1. Porn is best watched alone. Tastes are so individual that the only way to successfully get one for someone else is not to. Watching it with someone else {unless it's a frat brother or a friend of a different sexual orientation) is only going to lead to A. Sex, if you're lucky or B. Someone walking out of the room in embarrassment or disgust. Here's the test: if they don't want to come to the store or to the monitor with you to choose it, they're probably not going to like it, which leads to the next rule.
2. Don't buy porn for people who haven't seen it before (i.e. your wife) unless it's a gag gift. Any adult who has never seen a porno, not even accidentally, has been actively avoiding it and doesn't want to see it. It's the 21st century--porno is everywhere. Even those who choose to avoid it are more likely than not to have accidentally seen it: walked in on someone watching it; popped in the wrong tape at a friend's house; typed in "whitehouse.com" instead of "whitehouse.gov"; any of a number of ways. Unless the person you're buying for gives you specifics, don't expect them to like it.
3. Not everyone sexually behaves the same way you do. If performers do something that's never occurred to you to do, that's "different", or that "looks uncomfortable," don't assume it's fake or not pleasurable. Try it first before you judge. Porn can be a learning tool as well =)
4. You can find videos of any kind of sex you want with any kind of people you want if you're willing to do a little work to find it. There are over 11,000 porno videos released a year. (Hollywood distributes about 500.) For every porno that fits the sitcom writer's stereotype of porn, there are 50 that don't. For every body type (except handicapped), there are entire series dedicated to worshipping them. There is more porn on Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than is dreamt of in your philosophy.
5. "Amateur" is a marketing tool. Pornographers use that word to polarize the ideas of "fake porno sex" vs. "real sex" and to get money from consumers who believe that "amateur camerawork" is equivalent to "real couples who love each other having sex." Who is more of an "amateur": a 19-year-old porn performer who's working with a "professional" company and has had sex with 7 guys in her lifetime; or a 43-year-old exhibitionist who's had sex with 150 men in her lifetime and is distributing tapes of her and her boyfriend via the internet? Either way, it's a performance. It's exhibitionism. The vast majority of porno videos with the word "amateur" on the cover are using porn professionals anyway. Homegrown Video is one of the only companies dedicated to distributing videos made by people outside the porno industry.
6. Porno does not have anywhere near the cinematic quality of a standard Hollywood movie. The vast majority of porn has the quality of a home video. This is not an exaggeration. The reality is that we consumers take Hollywood for granted, and we underestimate how very hard and very expensive it is to make a Hollywood movie. $500,000 is "low budget" in the mainstream movie business. You can make 10 pornos for half a million dollars. So, don't go into the porn room with high expectations, no matter what the box says. The porn videos with the highest production values are one level below a music video. DO NOT believe those people who talk about the "Golden Age" where "porno movies actually had plots." Those people are in love with their *memories* of those movies, not the reality of them. If you watch Behind the Green Door (1972) or Deep Throat (1972) after The Godfather or Star Wars, you'll laugh at the very idea of comparing pornos to real cinema. If you're looking for "something erotic for your spouse, but not too hardcore/too slutty/too graphic," or "something with a plot," then leave the porn room and rent one of the following:
Crash The Unbearable Lightness of Being Breaking the Waves Legends of the Fall Frankie and Johnny Mulholland Drive Damage 9 1/2 Weeks Last Tango in Paris Wild Orchid Y Tu Mama Tambien Sex and Lucia Romance Body Heat Splendor Threesome
7. Porn’s target market comprises people who are engaging in sexual activity while watching it. You can’t approach it like you would a Hollywood movie. It’s interactive. You have to pull your out your joysticks and Fire buttons. Porno appeals to your horniness. That simple. The question to ask yourself when considering getting a porn video is, "Do I want to watch people performing sex acts?" If the answer is "Yes," then go for it knowing that's what you'll find.
No hay mejor aderezo que la carne encima del hueso.
I don't agree. (Not without there being some more criteria for this statement that haven't yet been made.) As many cases for watching it with someone could be made as for not watching it with anyone. In fact, watching porn together as a couple is good for your sex life. Just ask most sex therapists.
> 2. Don't buy porn for people who haven't seen it before
I don't go along with this one either - assuming that they haven't specifically told you not to get it for them. If they don't want to watch it, there's nothing forcing them to do so. Assuming that you know the person well enough to think that they won't be terribly offended and never speak to you again, the worst that could happen is that it never gets watched...
> 3. Not everyone sexually behaves the same way you do.
I'll go along with that one. Although I really don't know what the "explanation" under the statement has to do with the statement itself. Perhaps it should have been rephrased "Don't knock it till you try it." Of course, everybody has the right to judge what they think is pleasurable for themselves, whether they've done something or not. If they choose not to try A2M, DP, bukakke, yellow and brown showers, and any of the other "extreme" things seen in these movies, I hardly think it fair to fault them for not being open minded...
> 4. You can find videos of any kind of sex you want with > any kind of people you want if you're willing to do a > little work to find it.
Perhaps most, but I wouldn't go so far as to say all. For instance, I think I'd be hard pressed to find a movie showing necropheliac acts on a dead handicapped transsexual involving a chicken, filmed in a cistern at the top of Mt. Everest. <grin>
> 5. "Amateur" is a marketing tool.
