The answer is that when you are sufficiently in the mood boredom is not an issue (in either porn or real sex). Afterwards is another matter entirely.
One second; one ejaculation; one hormonal release is all that separates being singularly consumed with lust to being singularly concerned with whether you've put milk on the shopping list or if the lawn needs mowing. Women are different animals, however. Women remain resolutely concerned with shopping lists even in the throes of passion
One last thing though, I do agree that much porn is a bit too formulaic. So familiar; it's like when you listen to an album you've heard so often that you start humming the next song whilst the present one is still fading out.
Ok look, your initial post suggests a problem but now your response adds to the problem, Surely the very idea of an 'average scene' is exactly what you are complaining about. Surely what you baulk at is the fact you just know what is going to happen next: the thrill has gone?
The best scenes are not 'average scenes' in any sense of the word, they do not progress by numbers they surprise. Novelty is always sexy, fucking a woman you've never even seen nude before is an extra turn-on, the novelty factor is there; watching a scene out of the ordinary turn of events is a turn-on, the novelty factor is there also.
SNP.
[Link]
shameless Deactivated User
Moscow 1313 Posts 1/03
Posted - Nov 11 2003 : 6:26PM
If the pussy-fucking was left out, it would soon become equally formulaic, Toy.
I think one reason for the formulaic scenes is that it is easier to memorize for the actors/actresses and easier, i.e. faster to shoot this way. If you ever dealt with side costs such as lighting, renting a location etc. you will see that the faster is often the better.
Another thing is that the sheer absence of non-formulaic porn drives any porn fan sooner or later to the formulaic porn again.
I dont know, maybe if lighenting, camerapersons, locatins were cheaper and actors/actresses/directors brighter... Just a guess. Not wanting to put anybody down.
Well, sex tends to be more of the same in the real world too. Having said that, I agree that porn tends to be too formulaic but, look at it this way - Steve Holmes said that the male performer is the 'dance' leader, and this suggests to me that the man probably just falls into the routine that worked in the past. The studios go along for the same reason.
Personally, I don't find this boring if the performers don't, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't appreciate variety.
let me explain what i mean by an average scene. yes: for me it is the procedure as described above. but why can it still be extremely hot?
it is the actors the cameramen and the directors who can make it hot! it is like a variation of a melody. in its structure it s always the same. but yet its very much to listen to it!
even a scene with the very usual sex positions can be xtremely hot if:
- the actors are acting well - the chick is beautiful (fuckable in the jargon of porn reviewers) - pussies and dicks are shaved - they dont stick with one position for too long - if the cameraman knows how to shoot (close ups please!) - the picture quality is clear
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Nov 11 2003 : 6:41PM
I would have said in the past, they offer 'rupture'.
Novelty can only be defined in the presence of/in contrast to familiarity. The dynamic between these two has been identified as the motor of so-called popular culture. For once, I agree with such a broad statement, ... in principle. (... and now for something completely different.) Hmmm... I guess that is my cue to leave the stage.
Edited: I forgot the question. Is porn boring? Well, lately I have experienced that I keep falling asleep while watching porn. This is no joke. I am feeling all right. I dim the lights, put in a porn DVD and within 20 minutes I am struggling to keep my eyes open. I stop the DVD, turn the lights back up and go the computer. Then I stay awake for hours, while visiting this place. This has happened at least 10 times the past month. Is this a Pavlovian reflex: put in porn DVD, fall asleep?
shameless said: "Am I caring just too much? Or should I just better think with my dick..."
