pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Dec 31 2010 : 1:02AM
No always true Flash, for a long, long time the industry claimed there was no real audience for g/g. Shemale porn barely existed in the early 80s but is booming now. They said no one cared about storylines or campy humour but the parodies proved that wrong as well.
[Link]
jobe55 Deactivated User
27 Posts 12/10
Posted - Dec 31 2010 : 5:43AM
john lyons, I think you fail to understand the intricacies of the double standard that exists in porn, citing the gay porn industry in a misguided attempt to turn the table. Let me explain the difference between what gay porn does and what straight porn does. Gay male porn is gay male porn. There are only males in the movie. Therefore, men can only interact with men. There is no double standard. It's a single standard applied throughout - ie there is no restriction on whom can interact with whom. Straight porn, which contains both men and women, imposes a restriction on who can interact with whom. There is a double standard. The only same-sex interaction permitted is between women. There is also an inherent dishonesty in the label "straight". Straight, my ass. Lesbian interactions are homosexual interactions, not straight ones. By any stretch of the re-definition imagination, you cannot classify female homosexual interactions as straight despite the best efforts of the porn marketing people.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Dec 31 2010 : 10:20AM
OOOH, good one.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Dec 31 2010 : 10:29AM
Well, yeah! But it's permitted because the girls in porn are hot, and there is nothing better than two hot girls getting it on, where as a couple of guys getting it on is; wait for it, wait for it, just plain gay.
I agree. Lesbian sex scenes are just as homosexual as male/male sex scenes. I never said otherwise. However, the rationalization for its inclusion in "straight" porn is because "straight" men are attracted to women and are therefore inclined to want to watch two or more women having sex. Nothing wrong with that and there's no double standard in that alone. Where the real double standard comes in in regards to the absence of male/male sex in "straight" porn (and I'm not the first to say this) is when it comes to female viewers, who are just as inclined to want to see extended scenes of just male nudity or two men having sex. The double standard isn't homophobic, but rather that "straight" porn is geared almost exclusively towards what would interest "straight" males, completely ignoring things that would appeal to "straight" females. Hell, I know straight guys who only watch lesbian porn because they don't like looking at other naked guys. I also know straight women who only watch male/male porn because they don't like looking at other naked women. What the porn industry does need to own up to is why "straight" porn is geared almost exclusively to only one half of the "straight" population.
[Link]
Fernandez Deactivated User
781 Posts 12/08
Posted - Dec 31 2010 : 11:56AM
You know the answer, but I'll repeat it for you. That half spends the money. How many women spend $300/month on porn? None.
Imagine if Wicked or Vivid or one of those companies regarded as a "couples" company decided to make a line of films for straight couples and women that involve male-male contact amongst other things. Straight men who don't want to see male-male contact would know not to buy it. Why wouldn't this work? Why hasn't this been tried already? I think folks may be afraid that straight male audiences would avoid the company as a whole, seeing it as "gay." Not that this would happen for sure (though I am sure there are guys out there who would simply boycott the company), but I think the studios themselves aren't willing to take that risk. I think homophobia or fear of homophobia are significant elements in this gay taboo, in spite of protests.
^ Sure -- maybe not every single month, maybe not exactly that amount, but often, yeah. I'm probably not a typical case though, and my purchases are often research-related. Well, now I think about it, maybe it's more like $200.
I was hoping Wicked's spoof of The Rocky Horror Picture Show was going to go in this direction. It's one of the few that I would want to check out if it did since it keeps it in line with the original.
Are you judging me, Mr. Starr? It's also my "job" -- hobby/job/interest, call it what you will. I can't do my job without buying the movies, so there you have it. I spend about the same on books. Did I mention I'm broke most of the time?
Edited by - Gore Gore Girl on 12/31/2010 2:00:28 PM
+1!! I totally agree. It just ain't gonna happen though. :(
[Link]
jobe55 Deactivated User
27 Posts 12/10
Posted - Dec 31 2010 : 4:14PM
The word "straight" is slang for the orientation of a man who likes to interact sexually with women. It does not refer to a man who wants to watch lesbians. A man is not straight by the merit of the fact that he likes to watch lesbians. Lesbian-watching is a fetish, not an orientation. As such, the use of the word "straight" to describe lesbian activity is further proof of the dishonesty and fraud of the straight porn industry and its marketing people. Edited by - jobe55 on 12/31/2010 4:16:27 PM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Dec 31 2010 : 4:37PM
$300 a month? That's a little crazy.