Yes and no. It *really* depends on your definition of "amateur". Put a stationary camera in the bedroom of an otherwise mainstream couple for a couple of months, so that they forget it's even there. What you see would, no doubt, be a terrible movie but it certainly wouldn't be staged, and nobody could say that it wasn't amateur. There are other, less obvious, examples where it's less about performance and more about just capturing it for future tittilation in private life. Now, if you find it in the store, that's another matter. But I'm sure that there's a lot of amateur footage out there that will never see a dollar spent on it.
Also, in terms of store bought material, I would define amateur as "unscripted", "unstaged" (in terms of thinking things through beforehand), and displaying a sincere emotional commitment among all of the participants, rather than just people acting out roles. I'm fairly sure that most people would make this distinction and wouldn't have that much difficulty separating genres - even if there are some grey areas.
> 6. Porno does not have anywhere near the cinematic > quality of a standard Hollywood movie.
That's certainly true, but...
> The vast majority of porn has the quality of a home video.
...I can't agree with that. The quality is certainly poor, but it's still better than an everyday person walking around with a video camera who only gets it out every Christmas. (Which is filmed for all of $0 - or, perhaps a bit more, if you factor in the initial cost of the camera and a tape or two.) Any movie I'd buy would have, comparatively, much better production values than my wedding video has (which I would never buy on any kind of technical merit).
> DO NOT believe those people who talk about the "Golden > Age" where "porno movies actually had plots." Those > people are in love with their *memories* of those movies, > not the reality of them.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. I own several classic movies and have watched them recently. When I think about them I'm not thinking about my memories of them from high school. In fact, I appreciate them even more now than I did when just remembering them from back then.
> (1972) after The Godfather or Star Wars, you'll laugh at > the very idea of comparing pornos to real cinema.
I would have no problem comparing some adult movies (admittedly a small number) to "real" cinema in terms of plot, dialogue and acting. In fact I did. Read my review of Through The Looking Glass.
> 7. Porn’s target market comprises people who are engaging > in sexual activity while watching it.
Perhaps as a generalization, but certainly not as a hard and fast rule that's always the case. Personally, I almost always watch an adult movie all the way through and, if I do end up masturbating (which itself isn't always the case), it's normally not until the movie's over and I've put it away. (This is assuming that I'm on my own rather than with my wife.) I think that DB also recently said the same thing in another thread - about just watching the movie and not getting off on it.
> The question to ask yourself when considering getting a > porn video is, "Do I want to watch people performing sex > acts?"
That's awfully reductionist. A porn video, by definition, contains sex. So, that's like asking yourself when you're hungry and deciding what to eat, "Do I want to put something in my mouth and swallow?" There's a lot more to it than just that one criterion.
So - what's the point of this post? As with some others recently, I'm not sure what you're getting at here. It seems awfully didactic and, if I'm being honest, I found myself slightly offended by its preachy tone. Hopefully it wasn't meant that way. But it would help if you put some of your own self into your words, if these are actually your own thoughts. Or, if you're reproducing some kind of "tract", cite its source so there's some context for it.
Later: Ah. I see that this came out of something posted in the General Porn Talk forum. (Although that still doesn't make it clear to me what the original "rules" were intended for, nor why there's now this "new"of rules here in the forum.) I agree with Saki in his reponse to the other thread. The "laying down" of rules, especially out of context, is a little too authoritarian. It needs to have some IMHOs thrown in - and there should also be some discussion in terms of what "the rules" are trying to accomplish. One other comment from the other thread:
> Many people unfamiliar with porn think that they're > Hollywood movies with explicit sex
I really don't believe that to be the case. I would think that most people who haven't seen an adult movie would think that it fulfilled the very stereotype perpetuated in "the rules" - that they're low budget, have little or no acting, and what there is of it is bad, and that there's no comparison between them and any mainstream movie. (I'm sure what everybody has in their head is just cheesy music and naked bodies.) So - it's actually the reverse that needs to be got across to people. That that's only the bad porn. The good porn, and it does exist, does have good acting, dialogue, higher budgets, and does appeal to people on more than just a libidonous level.
I agree with Mythsong's points. Sue, is there any possibility you might consider rephrasing your post to present your views as guidelines rather than rules?
As I've mentioned several times on other threads, I did not see my first adult movie until I was 27. I was not actively avoiding porn; it's just that my folks never had any when I was growing up, I live in a small rural city where there's none for sale, and my husband and I did not even have the Internet connection until 2001. He lovingly introduced it to me in a hotel room while we were traveling. So my first experience, which I remember with great fondness, breaks your first two rules. Also, the third or fourth adult movie I saw was the classic Every Woman Has a Fantasy, which my husband bought for us. I thoroughly enjoyed it even though there weren't any "memories" for me to compare it to. It was just right for me, and I would happily recommend it to others.
I guess I'm just saying that we need to stay open to the wide range of possibilities for viewing and appreciating porn, even among newbies.
I find this list to be thought out, and for the most part, right on. About the only item I don't agree on is the bit about the quality being like a home movie. This is certainly true of some flix, but most of the ones that I watch are definitely professional (think Adamo).
Another second for everything Mythsong said. The only thing I can really agree with you on is #3, which as I read it comes close to contradicting almost everything else you say here. Sorry Sue, but everything you have in your post makes porn and sex sound like bad things that one should never even think about sharing with a loved one. IMHO, that doesn't sound like a healthy relationship at all. If one is fully in a relationship with somebody they love, they shouldn't be afraid to show their sexuality. Does this mean that I think Fashionistas should be shown on a second date? Probably not, but in some circumstances maybe that's what does it for a couple.
