“Interfacing with the User”:Techno-Fetish and Porno-
Bricolage as sociotechnological practices
Doris AllhutterAustrian Academy of Sciences
Information ethics discoursesticks to free speech vs. equality
-> Identify contradictions and blind spots
digital pornographies as sociotechnological
artefact
EU internet policyframing of ‘harmful content’
and pornography
develop categories
(1)
(2)
(3)
„Dispositivs of digital pornography“
Focus
? mainstream, digital / sociotechnological artefact, hardcore ?
How do sociotechnological practiceschange/reproduce mainstream pornographic genre conventions and ideologies of gender difference in digital pornographies ?
How do designers/users appropriate pornographic imaginations of erogeneity, of the sexual body and
sexual activity?
Poser 6 Models
„Porno-Bricolage“
Gender different „realism“
„Notice how they look more naturaland just the way most breasts do in the real world.“
„Natural Gravity Breast Morphs“ „Real Skin Penis“
„…contains Foreskin Roll Back Morphs, GlansStyle Morphs, Midshaftscale Morphs,
Realism Scrotum Morphs“
„giving and receiving poses“
„Arousal“ as game logic
„Imagined users“
Conclusions
• Intelligibility through simulation of • film conventions• „difference“ as representation strategy
• „Porno-Bricolage“: sociotechnological practices of design-use as affective immersion into techno-pornographic fantasies
• „Techno-Fetish“: Immersion due to intertwining pornographic fetishes and techno-fetish
Recommended