[Link]
Fernandez Deactivated User
781 Posts 12/08
Posted - Dec 31 2010 : 5:16PM
Before it was cleaned up, I would spend an easy $100/week on peeps on 42nd St., and that doesn't include video buys/live shows. Very few peeps were gay. Gays hung around just hoping to score a bj, they never ever spent money. I would see 1000s of other guys doing the same. Women don't do stupid shit like that. Straight men account for at least 95% of the porn industry, and if they started inserting bisexual crap, they would die a quick death.
IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02
Posted - Dec 31 2010 : 6:21PM
Who says it hasn't been tried already? Bi and Bizarre Beyond Bi Bi and Large Bi It Now Bi the Way Bi-curious George Boyfriends on the Side Nefarious Bi-Vanity And several more. All Vivid. Granted probably also all crap and scenes being re-used again and again. Take note that most of them painstakingly include the term "bi" in the title as to clearly mark the theme. Quite a difference from the big Paul Thomas production of a few years back which included a boy-boy scene without advertising it as such. Caused a big stink, IIRC, also in this very forum. I can't remember the title right now, but a search of the forum should give some results. Anyway, the controversy surrounding that title might have scared Vivid away from trying more experiments in this direction. btw, other companies might have bi titles with higher productions values than the above second rate Vivid titles. Some examples might be (might, because I don't have actually seen them myself): Coming Out: A Bi-Sexual Tale (Metro] Fine Bi Me (Adam & Eve) Bisexual Dreamer (Private) Bisexual Army (Private) Bisexual Clinic (Private] Finally, it may surprise some that bi-lines as such, as a niche marketing strategy, are recently more targeted by some of the more hardcore, gonzo companies than by the couples studios. Combat Zone, Evasive Angles, Kick Ass, Devil's Film all have lines. It's not unusual for the smaller companies to first test the waters of a new or underdeveloped market and once it proves to be a success, the bigger studios will follow. Look at what happened in the past couple of years to the MILF and older women genre.
Thanks for those titles, but that wasn't really what I meant. It looks like all of those titles are "bi" -- I'm talking about "straight" porn marketed to women and couples that involves male-male contact, much like "straight" porn that involves two women. This goes back to what john lyons was saying about "straight" meaning a very specific, hetero-masculine gaze. Aside from a gesture here and there (the Wolf Hudson scene in the newish Kimberly Kane flick) I don't think a line of films of this kind has been attempted. Edited by - Gore Gore Girl on 1/1/2011 11:14:11 AM
There was one many years back if I remember correctly. The actress involved I believe used to frequent these boards and talked about it. I think it was a bi scene and I remember some talk about an elevator. I really can't remember anything else. Ah, the wonderful search function. Elevator works. It was called Going Down from Tina Tyler.
^ Featuring our very own Kimi Lixx. An added reason for me to pick this title up. Thanks. I'm sure there are more individual examples (keep titles coming, if so!), but in terms of an actual line, like "Vivid Alt" or "Romance" or some such thing, I think my original point/thought stands.
[Link]
jobe55 Deactivated User
27 Posts 12/10
Posted - Jan 1 2011 : 5:20PM
Walter Burns, Almost all those bi titles you mention are years old. Like 10 or 15 years, if not more. Vivid did have an arrangement with Anthony Rose at one stage to make bi titles, but it was many moons ago. In any case, the "bi" category is a phony one. Much of what is marketed as bisexual in American porn is actually only male bisexuality. Female bisexuality is rare in these titles. Thus, you have another distortion of bisexuality by the American porn industry. Not only does American porn categorize female bisexuality as straight, it's created a "male bisexuality only" niche which does not reflect the true bisexual spectrum.
jobe55, since apparently absolutely nothing that has ever been created in the entire history of the adult film industry's existence meets your standards of what should exist and since absolutely no genre or niche market serves your needs yet according to you there is a massive marketplace for, I think you should put your money where your mouth is and produce the amazing wonder production that is apparently missing according to you.
