Williams argues that filmed pornography went through a trajectory in the twentieth century of increasing attention to the problem of women’s pleasure (or of how to represent women’s pleasure), which meant that pornographic films went from narrativeless “stag” films to narratives that, if not great storylines, actually attempted coherence. Stags didn’t feature “money shots” (male ejaculation) as late 20th-century porn did; she argues that the male money shot is often a stand-in for female orgasm, which lacks the same type of visual evidence. As she points out, the term “money shot” unites commodification and sexuality as well as visuality. Twenty years on, I can’t help but want another chapter about internet pornography, gonzo porn (in contrast to the feature films she argues were at least responding to, if not incorporating, feminist critiques in that they no longer depicted rape as pleasurable for the victim), and the apparent return of the non-narrative stag-type film that’s just a bunch of sex acts. ( )

Created a whole discipline that has yet to produce anything to surpass this revolutionary work of looking clearly. ( )