It depends. :)

Again, the "couples" label is so complicated and debatable that I have no doubt that we will be discussing it at length in this forum. And I would say that that's part of the reason this particlar forum was created in the first place. :)

Mike L.

Edited by - MLyons on 3/10/2003 9:48:56 PM

[Link]

- Saki [faqs]

[Link]

It relies very heavily on fetish acts and clothing, very strong sex, and S/M.

I recommend that you read the reviews here at ADT, some of which detail the types of acts in the film. If you feel comfortable with those acts, you might be comfortable with the film. If the mere mention of consensual slapping and choking makes you cringe, this movie probably isn't for you.

[Link]

You might want to see if the couple in question had any interested in that film 9 1/2 Weeks before recommending this film. If they did enjoy that, then I'd say picking up this film is a no-brainer.

I liked the comment by focusyn as well. That person is pretty much coming from my point of view as well, having watching mainly couples films. I've seen very few of these BDSM movies.

On the other hand, I'm no stranger to real live BDSM. ;-)

Also, I think the strong story line helps make it a couples film, as does the handsome Rocco. The woman I watched the film with thought it was a fantastic couples film and one of the best parts for her was when Rocco had to take his turn being dominated. She wanted to see more of that. Also, seeing women dominate women helped take some of the edge off. Also, the women-doming-women scenes were an important element to the film. How about that Star Chandler? Does she know how to spank or what?

Another plus that makes this a kind of couples film, I think, is the commentary audio track. As I said in a posting elsewhere, that track really helps put the whole thing in a larger context and allows us into the minds of the people who were participating in the scenes.

Heck, the fact that we're talking about this film as much as we have (those before me I mean) should also indicate that this is something of a couples film. Talking about a porn movie after it's over! Conversation between couples! Sounds like a good thing.

Yogagrrl, are you sure you're husband isn't watching that film while you're off at work? ;-) and isn't merely telling you he isn't interested because she's nervous of what you might think about the film, galantry and chivalry and respecting women and all that. But seriously, if he ever did watch some of it, and I hope he did so while you were together and he could tell you were engaged by the film, I'm interested in how he eventually responded to it. I wasn't sure how I would react when I first put the disc in, (I know little about the film, to tell the truth, before I hit play) but very quickly I became impressed. Great work.

Yeah, I'm afraid it's true. I'm another long-winded poster. Nice group you've got here. I'm not a lurker, by the way, having only discovered the site last week.

Zell1728: Porno tyro with @100 movies seen. Favorites include Zazel, The Fashionistas, Serenade, White Lightning, Erotic Visions, Night Trips II, and The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women.

[Link]

Some people like that but many people don't, and even Tricia says that it is not a couples film. That's good enough for me.

[Link]

- Saki [faqs]

[Link]

My husband is not a closed-minded guy. He's an EXCELLENT lover, in fact. He's comfortable with his sexuality and willing to experiment, but he also has a good understanding of his limits. For example, he has accepted that I enjoy the sensation of little hair clips pinching my nipples, but when I invited him to experience the same, his answer was a firm "no."

I can respect that it isn't something that interests him. Learning when to push things and when to compromise is essential for maintaining any long-term monogamous relationship. (Mr. Yoga and I began dating 13 years ago.) He understands that he's welcome to watch The Fashionistas (or any of my porn, for that matter), but I'm certainly not going to pester him into something he's resisting.

I'm definitely not trying to scare anyone away from The Fashionistas. It's a truly excellent movie, and I stand behind my five star rating. As I mentioned elsewhere, however, I did have very unpleasant dreams related to this movie for two weeks afterwards. It took time for my subconscious to process everything I'd seen and heard, especially on the commentary track—which as you say, does allow us into the minds of the people who were participating in the scenes. It was that blurring of fantasy and reality (e.g., the knowledge that the slaps are hard and that some people like it that way in real life) that was so difficult for me to relate to and ultimately accept. I don't regret going through that emotional process (I learned a lot about myself), but for a while, it definitely wasn't easy.

I don't doubt that there are some couples who would enjoy watching this movie together, especially if they're already familiar with viewing or participating in rougher sex. But IMHO, it's not really appropriate as a general couples' recommendation.