Male and female bisexuality appeal to two different market segments. That which is inexplicable from and anthropological standpoint is explained by the market. Of course there is a double standard, but porn is produced to make money, even if that involves double standards.
[Link]
jobe55 Deactivated User
27 Posts 12/10
Posted - Jan 1 2011 : 6:38PM
elgrin, There is no free market when it comes to porn. It's a chosen market, not a free one.
I would call it a guesswork market. Porn producers apparently believe that the most profitable way to market is according to strict market niches.
[Link]
Stalag Deactivated User
476 Posts 1/10
Posted - Jan 1 2011 : 7:08PM
It's 100% free. You just can't handle the fact that few people are interested in bi porn. If there were such a demand, the bitching here would be loud and clear. There is no bitching.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jan 2 2011 : 3:44AM
I notice that Kevin Moore, who did a line called Bi American with the likes of Brianna Love and Tori Lane, is now working for Evil Angel.
[Link]
jobe55 Deactivated User
27 Posts 12/10
Posted - Jan 2 2011 : 4:16PM
Male bisexuality should not be marketed as bi. Female bisexuality isn't, so I don't see why male bisexuality should either. Male-male contact should simply be integrated into the action. The amount could depend on the director.
So, if I understand your incredibly broken English, you would like it if pornography was eradicated. If that is the case, why should anyone who partakes in porn care what you think about the separation of straight and gay porn? Sounds like you just like to argue and push your agenda that every guy secretly wants to have sex with other guys. As for your last question, I have my doubts.
1. You are trolling and you know it. 2. On the slim chance you're not trolling and you really need to be told, here it is. The idea that a straight man is going to be cool with watching dudes suck each other off and fuck each other's asses while he's beating off is utterly absurd. I agree that probably a large portion of men have a bisexual streak in their sexuality but there are strictly straight men and it isn't your place (or anyone else's) to tell them they have to have male homosexuality (or bisexuality) shoved in their faces while they're masturbating. 3. But I still think you're trolling and if you'd like to get yourself banned, you're on a golden path to it.
Yeah, Jobe likely is a troll (after all, Kvitka doesn't know him ;) ). However, he's making some valid points, albeit in a rather stupid way. We can conclude this increasingly moronic thread by agreeing that there really isn't any inherent double standard or bias within the porn industry itself; that all lies with the consumer. The industry, like all good industries, tries to make what the consumer wants. Since about 98% of "straight" porn is made with only "straight" men in mind, it stands to reason that no male/male contact will be included. It also stands to reason that even if a closeted "bi" dude wanted some occasional male/male action mixed in with his montages of "barely legal MILFs" guzzling buckets of cum from strangely fetishized huge dicks, he would probably be too chicken to actually buy a DVD that isn't marketed directly as "bi," out of fear of being labeled a pussy for viewing/owning it. However, as these things go, no area of the industry is immune from customer backlash when it comes to including sexual encounters of a frowned upon nature. Seeing as I direct mostly gay smut (bet you didn't see that one coming!), I often try to include the odd woman, simply to break up the monotony. When the company I work with first released these titles, we were hoping people would enthusiastically embrace our all-inclusive gender/coupling policy, but soon discovered that homos absolutely detest the sight of tits and pussy. I guess times are rough all over.
I can understand this. As a heterosexual male I don't have an interest in seeing male-male scenes mixed in my porn unless they really truly should be there. Circumstances for this are very rare. One that I can think of is listed by me earlier in this thread. It's not that male-male scenes frighten me as a heterosexual male, I'm just not interested. I have Resurrection of Eve, where they are flashes of homosexual activity. Which I don't think added anything and these were just flashes of it. I do own 5 gay films, one of which I reviewed on the site. Three of them are Joe Gage's working mens trilogy. I was interested in seeing El Paso Wrecking Corp due to Georgina Spelvin's participation. At the time it cost me the same to get all three as just that one. I haven't seen the other two yet. The male-male interaction just doesn't interest me. The fifth film was The Private Pleasures of John Holmes, which I have never finished watching, but got as a curiosity just because of John Holmes involvement. I think this shows that gay films don't scare me sexually, however since the sex presented in them doesn't interest me I see no point for it to be in my porn unless it needs to be there for the film to work. The only example, again, that I can think of is the Rocky Horror Picture Show parody, which isn't going to feature it.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Jan 2 2011 : 11:32PM
Just give it a rest already will you? Random interegration of guy guy ham slamming with effectively kill sales.