As to watching it alone, I have fond memories about watching porn with a group of guys in college. Many people enjoy watching bad movies (such as Army of Darkness for a mainstream example), and a lot of porn is great bad movies. Heck, a lot of them are better than the Skin-emax stuff late Friday nights, especially for the Golden Age porn you seem to look down on so much.
Boo yow! Thanks for all the responses. This page is now bookmarked for easy linkage. A general note: from a writer's standpoint, I think it's redundant to include an IMHO in anything with "Rules for Porn" in its title. If you can't see the unwritten smiley in the above statement without me putting one there, then you might as well give up reading anything I write. Next thing you know, emoticons will escape the 'net and infiltrate novels and essays, replacing Tone....
I love porn and sex. I want others to love porn and sex. If there were Evangelical Sextians, I would be on my mission right now, “preaching” the Gosporn to a burkha-clad housewife in Riyadh. The rules are more “all-inclusive” than “contradictory”, because there are different kinds of porn newbies with different kinds of preconceived notions of porn videos. I have to admit, Astro, that the most common stereotype I hear from porn newbies is “Ya know, I heard that the old ones were better.” Then they watch “Behind the Green Door” or “Deep Throat” and they’re like “eh. It was aaight.” I’m not downing Classics. I myself still like to watch DMJ 3 and New York City Woman. I just want to debunk the more general notion that Classics were better, and replace it with the notion that one should try a lot and find one’s own taste. Cuz what if someone, thinking Debbie Does Dallas is the best porn can offer, watches it and hates it? I’d rather that person know that there is a variety, of which they should sample much before deciding to give up on porn.
Mythsong wrote: “> 1. Porn is best watched alone. I don't agree. (Not without there being some more criteria for this statement that haven't yet been made.)
Even though I had written: “Here's the test: if they don't want to come to the store or to the monitor with you to choose it, they're probably not going to like it” and “Unless the person you're buying for gives you specifics, don't expect them to like it.”
What I’ve run across often is people (husbands/boyfriends usually) buying porn with the outward intent of getting something for a woman, and asking me what they should get. What I wish they would do is look more to the woman they’re getting it for. It is a real possibility that buying porn for a woman who hasn’t participated in the process can get a guy in trouble. I believe that a man in this situation needs to pay high attention to even the subtlest resistance his partner may give when presented with the idea of porn. Of course watching porn together can be great, but if you’re a porn beginner, you don’t know if it’s gonna be great. Your partner might come out of the bag on you. So your radar should be extra sensitive when you navigate through the potentially argument-causing process of getting your first porn together. My thought on using the word “best” in rule 1 was “it’s less hassle to just get something for yourself or let your partner get something for herself in the beginning. That way there’s no blame game. Plus, the more interested half of a couple being the one who gets into porn-watching first can mean that that half will learn enough about porn to predict what the other half would like.“
Mythsong wrote: “> 3. Not everyone sexually behaves the same way you do. I'll go along with that one. Although I really don't know what the "explanation" under the statement has to do with the statement itself.“
I’ve run across people who think that sexual performances that differ from their own life experiences are “fake”. In particular, the idea that “women who orgasm differently than I do are faking it.” Do performers often fake enjoyment or orgasms in porn? Of course. It is a performance [acting, even!] after all. What’s wrong with portraying sex as fun, where the woman‘s enjoyment is such a requirement that if it can‘t be fully achieved, it will be acted out? The only one who knows if a female performer is cumming is her. Every woman’s orgasmic behavioral set (like her golf swing) is unique.
The egalitarian argument is that men cum in every scene, why not women? I’d like to look behind that argument. How many male performers would feel relief if they didn’t have to ejaculate every time? Or if you could just act like you came instead of feeling 20 eyes on you as you hold up everyone’s schedule while you stroke yourself to the brink of ejaculation? How many women performers would be in porn if directors hooked up electrodes to them to make sure that every orgasm was real? Do we hold theatrical actors to that same standard? Did anyone yell “yeah right” when the Fellowship cried at Gandalf’s sacrifice? Did anyone think, “They didn’t really experience the trauma of losing a friend, after all. They’re just actors.”
Mythsong wrote: “Put a stationary camera in the bedroom of an otherwise mainstream couple for a couple of months, so that they forget it's even there. What you see would, no doubt, be a terrible movie but it certainly wouldn't be staged, and nobody could say that it wasn't amateur. “
But would it be a movie? Or would it be surveillance? Voyeurism at its purest? If a movie is anything, it’s directed. Can undirected, unedited footage be considered a movie? [...Listens for the sounds of Walter Burns footsteps...]
Mythsong wrote: “in terms of store bought material, I would define amateur as "unscripted", "unstaged" (in terms of thinking things through beforehand), and displaying a sincere emotional commitment among all of the participants, rather than just people acting out roles. “
My wonder is this: doesn’t the presence of a camera immediately change the situation into an exhibitionist one, where the purpose of the sex now includes pleasing the virtual audience on some, even small, level. (Even if the only audience is yourself in the future.) And wouldn’t much gonzo fall under the definition of “unscripted, unstaged and displaying a sincere emotional commitment among all of the participants [to get each other off]”? When pornstars who are friends/lovers offset perform in a gonzo, are they suddenly amateurs?
