Sheldon wroteI am convinced that your comments are a reflection of your own personal experience, and not necessarily the reality of the society in which we live. You really do underestimate the degree to which female-female intimacy serves as sexual entertainment for a large population of heterosexual men.Now when is your sense of humor going to show up? First of all, I hardly consider the New York Post to be among the most serious of news sources. It is certainly not the first place I would go to find serious (or even credible) information. When I read it, I read it more for entertainment than for news, as it is more of a gossip rag than an actual news source. Secondly, people have been joking about Hillary being a lesbian for years. This is nothing new. They joke about her being a lesbian the same way they find ways to joke about any other celebrity or person in the limelight. Nobody actually takes it seriosuly. Plus, it does not at all surprise me that the New York Post would actually print something like that.
The way feminists like Kate Millett have understood patriarchy it is essentially about a societal structure where men have higher status than women and older men have higher status than younger men, in short: the rule of the middle-aged man, the father-figure. Christianity is clearly patriarchal in this sense and so are most societies in this world, even those where religion does not play a great role.
Greek societies of antiquity, where homosexuality was much more accepted, were patriarchal as well so patriarchy seems to be compatible with a wide variety of views on sex. Greek homosexuality did however tend to be hierarchical, the middle-aged man was supposed to be the penetrator and the young man to be penetrated. So if there is one type of sex which is at odds with patriarchy it is perhaps precisely this: that the man is penetrated, giving up control, being at the recieving end. On this account, rubbing cocks against each other is "safe", you can do that and still be a Man.
Some porn actually plays around with this since there is a growing niche of f/m strap-on movies, but from what I have seen they do also tend to emphasize the power play of this role reversal. As a form of mirror image, this type of scene is still caught up in the old, boring norm system. What I would personally like to see are scenes where there is f/m strap-on and finger anal play but sort of casually, instead of the male being reduced to the female's bitch. Perhaps something for you Kat? After all, you are a hands-on kind of director, so why not slip in a finger or two while the male is pumping away...
Realtip wrote:You are 'convinced'? The way that it takes you to be convinced is as remote from scholarly criteria as one can get. You didn't even know (or forgot) about Dynasty, you've demonstrated ignorance about basic feminist doctrine and downplayed the reality of violence against lesbians. Take a good look in the mirror before you start questioning my credentials.
You blatantly contradict yourself. In one post you claim, on the one hand, that same-sex 'g/g' fantasies are not a matter of mass public concern and curiosity, but then claim in another post that every man you know of is hot for 'g/g' and that a large population of het males gets off on 'g/g'. Now, what part of the word 'mass' don't you understand?
You also have trouble reading, which makes the presence of your fingers on a keyboard highly problematic. I never claimed that 'g/g' wasn't enjoyed by a large population of het males, but rather by a MAJORITY of same, and therefore can not be taken as the viewpoint of society as a whole.
Truthfulness and seriousness are not synonymous. That the Post lies or exaggerates? Of course. But it has a serious impact on large numbers of backward people who gobble up an homophobic news items, emboldening a few nut cases already teetering on the edge to take up arms against gays. The readership is gullible enough - after all, most people in this country believe in 'creation science', not Darwin's Theory of Evolution (Source: CBS poll).
The Post needs to be taken seriously...deadly seriously.
Yeah, I always wondered how a director who directed two of the greatest and most innovative films of all time could direct so much crap.
Thanks for the reply, Daniel. I'm always positively surprised how many people with an academic background work in the adult industry. This doesn't fit into the image of "the sleazy biz" I've grown up with.
Wicked Pictures,Vouyer Media, Axel Braun Productions, Marc Dorcel, JoyBear Pictures, abbywinters.com 1390 Posts 7/05
Posted - Feb 2 2006 : 11:45AM
Thanks Juha. To encapsulate (and avoid hijacking this thread) the work basically examined The French Connection, The Exorcist, & Sorcerer as an "Existential Trilogy" that share a complex matrix of themes and points of view. I also like To Live & Die In LA and Rampage, but beyond that, much of Friedkin's output has not only been crap, but even worse...just painfully ordinary.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - Feb 2 2006 : 4:46PM
Sheldon wroteThere is no contradiction there. The fact that a large population of people fantasize about something does not make that fantasy a "matter of public concern or curiosity." That is an utter exaggeration. It just makes it something that a lot of people fantasize about. For example, studies have shown that people, in general, fantasize about sex regularly throughout the day. People also fantasize about murdering people who get on their nerves, or about robbing a bank and living comfortably off the money, but these are not "matters of public concern or curiosity." Indeed, a large number of heterosexual men find female-female sex stimulating, but it is not the mass social dilemma that you would state it to be.First of all, I never questioned your credentials, since I do not know or am concerned about them, whatever they may be. Secondly, presuming things about others, which is what you are doing, is even more "remote from scholarly criteria" than persuasion is, as the latter is, by definition, based upon induced reasoning, while the former requires no proof or reason whatsoever. I didn’t know about "Dynasty" because I never watched the show. The only thing I remember about the show is that my mother used to watch it when I was a kid, and I remember always thinking to myself that Linda Evans and Joan Collins were way too old to still be fighting and falling down staircases.
