Bear in mind I've not seen any movies in years... I'm mostly of the Netpornious Moocherious species ;)
My needs are simple, I think.
- Normal looking people who at least look like they're having fun.
As far as looking like they're having fun: yeah, I agree there.
- No one looking at the camera.
- No movies that describe the women as sluts, whores, or bitches, or use the words "molest" or "gang" on the cover.
"Bitch" is silly to me at best and anger-inducing at worst. I'd turn off the sound if I heard that, but probably not the video. Mute buttons + sexy music are your friends, kiddies.
As far as "molest," that one never bothered me. And "gang" just sounds intense and kinky to me.
- No anal, please. Nothing against the act itself, but it's not particularly aesthetically pleasing
*slight pause to say MOAR PEGGING PLZ*
Moving right along...
- Not a big fan of the camera-between-the-legs shots anyway, or the extreme, can't-get-any-closer-or-she'll-swallow-the-camera closeups. I'd rather see the whole body and the lovers' growing arousal.
- Woman-woman scenes that looks like they might be enjoying it. You know, with kissing and maybe even some foreplay before they whip out the 20-inch double-headed dildo or try to go up to their elbows.
And... again, this is about watching fucking. Why do I want to see The Hair-Stroking Swoony Story of Lesbian Love, here?
I mean, I get the idea that what this person wants is more context, and I'm for that... but for me, good context doesn't come from buildup of story. It comes from being present in the moment. It comes from liking sex with other women, rather than doing it boredly to entertain males.
All the better, as far as I'm concerned, if being present in the moment means hard ramming fucking.
The one thing that bugs me about mainstream girl-girl scenes, aside from We Are Obviously Bored As Hell Hets is the cunnilingus. In order for the camera to see anything, they have to... vaguely point their tongues at vulvas.
Much as I like seeing vulvas (closeups are joy!)... get your face in there, people! I may feel sad your head's in the way, but at least I know the sex is real. If you want you can do some of the side-tonguing because you know I'm looking. But please, if the I have the tip of my tongue loosely resting on a labium thing is gonna be the main event, just (as much as I hate to say it) skip to the penetration, because there's NO POINT.
- An entire movie without silicone or implants of any kind. Try it, I dare you.
- Women who don't feel obligated to stick their entire tongue out of their mouths whenever they kiss or lick anything.
- Look, if you show me a guy pulling out of a woman's ass and moving around to her mouth, which seems to be the trend these days, you've lost me. Forget it, I'll turn the thing off and go watch cartoons. I mean, eww.
- Women that aren't made up to look underage or like an 80's hair band groupie.
- Guys that look like someone you might not run away from on a dark night. Or a sunny afternoon.
- Lighting that makes the actors look soft and sexy instead of plastic and poorly shaved.
- Sounds that weren't dubbed or forced. I'm sorry, no one moans with ecstasy while they're giving a blowjob.
- People grateful to get oral sex instead of standing there looking haughty and all conquerery.
- Movies that don't have the same sex acts, in the same order, every time.
- And, hardest to find of all...playfulness! I have absolutely no interest in watching people fuck who look too fake, too insensitive, too shallow, or too scary. Don't fun people fuck? In front of a camera, I mean?
The fascinating thing to me about this post is the sheer vanillaness of the way this person talks. And that if he is a man, his tastes are so much more soft and sweet than mine are. Where the stereotype is, y'know, men aren't for the cuddling and the foreplay and all. Especially not in their taste for pr0nz.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against soft and sweet personally. A lot of it is quite good-mood-inducing. But I have a hard time understanding why most porn should be like that. When I want to see porn, I want to see sex, not the intricacies of other people's foreplay.
Intricate dances of desire work better for me in lit -- and even there, too much coy courtship dancing and I lose interest (unless it's one of those rare gems that is worthwhile both as a story AND as smut, with rich characters whose lives I want to know more about regardless of the sex.)
Yeah, my reaction to that article was... mixed. (And yes, I posted it at my site.)
