I won't argue with most of what you say (in fact I agree, mostly), but I don't agree with the suggestion that the girls are a lot better looking in couples porn. For me, most women in (US style) couples fare are generally sporting really big hair, far far too much make-up and concrete breasts (I don't mind implants, just used with a sense of proportion, and preferably silicone and not these US style overfilled water sacks).

I suppose if you like a kind of Anna Nicole-Smith look then fair enough, but for those of us who think Brianna Banks looked ten times better when she was called Mirage I don't think your argument holds up.

That said, I appreciate the thrust of your argument that just because it's for couples it doesn't mean it's all soft focus or 'safe' in its contents.

take care,
Sir Noel.

[Link]

As for 'big hair', that's so over, although the heavy makeup has got to go too, I agree.

[Link]

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

[Link]

Couples porn? Is it any better or worse than regular porn? I dont think so, what I can say is that there are some very good porn aimed for couples and some very poor ones just as there are similar standards to regular porn. What I would say is that in couples porn it can offer a sense of closeness, but I can see the limitation. Regular porns can expand on the entertainment with far greater flexibility than couples porn. Let face it people wants to put a DVD into a playuer and gets off straight away, its sounds mechanical but its fact, and yes guys can switch on straight away, a couples porn you need to arrange a correct moment for the right mood a bit like a candle lit dinner and everything has to be right and its basically a one off and wont happen again for sometime.

Highlander

[Link]

I get the feeling that this topic you started is in some degree a defensive response to the confrontational nature of the previous thread in this forum on "Fashionistas" -- but "defensive" in the understandable sense (i.e., no negative connotation intended) that you may have felt misunderstood, mischaracterized, and generally embattled in midst of that maelstrom of discussion and invective.

However, I'm experiencing some cognitive dissonance with a couple of the statements you made in the "Fashionistas" thread, on the one hand --

------------------------------------------------------------
"Let's not confuse the issue, because it's pretty universally accepted that 'couples porn', as imperfect a name as it is, (and I don't like the name either) almost always refers to features and do not have BDSM in them."

and

"Fetish is a different category than couples [porn], that's all."
------------------------------------------------------------

-- and, on the other hand, several of the photographs you attached to your opening post above. The second two stills from "DMJ 6" and the still from "Barbara Broadcast" appear to fall squarely into the "fetish" category, and the stills from "Sex Evil" have a strong BDSM/fetish component. Further, the first still from "DMJ 6" (the DVP scene) and the stills from "Touch Me" and "Dangerous Flesh" (DP scenes) would usually be considered to fall with the "extreme sex" category, which does not fit easily within the rubric of "couples porn" as you have previously described it in this forum.

These observations are NOT -- I sincerely repeat, NOT -- meant as a further attack on you. I've read a lot of your posts and you can count me as one of your admirers. I make these observations only to illustrate the ambiguities and ambivalences involved in trying to deal with definitional questions such as these.

One problem with the term "couples porn", as others have pointed out, is that it's not a DESCRIPTIVE term (i.e., different couples with different sensibilities watch all different kinds of porn videos); instead, it's marketing term. I think one reason why so many people get fired up when discussing "couples porn" is that the term may be perceived by them to be PRESCRIPTIVE (i.e., setting a standard for the kind of porn that "normal, nice, loving, gentle couples" watch or should watch).

Now I'm not saying that YOU subscribe to, or seek to impose on others, any particular view about what kind of porn couples should watch -- far from it. My point, rather, is that words can be traps for everybody and especially so when it comes to such loaded topics as sex and porn. People's associations and sensitivities are so varied.

Given your up-front declaration in the previous thread that you don't like the term "couples porn" either, I'm preaching to the converted to a certain extent. Nonetheless, I'd like to suggest that perhaps some better categories could actually be coined that were more purely descriptive and less value-laden. Instead of "couples porn", what about using "beginner's porn" or "light porn" to describe videos/films depicting more "conventional" sex? (Of course "conventional sex" still implies a value judgment but not, I think, such a contentious one.)

"Fashionistas" -- which I think contains the most brilliant integration of story, character, theme, and sex ever to be produced in porn history -- is, by the measure of porn standards and porn budgets, lavishly produced and overflowing with "content". Nonetheless, few would argue that the sex it depicts is "light" or that the film is intended for "beginners".

If discussion in this sub-forum focused on whether a video would be "recommended for beginners" or whether the sex it depicts is "conventional" (as opposed containing, say, BDSM, fetishes, multi-person sex, etc.), rather than whether or not it constituted "couples porn" the scope and intensity of argument might be lessened.

That still leaves a wide world of dialogue open, including (i) how people respond (erotically, morally, etc.) to the sexual activities and dramatic events played out in particular videos, (ii) what performances they like (both sexual performances and "pure" acting) and why, (iii) the degree to which various films/videos succeed in expressing ideas about sex or incorporating valuable "extra-sexual" content, (iv) their assessment of a video's production values, and the like.

All these thoughts, however addle-brained they may be, I submit respectfully.

Edited by - Bob on 3/26/2003 7:05:22 PM

[Link]

I don't make up these terms, and I am not the couples police, I just don't want people unneccessarily confusing the issue.. Most people know what 'couples porn' means, in a general sense. If people want it to include everything under the sun, we might as well do away with term altogether, leaving nothing to guide people's choices.

Nonetheless, I'd like to suggest that perhaps some better categories could actually be coined that were more purely descriptive and less value-laden. Instead of "couples porn", what about using "beginner's porn" or "light porn" to describe videos/films depicting more "conventional" sex?

We discussed that when trying to come up with a name for this forum, which was more difficult than one might think. "Beginner's porn" is rather derogatory, as well as "light porn". In fact, some would have preferred that the more hardcore forum be renamed instead of this one. Couples is pretty clear to most people, so as imperfect as it is, that's what was decided on.

All the pics that I used are indeed from porn that can be classified as 'couples' porn, but I admit that I used the more extreme ones just to illustrate that couples porn does not necessarily deserve the derision that is often heaped on it as being 'vanilla'. Sex Evil was not a BDSM flick by any stretch, despite what it looks like. I'm going to take the screenshots down however, since I was just being silly, and certainly didn't mean to confuse the issue further.

Appreciate your input, and welcome to "The Lighter Side"

[Link]

Thanks for your warm welcome to The Lighter Side! Here's a right back attcha!

[Link]

I would like to put in my two cents and say that IMHO what is defined as "couples porn" usually has a plot that if you take out the sex can still stand on it's own (okay maybe crawl).

If you take a Vivid or Wicked feature and take out the sex you can in most cases come up with a short film that has a story (not necessarily a good one just a story). But if you take your standard Jules Jordan feature however you might get 10 minutes of dialogue that when put together means absolutely nothing at all.

I don't like to think that "couples porn" has anything to do with the nature of the sex being displayed. I would even argue that some of the more aggressive films like Beast and Fashionistas are indeed "couples" oriented since the sex helps drive the plot but is not the soul purpose of the plot.

Take all of the above for what it is worth.

[Link]