As for my "demonstrated ignorance about basic feminist doctrine," you presume that too. I do not believe that people need to go around bragging about what they have studied, but I also do not agree with people jumping to conclusions about other peoples’ education. Although I initially only enrolled in Women’s Studies classes in college because I was attracted to the idea of being in a class full of girls, I eventually became very interested in the subject matter. I am aware of Charlotte Bunch and her views of lesbianism being a form of revolt against a male-dominated culture. I have studied Monique Wittig and her ideas that women are defined by male control over women’s bodies. I have read the works of Betty Friedan, Audre Lorde, Gloria Steinam, Bell Hooks and others, as well as studied the opposite end of the spectrum by writers such as Phyllis Schaffley. I know about the first and second waves of feminism, the Equal Rights Amendment and its constant failure to be constitutionally ratified, and anything else on this matter that you may feel the need to assume I don’t know. I have also never "downplayed the reality of violence against lesbians" or gays. However, I believe that violence in society is a problem, period, not just against homosexuals. Thus, as far as questioning the credentials of other people, perhaps it would do you good to take your own advice.
Realtip wrote:No. If people regularly fantasize about a particular scenario, then of course they are exhibiting curiosity about the scenario. If only a few people who had the fantasy discussed it openly, then it would not be a matter of mass public curiosity. But in the real world, well over thousands have voiced opinions on the 'g/g' fantasy, enough for the topic to be discussed in mainstream newspapers on a regular basis as well as on talk shows of almost every sort, as well as the other examples I gave in my previous posts here.The difference is same-sex fantasies are intimately connected to the status of actual same-sexers, which IS an unresolved hot-button issue. There is no public controversy about what our stance should be about murder or robbing a bank.I never said it was a dilemma. "Concern and curiosity" are something else. But don't take my word for it - consult a dictionary.Oh, but you did question them, earlier:I made it rather clear that this wasn't based on my own personal experiences, but on a broad range of publicly-available material. I don't use anecdotes.But you asserted, in a tone I found infuriatingly smug, that the alleged double standard around same-sex fantasies made such a program impossible.
I'm with you. I've recently been playing with this notion. As, I just keep finding that men love a little anal play themselves... whether rimming, or a finger, or the whole nine yards. So... I recently shot the following... boy's character was that of an old drug lord... think Scarface. And his two whores came a calling. I told them they were late. While we're in the middle of the scene, I take a dildo and fuck the boy up the ass, while one of the "whores" blows him. So... you do see me fucking the boy up the ass, but, with the camera not losing focus on the girl's face who is blowing him. I want to play more with this. Though, I'm well aware that generally men's ass-holes are not quite as pretty as the woman's. I would probably do more of it if I knew it did not scare off the male market for my movies. After all, l love to please the boys.
Sounds like a hot scene. Which movie will it be in? Also I agree that men's assholes really are not as aesthetically pleasing, at best they are ok to look at whereas women's assholes can be really pretty (although some gays might perhaps disagree with this). Something with the difference in the curve in which the asshole is placed perhaps. So maybe this is one area in porn where close-ups should be left out, rather the anal play can be something that one can sort of see happening while something else, like a blow-job, is in the center of things. Which I guess sounds like what you´ve already done. I can just hope that you will continue to explore this and I suspect that the time is starting to get ripe for being able to do it without scaring off too many of the male viewers.
Jane wants to get a strap-on and fuck me in the ass before she will bend over for me. I tried to tell her straight guys don't go there in or out of porn. You're not helping my cause here. dicknjane
Tristram, The scene is in a movie not yet titled... and shot it in Costa Rica, for a brand new company... so I don't yet have any details as to even when it will be released in the states. But, as soon as I do, I'll post it for you. And yeah... I think the difference for me... in men's ass-holes vs. women's... it's the hair thing. So, the key for me is to find a guy who will do it, who's pretty clean shaven down there. Thank goodness most of the men in porn do groom.
dicknjane, Haha... sorry man! But, I do find that most men in my personal life are much more apt to like something in, around, or up the bum, than a stud in porn. I guess it has something to do with being on camera for the whole world to see. Though, I would bet a lot of them would do it in their personal lives. Funny how life works that way. Also... still cracks me up that they'll rub their cocks together up some girls ass on screen, but many of them won't take a dildo from a girl up the ass. It must have to do with the whole... dominate/submissive thing. And, actually, that guy to whom I fucked up the ass with the dildo... after... he wanted to rape me off camera... actually got sort of scary at one point in time until the producer calmed the guy down. I guess he sort of felt violated... even though he agreed to do it before we shot it.
Kat, that's exactly what i'm talkin' bout. Jane feels some of these porn women's asses are getting violated by these porn dogs who won't give their own ass up to save their soul and she wants some get even time at my expense and i'm scared shitless the strap-on is in the mail.
Its amazing the amount of wishfull thinking going on. This movie changes nothing. Straight guys are not going to suddenly start watching gay movies or become gay because Hollywood gave a bunch of awards to to this movie. I suspect most straight men won't be caught dead watching this movie. Withing a few months we will have a bunch of dissapointed gays when the realize this changed nothing.
Posted - Feb 2 2006 : 1:12AM