ReplyDeleteI agree w/ some of what he is saying; for example, it would be nice to have more variety of body types in mainstream porn. Some of how he says *that* could be conveyed better instead of using the word "normal," but hey, I hate when people pick at my every word, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.
A lot of it, though, seemed like it was just a litany of his personal likes and dislikes ("no anal," the rule about the language, etc). In which case, I can definitely agree w/ the larger point that it would be nice to see more variety *overall* in mainstream porn. However, that does not mean we should go to the extreme of "such-and-such shouldn't be in porn at all" - and I couldn't tell if he was saying that or not.
And, too, there was his "ew" with the AtM thing, which of course is a pet peeve of mine... GET OVER IT already. So that raised my hackles. If he doesn't want to see it, that's fine, I can understand that. But he doesn't have to get all judgy about it either. (In that same way, "normal" was red flag.)
oh yeah, I agree with him on a lot. I just think he's a bit sloppy with "here's what my (and my wife's?) ideal porn movie would sound and look like" and "that shouldn't be in porn ever! gah!"
ReplyDeleteI don't know what his opinion is either. I was just rather startled, personally, to see how much his ideal sounded like, as one dyke friend of mine memorably and dismissively snorts, "hair-stroking sex."
I get the impression he's not into BDSM also or doesn't understand it, from a couple of expressions of annoyance at "imperiousness." That could just mean "badly acted toppiness" which is ORFUL, I agree, but... well-acted it's very hot to lots of people.
And also the BJ thing. I know so many subs out there for whom being used that way is just the awesomest thing they can think of. :)
I agree that presenting BJs as if everyone should find giving them as sexy or as fulfilling as receiving genital stimulation, and that there's something wrong or selfish or inhibited about a woman who doesn't is a common theme in porn and a problem... but there are definitely people that find giving head the hottest shit ever.
and I also think lately, color me cynical, that "misogyny" is a horribly overused word. Something can be sexist, problematic, androcentric, alienating to women, or creepy without revealing *hatred* of women. But that particular word has become a buzzword for "something feminists should be leery of" so it gets used in a lot of blanket ways.
ReplyDelete(Mind you, I'm not denying that misogynistic porn exists, or that it is common, or that it is a problem, or that many people use it.)
I can agree with some of his points about how a lot of mainstream porn does suck bigtime...but to me most of it is simply his own extrapolating his own personal tastes and biases on the broader genre.
ReplyDeleteI can give one example: It seems like he expects his sex clips to be shot as if people were actually "making love" to each other in the bedroom with no cameras present. Not a bad idea, but he forgets about that presence of an audience which has to be acknoowedged, both in the exhibitionistic sense and in the "I know that you are watching" voyeuristic sense. Hence, looking straight at the camera is less an insult towards her/his partner than an acknowlegement of the audience watching and (hopefully) beating off. At least, that's how I see it.
Really....I could care less whether a woman has implants or not; whether she does AtM or not; whether she uses more tongue in her French kisses or just does lip locks; or whether she blows kisses at the camera. All I ask is that she get as much genuine pleasure out of the scene, and that she at least acts like she is totally into the sex for her own pleasure. Everything else for me is simply icing on the cake...or spooge on the nipple, so to speak. (I do agree with seeing a bit fewer facials; though...there are other body parts that can be "moisterized", you know. :-)
And as for "normal" people: Ahhhh..I don't think so, dewd. I personally don't really want to wank off to my next door neighbor. (Unless she happens to be Vicky Vette or Lanny Barbie, that is.) I watch porn for the fantasy and for the pleasure (mostly, the woman's), and sometimes for the raw lust; I prefer women who are NOT "regular" in that they enjoy sex much more than the "regular" person does...and they are more attractive and sexually proficient than what counts as "normal" too.
But then again, that's only me, the "pornhound". I'm a bit biased.