Walter wrote:I recall you had a thread dedicated to its discussion. Alas, by the time I got around to clicking on it its sheer scale and wordiness rather overwhelmed me so i hit the good old 'back' button and forgot all about it (other than its existence)
Toylover wrote:
All sounds good to me! I would add that although I adore shaved (or better waxed) pussies they have lost a little of their charm. This is not to say that I could ever again face a mammoth bush, I could not. My point is that now they are so commonplace that the thrill of seeing a smooth girl has gone and all I am left with is irritation and disappointment when I see a really hairy girl! Same with anal and then gaping, both things I discovered in porn at various stages and which, although I still love, have lost some of their impact.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Nov 11 2003 : 7:48PM
Sure, but also when you are discussing porn?
btw, what you described as the "variation of a melody" is exactly what I mean with the novelty-familiarity dichotomy. I am very glad you used the term "structure", as this is of utmost importance to this discussion. Before I can explain this in any detail, I would have to explain the concept of 'aesthetic norms', and the way they can be organized within a hierarchic order, depending on their abstraction level. This would mean a long and boring post, I am sure. Let's see if I can give a cliff notes version.
I make a distinction between 'correct entertainment' and 'good entertainment'. 'Correct entertainment' adheres to the structural norms of the kind/type/formula of entertainment to which it belongs, nothing more, nothing less. It offers the viewers what it expects of that kind of entertainment. As such, it doesn't alienate its viewers by offering a type of entertainment for which the audience has no normative frame of reference. However, there is a problem with just 'correct entertainment'. 'Correct entertainment" relies on standardization to offer the audience what it wants, time and time and again. However, how can you keep an audience interested if all products within a certain type of entertainment, are virtually the same? Why would an audience be interested in a new film, if it merely offers more of the same? Well, the obvious answer is that besides standardization/familiarity, there is also need for differentiation/novelty. It is my contention that 'good entertainment' (as defined by relevant gatekeepers: critics and the audience at large; not by the historian/theoretician) offers both familiarity and novelty within the same text. How is this possible? Because aesthetic norms, which govern specific aesthetic formulas, belong to different abstraction levels, which in turn offer different structural/systematic possibilities for idiosyncratic innovation. Probably too much mumbo-jumbo, but what I am saying, can be researched/analyzed in very specific, empirical ways. It is a somewhat cumbersome way of saying the exact same thing as this: "its structure it s always the same. but yet its very much to listen to it!" I can illustrate it in excrutiating details with regards to classical Hollywood cinema. I can identify very specific textual properties with regard to the familiarity-novelty dichotomy by pointing to the different kinds of relations that exist between functional and formal qualities/properties of both the stylistic and formal system of a film to the conventional norms of the classical Hollywood paradigm. But that would be off topic, I guess. However, the same is true for porn. I am sure you can identify different formulas within porn. However, those formulas offer only familiar structures (I guess your blowjob / pussy licking (optional) / pussy fucking / ass fucking / cumshot (99% facial), or any variations thereof). There are two ways a specific porn film can transcend the rules of the formula to reach the status of not just 'correct porn' but also 'good porn'. It can alter the formal structure of the formula itself, which is 'dangerous', because it may alienate the audience. Or, it can offer stylistic alternatives, which make the old formula seem fresh again. Of course, there is/can be an interaction between the two.
Now for some historic speculation: the last time a structural change happened in porn, was when the paradigm of so-called gonzo came to light. All the other 'innovations' in porn, which alledgedly 'took porn to a different level', have been 'safe' stylistic innovations. This is speculation on my part, since I haven't done any serious historical research and textual analyses to really support this claim.
btw, change and innovation are neutral terms. I don't use them in a teleological way at all. They do not subscribe a process of progress.
(This is the cliff notes version Walter? OK, Walter, that is enough for today. Go watch some NBA basketbal. I believe the Washington Wizard are playing.)
OK, just let me give a last (quotable?) conclusion: "'Good porn' offers the same old same old as before, only better."
Frigo said: "Damn, I knew it from the first picture but I was too shy to post it because I did not trust myself."
