Eww. Completely-shaved guys are gross.
Well, I can only speak for myself here, but I think the appeal of porno is that we’re pretending to be the guy in the frame who is doing the jerking off. Thus the dick there is merely an extension of ourself. If that makes any sense.
Well, you’ve got the wrong activity there. It may be more accurate to say that some guys like to watch the porn actor ejaculate on the woman’s face. I’d imagine that all things equal, it would be better for the woman to make the man ejaculate; however, the autostimulation appears to be the most reliable vehicle to bring climax under the circumstances.
I think you need to check your logic there. If all you can see in the clip is the woman’s face, then how do you reach your conclusion? Regardless, I once read a letter to the Playboy question people about this very activity, i.e. why does my so want to jizz on my face? -anon. woman, and Playboy responded that the face is the most expressive part of the body. I think that a compelling remark.
As for not being turned on by faces, you’re way off on that. Guys see lots of stuff that they find stimulating, but that doesn’t mean they’ll pop a boner on the spot. Faces are a huge turn on.
Also, don’t forget the whole vicariously living thing.
Most times when people want to escape reality, they go all the way. Which is why the protagonist in mainstream movies are always good looking stars.
The money shot has always been popular. Anytime spooge ends up on or in a woman is fantastic.
Porn is brutally honest. Stuff that men find sexy will end up in porn. The fact that the face, boobs, butt and crotch are the prime areas targeted for spooge bombing is a good indicator of what men find sexy.
Trust me, if we lived in a society where a woman’s armpit was considered one of the sexiest parts of a woman, we would have compilation videos of armpit or armpits cleavage cumshots. (Mentally note: created niche fetish website of armpit cumshots and charge niche prices)
I once read that Ron Jeremy kept getting work because he was the only porn actor who could sorta act and sorta be funny. Most porn actors, aside from pretending to be having a fabulous time screwing, couldn’t make the cut for a high school play.
I think that after screwing their first thousand women, the guys no longer are excited enough and their penises (penii?) have become so numb that, without very vigorous stimulation, they cannot climax. Thus, at the end, they have to manually handle the job.
The plural of “penis” is “penises”. There’s also a Latinate plural, “penes”, rarely used in English. Very few Latin words pluralize in “-ii” - the exceptions are words with an I in the stem, like “radius”.
Sorry. Pet peeve. People create these bizarre “-ii” plurals, and there is simply no basis for it. There’s no reason to think any word would have one.
WOO! Jiggly nutsacks! 
I kid. I’m not exactly enthralled with them, personally.
Yeah, oopsiedoodles. I used the wrong word. MAH BUST!
The clip in question is seven or so seconds of two guys cumming on a girl’s face. The girl is trying to act like she likes it, but really looks kind of simultaneously bored and self-conscious. You see penises and hands and a face. There is nothing else in the video. What if it was two guys cumming on a porn magazine? Or a picture of a face? Or a high-heeled shoe? (Or a loaf of bread?) I don’t get it.
I can understand, I guess, wanting to jizz on a face yourself. But watching someone else masturbate and having it turn you on is a little different. There’s no inkling from the video that the woman has ever even touched either of the men. It just seems to me that watching two men masturbate might be something more suited to arousing gay men. Not a man who finds gay sex disgusting. Why, then, is it not disgusting to masturbate with another person? I get no straight answer from him. 
Perhaps I am differently wired. 
But RJ got to do Ginger Lynn. I’m a woman, and back in the late 80’s I woulda switched sides quickly for Ginger!
:rolleyes:
I get so tired of people with sticks up their anii.
::d&r::
Man, I feel like such a tool.
Man we REALLY don’t want to know what you feel like.
As for RJ, back when he started out he wasn’t quite the beast that he is now. And, as has been stated before, he can put two sentences together better than most in the world of porn.
For me, it’s the situation that turns me on mostly, besides the primitive of watching naked people do their thing, which has been scientifically proven, arouses everyone - blood flows to certain regions in both men and women (even if they think it is disgusting).
But the situation is the most important factor, and generally has to do with people succumbing to lust despite themselves, the situation, and so on.
Certain physical traits can only distract from that. Stuff that manages this is, indeed, seeing too much of the wrong holes (both in men and women btw) and too much surgery (again, both in men and women). This is why I like that European (mostly Hungarian apparently) porn is making its comeback, as they seem to feature the more natural look.
I did find it interesting that you sometimes see a man with only one ball. I have yet to see a woman with only one breast, however.
I also think that you could make an interesting case for prohibiting that both men and women shave themselves. It does, after all, make them look like underagelings. 
Band name.
You seem to fall back into using the wrong word quite quickly.
If the video is like the type I’ve seen, what you’re seeing is the culmination of a sex scene; i.e., it’s the so-called money shot. What you seem to be doing is trying to separate out elements when what’s important is the whole: the guys are ejaculating on the woman’s face. Various scenes will have various endings; he may ejaculate on her chest, stomach, back, rear, feet, &c. If we had a video geared toward feet or shoes, then yes there would be men ejaculating on shoes, and guys with things for shoes would enjoy it.