Anthony
"I can give one example: It seems like he expects his sex clips to be shot as if people were actually "making love" to each other in the bedroom with no cameras present. Not a bad idea, but he forgets about that presence of an audience which has to be acknoowedged, both in the exhibitionistic sense and in the "I know that you are watching" voyeuristic sense."
ReplyDeleteI don't think there's any reason the audience *has* to be acknowledged, though it is standard operating procedure and not doing so may well make watching porn less fun for people whose fantasy is of watching (rather than of being one of the participants.)
I wouldn't personally recommend completely ignoring the viewer in all cases, though personally it's often distracting to see someone with, say, a cock in front of her and an odd expression as she faces the viewer, while I wonder what I have to do with anything.
"All I ask is that she get as much genuine pleasure out of the scene, and that she at least acts like she is totally into the sex for her own pleasure."
I'd have to say I'm with you there. I want people who at least look like they're having fun, and I can overlook a lot that's not to my personal taste if they do.
"I watch porn for the fantasy and for the pleasure (mostly, the woman's), and sometimes for the raw lust; I prefer women who are NOT "regular" in that they enjoy sex much more than the "regular" person does..."
That makes me sad. Regular women don't like sex?
A correction for Trinity:
ReplyDelete"I watch porn for the fantasy and for the pleasure (mostly, the woman's), and sometimes for the raw lust; I prefer women who are NOT "regular" in that they enjoy sex much more than the "regular" person does..."
That makes me sad. Regular women don't like sex?
OOPS....sorry, Trin, didn't mean to make it sound like I was hating on "regular" women. Of course, I am all for women of all shapes and sizes and colors seeking and getting sex for their own pleasure; I was more talking about my own particular "fetish" for the more extraordinarily and unabashedly sexual woman who is particularly unafraid to show herself as a openly sexual being and share her pleasure with others. In short, women who are even MORE overtly sexual than even the norm...which would be, in a decent world, quite good enough. It's more of a personal "slut goddess worship" thing with me; nothing against "normal" sexuality at all.
Hope that clears things up.
Anthony
"In short, women who are even MORE overtly sexual than even the norm...which would be, in a decent world, quite good enough. It's more of a personal "slut goddess worship" thing with me"
ReplyDeleteOkay, that's what I figured but I really wasn't sure.
Trinity, you crack me up :)
ReplyDeleteIt looks to me like Chris Bridges is mixing up some genuine problems with a lot of porn with a lot of his own personal squicks. Greta Christina actually did a couple of similar posts recently (here and here), and I think they were more insightful.
ReplyDeleteIt also doesn't look to me like he was "searching high and low" for good porn, it looks like he was just searching for anything good at the local video store, and judging by what the boxcover looks like. (Which isn't the best way to find good porn.) It doesn't sound to me like he looked elsewhere for porn that he and his wife would like. Has he ever seen anything by Viv Thomas, John B Root, Abby Winters, Tony Comstock, Audacia Ray, (to name a diverse set of examples) or any number of other indie pornographers? Has he even heard of any of them? There is interesting porn out there, but finding it takes some effort.
Some things from the post that are genuine problems with 90% of mainstream hetero porn, which I think most viewers would agree with:
* Performers just going through the motions – not enjoying what they're doing or even passably faking enjoyment.
* Unimaginative formulaic sex – the same acts in the same order every time.
* Poor production values – bad lighting, etc.
Some things I'd agree with, even though they're a matter of taste:
* Too much silicone – I'm not into enlarged breasts, personally, and there's definitely no reason that so many porn models should have them. These days, I think the trend is back to "natural", but companies like Vivid are slow in getting that message.
* Too much emphasis on rough and extreme sex, ass to mouth, bukkake, etc – I think out of all proportion to the actual audience for rough sex. There's a mentality in the industry that porn sex has to be "nasty" and that they have to keep coming up with ever more outrageous stuff to meet that demand. I think that this mainly appeals to a small audience of "raincoaters" and ends up alienating a lot of viewers. Interestingly, this trend in porn is the first thing radfems bring up when they talk about reasons why porn is so awful, though they're stuck on the idea that presenting sex like this somehow brainwashes people into wanting this kind of sex when they wouldn't otherwise.