[Link]

Now we're getting to the gist of the issue, at least for me. I think couples porn is actually a bad term and I've never gotten much use out of it, especially when other people use it. I'm sure it means something to them, does some useful linguistic work and all that, and when I use it around the house it has some meaning. But what it means for me and what it means for you are going to be different, I think. It's just too vague a word. Here's an example: the woman I watched the Fashionistas with liked it even more than I did! Now, if a definition of a 'couples film' is going to exclude such an event in which the woman watching the film likes it more than the guy did because of the content of the film, then for me that definition isn't doing much work. If I throw in a recent Blake film into the DVD and the woman I'm with says "doesn't do much for me" and walks away to do homework, then we don't have a couples film in the house. On the other hand if I put in something like the Fashionistas and she dims the lights, lights up the candles, and brings some lube into the room, then we've got a couples film in the house, if you see what I mean.

If the term is going to stay in use, I'd like to see the definition of couples film expanded to include hot, interesting, well produced sex of just about any kind and not have it kind of arbitrarily narrowed. Gonzo could be couples, BDSM could be couples, Gang bangs, and yes, Eyes of Desire, House of Dreams, White Lightning, Serenade could be couples as well.

I'm new to the arena here, and wouldn't mind somebody explaining to me just why would BDSM be excluded from the couples definition? Who made that rule? Why would they do that? Where did that tradition come from?

Dumblonde, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're really not a fan of this movie at all, are you? and probably wouldn't recommend it to anyone, right?

Also, I think Tricia said the film "DOESN'T fall into the standard definition for most people of a couple's movie" and not that it wasn't a couples film at all. There's big difference. She may come back and clarify, but as it stands, she did not come out and say the film is not a couples film, but more likely meant "this is a film that can be enjoyed by couples who are interested in such a movie." It's sort of a couples movie, as I'd say all couples movies are.

A raincoater film is like the opposite of a couples film, right? I have my doubts, though I could be wrong, that this is what you'd call a raincoater. Maybe that's not relevant here, but to me it seems like this DVD with all it's extras and audio commentary is just about perfect for a couple interested in such things. Gives them a lot to watch, to take in, to think about, and mimic if they so desire, and to talk about later.

And heck, let's not forget people like me and Mike who know women who like the film. Once again, maybe some people are short selling what a couples film is. Isn't there a case, however slim, to be made that whatever film is enjoyed by a couple is de facto a couples film in some sense? How many couples have to enjoy a film before we can say it is a couples film? How many couples must dislike a film before it's excluded from the category. Maybe, we viewers and the industry are being too prescriptive in what a couples film is and are not being inclusive enough. I'm not really sure what couples in real life like (I imagine it's pretty specific to them as a unit) and haven't seen much on the internet so far that actually talks about how these films are viewed by couples or how the dynamic of a couple viewing a film together is different from one of them watching it alone.

Ultimately, though, I'm not sure it matters much. So what if a film gets tagged by us or someone else as 'for couples'? That's just a single phrase. Do we really put much weight into that? What does that tell us that a review or video clip/preview doesn't do much better? How does that tag alter our perception of the film, or our recommendations and evaluations? It's very slight I'd guess, when compared to other factors.

Anyway, maybe I should hop off this thread because I really don't like the 'couples' term and don't have much constructive to say about it. Is there a more general Fashionistas discussion thread out there which doesn't center on the couples question? I'd be much more comfortable talking about the film in a basic appreciation context than this one. Mike?

Hope I didn't sound to confrontational here, new guy on the block mouthing off and all that. Just for the record, I'd like to see more foreplay, love/sweet/dirt talk, holding, squeezing, petting in adult films! How about somebody touching someone else's face in a light caressing way especially during oral sex? Who cares if it obscures the view; it's very sexy. How about far fewer facials? I'm not simply a BDSM fan-as you can see from my list of favorite movies that I sometimes tag on the ends of my post-; that's actually a minor portion of what I've seen and like to watch; I don't even own a restraining device or a blind fold! ;-)

Once again I fall back to MLyons comment and I nearly quote. Is this a couples film? Well, like almost all porn movies, that depends on the couple who intends to watch it. I think FastForward started the thread wanting to know more about the movie. Did we address any of your concerns? Any thoughts on what you've read?

Oh wait, I just can't stop myself (hey, I work the night shift tonight, I've got morning time to kill) do I think this movie falls into what I've seen other people label as couples films. No, no no and a thousand more times no. That's easy to answer, sorry if I wasn't clear about that. Do I think we should say this is a couples film for some couples, especially couples interested in BDSM films and adults films of any nature of exceptional quality? "yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes" as Molly Bloom said.