Mythsong wrote: “A porn video, by definition, contains sex. So, that's like asking yourself when you're hungry and deciding what to eat, "Do I want to put something in my mouth and swallow?" There's a lot more to it than just that one criterion.”
You’re right. My point is that the explicit sex and/or nudity is what connects them all. Many people, upon seeing their first porn, are surprised at how explicit it is, and how much of a bright light is put on the sex acts. Yes, there are people unfamiliar with porn who think it’s like what they see Friday nights on Cinemax. I’m encountering people like that right now in soc.sexuality.general. I’ve encountered people like that my whole porn life. Why do you think there are people who are surprised or disappointed by bad porn acting? Because their *expectancy* is that it will be at a passable level of proficiency. Because they think pornos are just B-movies with explicit sex. I just want to be sure that porn newbies know that porno is not primarily about the art of storytelling through video and film, but rather about the art and sport of sex. In a world where needles, like Fashionistas and Dreamquest, are surrounded by a haystack of Leisure Time, Filmco, Sunshine, Overtime and 5-hours-on-1-disc, we all must admit that it might be easier for a porn newbie who wants a “plot” to leave the backroom and rent Mulholland Drive than to know who to trust to give them a good porno recommendation. For every YogaGrrl there is a FacIan. For every Saki there is a Patrick Riley. For every Aybesea there is a porn clerk ready to tell a customer, “Adamo sucks. Get this comp of 1001 Cumshots, instead. It rawks.”
Why? Have you ever tried not alone? I don't agree! Make the atmosphere for it and it can be great! Also, you should select carefully the film. But I insist: it can be fun!Why? Someone has to do the first step! The point is to not buy porn to someone who doesn't want to see any. But this is actually quite easy to know. Many curious persons will never buy themselves.To speak about me like this, I am afraid that you have specially selected a subset of my reviews to read yourself. Maybe you could add yourself in the same bag then? When you have done that, get me out of this bag that I don't want to share with you. Not because of you but because I don't like being in a bag! By the way, where are your reviews? I could not find them!...
> from a writer's standpoint, I think it's redundant to > include an IMHO in anything with "Rules for Porn" in its > title.
Well, see? Even that statement was better because you qualifed it with such things as "from a writer's standpoint", "I think", and "it's redundant". (The first two saying that it's a subjective, perspective-oriented opinion, the last giving some kind of explanation as to why not use IMHO - because it's redundant.)
Without any kind of qualification of the "the rules" it sounds too prescriptive and judgemental. Rather than just some some friendly advice. <grin>
While I agree that it doesn't need to, specifically, be the use of "IMHO", I think that something about the post needs to be changed to make the implied tone more explicit. Perhaps even just changing the title from "Rules" to "Guidelines" or "Suggestions" - and/or add "My" or "SueR's" at the beginning so that we know who they're coming from rather than taking them as a kind of faceless "edict". (Especially when you encourage us all to do our own thing anyway!)
> If you can't see the unwritten smiley in the above > statement without me putting one there, then you might as > well give up reading anything I write.
Oh, dear! <grin>
> I just want to debunk the more general notion that > Classics were better,
I still believe that as a general rule, in terms of what I like to see. Yes, you can find bad classic, and yes you can find good modern movies. But, at an overall level, I will keep arguing for classics being better quality until I see the modern industry start to re-embrace some of the attitudes towards adult fare that used to be held and have, since then, been lost. (In general.)
> and replace it with the notion that one should try a lot > and find one’s own taste.
I'll whole-heartedly support that statement. But when anybody says "classics are better" or "classics aren't better" that's a subjective opinion. (I'm not even saying that I'm right. That's just my opinion in terms of what I like.) Trying a lot and finding your own taste is certainly something that I don't think anybody (or at least not very many people) could disagree with.
> Cuz what if someone, thinking Debbie Does Dallas is the > best porn can offer, watches it and hates it?
The person who told them that would have been either wrong or mis-stating things. At best, they should have told them that DDD was the porn they they thought was the best. YMMV is always a good motto.
> if they don't want to come to the store or to the monitor > with you to choose it, they're probably not going to like > it
All that really means is that they don't want to go to the store with you. <grin> Unless they've also said that they aren't interested in watching anything that you might get. (Harking back to my eating analogy, somebody may not feel like going shopping, but would have no problem having some of the Hagen Daaz that was brought back.)
> ” and “Unless the person you're buying for gives you > specifics, don't expect them to like it.”
Again, a lack of specifics shouldn't carry with it an assumption that no matter what you get it will go unappreciated. What if they don't give any specifics but say "surprise me"? There's no guarantee they'll like what you get, but there's no guarantee they'll dislike it either.
> What I wish they would do is look more to the woman > they’re getting it for.
Without a doubt. Otherwise they're just getting it for themselves and wanting the other person to watch what they want with them. (Like buying your wife that new wrench set...)
> It is a real possibility that buying porn for a woman who > hasn’t participated in the process can get a guy in > trouble.
One would have to assume that the guy, if they've been paying attention, would have some sort of idea what to get. And, if they don't, they can always pick up a handful of different things, come home and say, "I wasn't sure what you'd like but I got a bunch of different ones we could try - hopefully you'll like one of them..."
> That way there’s no blame game.
