|
|
 |
 |
| 01 Sep 2009 17:36 |
| Aide-memoire |
| Public |
|
Questions Dr. Ogi Ogas is willing to answer:
why are you focusing on slash in your survey and not just relationships in general for fanfic without regard to who the pairings are?
Well, slash is kind of the female equivalent of the straight male interest in transsexuals.
can I ask if you intend to control any data you receive in fandom with another population sample?
Well, it wouldn't really be too useful (or practical?) to use a control population; say, for instance, we compared men who like porn to that small subset of men who don't like porn. Unless we can get look inside their physical brains for differences, there's not much you could directly do with such a comparison. I suppose if you were culturally minded you might find that men who don't like porn had some common cultural experience, which would be very interesting, but not relevant to our particular approach.
Answers Dr. Ogi Ogas is willing to volunteer:
Women are blessed in that fan fiction is an infinitely more sociable and adaptable structure built upon the foundation of the subcortex than the crude gauchery bequeathed to men.
But your observation that porn is made by men, for men, is quite astute, and reflects the subcortical difference between men and women. Men want to see women in porn that behave exactly like they'd behave: promiscuous, easy, and without any lasting connection. In the case of gay men, they DO get to see men who behave just like them. When men read books, they want action. Generally speaking, women want to read about men who behave like them: sensitive and emotionally committed. In those women who do like visual erotica, they tend to want plot and context. There's certainly a lot more female-targeted porn out there these days--Rule 34 again. For example, Comstock films, recommended by O magazine, though I don't much about them. But there's not really a rush by women to buy this stuff.
Questions asked of Dr. Ogi Ogas at 7 A.M. yesterday, before all the preceding questions, and that have thus far not gotten an answer:
I'll ask again: do you have IRB approval?
::crickets::
This entry was originally posted at http://jonquil.dreamwidth.org/865354.html.  comment(s) on that entry.
51 sounded | Sounding Spheres | Add to Memories | Tell a Friend | Link
 |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) nestra |
| 02 Sep 2009 01:06 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
I'm assuming no one has explained to him what "PWP" means. And yes, there are PWPs that focus on emotional connections. And plenty that are all about the porn.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| jonquil |
| 02 Sep 2009 01:10 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
I'm pretty sure it's one of the many things that have been explained but have not been taken on board because so obviously contradictory to his Knowledge.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| drho |
| 02 Sep 2009 01:22 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| Quotes - We can do it |
|
It's sad that someone is paying money for his thoughts on yaoi.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| veejane |
| 02 Sep 2009 02:26 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
He probably has never even heard about yaoi! Maybe that will be in his second book.
(Although now I am thinking that if anything can bend an ignorant brain, it's manga weirdness. Throw in a couple of jaguar/human hybrid babies, some telekinetic genocide, two dancing crickets and a sailboat, and watch the eyeballs go O.o!)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| rinue |
| 02 Sep 2009 01:28 (UTC) |
| My Question |
|
If he wants to learn about the insides of people's brains, and not about social constructs, why is he using social networking systems to get people to answer self-reporting surveys about their social habits?
Alternatively, if he wants to do a thought exercise about how women might think, why is he wasting our time instead of sitting quietly and pondering?
Reply | Thread | Link
|
| jonquil |
| 02 Sep 2009 01:29 (UTC) |
| Re: My Question |
|
Because you can't sell either of those to Dutton with a sexy title.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| livii |
| 02 Sep 2009 01:29 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
God, I've been trying to not let any of this get me angry but now I think I've sprained my freaking eyes from rolling them so much. I wonder if his brain would explode if he talked to me or my husband about these things. Or some of my friends. Probably would.
I still literally cannot process the slash-transsexuals comment. Straight men who are interested in transsexuals. Um. What?
Reply | Thread | Link
|
| jonquil |
| 02 Sep 2009 01:35 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
He's thinking of (well, referring to, it can't really be called cognition) the porn subcategory advertised as "chicks with dicks".
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
I can only presume he's had a prurient glance at some of the classifieds in the Village Voice or its analogue for wherever he is and seen the ads for "shemales".
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
Does he realise that there has been slash pr0n written about inanimate objects? That Rule 34 applies to CAREBEAR PR0N? Thomas the Tank Engine Pr0n? That wet riffs website? Does he even know what Rule 34 is?
Reply | Thread | Link
H'm.
Does 4chan know that someone is trying to make money using their meme? H'MMMMM.
Having both online metafandom AND 4chan mad at you would be a very tricky situation indeed.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
Link me to thomas the tank engine porn!
I wanna see the train disappear into that tunnel baby!
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| hsifeng |
| 02 Sep 2009 01:46 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| Just You WAIT! |
|
O.o
Oh. My. God.
I really can't say anything else. *shakes head* I am completely baffled by the level of patronization going on in Dr. Ogas' responses. I hope is IRB folks rip him a new asshole.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| ambyr |
| 02 Sep 2009 02:08 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| Rowan Leaves |
|
I. . .thought you were parodying, there. Or at least paraphrasing.
That is, until I clicked through.
Forget "rule 34;" has this man never heard of the first rule of holes?
Reply | Thread | Link
I'm surprised the posts have filled with macros.
Perhaps I have a new purpose in life.
Edited at 2009-09-02 03:01 am (UTC)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
 |
| kita0610 |
| 02 Sep 2009 02:28 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
| Buffy: Buffy!smash |
|
I kinda wanna send him my RPF pegging fic. It might explode his teeny tiny brain. Alternately, I'd like to bitch slap him into next week. With a skillet.
Reply | Thread | Link
 |
| pandarus |
| 02 Sep 2009 16:24 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
Hell, I want to send him my tentacleporn, and a link to my favourite hardcore twink threesome on Youporn. (Hint: they do not spend a great deal of time discussing their emotions and their girly feelings.)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
Also, CCBill flagging female names as fradulent has a lot to do with assumptions about women (that they would never look at porn) than it says anything about women's actual interest in porn.
Also, not that I want to discuss this with him, but straight women are less likely than straight men to pay for sex work of any kind. Which has a lot to do with misogyny, fucked up sexist ideas about women, and the weirdness of women's capital in straight sexual situations. Women don't need to pay for sex work, since they can usually obtain it without paying for it. That doesn't mean that women aren't interested in the same things that men want from sex workers. It just means that women generally don't have to pay to get those needs fulfilled.
Things get more complicated in gay and lesbian communities, which is a whole other rant and I need to go to SLEEP.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
|
| jonquil |
| 02 Sep 2009 04:30 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
And then there's the explosive growth in women's online erotica -- indicating that women are absolutely delighted to buy porn, as long as they don't have to take it up to the checkout of the local bookstore.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
|
| pandarus |
| 02 Sep 2009 16:26 (UTC) |
| (no subject) |
|
And I want to know how he concluded fandom doesn't like bukkake or bikinis.
I know! Seriously!
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
Just FYI, Ogas is represented by Gail Ross Literary Agency, which means he's either directly represented by Gail or by her second-in-command, Howard Yoon.
They're based out of D.C. and I imagine they could be contacted if anyone felt the urge. Might be that it would be useful for the agent that placed the book to know that there's a lot of well-justified concern about the research and methodology, etc., that might not mean good things when it comes to sales and reviews.
Reply | Thread | Link
That's an excellent point. I imagine the reviews on Amazon.com, etc. would be flooded with negative reviews from annoyed fans.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link
|
|
|