“She’s probably straight and is faking her interest in the other girl solely for the money. … Hmm, how much would somebody have to pay me, a straight guy, to be sexual with another guy? Man, I don’t know. Be a lot, though. Doesn’t really depend on the other guy, either. … Well, no, that’s not true. I’d do George Clooney for a lot less money than I’d need to do, say, Trent Lott. Still wouldn’t be cheap, though. … Oh, hey, the scene’s over. Finally.”
I think you’re drastically, drastically overestimating the number of men who share your aesthetic.
And a lot of guys are just thinking “naked chicks having sex! fwap fwap fwap” and that’s about it. I really think the number of men who think it through as deeply as Senior Smith has to be relatively miniscule. For me, thinking it through on those levels would ruin porn. What I want out of porn is a visual cue to keep my mind focused on what I’m doing. That’s about all.
Having given this some thought, I agree. No doubt I am physiologically aroused by sexual visuals, but if my brain is not engaged, nothing will happen. I have no idea if this is shared by the OP (he sounds like he just wants better quality porn), but it is true for me. I’ll stick with erotica, which leaves something for the imagination.
Really? My problem has always been that women find me too attractive.
In any case, your personal tastes in porn, or your personal reaction to porn, are no more indicative of your intelligence than your favourite colour or favourite food. You can slather on the analysis in an attempt to intellectualize your preferences if you like, but it’s a waste of time.
What’s not a waste is analyzing porn in an attempt to find a new angle that may prove marketable and profitable. i.e. finding something that will appeal to other people (preferably lots of other people), without biasing the results to fit your own preferences. You’ve proposed a hypothetical test (make a neo-porn movie, distribute it freely) and proposed a hypothetical result (30-40% of male viewers will find it appealing) but I and others find this to be unlikely and you haven’t presented any independent evidence beyond your admitted gut-feelings, ass-pulled numbers, and homophobia claims of dubious relevance. What we have, in contrast, is the observation that if neo-porn was such a hot idea, the novelty- and profit-seeking porn industry would’ve tumbled onto it already.
If “bullshit” is claims without evidence, I think you’ll find lots of people around here share your low tolerance.
I admit it’s conceivable. I’d say the 30-40% figure is comically exaggerated and the actual percentage of men who need (i.e. have a fetish for) the 20-minute “intimate” foreplay is closer to 0.03 to 0.04%. Maybe they’ll pay big money to have their limited market satisfied, possibly enough money to cover production costs of such a niche item, but I don’t see the evidence for it. By his own account the OP has researched this in some detail and came up empty and his claim that the trend is going his way is bolstered only by his deep wish that it would and, in a perfect world, should.
He’s come up with various reasons why this hasn’t happened yet, but they’re inextricably mixed in with “everybody’s a homophobe/everybody’s stupid”, so I don’t take them seriously.
First off, NO ONE has taste in porn. Why? Because there is nothing artistic out there yet. Musically, the current porn industry is at the same stage when cavemen were banging sticks on rocks. Did it make music? Yes. Was it artistic, deep, well thought out, and ranging in countless other human emotions? No!
You see “taste” as some guy who likes to see two dicks in one ass. That’s the same as saying a guy has taste in music because he likes two lead guitars. Do two guitars automatically make a song great, meaningful and artistic?
And your biggest flaw in logic, is that because there isn’t a huge demand, because there aren’t millions of people out there writing posts like mine, then people won’t enjoy it.
Do you really think Pink Floyd came about because of popular demand? Do you honestly think millions of people were at home writing angry letters to music producers like,
"Dear record making cock suckers,
I’m sick of all this mainstream shit. I’m ready for some “space rock” even though I don’t know what that means. I want to hear psychedelic rock music with a more classical or opera type feel. Then throw in some wild instrumentals, electronic screeches; with eerie sounds and vocals. And while you’re at it, fuck that three minute bullshit, give me ten minute songs. Stretch that shit out.
Senior Smith, I’m not going to defend you anymore. You really are acting like an ass in this thread. And if you want to counter Bryan Ekers’s assertion (which I agree with) that personal tastes in porn aren’t indicative of intelligence, you might want to, you know, actually address it.
I apologize, and it came off the wrong way. I re-read my last post and it seemed like I was saying people who enjoy today’s porn are stupid. I was not trying to say that. I honest to god don’t think of people as morons or that intelligence has anything to do with taste.