Porn can be many things to many people but it is never boring for anyone with a sex drive. When it seems boring is when you focus too closely on too small an area of pornography. The porn you speak of here and 90% of the porn discussion on these boards concerns only a small percentage of the porn made and viewed. The mainstream may become boring to some but porn is so much wider than what is represented here; whether it be puke eating, walking down the street with a cum facial, sticking nails in your balls or shoe licking we just scratch at a very sterile surface on these forums: we may play at being extreme but we are very much 'New Kids on the Block' rather than 'The Sex Pistols'.
SNP, I knew that bottle of scotch would be my undoing. Good Lord. Take a break, mate, you deserve it!
Walter's post was baffling. I have a large vocabulary and what I'm told is a high IQ. I'm bush league, or at least out of my league. What did he say? Gatekeepers? Idiosyncratic innovation? This is a non-native English speaker?
Who *ARE* you people?
Toylover never knew what hit him. I'm not so sure I got the license plate number of that truck myself.
What in the fuck were we talking about here?
...Anyone? ...Bueller? (surveying the damage, broken glass, overturned tables, shell casings on the floor, the music legato as the camera sweeps across the room)
Is porn boring? Is sex boring? Yep, I bore my way into my wife at every given opportunity.
There are only so many holes and so many positions you can wriggle into comfortably. The Kama Sutra be damned, half of that shit's physically impossible.
There is only a certain number of holes you can go from and to and maintain sanity and good health. I don't feed my wife my cock fresh from her well-fucked ass, but what can I say? I'm a nice guy.
If it's boring, you're suffering from "checklist" ennui. Take a break. We harp and harp and harp on the porn powers-that-be around here, and we still get by-the-numbers sex scenes, so let's just be thankful we get a glimpse of Monica Sweetheart's beautiful mug splattered with nut butter at all. I know I am.
But if you watch scene after scene after scene, it all melts together into a sameness that reminds you "Shit dude! You're still breathing! How monotonous! In and out and in and out...".
More variety is always a welcome change. I like Courtney Devine (A LOT....Mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....), and how damn good she looks with long, straight hair, and how damn good she looks with short, curly hair...
Same girl, different look, all new excitement. Watch the same scenes 10 times, though, and it doesn't do it for you any more, does it?
At this point, we leave the realm of filmmaking and enter the realm of psychology. How can something/someone I found so unbelievably erotic and made my chest pound with lust leave me limp and wanting the 11th time?
I can't explain. I can't keep magazines around because after a few viewings, they don't "do it" for me any more. But after 13 years with the same woman, I can squeeze her buns and get an instant erection and butterflies in the stomach.
I don't understand the psychology of any of this AT ALL...but I know what Toylover's saying, and I agree. I still don't claim to know what the drunken SNP and/or Walter were saying...
Know what I like, Toylover? Right this instant, one thing, ask me tomorrow, another. Variety. OH THAT'S WHAT WALTER WAS SAYING.
DING!! Light bulb.
Familiarity but innovation within the comfortably assimilated sameness of experience. That is, we know the bounds and realms we can expect to see sexual experience to operate within, and that familiarity gives us a proper frame of reference to enjoy it in -- within the various filming and staging techniques that ...
Oh, never mind.
On her knees/swallow/get spanked/doggy vag/P2M/cunnilingus - multiple woman's orgasm focus/RC/nipple pinch/internal pop/suck it out and have her suck it off your tongue/rim her/rim him/finger ass/mish anal/doggy anal/piledriver/open mouth pop shot/2nd swallow
That's the way I like it! Right that second, anyway. BATTER UP!
- And that this is a bad combo; but it has ass fucking, which is in your list of 'thats the way I like it!'
I am confused.... and scared.
'What do you wanna see in an average scene?'
How about the cumshot, a handshake, the check is given, the girl gets a cab to hotel, and then she gets on her flight back to her small town?
The best porn for me doesn't follow a formula so much as hide it (if it is indeed there.) Evil angel titles are always great because we know that it will contain anal, bjs, and cumshots, but we never really know the pattern of how it will flow.
