Erotica for Women?

A new magazine called Filament aims to provide erotica for women.
Well I don't agree with those who immediately say that women don't respond to visual images. Many do, some don't.
But women have much higher standards than men when it comes to visuals because unlike men the visual is not the most important thing about sex. So a visual prompt has to be good to hack it.
Mind you I once asked John what he thought of porn and he said he found it boring even as a young man. A narrow set of poses and types, quickly becoming repetitive.
So the discerning man and many women both require something better.

More pics if you follow the READ MORE link.

It's unlikely that Filament will do any better than previous attempts to get female money. One picture shows a man's back - tired shrug. Now if there was a glimpse of the join with the thigh at one side ... but as it is BORING.


Another has an unpleasant pool of greasy oil around the shoulder and neck. Sloppy. Also why the jaundice yellow? Botox lips are NOT a turn on - they scream a lack of sensitivity. Kissing feelingless plastic is hardly sensual. Plus far too much make up. He looks like a schoolboy who has raided mum's make up and desperately tries to look grown up and instead looks like a crude doll. Poor boy.


I like the one I put at the top best - it has the contrast of white sheets and dark man, and some HAIR for Goddess' sake! though not enough.
But the pose is boring, too straight and rigid. Where's the all important hip? thigh?


Why are all these pictures cut at the waist when the lower stomach, hip and thigh is so magnificently central?
Why no pics of the line of jaw and how it aligns with a cheekbone? That's high erotica.

There needs to be a much wider range of types. Women are varied in our tastes. We don't just respond to elflike effeminate Legolas (oooh!) or elegant hard 007 Connery (oooh!) - we also like stocky Herculeans with deep hairy chests (oooh!) and strange, wiry creatures with slanted eyes (ooh!) and some of us like beards (ooh!) or tattoos (ooh!) or grubbiness and sweat from work (ooh!) or long luxuriant hair (ooh!) or sleek baldies (well no not me but lots of women love them) or jeans + leather belt and maybe cowboy boots (ooh!). That's just a few without thinking about it much.

Whichever type it is it'll take more than just a sheet, or a bit of symbolic art, or an expanse of well lit skin. It'll need a whole zone of body poses. Men use their bodies differently to attract another male and straight men rarely know how to do it for women. But some stars like Sean Connery know, so check them out. It certainly isn't enough to have the body sitting upright facing front, or lying in a straight line. What the legs and hips are doing is crucial.
Oh and pay attention to the THIGHS for heaven's sake. My great grandmother, an Edwardian lady, had a naughty habits of leaning over young men in the park and squeezing a thigh with a happy laugh. Wouldn't be allowed today but I can understand her joy very well indeed.

Then there's lesbian images. Don't they know straight women react very strongly to those without being lesbian at all?

Now THAT'S of interest - and no nakedness either, but the stuff of happy reactions for some.

I think the problem is the designers are just lazy. They want to crank out the same tired old stereotypes as the men's media. It might help if they realised that men too might like something better.

Also that more and more it's an obstacle that the brain throws up the questions - is the model happy about this? Or is s/he so slicked up it's uncomfortable? are they drugged? (check the eyes) are they scared? (ditto) - erotica is a two way exchange.
But that goes into the complex power play or porn, a huge can of worms. Not today thanks, it's my birthday so I'm staying lighthearted.