164
Why?
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 15 Jan 2026
164 points (98.8% liked)
Memes
54412 readers
1459 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
From the perspective of pornography distributors and consumers, all womens' bodies exist for their sexual gratification. This includes lesbians ofc.
It's simply manifestation of misogyny.
Or, if we turn down the tune of “All Men Are Evil” a little bit, heterosexual men find naked women attractive. And two naked women are more attractive than one.
We can leave it at the same volume. Its not "all men are bad" even, no need to make things up, its embedded misogyny, even perpetuated by women at times.
The question why is "lesbian" porn, in the "straight" section?
Why would a straight woman on a porn site expect to see lesbian porn when they select to see straight porn? It's a double standard.
If men (or anyone else) wanted to watch lesbian porn, there's nothing wrong with that, it just seems out of place in the straight section, cause that's not what it is.
Interestingly enough I once read an article about how many straight women enjoyed lesbian porn because
A. It shows women getting head and
B. Female pleasure is centered, even if for the male gaze.
I think with that knowledge, anyone who's being honest with themselves can see the embedded misogyny laid bare, so to speak.
I'm definitely not honest with myself, though usually in unrelated matters, so perhaps I need handholding here. Taking the statement in reverse, non-lesbian porn is unenjoyable because either
-A. It doesn't show women recieving oral sex, or
-B. It doesn't center on female pleasure.
Is that more substantial than just a preference in content? Is being in the minority of video viewership and recieving minority market attention the embedded misogyny? Or is it more about the participants/subjects than the viewers, as the other poster suggested? What connection am I missing?
I don't think I disagree with the point you're making on misogyny, but I'm having a hard time following the argument. To my understanding, the original claim about "bodies existing for sexual gratification" frequently applies to men in male-male content as well (including as being viewed by women, to complete the mirror image). So the thing that makes it misogyny, as opposed to general misanthropy or class exploitation, is that female-female content is included under the "straight" label while male-male isn't?
Taking those stats on video viewership though would seem to support a claim that a site is assuming a male viewer, and using the "straight" label as applied to the (male) viewer would select any content containing their desired sex (women), both male-female and female-female. That assumption of male viewer and self-applied label would also support seeing male-male but not female-female under the "gay" label (though with male-female missing, perhaps explained with something about self-insert or observer vs recipient, but maybe that goes toward your point). Having a misleading UI and making not-unprobable assumptions about viewers feels less problematic though?
I'm trying not to take a position that would vilify pornography or those involved by default, but maybe I'm holding onto that too strongly or letting too much of my own bias in. Am I missing the point entirely or just seeing it the wrong way?
No you pretty much laid it out in you comment, I think it tracks.
I don't think I particularly matters where the situation lands on the "scale of problematicness", but youre correct it does exist and it isn't at the far end of the spectrum. Nonetheless, it is a symptom of a greater social issue (patriarchy), and it warrants discussion and criticism.
The porn industry is made up of corporations, which will tend to reproduce the same heiarchies that exist in society, since that's what's most profitable. It isn't inherently problematic to objectify people in a sexual context, however it isn't applied equally, and is reproduced in the user controls on most porn sites.
They just assume everyone is a straight male or a gay male, so the choice that gets presented is "gay stuff" or "everything else". This is reflected in user stats, but it is also going to be self fulfilling. It would make more sense to be able to select one or more options of the broad "straight/gay/les/other" if pornhub existed in a relatively equal society. I don't expect them to do this, but I do expect my online community to be able to discuss it and how it both reflects and reproduces harmful social constructs.
Idk if that clarifies anything, but I think you and I are in the same ballpark?
That’s just a matter of catering to your audience. Some 80% of porn is consumed by men. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0747563225001785 (section 3.2). Any store will display the right-handed scissors more prominently than the left-handed scissors, just because they’re more likely to be sought for.
OK and they don't have to cater in a misogynistic way, but they do, and I'm criticizing that decision.
The study referenced only refers to pornographic videos, which is interesting, but doesn't consider a wider spectrum, such as pornographic literature, comics, games, and audiobooks. Women historically read or listen to more pornography than watch.
My earlier comment referenced why some straight women watch lesbian porn, but there's some who enjoy gay male porn as well, partially because the men are more vocal and reactive compared to men in typical straight porn, who are essentially nearly silent vessels for the male viewer to project themselves onto. Given this, it's not difficult to see why little of "straight" pornography appeals to straight women.
Comparing the innate misogyny of most porn to being right handed isn’t appropriate. That sort of analogy, comparing something harmful to something benign, is the core of the problem - it serves to normalize misogyny.
We don’t need to go beyond the topic to illustrate misogyny and harm. For example, a porn store or site displaying simulated violence or underage scenarios to sell it products would be more appropriate. Prioritizing those categories is similar to prioritizing misogynistic lesbian porn over ethical lesbian porn, for example.
You don’t need to be dramatic and label an appropriate assessment of the misogyny of lesbian porn as “all men are evil”.
You must intentionally ignore how and why so-called “lesbian” porn is misogynistic. The baseline of the vast majority of lesbian porn doesn’t engage with how lesbians actually behave, for example, but rather it projects what male viewers want to see - typically with one or both actors behaving as a stereotypical man would.
You're assuming men will be the only ones searching for straight porn.
It's a fairly safe bet
Ol' mate forgot straight women exist and use the internet lol
use the internet: totally
search porn: also true, but dramatically less than men do.
Now I wonder whether straight men would watch less if m/m stuff were featured in the straight section 🤔
most definately
See https://sopuli.xyz/post/39663725/21325142