest. Yes they are people – but this is a business of selling images of people and to pretend that packaging (race, size, etc) isn’t important is stupid. One of the things I constantly think about, hearkening back to when a few alt porn sites started having dudes model, is a question about porn: which is more powerful, the supply or the demand? Yes, porn companies make assumptions about what the market will bear and put out what they think people will buy, and people buy it in droves, while often also complaining about it. [An aside: seriously kids, if you don’t like it, don’t buy it, because if you keep buying the bad stuff, it will keep getting made, no matter how much you whine about it. Whine with your dollars, because that’s a protest that businesses understand.]

So what’s the answer? Is it not casting mixed races scenes in order to punish viewers who for whatever reason want to see interracial action (and thereby reward those who think interracial action is the worst thing ever)? Is it casting these scenes but not promoting them to people who might be interested in such a thing (again, for whatever reason) with box cover text that indicates interracial action? Or is it promoting the scenes judiciously because that market exists?

All around, it’s a tough call, and boils down to the complicated reality that possibly it’s racist to want to see ethnic content if you are not of that ethnicity or interracial content in general – and on the flip side of the coin, its possibly racist if you only want to see people of your race or ethnicity doing like-looking people.

Posted by Dacia at June 26, 2006 06:22 PM

Comments

This issue has left me partially bald and wanting to tear out the rest of my hair.

The overall reaction I got from a similar post is that porn is already sketchy enough - i.e. sometimes the person featured on the box cover is only in the video for less time than her box cover would suggest, or not at all; sometimes the action on the box isn’t in the video; sometimes the text doesn’t have anything to do with the plot, etc.

Most consumers don’t know a lot about the companies they buy their porn from, and rely on the product’s marketing to make informed purchases.

A large percentage of people who buy porn also have little fetishes and preferences that also inform their selections (this, I think, is where the real issue is).

Although it might not suit our personal politics (the last chunk of hair falls to the floor), porno makers ought to feel some level of responsibility towards their consumers.

Do consumers care more about porn that isn’t racist, or sexist, or ageist, or sizeist, or do they care about skinny blonde 18-year-old girls with shaved pussies who fuck young men with 10 inch black dicks?

Whine with your dollars - you banged that nail on its ass, Miss Dacia.

Posted by: charges at June 27, 2006 03:36 PM

Is it really racist? I mean, I don’t like certain girls. It doesn’t make me a bigot that I don’t find 60 year-old women attractive, or anorexic-thin girls attractive, or southeast asian women especially sexy, on the whole.

Posted by: Mikey Mongol at June 27, 2006 10:45 PM

As a person of color, I feel like there should be more emphasis on how ethnic-related porn is portrayed, rather than worrying too much about if people’s preferences are racist for whatever reason. Color me perhaps too romantic even in dealing with my porn tastes, but maybe if the images largely being depicted were a bit more well-rounded and thought out of the box, there’d be less occasions for people to beard their subconscious “racist” notions under “personal preferences.”

I mean, is it necessary to have a Daphne Rosen type white woman play a part where she drives a car into a “bad” neighborhood, the car breaks down, then out of nowhere comes 3-5 black ghetto gangsta types who then proceed to take her back to their “crib” and work her over? Oh, and how convenient is it that she just happens to dress like a hooker with bad fashion sense? I know people get off on this, and that’s the point regardless, but jeez…is that how some people HONESTLY think of others? That they can’t use their imaginations to come up something else that would show just as much fucking without the tired-assed stereotypes? (And even the fucking itself would be better, but that’s another argument in itself.)

Posted by: Irezumi Kiss at June 28, 2006 04:40 AM

Very thoughtful post. I never put so much thought into this subject. Your nuanced analysis is appreciated.

Posted by: Freeman at June 28, 2006 11:20 AM

I take deep issue with your characterization of willful colorblindness as a sort of liberal ignorance. In fact, it’s a sort of committed opposition to the mentality that identifies everyone by their race first, which is the same mentality that makes it possible for race in porn to be such an issue in the first place.

Posted by: Bacchus at July 1, 2006 10:46 AM

I noticed erosblog has commented about your post but I think you have the better point. So called “color blindness” is a form of whitewashing that ignores cultural and social variation that has negative and positive connotation that doesn’t need to be ignored.

In a direct reply to your post, it is a tricky think to differentiate othering and fetishizing of ethnicities, something that becomes more tricky when visual race representation on a whole is taken into account. There are few balanced rounded images in non-porn outlets and even then, the othering and sexual fetishing of race is prevent.

Can I also mention some clarification? ‘Racism’ is an easer term to use when it is use to denote prejudice with power and I feel some of your usage is more prejudice and/or ethnic chauvinism.

Posted by: lady macbeth at July 2, 2006 01:08 AM

Bacchus is my favourite erotoblogger, but he has missed the point that racism is about exploitation. It is deeply rooted slavery and colonialism so the power-dimension can’t be ignored. This is why “wilful colourblindness” is so naive - it ignores centuries of pain and humiliation.

There is difference in ethnicities and it can’t be ignored. The challenge is to enjoy our kinks and preferences without perpetuating racism by ignoring it altogether. Me? - I would crawl over broken glass for raven-haired women with ivory skin and green eyes. But that’s because I am a Mick.

Posted by: Geraldo at July 4, 2006 02:39 AM

It seem that porn like any other art form reflects major cultural issues existing within a society. Coming from a mixed race background it took me a long time to understand the racism. It took europeans centuries to get over a flat earth and being the center of the universe. I suppose racism is just another nutty belief that will sooner or later die out.

Posted by: Bill at July 5, 2006 10:46 AM

I think your original question has a clear answer.

Making judgements about attractiveness on the basis of color is racist. The preference argument is a lie and anyone who says ‘I don’t find attractive’ is making a racist statement.

Why so clear? It’s impossible to judge what you don’t know. I may like tall busty women and I may assume that Chinese women are neither but I’m an idiot if I say “I find Chinese women” unattractive because of that.

I’ve no problem with anyone saying - “How do you feel about working with ” but it’s entirely wrong to replace people, about whom opinions are to be expected, with races. Even the asthetic argument, saying that you don’t find specific skin tones attractive, is a diversion. There’s significant crossover in the skin tones, and the physical ‘cliches’, that characterize every race of people. Black people aren’t and neither are white folk.

Putting aside the fact that race is a tenuous concept at best, if DNA testing revealed Jenna Jameson to be half Chinese and half African would people suddenly re-label her product, or refuse to work with her? If Mr. Marcus was revelaed to be 75% Thai which set of stereotypes should apply?

It’s a simpler issue than people pretend it is. I think that pretense is a way of comforting people ashamed to admit they’re unable to look past what they imagine ethnicity represents.

Make judjements about people all day if you want but as soon as you start making judgements about groups you’re in real trouble.

Nice post by the way. Keep up the good work.

Posted by: Sam Sugar at July 6, 2006 08:28 AM

If porn is about getting off on how people look, race is obviously a part of how people look, and we can’t fault someone for knowing themself and their preferences. Is liking only one gender sexist? Porn isn’t about liking someone for who they really are. I haven’t thought about this enough to articulate my opinions well, but I’m really glad you’re speaking about this.

Posted by: Green Lacewing at July 10, 2006 07:49 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)