I guess I really really really don't understand the term couples porn, because that's exactly what I've been looking for, something to watch with the woman in my life (I find porn much more powerful/interesting/sexy/complex when I watch it with someone) and Fash fit that to a T. Like I said, I'm new here, don't understand a lot of things, and guess I showed off my ignorance pretty good. Forgive me. Thanks for putting up with me. I've been working under the assumption that couples seriously interested in watching sex films would be eager to see one of this level, regardless of the content, esp when it contains so much heat from consenting adults-listen to the commentary-, but from what I gather I'm way off base about that. Who knew. Me, I'm the type of person who thinks seeing or listening to something boring is about the biggest waste of time and money ever. I'd say far too much entertainment is conservative and boring in nature and I'm will to heap praise and reward upon any non-boring presentation. Me, if I were recommending films, I'd rather steer people clear of the boring stuff and point them to the exciting material, with caveats and comments. That's just me though.

Long live Couples Porn!

[Link]

We are still trying to comfortably define the scope of "The Lighter Side" forum. Although I agree with your concerns about the "couples" definition, even as it relates to the Fashionistas, I have to differ to smartblonde and this forum's moderators as to how far to take discussions like this here. I for one think this is a worthy and somewhat inevitable discussion, but part of the purpose of this particular forum is to welcome those who are new to porn, or those who, frankly, enjoy not so err.. advanced, specialized, and admittedly sometimes disturbing material. We'll feel our way and see what happens.

As for discussing Fashionistas in a context of appreciation, etc, other than some of the reviews on the subject, there are a couple of threads in the main forum that have discussed Fashionistas from that standpoint. I would encourage you either to do a forum search with the "Fashionistas" string, or even to start your own thread there and voice your personal reactions and see what comes of it!

Mike L.

Edited by - MLyons on 3/11/2003 11:51:17 AM

[Link]

Admittedly, this might not be the place to discuss it, but let's at least not oversimplify things.

Mike L.

[Link]

I've never seen it, so I can't recommend it or not recommend it.

Let me add that this thread is already getting more contentious
than I like. Again, there IS a universally (I thought) understood meaning of the term 'couples porn', right or wrong. For those wishing to redefine it to include BDSM, choking and slapping, please move to the general forum. We're peaceful folks over here.

Edited by - dumblonde on 3/11/2003 12:35:32 PM

[Link]

I don't question the fact that everyone has a slightly different notion of what "couple's porn" entails. But I don't think that anyone who uses the standard connotation of "couple's porn" would put The Fashionistas in the same general category as, say, Zazel or Justine: Nothing to Hide. That's not to say that it's not good for couples, it just doesn't fit the category. It would be like categorizing Dirty Debutantes as a gonzo series.

If you were to define the couple's genre as whatever turns you and your loved one on, then all porn could be considered to be couple's porn. As I'm so fond of saying, porn is a highly personal and subjective experience. There's no "right" and "wrong," only what you like or don't like.

- Saki [faqs]

[Link]

If I would like to raise a question like, "Am I the only one who has noticed the biggest focus in so called 'raincoater' material in on 'girls', while the focus in so called 'couples porn' or 'erotica' is on 'women'?", should I do that here or in the general forum? Not a flame, but an honest question.

Edited: Maybe I should have asked this question in the World News and Nonsense forum?

Edited by - Walter Burns on 3/11/2003 1:09:18 PM

[Link]

The second question is also appropriate.

I might also add that both questions are appropriate for the general forum.

A case where it would be off-topic would be discussing The Fashionistas itself.

It goes back to your elementary Venn diagrams: draw a big circle and call it General Porn Talk. Then draw a small circle inside the big circle and call it The Lighter Side. :-)

- Saki [faqs]

[Link]

No, The Fashionistas does not fit in to the "standard" definition of couples porn. To me, when someone actually uses the term couples porn, I usually take it to mean they are looking for something lighter on the roughness, nothing shocking, and heavier on the plot and acting.

Since The Fashionistas (although a well-made film with good production values and good acting) DOES delve highly into BDSM, I WARN people about the content if they question if it is good for couples.

I guess a good example, is that even though John and I watch LOTS of porn together, we wouldn't go into a store and ask for a couples porn tape.

So, my final answer to the question is:
no, it's not a lighter porn movie. But it is a possibility that a woman could like it if she's OK with rougher sex issues.