As stated above, faces are a huge turn on—for me at least—but you’re losing sight of the money shot as a cohesive whole. Maybe it’s the opposite of watching a guy get kicked in the nuts: instead of cringing in sypmathetic pain, experiences the sypmathetic pleasure of the ejaculation. Perhaps it is, as I suggested, vicarious pleasure. Perhaps it provides closure; it’s a psychological completion of the act that, say, internal ejaculation or lesbian sex cannot provide, so that all the senses are in synch with the reflexive actions of the body. Who knows? But as long as you are trying to demarcate some single element from the whole, you will be missing what’s going on.
Rent Repo Man.
Have you ever seen a Warren Miller film? Lots of people pay good money to watch somebody else ski. Why? People just do, I guess.
The point I’m trying to get across was that there was no (visible) whole. I’m not saying I tuned in to the end of the video clip… I’m saying the video clip was seven seconds or so long. Any bits before this were imagined. I don’t think it’s that I was curious why the clip was even made - I know it was just a preview for a porn site. It’s that I was more curious about why this particular guy who hates gay sex wants to watch two guys touch their own penises so much that he would save this clip. It’s not something I personally can wrap my head around. He cannot explain, either. Or he refuses to, one or the other. It doesn’t matter anymore. I’m really not that interested in porn or sex, myself, so it’s a little harder for me to grasp these things. I was just being curious.
And clearly when it comes to this, I don’t get points across very well… so I’m just going to have to stop. I’ll only infuriate everyone including myself. 
rinni, you’re doing it again. You have a picture in your mind that you are refusing to let go of, and it is preventing you from actually seeing what was on the screen. Why can I assert this with confidence? Because you wrote this remark:
As I have been trying to make clear to you, that was not what the guy was seeing. (Well, most likely not, I don’t know the guy in question and I am just assuming that it’s the shot he’s interested in.) I once heard, I’m not sure if this is true, that a certain people in Africa live in buildings with no sharp corners. If you show them three lines terminating at a single point, they won’t make the connection we make: that it is the interior or exterior corner of a rectangular object. Apocryphal though it may be, it is sufficient to illustrate the point: you have to get control of your imagery before you can attempt to have any understanding.
It’s the money shot. The money shot is the coherent whole. It is a sub-unit of the overall porno movie; however, it is, in and of itself, a distinct entity. They come in different forms, with different elements and emphasis, but they’re the culmination of a sexual act whereby the actor (who is merely a vechicle to allow the sex act to occur) ejaculates, generally on the person or object of desire.
(As for the seven-second clip, it’s probably the seven seconds with the most punch for advertising purposes. I think the hope is that those seven seconds encourage potential customers to sign up for the rest of the movie.)
I don’t have a good analogy off hand, but how about this: why do straight women look at Cosmopolitan and its ilk? There are some articles, inasmuch as they qualify, but by far the magazine is just photos of beautiful women. Page after page after page of stunning women. Why would any straight woman open that magazine? Do they look at all the pictures in Playboy too?
In earlier times, there were porn films where two people breathing hard and moaning were not actually fucking (the producers couldn’t be convicted for simulated sex.) So, consumers wanted confirmation. Did tab A actually insert into slot B? I wanna see it. Did he actually come, or was it just, “uh,uh,uh,uuuuuuhhhhhhh!” Show me. So, we got the money shot. A man, having a great time in a vagina, pulls out for the camera and ejaculates into thin air onto a belly, an ass, a face, or a breast. No sane man would do that, but it became a standard part of porn. Go figger.
Like rinni, I’m not male, but I am interested in this thread because I have a question about porn. I understand the allure of the genre - I enjoy watching it with my husband, whether it’s guy on girl or girl on girl. But what I don’t like are the women with absolutely no pubic hair. To me it looks creepy because a shaved snatch can make even a 30 year old woman look like she’s 12 if you’re just looking at that part of her anatomy. Is that part of the attraction? If not, what is? Is it because you can see better?
And if part of the attraction is that she looks like she’s very young, why do men find such extreme youth sexually attractive? Hell, if she’s too young to have boobs or pubic hair, wouldn’t she (theoretically) be too young to enjoy sex or at least know what she’s doing? If that’s the case, why is that a turn-on? Because she’s helpless?
I’m curious to know what your husband said when you asked him these questions.
For me, and I think many other guys, there are many reasons but ‘underage girls’ is not one of them.
I think at this point it is more a case of aesthetics. It just looks better. Maybe the pendulum will swing back, but I don’t think so. Men are visual creatures. Given a choice of clean shaven or landing strip versus fur bikini, most will choose the former. A lot of guys who like Asian women can’t watch Japanese porn because in addition to the mosaic censor they don’t shave either. For some men, it is an active turn-off.
Technically hairless armpits are a sign of pre-pubescence. I don’t think anyone looks at a 30 year old woman’s shaved armpit and thinks ‘Oh my god, she looks like a 13 year old’. I think the same holds for most guys and shaved muffs.
I think it should be a Law of Sexual Etiquette. You want your man to ‘have lunch at the Y’ you have to keep your garden well maintained (to mix metaphors). Vice versa for the men as well.