Watch Buttman and Rocco goe to Montreal (evil angel.) The scene with diamond 4ever and Julie Starr involves everything I desire in a scene; it doesn't happen in a predictable path and I am interested in what they do next rather than, 'yeah, get blown, turn around, pop a load, make that face, blah blah.' If its just robotics, then I ain't happy no matter what. So, if the complaint is that too much porn is formulaic, I AGREE. But if the argument is that the formula just isn't the one YOU like, well, thats not solving much.
Porn without passion is boring, regardless of the actors or the acts depicted; however, that doesn't mean that it can't serve its purpose: As long as it remains within the viewer's comfort zone (a highly subjective barrier), he'll get off on it and keep coming back for more in search of that illusive combination of faces, bodies, acts, variations, passion, and his own imagination that causes the medium to transcend its label and become art.
I know what Walter Burns said may sound boring (or even too high brow), but I couldn't agree more with him. If you REALLY want to find out what makes you vibrate with something, suddenly you get entangled in a huge history of theories in aesthetics, semiotics, cultural studies, sociology of popular culture, etc. And YES, that may be applied to porn, too.
Hell's Bells, Plum, you know as well as I he was just cracking his knuckles in *preparation* for the preliminary stretching exercises!
jbf, please don't get me wrong; I chose to play the buffoon last night because, well, some days it suits me. (Walter's not impossible to piss off, but it takes some effort; you generally have to call him names or try to disprove him with totally bogus arguments.)
I enjoyed his analysis, actually, and ... oh hell, why am I rationalizing -- what, why on Earth would I ever try to suck up to Walter? That post last night was proof that... (oh, that's pretty transparent, to try to prove you're NOT sucking up to the man by lambasting him).
Well, at least I have my dignity, my integri...oh, fuck it, I can't say it out loud.
Go for the easy joke, cobalt: What makes me vibrate with something gernerally takes batteries! <*GROAN*>
Nice avatar, SNP.
The topic? Oh, the topic. I don't have anything to add to the topic. Except that what I found not boring last night is now boring, now I require:
latex chaps/flamingo tattoo on tailbone/eating jell-o pudding in platform shoes/turn to the left and swear oath of fealty to Set in a dead language/half-shaved pussy/hairy asshole/spit male ejaculate into a fan
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Nov 12 2003 : 11:20PM
Well, I could venture some more in off topic territory. (Please, nooooooooo!!!!! Shoot me now.) I realize — hell, I know — that my post was boring, but highbrow? Dammit! I still sound highbrow even after having had 4 Lindemans Kriek? Dammit, I must be a tight arsed, stuck up son of a bitch, even when I am drunk.
btw, there are several posts made in this thread which seem to corroborate my post... I think. I especially like GaySatyr's point of view.
(I believe Walter is pondering the question if he should try to make a link between this thread and his own thread about 'blissful rupture'.)
Hmmmm... I guess what my previous post really boils down to, is that most forms of popular culture strive to offer the familiar in ever novel ways. Otherwise a specific form of popular culture would 'die', would cease to remain 'popular'. This also means that one can focus on either the familiar aspects or the novel aspects of specific forms of popular culture. The familiar aspects can be found in the more abstract aesthetic norms of the formal system (dammit, here I go again), while the novel aspects tend to be located much more in the way the stylistic system functions within/shapes that form. More or less the difference between the what (formal/structural)and the how (stylistic). Much academic research has been geared towards a critique of the what, of the structural form, of the formula (in linguistic terms: the 'langue'). Of course, popular culture can easily be critiqued for its use of formulas, especially within ideological (read normative) theoretical models. Maybe the basic critique on what has been termed The Culture Industry, may sound familar to some of you. However, popular culture texts are not just formula and structure; they are foremost concrete expressions, that make use of certain formulas and structures (in linguistic terms: they are 'parole'). When we watch a western, we are not seeing the formulas and structures, which are being traditionally linked to the western, but an idiosyncratic and specific/unique combination of a selection of formulaic/structural elements within a single text. (Metz, one of the best known French film theorists, would make a similar difference between 'le fait filmique' and 'cinéma', between (a) film and cinema.) It is this interplay between 'familiar structural' and 'novel stylistic' elements that needs be researched to really get a full picture of both how different popular art forms work/function and why they keep being popular. That is what I do as an academic. I analyze both structural elements and their relationship to idiosyncratic, stylistic elements. As a viewer/audience member/porn pervert, however, I focus on that aspect of the text which pleases me most and which presents itself in the most direct way: the audiovisual stimuli privided by the film. I am not bothered by formulas, since they are not simply given by the text, but need analysis to get disclosed. I am bothered/looking for details in regards to the how, instead of the 'meaning' of the what. That is what my thread about 'blissful rupture' was all about. I am looking for any kind of (stylistic) detail, which 'breaks away' from the formula.