There shouldn't be a blame game anyway , no matter what you pick up. It's how it's discussed afterwards (whether or not it's liked) that's the real issue here. Any proper communication between a couple will be blame-free, because neither person will make such judgements / statements. If there's blame going on (whether over the movie brought home or anything else) then there are deeper relationship issues that need to be worked out.
> The egalitarian argument is that men cum in every scene, > why not women?
I believe I've read somewhere, as strange as it may sound, that it's possible for men to ejaculate without having an orgasm. I'm not quite sure how that would work, but I know I did come across the idea at some point. What I do know is that it's possible to ejaculate without having an enjoyable orgasm (despite the perception that orgasms are all earth-shattering experiences, there are certainly degrees of pleasure involved). I wouldn't kid myself into thinking that porn is any more about male pleasure than it is about female pleasure (although, really, it should be about both). When filming a sequence, the director isn't looking for the guy to feel good, he's simply looking for the peformer to ejaculate. Any "feeling good" would just be a side effect.
> performers would feel relief if they didn’t have to > ejaculate every time?
I think that the "laboriousness" of constant ejaculation here would not be the moment of orgasm itself which (despite what I wrote above) is still a "plus", but, rather, the interminable time and effort needed to get to that stage. So, I'm sure that while most male actors would rather orgasm than not (as would most women), that some/many would feel relief (to re-word things a bit) if they didn't have to work themselves up to the point of ejaculating every time. (If men could somehow snap their fingers and magically be seconds away from an orgasm, and be able to do this as often as they wished, any guesses on how many times a day this would be done? <grin> The same goes for women, too, of course.)
> But would it be a movie? Or would it be surveillance? > Voyeurism at its purest? If a movie is anything, it’s > directed. Can undirected, unedited footage be considered a > movie?
I certainly never said it would be a good one. <grin> Also, I was exaggerating for the sake of argument. There's a difference between having a director and crew working with two people, constantly saying "Cut, change position, now do this, now do that, freeze while we get this close up...", etc., and having just two people in bed together doing what they want without being interrupted. Yes, they can be aware of the camera and, perhaps, do things in such as way as to make what's being filmed more appealing to anybody who might watch it later - but it's more spontaneous, less "manipulated". (If you set up multiple cameras and edit things post-sex, they would still be capturing a single continuous event - rather than a disjointed series of shoots spliced together.)
It's not really the directing and editing I object to per se , it's the directing and editing during the scene (or the perception of it anyway - see below) that's the problem. (Or, rather, the distinction - because I do still enjoy non-amateur productions.) In an amateur production, any direction should be before the scene, and any editing should be after the scene, in post-production.
> My wonder is this: doesn’t the presence of a camera > immediately change the situation into an exhibitionist > one, where the purpose of the sex now includes pleasing > the virtual audience on some, even small, level. (Even if
Yes, of course. But, if it's done properly, that fact doesn't take away from what's happening between the couple, rather it adds excitement to it. A non-intrusive camera is a lot different than a very intrusive crew where things are constantly stopped and re-done for technical reasons.
> And wouldn’t much gonzo fall under the definition of > “unscripted, unstaged and displaying a sincere emotional > commitment among all of the participants [to get each > other off]”?
No, I wouldn't think so. In gonzo, the camera operator is still telling the performers what they should be doing. Unless you have a situation where the couple keeps on doing what they're doing without being interrupted, and the operator simply shifts position, zoom, etc., without impacting them, it's still a matter of the couple being stopped and started all the time for a different angle or bit of content.
> When pornstars who are friends/lovers offset perform in a > gonzo, are they suddenly amateurs?
If by that you mean when they, off-set, have sex and their activity is unobtrusively filmed by somebody, then yes. I would consider that "amateur". Or, if they are filmed having sex on-set, but in such a way that the director and/or camera operator just leaves it up to them to do whatever they want (without interrupting them to request they do something else), then that, too, I would consider to be amateur. Amateur, in my mind, does not mean inexperienced or unprofessional. It simply means "unforced" and "natural", capturing what happens rather than *making* it happen. It simply seems to be the case, more often than not, that "amateur" ends up being equated with "unprofessional" and "inexperienced" for the simply reason that almost every studio prefers to "force" sex scenes (as described above) to be a certain way, rather than just letting them be free-form. (And it may even be the case that things are made to happen on-set but if I, as the audience, can't tell the difference then there is no difference in terms of how I experience it.)
> Many people, upon seeing their first porn, are surprised > at how explicit it is, and how much of a bright light is > put on the sex acts.
I really don't think that it comes as an intellectual suprise - I'm sure they're perfectly aware of the fact that what they see is what they'd thought they were going to see. Rather, it comes as an emotional / visual shock. I don't think it's the explicitness that's a suprise - I think it's the "realness", the fact that it's actually happening, rather than just being imagined.
> Why do you think there are people who are surprised or > disappointed by bad porn acting?
I still think that those people are in the minority. There are two things here. First, I believe that the natural assumption of most people is that porn is bad acting, not that it isn't. (I know that before I ever saw such a movie I had a very clear assumption in my head that the acting was terrible. Nor was I "disappointed" when I had that confirmed. Then, when I saw not bad acting, in the classic Taboo, I was pleasantly, and positively, suprised.) Second, I think that the appeal of porn is primarily the desire to see people naked and having sex (and, most often - but not always, get off on it). Considerations of acting, good or bad, is pretty far down on the list of reasons for popping the tape/disc into your player. I don't think that anybody who's primary reason for watching a movie is to see good acting, and who's never seen an adult movie before, would look at a porn on that basis. In fact, that would be the last thing they'd look it.