* Too many directors who don't have a clue as to what's erotic. So-called "couples" films, which are supposedly more erotic, are generally the same-old same-old, but with a higher budget for sets and customs.
* "Woman-woman scenes that looks like they might be enjoying it. You know, with kissing and maybe even some foreplay before they whip out the 20-inch double-headed dildo or try to go up to their elbows." This is actually the same thing that the majority of fans of girl-girl complain about in the majority of mainstream girl/girl porn that's out there. Then again, I hear a lot of "raincoaters" say that this is the only thing that makes girl-girl scenes watchable, because 20-inch dildoes are "hardcore", while kissing and foreplay aren't.
Other stuff, I'm not so sure about:
* "Normal" looking people. That's pretty subjective. I'd agree that I'd like to see fewer porn models with hugely oversized enlargements and tons of other plastic surgery. On the other hand, what's "normal"? Personally, I prefer models that look like Justine Joli. Her body is definitely "natural", but "normal"? She deviates from a lot of statistical averages of female bodies in a lot of ways. I know this gets the anti-looksism crowd upset, but I generally think great beauty is a deviation from the norm, just like great intelligence is. Also, what's "beautiful" can be pretty subjective, and I think that porn models only narrowly fit a few notions of what's beautiful. The majority of porn models are what I'd call "LA hot" (think Jenna Jameson or Pam Anderson), a few are "fashion model hot" (like Justine Joli), and a few are "alt hot" (like Jade Starr or Riley Mason). That's kind of limited. (Not that I'm suggesting any given porn movie even needs to have a variety of types, because viewer tastes are generally pretty focused, but the industry overall lacks diversity.)
* "No anal, please." Not that I'm a big fan of anal either, but a lot of people happen to like it.
* "Not a big fan of the camera-between-the-legs shots anyway, or the extreme, can't-get-any-closer-or-she'll-swallow-the-camera closeups. I'd rather see the whole body and the lovers' growing arousal." Personally, I want both long shots and extreme closeups, and a good camerawork and editing will deliver a balance of both. A really good porn scene will show a mix of closeups of the action, facial reactions, and long shots with just the right timing – that's one of the things that separates skilled porn directors from the not-so.
* And this from Trinity: "I'm not a big fan of kissing. I like probing people's mouths with my tongue, but there really isn't a way to depict that on camera well. Forget it." I'm the complete opposite – if there's not a lot of kissing, you've lost me. And I definitely think it can be depicted well on camera. Directors like Viv Thomas practically specialize in showing lesbian kissing, even having a video series titled "The Art of Kissing". (Since the kissing parts of Viv Thomas movies are among the most pirated videos on YouTube, its easy to give an example.)
"Trinity, you crack me up :)"
ReplyDeleteYay! :)
"Too many directors who don't have a clue as to what's erotic. So-called "couples" films, which are supposedly more erotic, are generally the same-old same-old, but with a higher budget for sets and customs."
ReplyDelete[personal opinion]
Never underestimate the power of decent production values
[/personal opinion]
"This is actually the same thing that the majority of fans of girl-girl complain about in the majority of mainstream girl/girl porn that's out there. Then again, I hear a lot of "raincoaters" say that this is the only thing that makes girl-girl scenes watchable, because 20-inch dildoes are "hardcore", while kissing and foreplay aren't."
ReplyDeleteWell... are we talking about what male fans assume lesbians should do, or are we talking about what would be erotic to women, or what? Because I do understand the whole "the lesbian scenes should be less hardcore" thing, yeah, but at the same time... personally if I want to see women cuddle, I'll go watch friends at a party.
