May 21, 2014

A Different Type of Movie? Or More of the Same?

I should state, before anyone gets any false expectations, that I’m talking about a porn movie, not a “regular” movie. Just in case someone is coming here for the first time and doesn’t know what this blog is about. (And all of the blog name doesn’t tip them off.)

Probably not an extremely helpful disclaimer, eh? And should I really make the distinction between a “porn movie” and a “regular movie” – as if porn is somehow irregular? Porn is pretty fucking common these days. Maybe it should be a distinction between “porn movies” and “non-porn movies”?

If I’m going to have these kinds of sidebars I should try to make them more relevant, shouldn’t I? Oh well, too late now. It would be a lot of work to go back and delete the previous two paragraphs (and this one), so I’ll just leave them in and let my readers deal with the fallout of my scattered thoughts.

I’m almost positive I’ve already written something on this blog almost exactly the same with regard to my tangents.

Since this blog is about porn – as mentioned above – the subject of male-oriented vs. female-oriented porn comes up from time to time, as does the related subject of female porn producers (of which there are few). Since so much porn is created by men for men, it seems to me that women are going to be stuck viewing male-oriented porn for the foreseeable future, and are either going to have to learn to like what men like (which, I think, is probably already happening) or develop active fantasy lives to supplement their pornographic viewing with scenarios that they personally enjoy (which, I hope, is also happening – because if there’s one thing I like it’s a girl who enjoys fantasizing about sex and bringing herself pleasure). (If there’s one thing I like even better, it’s that girl having sex with me, but I’m in danger of getting sucked into another tangent again.)

I read recently about a movie which might be a step in the right direction, though I have no idea if the producers are female or not. James Deen starred in a movie in which there’s no fucking, there are no cumshots, his cock doesn’t even make an appearance. The entire movie is Deen performing cunnilingus on his female costars. And frankly, it sounds interesting. (I haven’t seen it, because I don’t pay for porn; maybe I’ve seen some scenes from it, on some of those awful, terrible sites where I get my porn for free, but if so I didn’t realize at the time that they came from this movie.)

Cunnilingus is by no means unknown to the mainstream porn world, pussies get licked all the time, but it’s usually only in one of two contexts:
  • Lesbian porn (of course)
  • As a precursor to “real” sex in straight porn, meaning sex that involves one or more cocks
I put “real” in quotes because this isn’t how I feel, but it’s obviously how mainstream porn producers feel: straight sex always involves cock, and the semen which is produced from that sex is always put on display at the end of the scene in some way – usually by being deposited on the girl’s face, or, failing that, by being deposited on some other body part (breasts and ass are very popular), or, failing that, by being deposited into a pussy/ass and then squeezed out for the “benefit” of the viewing audience. (And I put “benefit” in quotes because… really? Is it so important for us to see the cum that it needs to be squeezed out – as if we need proof that the dude did, indeed, cum inside there? I’m not a fan, and neither is Gram Ponante, if that holds any weight for you.)

So I think it’s a good thing for porn producers to experiment with breaking the conventions. In real life I can easily see myself having a sexual encounter with a girl where all I do is go down on her and no fluid whatsoever escapes my cock. (Except for precum because, let’s face it, I’d still be turned on, even if I’m not experiencing insertion.) I can also see myself having encounters where there is no penetration of cock into pussy but there is a handjob, or a blowjob, or there is mutual masturbation. In fact, I should stop saying “I can see myself” doing these things, because these are things I really have done. I will be happy if porn is going to explore more of these topics, and get out of the current conventions.

I’ll also be happy if it doesn’t, of course. I’m a hetero dude, so the current conventions were created with me in mind. So win-win for me.

2 comments:

  1. I think it's safe to say, most shots of female faces covered in come have been "taken for hetero dudes"!

    I'm with you and like you - sex can be and is many things, a variety of intensely arousing experiences and sensations, aside from penetration. Although, I have to admit a shivering weakness for hard male flesh... ;-)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What a coincidence! I happen to have some hard male flesh.

      We should really get together sometime, so you can experience it. ;)

      Delete