> Because their *expectancy* is that it will be at a > passable level of proficiency. Because they think pornos
Again, I really don't think that this is the majority expectancy. I'm sure that most people who look at a porn for the first time really couldn't care less about the acting. They just do it because it's racy, taboo, "bad", and sexually arousing. They'll be far more "shocked" by what they're seeing on the screen, in a physical / sexual sense, than anything else. (Perhaps, after they've watched several bad porns, and gotten the initial exposure to sex out of their system, then they'll start to be a little disappointed in the acting and look around. However, I don't think that they'd make the assumption that all porn is like that just on the basis of the few they'd seen. They'd ask around, search out reviews, and so on, and try to find examples of better acted fare.)
> I just want to be sure that porn newbies know that porno > is not primarily about the art of storytelling through > video and film, but rather about the art and sport of sex.
I'm sure that most people don't have this confusion. <grin>
(However, and I'm saying this with a mischevious grin, there were more plot/dialogue/acting driven "feature" type movies in the 70s and 80s - the days of those "hated" classics <grin> - so maybe these days it is easier to claim that porn newbies are more easily disappointed!)
Well, since you weren't making the comparison (or series of comparisons, which give rise to the implication), but rather responding to it, the question would be for Sue (but you may answer, if you like).
While I agree with much of your post, I disagree here. I was about twelve years old at the height of the Golden Age, and didn't discover the films until I was in my thirties. And even then it was only because I was looking for something the industry is not currently providing -- high production values shot on film.
You then hold up the poorly made DEEP THROAT and BEHIND THE GREEN DOOR as the examples to be compared to mainstream. And what mainstream do you say to compare them to? GODFATHER and STAR WARS! Please.
A fairer example of Golden Age would be BARBARA BROADCAST, AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF A FLEA, or even WANDA WHIPS WALL STREET. There are so very many.
Despite your claims, these movies do indeed have high production values and are shot on film. Comparable to mainstream? Not really. But a heckuva lot closer than modern porn.
_______________________________
"The greatest argument for the existence of God, is the beauty of the female form."
The problem with that, is that 99% of the porn in my country is crap! I import everything because in my country the only options I have to purchase porn are Vivid (Stereotypically enhanced breasts don't encourage all that many porn consumers here) and very very very low budget home grown porn, which is like watching naked videos of the family vacation. When shown REAL, and well directed porn many people here are pleasantly suprised by what they see, but they have no reason to go out and look for it because they really do not understand what they are missing. For the record, everything I own I order from overseas with the exceoption of my first mistake which is hidden in a box because I won't admit to anyone that I own porn that bad lol.
I found this post while searching for discussions on classic porn and very much agree with what you have to say.
I've given up watching modern porn - those purported to be features as it has extremely poor production values.
To fill up this gap, I resort to watching classic porn as it is more mainstream like and the classic features mostly deals in situational sex rather no sense sex.
My only wish is that porn studios would switch their minds back to the 70s and make porn like the 70s. They should at least try out a couple of such mainstream like porn and see if it is well received by viewers.
You need to send your request to the Directors' Guild. What you really want is someone like Ang Lee to make a movie of his standard, but with real sex in it. That's the next step of evolution.
This is an excellent post. Many terrific observations. I feel that a lot of what you say will be lost on the men who drag their wives to an adult store only to find themselves in front of a divorce lawyer. lol.
Yes, NEVER EVER expose your wife/girlfriend/so to porn UNLESS she independently requests it. That is to say, SHE comes home with a porn tape, pops it into the player, and invites you to watch it with her.
As you correctly point out, unless you live under a rock. you have been exposed to pornography. So, if the wife, girlfriend, etc. has never brought up porn: this means SHE ACTIVELY DISLIKES IT, NOT (AS A LOT OF MEN SEEM TO BELIEVE) THAT SHE IS IN NEED OF ENLIGHTENMENT.
This is not an attack on you 2Big or SueR, but rather the TONE.
These are blanket generalizations stated as incontrovertible fact (indeed, SHOUTED as incontrovertible fact). Can you backup these assertions? No. Then, this is an opinion. As such, it should be denoted as such.
I don't believe YogaGrrl lived under a rock until she was 27 years old, yet she had seen no hardcore. *GASP*
Things like IMO and IMHO are perfectly acceptable in a message board. Emoticons are not your enemy. This is not a college thesis, nor an essay for a professional journal, nor a newspaper article. This is a message board. The rules are different. And rules are meant to be broken. And there are exceptions to every rule.
Ain't nobody gettin' graded you on this. Worst that can happen is you get banned, and lo and behold you can always register under a new name and start over.
There have been many times I have made statements that would be construed as "That guy is such a DICK." Can be. Or "What an arrogant prick". Sometimes.
However, there are times when it is not my intention to come across that way, because my "audience" is less vague than some concept thrown about in a writing class; my audience is often a real, live, unique human being with feelings, whom I do not wish to offend or cause undue harm.
I even make sure the Cals and Hamiltons and Fayners of the board know I'm just fucking with them, even though through sheer virtue of their chosen profession and the way they present themselves to the world they should be thick-skinned, water off a duck's back kinds of people.
