"What's the Appeal of the 'Money Shot?'" Opinonz I Haz Them

Posted by figleaf on Thu, 2012-01-19 22:38

Photo by Flickr user Universal Pops. Used under a Creative Commons license.

So for their regular weekly Wise Guys feature Em & Lo asked for answers to a reader's question: "What’s the appeal of the “money shot?" Although I'm one of their Wise Guy contributors the question didn't pop up in my rotation. But I did leave a comment. Em & Lo were then nice enough to make it their comment of the week this week.

So once again the question was "What’s the appeal of the “money shot?" Here's what I said.

I’m not even stepping into the whole “facial” business. I’ll just point out Charlie Glickman’s thoughts from a post that arrived in my newsreader moments before this one.

Instead I’ll just say I think the “money shot” is a seriously stupid dual artifact of porn. First, in the production of porn it’s just way more convenient to towel semen off skin than out of bodily orifices and therefore it’s more cost effective. This is why, at least early on, it was the low-budget porn shops that did money shots rather than the well-heeled ones. Second, for decades, anyway, porn was primarily an aid for male masturbation and so, I think, money shots are a way to help watchers identify with male actors.

I really think the masturbation element is key. Yes, you’ll occasionally see men’s parters “finishing” them off, but for the vast, vast, vast majority of cases the man essentially stops interacting physically with his partner, steps back a ways, and basically jacks off.

Again, fine if you’re at home alone. But seems to me sort of the whole point of sex with a partner is to have sex with them… not just on them.

Now, that said, don’t get me wrong. If you’re both into it (and increasing numbers of both men and women seem to be) and it’s all good clean fun for both of you then great. Lots of great things about “sex” don’t actually involve sex.

Also, that said, another name for “money shots” is “the withdrawal method.” And while nothing in life is certain, when ejaculation occurs outside a partner’s body it at best reduces the odds of pregnancy and STI transmission and even at worst it evens them out between the semen donor and semen receiver. So that’s ok too.

But at the end of the day, for me, the physical pleasure reduction of orgasm via masturbation rather than with a partner isn’t worth whatever symbolic enjoyment it seems to bring other people.

So, again for me, thanks but no thanks.

Source: Em & Lo

Note: I shared the comment-of-the-week slot with fellow Wise Guy pinch-hitter Mark Luczak, who seems to share my assessment.

View the discussion thread.

Tags:

figleaf's blog

Your points are most

Submitted by Jerry (not verified) on Fri, 2012-01-20 01:54.

Your points are most certainly valid, but if I may be as reductive as possible regarding pornography.

The entire point of hardcore porn is orgasm, and not just any orgasm, but the man's/men's orgasm/s. Softcore porn more often directs attention to the female orgasm, particularly because the sex is simulated as often as not, and we are left to assume that the man has had an orgasm. The differentiation, then, is -- what with men being such visual creatures -- is that if you don't see the ejaculation, then it must not have happened, and if it didn't happen, then the male viewer has no point-of-entry for clear identification within the scene (with the core assumption being that the man performing the scene is an avatar for the viewer).

Yes, that particular moment speaks to physical and psychic separation from the partner/s in the scene, but since intimacy isn't really the highest purpose of pornography (given that so many men are given to watching it alone), the disconnect, if not ideal, is at least nominally acceptable.

Of course, that can bring up the whole notion of gendered orgasms, because except for a niche within porn for "squirting" videos devoted to depictions of ejaculating women, there's no imperative to show that a woman performing in a scene has actually had an orgasm.

WIth gay porn, it's a little different. Sort of. Different in that in the vast majority of scenes, it's expected that both partners ejaculate, and increasingly in gay porn lately, it's de rigeur for an anally receptive partner to ejaculate while still being actively penetrated, thus ensuring visible evidence of both orgasms.

Even in porn specifically marketed -- indelicately, I realize -- as "creampie" (or, alternately, particularly in gay bareback niche, "felching") video, there must still be visible evidence of male ejaculation, which, as you might imagine, requires, well, return of the deposit, if you will.

Nobody said money shots were pretty.

But you are right, sex, absent its recreational aspects, is about putting the stuff in there, and even including recreation as a goal, it's still about connection more than disconnection. Again, though, porn isn't about having sex, as people really do, it's about presenting "sex" as some sort of commodified fantasy that is itself as detached as the performance of a money shot.

I just love this last

Submitted by Sungold (not verified) on Sun, 2012-01-22 10:23.

I just love this last sentence. It goes a long way toward explaining why - even though porn might evoke a physiological response - it so rarely turns my brain on.

I get the point, Jerry --

Submitted by figleaf on Thu, 2012-01-26 12:48.

I get the point, Jerry -- porn really is about *presenting* "sex" rather than *experiencing* it. And to that extent external money shots make (internal) sense. Sort of like in live theater when two actors having a "conversation" turn themselves half towards the audience when in real life they'd speak face to face. It would be weird, though, if theater goers imitated actors and always half-turned away from each other when talking. And for the same reason it's weird that people who view porn have taken up the habit of pulling out. --fl

Strange that you should

Submitted by Infra (not verified) on Thu, 2012-01-26 13:09.

Strange that you should mention that. About the same time that I made that shift in my sexual behavior -- that's when I officially majored in theatre. Didn't really see a connection between the two at the time, but it's been a theme ever since, implicitly if not explicitly so.

(Though it might be worth mentioning that my primary influences in theatre were Artaud, and later, Howard Barker.)

Probably something to the

Submitted by Infra (not verified) on Fri, 2012-01-20 13:37.

Probably something to the masturbation link, but I wonder if that might have its strongest link when connected with the rise of POV, specifically.

But it's probably worth mentioning one thing, in regard to the with/on issue. Thinking back on it, there was a specific turn involved when I actually began to enjoy the idea of a body shot, facial, etc., as a mutually enjoyable intimate act. And that was when I acknowledged to myself that I enjoyed performing cunnilingus (and many other acts, but that one, specifically) at least as much as, and in most cases more than, I enjoyed PIV. The with/on dichotomy kind of broke down at that point, I think.

Another interesting

Submitted by Jerry (not verified) on Sat, 2012-01-21 15:55.

Another interesting perspective!

And proof, in a sense, that sexuality evolves, I think.

I think 'money shots' are a

Submitted by My take on this (not verified) on Fri, 2012-01-27 05:19.

I think 'money shots' are a way to show the man is orgasming without having him moan or do other such 'unmanly' things.l

Oh Geez, excellent point!

Submitted by figleaf on Fri, 2012-01-27 09:44.

Oh Geez, excellent point! With rare exceptions men in porn are Silent Bobs and women in porn are Moaning Bettys. Another consequence, maybe, of the two-sphere notion that men may act but never really react during sex, and vice-versa for women? One way or another it contributes to the frequent perception that porn is never that much fun to make. Thanks! --fl