IOW, is porn boring? If you only look at/for the formula, then yes, it (often) is. But there is so much more in porn. In good porn anyway. That is in part why I once said: "I think it is sad when you employ an accountant's mentality when creating and/or appreciating porn."
God dammit. I have made matters worse, did't I. Maybe I can explain it this way. For most academic research, it doens't matter if a western stars John Wayne, Gary Cooper or Randolph Scott, or if a porn video is made by John Stagliano, Paul Thomas or Andrew Blake. For me, it does, both as a viewer looking for pleasure AND as a researcher looking for answers.
I was fully sober when I wrote this, so I take full responsibilty for this post. However, I can not be held accountable for any bodily or mental harm this post may have caused you. You probably deserved it by reading this post out of your own free will.
cal444 said: "I like to take used, soiled, funky ass, sweat smelling butt crack juiced thongs, grind them up into a fine powder then snort it like it's some new kind of drug. Makes me warm and fuzzy all over."
I use porn to avoid cheating on my girlfriend with periods, crisis and work and school, lots of times I can't fuck when I want. Most of my friends keep a couple side girls but they always get into some shit over it. Porn is a hobby that remains fresh and very rewarding!! Plus I learn new kinky shit to do to her!
All right I understood Walter Burns Perfectly, I find short, trite and shallow messages boring. My take is based on De Bono: Whenever you see something new your brain releases chemicals in the particular neural area of the brain which applies to that thing, If we have no previous associations which we can relate to it can be startling, the reaction is to reject it (initially). However repeat viewings and the consequent re-flooding of the same neural receptors causes them to shut down until the stimulus goes away. This helps to prevent people focussing on one thing forever and getting stuck in a rut.
Porn is very stimulating indeed. The brain is flooded with chemicals. Such a strong reaction causes an equally strong counter reaction of ennui. Reactions like this tend to leave a mark on one's brain, which entails requiring a higher level of stimulation than before. It can lead to addiction.
It's natural for people to want to enhance an experience they thought was good. Which direction that enhancement takes is up to them. When that enhancement goes into dangerous or ridiculous extremes people can either say "what am I doing?" and give up or "hope I don't get caught"
Porn is boring if it presented in a way which is too familiar, irrellevant or apathetic way.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Apr 7 2004 : 11:24AM
Addiction? Stimulating? Like I wrote in this thread before, lately porn often 'stimulates' me to fall asleep. Hmmm... of course, this reaction can be explained by this :Lee O said: "Gonzo isn't the only game in town."
Great! now i got your point, of course it does matter if a porn flick stars Laura Angel or GBG97, or if a porn video is made by Laura Angel or Andrew Valium Blake. it makes all the difference.
*note: hey, Walter you know i like your posts! *
assuming you're a male and watch a Laura Angel flick that is not going to happen, you'll more likely pass out due to the significant scant blood supply in the cerebral areas.
"she said i give you 30 minutes to disconnect from all intellect, i'm afraid i never woke up."