I don't suppose I have anything to add. I was just irritated. It'll pass.
Seriously though c60's neither malicious nor unpleasant , I like him .
< what do you mean , that's hardly a ringing endorsement >
My thought ( not enough brain power for more than one ) on this thread is that the rules are likely different for each and every one of us . I mean , Henry Kissinger could probably talk Dworkin into liking porn , while I have difficulty talking the McDonalds girl into selling me a burger . Horses for courses .....
An interesting set of rules. The only one that my own experience doesn't quite jive with is the first one. I watched my first hardcore porn film when my then husband brought home a video he got off of one of his co-workers. We watched it together, I remember thinking it was okay, not great, not terrible.
We then started going to the neighborhood video store, that had a back room with X-rated videos. So, our joint viewing habit grew.
Even when we split up, I would rent videos from Tower records, until they stopped rented hardcore videos. Some were good, some were just awful.
I wasn't initially against watching films with my husband, and he would have known I wouldn't be, because we had already looked at Playboys together, and had even gone to a stripper bar when we vacationed in New Orleans. So, I was ok with doing stuff like that.
As to being surprised at what you can see in a film, that cuts both ways. Once, he and I watched a Peter North film, and my husband was convinced that the cum shot was faked. I thought it was real, and we had quite a little disagreement about it. At the time, neither of us knew about Mr. North and his prodigious talents.
Renee, do you remember anything specific about your reactions to the first pornos you watched? What seemed particularly odd or offensive or silly about them?
My experience is that most women encounter pornography thorough men--husbands or boyfriends who introduce them to it, or, when they're younger, male family members who leave it lying about the house. This might be changing dramatically now, however, with the internet and mail order hardcore rental. I'm sure there are thousands of teenage girls surfing the web for pornographic images as I write this. What I often wonder is, will the growing inclusion of women viewers into the pornographic audience eventually change the way the commercial industry makes its videos? Will they recognize this audience and adjust their point of view accordingly? And if so, how? (I'm not holding my breath)
In actuality, my porn habit began when I and my best friend Donna found her older brother's stash of Penthouses and Playboys. He didn't make much effort to hide them, and truth be told, Donna and I gobbled them right up . I was 12, Donna was 10 and her brother was 13 .
Lazerus, you are correct, sir. In my case, it certainly has been brothers, boyfriends, and a husband, who have had the material lying around, or who offered it up for some shared viewing. I've never shied away from the stuff, though I know there are some women out there who like seeing sexually explicit things, while there are others who don't.
Will the porn industry ever take notice? I suppose they try by putting out couples features, though those have never been my cup of tea. I prefer gonzo films, because they are less contrived, and there are way less fake tits and so on, in them. The sex comes across as more real to me, as well. But especially with gonzo films, I doubt very much that studios will target female fans. Unless, suddenly there was to be a large, vocal contingent of women who start posting here on ADT, making it very clear what they do and don't want in their porn.
I'm trying to remember some of those early hardcore films I saw; this was ~12 years ago. I remember liking the explicit sex scenes, but not the contrived storylines and dialogue/bad acting that went along with them . Too many times I would think to myself, "That deliveryman wouldn't come onto that woman just like that; he'd at least flirt with her a bit."
I think the first porn I saw was a few years ago, with a free tape that came with a sextoy order from Adam & Eve, so I can't really say that a man introduced me to porn. My current boyfriend doesn't watch porn, but like most people that I know, he doesn't actively dislike it, he just doesn't think about it. You might say that he's a doer not a watcher, hee hee.
I used to be more vocal about what I would like to see, but have pretty much given up hope that things will change. I've even been told to shut the fuck up, that because porn is made for men I have no right to criticize it, when all I'm asking is that there be more VARIETY. I'm not holding my breath either.
Actually, I've seen some changes for the better. Certainly not in the quantity that you might hope for, but some directors do seem to be listening. I not recommending you hold your breath, but keep on talking. Water will wear down a mountain, you know.
Well, porn is by men for men, no doubt; that alone is probably enough to make some women swear off the stuff--like listening to a joke where you're the only one who doesn't quite get the punch line, and after a while you begin to get suspicious that the joke is on you. But ladies usually have more interesting things to say about pornography for that reason: they're just a little outside the discourse (to use an academic term), so they can have very revealing perceptions about it.
I'm thinking of starting a thread in the porn pool forum about a hypothetical gonzo film aimed at women; just to get the rank-and-file strokers out of their "how many dicks in her ass?" rut. Soon as I figure out how to introduce the subject.
Renee, your comments about plot and storyline are funny, particularly in relation to Sue's final "rule" in this thread. I've already posted what I think about this subject on the Through the Looking Glass thread in this forum. Suffice to say, many porn novices take awhile to grasp the conventions that make porn go round. Erotic situation in pornography is built on a different set of premises than what you will usually see in a mainstream soft core film like, say, Two Moon Junction ; although not to many viewers seem to make these distinctions. Production values are also, to me, a red herring; they have little to do with the success of the final product; expertise with the medium is much more valuable (although there seems to have always been this idea that women are impressed with production values in porn, that it somehow makes the whole thing more palatable and "classy"). My rule of thumb has always been that if the costumes, sets, script, etc. don't make the sex better, then they have no purpose being there at all.