Yeah, I'm sure part of that's just me, but... I don't like the idea of enshrining "women are all touchy-feely and men are all fuck-y" into porn either. It's another stereotype that I could easily see porn producers running with in a really icky, "see, real sex involves a flesh dick" kinda way.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure, Trin, that I would make that assumption about men thinking that g/g sex in mainstream porn constitutes "lesbian sex". Just because two women may decide to lock lips or trade tongues or rub nipples and clits together doesn't necessarily make them out-and-out lesbians...any more than having a desire to look at, fondle, and rub another man's dick makes a man gay.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, most of the women who do g/g in mainstream porn are either truly bisexual women or generally het who dabble in "the pink" for langiappe. Then there are the girls who do exclusively g/g due to fear of HIV/AIDS infection, or who prefer not to deal with men and their dicks at all in their professional sex lives, but still aren't quite willing to give up cock for their personal lives.
And I don't have to say the basic fact that genuine "lesbian sex" -- that is, sex acts performed by wholly self-identified lesbians -- can get as "nasty" and as gonzo as the best (worst??) of mainstream gonzo porn. I'm sure that you will find plenty of examples...Kylie Irleand's new "Slutwerkz" production company, which recently opened a line of "lesbian porn" features gonzo g/g porn that would probably make even Rocco Siffredi blush.
Anthony
"Yeah, I'm sure part of that's just me, but... I don't like the idea of enshrining "women are all touchy-feely and men are all fuck-y" into porn either. It's another stereotype that I could easily see porn producers running with in a really icky, "see, real sex involves a flesh dick" kinda way."
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm not looking at it from a "politics of representation" perspective, rather, I'm talking about what turns me on and, for that matter, a lot of other fans of girl/girl porn. (And when it comes to porn, what turns people on is pretty much the bottom line.) And, yeah, that happens to be pretty "vanilla". Personally, the whole idea of sex without kissing strikes me as bizarre, and I always feel like something is missing if a sex scene doesn't include a whole lot of it. I'd probably feel the same way about heterosexual scenes if that's primarily what I was into, but it isn't.
One could go on all day about stereotypes and counter-stereotypes. The whole idea that the only "real" lesbian sex is the kind that takes place between self-proclaimed out queer women is a stereotype too, and not a very accurate one at that.
"I'm not so sure, Trin, that I would make that assumption about men thinking that g/g sex in mainstream porn constitutes "lesbian sex"."
ReplyDeleteOkay, I'm really confused -- where did I say this?
I' tripping over your comment because ... huh?
Yeah, I would like mainstream porn to be a little less about presenting a whole other sexuality as if it were merely a consumable, but I didn't say it would ever be an accurate representation.
"Well, I'm not looking at it from a "politics of representation" perspective, rather, I'm talking about what turns me on and, for that matter, a lot of other fans of girl/girl porn."
ReplyDeleteOkay, but there's a difference between talking about YOU and what YOU would like to see and talking about others and what they would like to see... and talking then about what should be put on tapes. Those are three different things.
"Personally, the whole idea of sex without kissing strikes me as bizarre, and I always feel like something is missing if a sex scene doesn't include a whole lot of it."
Okay, but I really don't see why you've missed my larger point here. Which was: if we encourage the presentation of women having sex in porn to be this cuddly syrupy kissy thing and then ***at the same time*** encourage that het be this very hardcore thing we're feeding into a stereotype about women. Just the same as we are if we don't at all critique the way girl/girl is currently acted out.
eh, well, I like kissing and delicacy, but not because I dislike "hardcore" or that it needs to be romantic and sweety-cutey and all. just...yeah, I would like a bit of variety, there, I don't like everything being all drill drill drill all the time.
ReplyDelete"Okay, but there's a difference between talking about YOU and what YOU would like to see and talking about others and what they would like to see... and talking then about what should be put on tapes. Those are three different things."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I understand what your saying at all here. The kind of stuff I like does represent a segment of the porn industry, albeit, not what's typical in more mainstream girl/girl porn. Generally, the kind of stuff I like is the kind of stuff that's more highly rated by fans of girl/girl as a genre than is the more typical stuff you see in a random "Silicon Valley"-produced porn video. And....why exactly should this stuff not be put on tape? Not following you at all here.