I was saying “that’s fucking bullshit” to the idea that people have taste in porn, which I don’t believe to be true. Do people like some porn more than others? Yes. But has porn evolved enough, the same as music, to really even have what I would consider “taste”? No.
I like just about anything if done correctly. That’s why I always see fetish and think “gimmick”. It’s like “Jewish girls with strap-ons #47”
I do like “just fucking” scenes sometimes. But it always just feels so forced or fake. It’s not the style of porn, it’s the fact that I can’t make a connection to it. While yes this is a “taste” when it comes down to it, I think of it more as a preference. When I hear someone say “that person has good taste in” I always think, “that person has moved on from the ordinary, realized there are better things out there, and become a connoisseur in that field”.
My argument, is, that in order for porn to move on to the next level, certain rules have to apply. And almost all my ideas can be applied to every genre of porn, if filmed right. I can’t speak for every straight man. But I have brought up (what I consider) valid arguments as to why we would only enjoy intimate scenes with two girls.
I want to see intimacy in porn. I know most men like intimacy. And now I’m presenting my theory of how it could be portrayed. And no I don’t think intimacy is a fetish or taste. The main problem here is that you guys will never really see what I see until it’s actually made. I know my communication skills aren’t that great, but even if that weren’t the problem, it would still be impossible to paint this picture.
What are you blathering about? When has porn ever endeavored to be deep, well thought out and ranging in countless other human emotions? Porn is about supplying visual cues to stimulating a mating impulse leading to gratification. For most heterosexual men, the sight and sound of an aroused female is sufficient, increased by the sight and sound of two aroused females and if technology ever reaches the point where the smell of one or two aroused females can be efficiently simulated, I expect that’ll get thrown in, too. For many straight men, though, other visual cues greatly enhance the appeal, perhaps putting a woman in a particular costume or a particular situation, perhaps emphasizing her feet, giving her a cigarette, watching her squash bugs, putting her in chains etc. and profit-seeking porn producers are happy to satisfy such tastes if they are profitable.
So much for Porn 101. You’re confusing “taste” with “good taste” and defining “good taste” as YOUR taste. If the “technology” of porn hasn’t changed much since the stone age (by which I mean the mechanics of sex itself, not the technology required to produce and distribute it), it’s because sex itself hasn’t changed since the stone age. Music, by contrast, expands as we develop new instruments. A tenor saxophone is a curious artifact to a man living in Mesopotamia, but a horny naked chick is pretty much universal.
I see “taste” as the personal preferences of that man (i.e. if he likes two dicks in an asshole, then his “taste” is for two dicks in an asshole). Another man who likes images of gentle lovemaking on a bearskin rung before a fireplace in a winter cabin… well, that’s his taste. I’m using the word “taste” as shorthand for “personal preference”, without any comment on quality, in large part because in this particular subject, “quality” is so ridiculously arbitrary. I could say a high-definition video of a sex act is of better technical quality than a cave painting of the same act, but that’s about it. Whether or not a depiction of that particular act appeals to a viewer is determined solely by the tastes of that viewer. If the act depicted doesn’t happen to sexually appeal to a viewer, casting the depiction as “great, meaningful and artistic” isn’t going to change that. If it does sexually appeal to a viewer, casting the depiction as not “great, meaningful and artistic” isn’t going to change that, either.
You’ve misinterpreted something I’ve said several times. Because there isn’t a huge demand, porn producers won’t produce this material (or at least, they won’t and manage to stay in business). This isn’t some minor refinement like putting a porn actress in a nun’s habit to appeal to the straight guys who find nun’s habits appealing. Nun’s habits (and costumes generally) are cheap and add virtually nothing to the costs of porn production. You’re asking that the production costs of a porn film be (at least) tripled by dramatically increasing the length of the film, requiring better-quality actresses to convince the viewer that intimacy is being established in a long setup requiring props and locations and whatnot all as foreplay that, judging from actual (and not hypothetical) trends in porn production, would be uselessly fast-forwarded by most viewers. It’s rather like saying, for example, “good” porn must take place in Paris, that porn that doesn’t take place in Paris is bad porn. All that does is demand that porn producers go to the additional and considerable expense of filming in Paris (assuming they aren’t there already, of course), when it’s undemonstrated that a significant number of viewers care in the least where the porn is made.
Heck, I invite a porn producer to produce an “intimate” lesbian video and see how it goes, just out of curiosity. I just don’t intend to invest any of my own money in such a venture. I might be surprised to see it become wildly successful and live to regret missing my chance to get in the ground floor, but I’ll live with that.