I don't trust men who don't like big tits. 1067 Posts 12/04
Posted - Jan 3 2011 : 12:59AM
I had my suspicions, but once this guy(the OP) said he "knew" the other 3 who were saying the same thing,it confirmed it...he outed himself as a troll. Which is funny given the subject matter.
[Link]
jobe55 Deactivated User
27 Posts 12/10
Posted - Jan 3 2011 : 8:40AM
I think that some well-integrated male-male contact - not necessarily sexual penetration - would go down well. I can see only homophobes objecting.
The main point is "who" is getting fucked. If you like seeing a woman getting fucked, or performing sexual acts, and you are a man, there is nothing homosexual about that. It doesn't matter if she's getting fucked by 100 other women. The same goes for looking at a man getting fucked, or performing sexual acts to another man, or male genitalia, even in cases of strap-on sex from a woman. Just be honest with yourself, and think about who you are watching in the scene. From what I've been told by a few different straight women, they watch gay porn, because they like guys, and sex. It's that simple. Not because they are homosexual. That's why I like to watch lesbian scenes. It's women having sex. The point I'm trying to make is, you wouldn't give a basketball award out at some football award ceremony. They are two different sports. The AVN's seem to be about women getting fucked, not men. I just wish people would stop being offended about everything. You don't have to accept a person's sex, just their sexual orientation.
Nice to see that you refuse to listen to what anyone else is saying and continue your belief despite overwhelming amounts of posts stating the opposite.
Well, Jobe is a troll. Anyway, the real issue, which Bradford briefly alluded to in his post and others have as well, is that the absence of male/male sex scenes, or even the increased sexualization of the male body in "straight" porn is more due to disregard for material which would appeal more so to women than some kind of homophobia. I mean, even "straight" porn which doesn't include lesbian sex only makes a point to only sexualize the female performers. I can't imagine many women rushing out to buy some porn if all the covers they have to choose from show nothing but tits, asses and pussies. Sure, for "straight" men, that's all fine and dandy, but I've spoken to plenty of women who love porn but get discouraged from buying it simply because the covers don't appeal to them; they're in it for the men. The other major complaint I've heard from women I've spoken with is that the men in most porn are friggin' ugly, and I'd agree with that too. I know this is slightly off topic, but I feel like issues of gender equality and representation aren't brought up often enough and porn companies really need to do more to appeal to the undoubtedly many women who enjoy porn and offer material that appeals to them, along side the endless material made almost exclusively for consumption by men, or at least admit that women aren't a target audience.
Im a straight male and im going to tell you what I like. Im going to first tell you Im married and never had any kind of homesexual experience, nor do I plan on it. What I get off in porno movies is the female being dominant to a man and objectify him like so many men have done to gorgeous women. Straight 4 gay eyes and women too is the best series I can equate this too. In the porn industry we need something new, and this is the type of scenes I would like more readily available. I wanna see a hot guy on all fours with the female in the camera telling the whole audiance how hot he is and how she wants to stick her tongue in his ass and then do it. I want the male actors to be straight to be honest, not a must, but I would like that. I wanna see more female directors making men the whores that we love to be. I want a female to squirt in a guys asshole after he was fucked with a strapon by another female. Now am I homosexual? the answer is no, i wouldnt even doubleteam a girl cause i dont wanna see cock against mine, but I would like to see this. I think pushing the limits is what the porn industry needs to do and trust me you will get a good response, albeit something that not many men talk about.
I take it you've seen some of these? Any particular title you'd recommend?
[Link]
jobe55 Deactivated User
27 Posts 12/10
Posted - Jan 5 2011 : 6:50AM
While it's true that some "straight" porn labels feature men's bodies prominently on the covers, the content is still based on the bisexual double standard. It's still the same old same old. Notable are Sweet Sinner and the Playgirl line. Do they really think that women are going to fall for it?
Man, that damn liberal elite and their chicanery! 
Posted - Dec 31 2010 : 12:59AM