(And YogaGrrl - I never got a chance to thank you for your review. I admire that you rewarded the film overall with a good review even though it wasn't actually your thing.)

So now I think I'll head back out of this forum.

[Link]

Edited by - dumblonde on 3/11/2003 6:30:47 PM

[Link]

I don't feel completely comfortable discussing The Fashionistas in this thread, as I feel that this particular forum will have a tendency to much more sensitive than the others.
I recommend that you do a search for the other threads on The Fashionistas.

[Link]

Now the original post stated that a 'couples movie means anything that'd tend to make a couple feel like fucking more, as opposed to less.' For my personal life, it does neither. 'Couples' porn to me is more like a Marvin Gaye song, candles lit around a satin sheet bed, or incense burning while we meditate together. Its a preamble to sexual activity, and thus, it can run a spectrum of interests. Which is hard to classify.

Fashionistas is a classic stylized movie with hardcore, erotic, super-charged sex. And it is very accesible to the women I know who have seen it, including my fiance, and a whole gang of chicks we hang out with. Sometimes the airbrushed, fake breasted, bad acting school of what is supposed 'couples' porn only goes against what it is trying to accomplish. Most women who have watched porn with me in any sort of erotic fashion reach for my private 'pirate' stash' as it is more hip and fashionable. Its really a matter of what sort of couple we are talking about. Which is as diverse as a solo porn viewer...

[Link]

That seems to be what PornoBoy was saying as well. But damn, how good looking would a guy have to be in order to make choking and slapping, something that's normally a turn-off to me, arousing? Is Brad Pit in this? All that would do is turn me off to Brad Pit.

[Link]

If Nacho Vidal would of been in it would that mean it had extra cheese?

sorry.

[Link]

In keeping with the lighter theme, it wasn't a major conflagration, and seems to be under control.

[Link]

However, as you say, it depends on who is viewing it.

DenverDon

[Link]

Picman writes:
"Still, I would recommend it to couples, unless they were very close minded. "

That is actually a very judgmental and close-minded statement you made. Most people already know their limits, and not being aroused by BDSM is by NO means being 'close-minded'. Some people are aroused by SCAT movies too, but would you call people who aren't 'close-minded'? I doubt it, but it's no different, it's a FETISH. Fetish is a different category than couples, that's all. Hope this has helped.

[Link]

Experienced couples know what they like, so what someone else considers a "couples video" probably doesn't matter to them. I think, Saki, that you think of Vivid or Adam and Eve when you think of "couples" because you're a porn connoisseur who moderates a porn forum and reads AVN every month. You're an insider who knows about how those particular companies market themselves. A porn newbie probably wouldn't even know about "couples" versus "gonzo" versus "feature" versus "compilation" versus "wall to wall". Like I said in an earlier post on this same issue (before The Lighter Side came to be) "couples" is a marketing device: Make a boxcover that looks more like a "movie" and less like a "porno", and you will get the consumers who are unaccustomed to graphic depictions, NO MATTER THE EXPLICITNESS of the content within. Vivid movies have anal and facials just like everybody else.

Plus, Fash says right there on the box that it has S&M, so anybody not into that wouldn't get it. Just like anyone who doesn't want to see an orgy wouldn't get Sunset Stripped. Speaking of which...I guess since I'm talking about the content of Fash, now's a good time to say that I don't think the S/M content of Fash was that heavy. It was definitely real, and I loved it. But, I've seen videos (legal, American made ones) with welt fetishes, piercing, extreme rope bondage, kidnapping/hostage scenes, hot wax...things I had to turn off cuz they were too much for me. No blood was drawn in Fash (except maybe when Rocco tried to overstuff Kate Frost's mouth and got his cock caught in her teeth). I guess I'm mentioning this because there's seems to be this feeling that Fash would scare a porn newbie away from porno forever. I'm not saying this won't happen. But I believe that any porno, even a softcore Playboy Playmate video, potentially has something that could turn a newbie off porn. It could very well occur that a newbie couple watches Fash and thinks nothing of the clothespins on the lips but is disgusted by the constant oral sex. Something they would have seen in any video they'd rented.

Edited by - SueR on 3/20/2003 5:36:40 AM

[Link]

Edited by - YogaGrrl on 3/20/2003 5:02:21 PM

[Link]

http://www.adultdetective.com/dvdreviews/

Ms Christine & JC, the first couple of adult review.

[Link]