"Okay, but I really don't see why you've missed my larger point here. Which was: if we encourage the presentation of women having sex in porn to be this cuddly syrupy kissy thing and then ***at the same time*** encourage that het be this very hardcore thing we're feeding into a stereotype about women."
Well, I'm not encouraging a double-standard, but then, I really am neither here nor there about how m/f sex is portrayed in porn since I don't watch a whole lot of it. Sure, more tenderness might be good there, too, but I have no idea if that's what most fans of m/f fuck scenes are even looking for.
And certainly directors like Belladonna do super-hardcore f/f videos for people who are looking for that kind of thing, while SIR and Pink and White do very butch-femme dyke-oriented stuff. Its not like those representations aren't out there too.
But I'd say that a lot of people who like girl/girl videos, including no small number of female fans, are turned on by the softness and femminess of it all, and that's tied into what a lot of people are attracted to about women to begin with. You can hardly ask people to stop being turned on by that because of issues around the politics of representing gender any more than you can ask people who like BDSM imagery to stop liking that because of the politics of sexual power relationships.
I'd like to add, have you ever seen how a lot of current young female artists are presenting lesbianism?
ReplyDeleteComics artist Colleen Coover:
link
pic
Erotic painter Audrey Kawasaki:
pic
pic
pic
pic
pic
interview
Very soft, very girly, and the images are made by women. So the whole idea that this way of seeing women with women is strictly something that male pornographers impose on women – not buying it.
"eh, well, I like kissing and delicacy, but not because I dislike "hardcore" or that it needs to be romantic and sweety-cutey and all. just...yeah, I would like a bit of variety, there, I don't like everything being all drill drill drill all the time."
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing with that. I'm just saying that I can easily see a weird gender essentialist move being made. I'm not so sure why this point is so threatening or so weird.
"I'm not arguing with that. I'm just saying that I can easily see a weird gender essentialist move being made. I'm not so sure why this point is so threatening or so weird."
ReplyDeleteI might be totally misreading you, but what you seem to be saying is that people should avoid cis-gendered or gender-normative sexuality because of the specter of "essentialism". What I can't figure out a) why "essentialism" is such a big deal, especially when we're not talking about the realm of gender theory here, and b) why this is such an exception to your usual stance that people shouldn't have to remake their sexuality to fit their politics.
IAcB:
ReplyDeleteI don't think I've ever said that anything should or should not be depicted in porn, and I also don't think I've ever said that the industry shifting in particular ways might be good, bad, or neither... so I'm not at all sure how I'm being hypocritical here. I can't think of what more to say without simply restating my point, which I really do think is going over your head.
"I can't think of what more to say without simply restating my point, which I really do think is going over your head."
ReplyDeleteYeah, it probably is.
Porn stopped being about sex long ago. For a while now it's been about humiliation. Lately it has turned into torture porn. I've heard some rumors lately about "slice porn" guess what that's about?
ReplyDeleteI can't wait to see the web sits telling me that getting cut open with a knife in a porn film is an empowering feminist activity.
Well, Frank, judging by that last rather snotty statement, it seems you're basically trolling, so how much of a response you actually deserve is limited.
ReplyDeleteAs for "Porn stopped being about sex long ago. For a while now it's been about humiliation." Who says? Most porn is still very much about sex, and yes, while a whole lot of porn lately has been getting rougher and more about male dominance, that's hardly the only story about what's going on in porn, which is something that would be abundantly clear to you if you actually bothered to read this blog rather than just troll it.
As for "torture porn", that's not something that's happening in the porn industry, but in Hollywood, with films like the utterly vile Hostel series or the recent Captivity. That the porn industry hasn't exactly been quick to catch on with more explicit versions of this crap speaks volumes about Hollywood versus the porn industry.
As for "slice porn", I could really care less about what kind of "rumors" you've been hearing – the existence of commercial "snuff films" is a very old and discredited urban legend.