This is one of the contenders for surrealest thread I ever read. Of course what I posted was a massive oversimplification and it missed the point by a mile.
If half the time spent making repetitive stuff was invested in making something a bit more interesting and varied we would still have reams of identical content, and also specific stuff to choose from too.
For example someone asks about 'winking' theres a video that features it. I might not set out to look for a winking video, but having heard about it I'm curious. There's loads of sexual expressions to make, specific things that happen to discover, that a monogamous person may not get to experience first hand. So who's up for a little more discovery?
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Apr 7 2004 : 2:47PM
Of course I know that. But let's be fair, you don't have much of a chance otherwise, do you? The quality of my posts are thus that you cannot but like them. It's like the effect of every appearance of Laura Angel. You can't help it, but get excited, even if you don't want to
Chico Wang said: "I like to give a scene or two a slight twist to keep things fresh in my medium IQ state."
Some porn is boring. If you watch enough (Or too much in my case) you can almost call out edit points before they happen. Video Exclusives used to be edit by a clock so you could count on 45 seconds of this, 30 of that, it was hysterical.
This stuff is most noticable in bad porn though. When something is really good, we're too busy 'enjoying' things to really notice if it is cookie cutter or not.
On the other hand when someone strays too far from what we're comfortable with (David Aaron Clark, Thomas Zupko,Guy Capo etc.) we (collective we) aren't always willing to take the trip with them. It's a fine line.
I think that freak show sex is boring. OK, ass to mouth, ass to mouth...we get it. Double anal, yippee, her ass can stretch. Porn as sport just bores the crap out of me.
I honestly don't care if a girl can fit two cocks up her ass. I can't imagine a situation where I would want to shove my cock into a girl's ass if another dude was already parked there. I'll wait my turn thank you very much.
Maybe, depends what you watch I guess. It's the same as anything else in life. It can be boring as it can be exciting, depending on what you're doing/seeing and what mood you're in at that moment.
So yeah it gets repetitive... so what ? There's some things that are always fun, no matter how many times we see it.
Of course, for porn it needs to be of a good quality. If the actors/actresses are not into it, it'll look fake and then it can be boring to watch, since the chemistry is not there. But if it's done right, I don't think it can be boring, unless you watch porn 24/7.
Not really, but I have fallen asleep while watching porn when I wasn't horny, or had just, er, relieved myself.
Now I know it's really good porn when I am not horny, but it makes me that way. That kind of porn can't be boring.
I have some opinions about some stuff that is very fucking boring. But, I don't know who all posts here, and I don't want to put my foot in my mouth, more than necessary.
too much of anything can make people desensitized, but due to my psyche, a scene with good energy/hardcore clap fucking can always keep my attention non deflated
I'm not a scumbag, YOU'RE a scumbag. Also, I am. 54 Posts 5/08
Posted - Jun 13 2008 : 9:28AM
I think of porn the same way I think of just about any media - movies, TV, music, etc. - there's way more awful stuff out there than there is good stuff. So, does porn get boring? Certainly. Especially if you work in the industry. It gets to the point where you don't even equate most porn with sex anymore (at least I get to that point). But that's when you find the really good stuff. The stuff that still appeals to your basic urges even when you see it day in, day out, seven days a week.
It's a matter of what you're watching. If the film has substance (you know, those terrible things like talking and stories) then it is less likely to be a bore. But seriously, how many generic fuck tapes can anyone watch? I've seen about 5 and I'm already burnt out.
If chosen randomly, I think porn is or does tend to be boring. Because of that, my primary focus has always been the women. I like to find women who I find hot and not boring. And I try to choose films that have mostly similiar women. Sometimes I can't get enough of those types in the same film, and will see boring scenes from people I maybe wasn't that interested in watching anyway.
Coordinated Desires - review by Sean DPS
Posted - Nov 11 2003 : 5:35PM