I remember when I first saw a porn film I was rather puzzled at some of the things that went on sexually in it; in fact, I still am today--but I have learned never to be judgmental about anything that happens sexually in a porno (or real life, which I've found to be much more peculiar than any sex fiction). I know some women are baffled and a bit put off by the endless cum shots, for example. It reminds my of the first girl I ever fooled around with in high school, who used to admonish me for always "making a mess," if you know what I mean. We never got to the intercourse stage, but I did leave a few stains on her parents' sofa. And in my car. And on a particular throw rug. And so on. I wonder what the first girl who ever fooled around with Peter North thought? Or maybe that was a boy . . .
DB-I have a friend who saw her first porn video that *exact* same way: ordered a sex toy from A&E and got a free one in the mail. BTW, I think you'd make a great porn director. If you're afraid of people finding out, just pull a Mason. I think a Mardi Gras mask would suit you better than a burkha, though.
...
A pattern that I'm seeing from the antiporners on the Ms. Magazine boards is that of them not even being able to imagine *any* explicit depiction of sexuality that would please them, or not "harm women." I ask them specifically to imagine an artistic depiction of explicit sexuality, and they either can't or won't allow full-on sexuality to be in their presence, not even in their imaginations. I also see a separate treatment of porn vs other forms of literature and expression. These people treat porn differently than they do other arts/sports. It's as if sex is some holy thing whose name should not be spoken. I now can't remember what in this thread made me think of this. My goddess...I too am human.
Anyway...Lazerus sparked another thought when he spoke of porn being for men. [I almost see this attitude as akin to saying "sex is for men." I know you're not saying that Laz, so don't focus on it.] But, it makes me think about the all or nothing attitude some people have when it comes to demographics. Like when people call romantic comedies "chick flicks", even though 40% of romantic comedy viewers are male. Yes it is true that the majority of porn consumers are male...but there's still millions of women who use it. We're not insignificant. As far as who a director makes it "for", I think it's him/herself, primarily. Directors create scenes/use performers they themselves think are hot/reliable/etc. [At least those who love what they do] I have never observed a strong tradition of market research in the industry, at least not as strong as in other industries. And as I've written many times before, once a woman gets into porn, our tastes are as varied as men's.
As a lifetime female porn user, I see porn as a tableau onto which I project sexuality. (Kind of like every individual interprets art individually.) I take porn pics and videos and I create my own stories out of them. "Stories" may not be the right word, but I create my own connection to each piece. So who it's "for" has never mattered to me, because I control how I interact with it. This is easier to do with porn than with Hollywood movies, which have stronger narrative. I guess I equate porn more to a dance performance or sports event than to movies, which I why I've never carried that certain dissatisfaction with it that many others do. I feel like pornographers are doing what they're supposed to do: show us the explicit sexuality that other media won't show. And I guess I sometimes feel that complaining about porn's weak character development/storytelling is like complaining about a baseball game broadcast's weak character development/storytelling.
Maybe this has to do also with the general way I approach sexuality. I have a girlfriend who recently told me that she rarely masturbates. She says that masturbation "makes her sad" because it reminds her that she's mate-less. As a result, she has sex with anyone that expresses interest (including me). (She didn't say that last part out loud, but that's what I see happen in her life.) This revelation floored me because I'm sooo not that way. I masturbate because it feels good. My emotions around masturbation are rooted in its physical feel-goodness. I don't need to be emotionally engaged or connected to feel that goodness; I just need to touch myself. Not to say that emotional connectedness with a live human doesn't add another dimension. Obviously it does. But it adds *another* dimension of pleasure to the *already existing dimension* of pleasure.
I'm sorry if this post sounds fractured, but at the moment I'm very distracted by what appears to be a Scottish Black woman in a Nice Azz Tits disc.
[Link]
DenverDon Benevolent
Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02
Posted - Nov 11 2003 : 4:33AM
Or some 'nasty' thing whose name should not be spoken. Sounds like the time period I grew up in.
You right that sex is in a very special catagory in our culture, but I don't know if "holy" is right right word.
Look at the Miller test for "obscenity". It is specific to what goes on between people's legs. Violence, no matter how extreme could never possibly be considered obscenity, but a woman spreading her pussy quite possibly could be.
Read the decent on Lawrence v. Texas. Scalia actually believes that the State not only has the right, but the imparative, to tell people what they should and should not do in bed. His explination of why laws banning sex between races are not constitutional, but laws banning sex between people of the same sex are bizarre and inconsistant, to say the least.
While I was on my obscenity kick last week I did a little research into the history of banning sexual art and literature. From my reading it looks like obscenity laws are based in the same places as blasphemy laws. I don't think this is insignificant. The same social forces that would dictate how and with whom adults would have sex would also (if they could) dictate how we would worship.
"Porn is best watched alone." I also have to chime in on this one... Porn is best watched with intimate company. Nothing like slow grinding heated foreplay during porn. Heck, I even played a game with a girlfriend, I get blown during scene 1, she gets eaten during scene 2, every once in a while, we would actually finish the movie! And if we did not finish it, then the goal was to get to the end next evening! Makes a very entertaining evening, and, makes some experimentation easy for verbally shy ladies... On more than one occasion i was asked "I want you to do that RIGHT NOW" or the best one "I bet your cum tastes good too" Married that one years ago... Still have porno contests every month or so with her!