I actually know very little about Pink Floyd. I have minor familiarity with some of their work and somewhere in the trivia section of my brain is a note that “The Wall” was one of the first successful rock videos, though to what extent remains unclear. I couldn’t name or recognize any of their members, nor name any of their albums (except The Wall, I guess).
Does this prove I have good taste or bad taste in music, or does it simply mean that my taste in music doesn’t include a preference for Pink Floyd?
Anyway…
Assuming this is a roughly accurate description of PF’s style, angry letters weren’t required. PF tried their stuff at a particular time and place and became successful. Had they tried it somewhere else, or ten years sooner or later, they might not have been successful, or as successful, or they might have been even more successful. Who knows? Until some porn producer actually tries to sell long-foreplay intimate lesbian porn, you have no basis to assume it will be successful. Saying “if only they saw it, most men would like it because if I saw it, I would like it” is not evidence.
Can you describe past instances of porn moving “to the next level” and what rules had to be in force at the time to allow it? If not, can we assume this is just another useless cliché?
Portrayals of intimacy have existed on film for as long as film has been around, and literary descriptions have been around at about as long as poetry itself has. The concept of depicted intimacy isn’t in the least foreign or incomprehensible; it’s the forced marriage to porn which has us chuckling, just as it might be to injecting intimacy into a road-runner cartoon, or intimacy into a car maintenance manual, or intimacy in any other genre where it all evidence suggests it would be viewed as unnecessary.
There might very well be a market for the intimate road-runner cartoon. Until a cartoon-maker actually produces one, we won’t know. Your theory of intimate porn already has built-in excuses for its failure, though - homophobia, sheeplike behaviour, bad taste, etc., so even if an intimate porn video gets produced and flops miserably, I don’t expect you’ll accept that failure as evidence of anything.
I used them as an example because their ideas were so new, so original, that no one saw them coming. No one could have predicted it.
The problem is that they weren’t an instant success. It was too hard to get into. I hated Darkside and The Wall the first three or four listens. However, it’s music that grows on you. And you develop deep connections with it, if for anything else, it’s not ordinary.
For a crazy, weird band, that was almost impossible to sell on the mainstream, I’d say they have done pretty well. They’ve sold over 250 million albums worldwide, yet somehow their albums are considered a “cult classics” simply because it seems like no one else would enjoy it.
Anyway, I again want to apologize for coming off as a jerk. I don’t think people are sheep. I don’t think people are stupid. It’s just frustrating when you see something that should make perfect sense, and no one else agrees with you.
You know, I realize most the time you come here, you simply argue for the sake of arguing. While you’ve brought up some things that make me reevaluate my points, this isn’t even trying anymore.
There’s no way you can’t see the link between intimacy and sexual arousal. Billions of people do it every night. Sex isn’t purely visual or physical. It’s a connection between two human beings.
Perhaps it just demonstrates how little effort from me this requires.
Sex and intimacy are linked (though saying the link is unbreakable will certainly come as a surprise to the prostitution industry). Porn and intimacy are not. Porn is not sex. Porn is a stylized depiction of sex, typically discarding many aspects of sex which are realistic but not necessary to arousal. A major aspect of sex is intimacy. Another major aspect is the possibility of the transmission of disease. Still another is the possibility are pregnancy (at least in hetero couplings). Yet another is feelings of fatigue or hunger that follow sex. Porn can freely ignore all of these yet still be porn.
Oh we understand your claims and can envision the porn you want. We simply disagree that it would have widespread appeal. The overwhelming majority of men do not want intimacy in their porn. They don’t even need to see the actors as people. They need only audio and visual stimuli bereft of context. As others have said, if the demand existed it would be met.
You’ve done an adequate job of describing your desired porn. The majority of the posters to this thread simply aren’t interested.
I know this. Of course sex can be anything anyone wants it to be. Hell, It can be a party favor.
The thing is you see emotions mixed into media all the time. Why is it a police drama instead of just showing you things that happen at a police station? Why do people want to develop emotional connections with the actors? Do we really need to know the characters personally? Why even bother with character development when you just want to get to the drugs, prostitution and murders? Isn’t seeing people get their brains blown out, bank robberies, and car chases enough?
I see a whole new light to porn, something that I think should be very obvious. When the actors become real people, when we make real connections, it’s no longer just random sex. Everything becomes more vivid, more intense, more exciting, more real.