Susie Bright Steen, a writer for Susie Bright’s Random Honest Porn Review provides an example of the agency in pornographic performance vs. agency in the eye of the consumer issue I mentioned late last week.
Sometimes, porn just doesn’t make sense. I realize it doesn’t have to, in order to be arousing, but in the case of Filthy Fucking Cum Sluts 2, I find it more absurd than arousing.
It’s hard to imagine that anyone would consider the scenes particularly sexy, as they are more circus-type sex scenes, which some might find interesting, but I certainly find difficult to masturbate to, since they are so ridiculous.
Gia Paloma starts the film by deepthroating and fucking rubber chickens and a rubber pig, before shoving an large dildo up her ass. Two guys assist her with the dildo and then fuck her, ejaculating on a baseball bat for her to lick off. Gia is hot, but the scene was destroyed for me, when she stuffed the rubber chickens into her ass.
...
The most interesting thing is the fierce pride the girls show in the face of these extreme acts; they refuse to give in or deny doing any of these things. They take everything thrown at them, and still act aroused and perform very well. It stops the scenes from seeming abusive or degrading, and instead displays the ridiculous lengths porn producers (and consumers) are willing to go to, in order to come up with something new and different.
Now yes, yes, this sort of “pornography” really does seem to be serving up a variety of Johnny Knoxville Jackass-style entertainment where — as with everything else in Jackass-style productions sexuality is introduced, and consumed, merely for its John Waters’ Pink Flamingos “nastiness” extremity rather than any genuine erotic appeal.
But I’d add to the mix the two points that the stoicism implied in Brights line that the performers “still act aroused and perform very well” plays to a) the traditional expectation of “women in glad duty to men” as well as the “no-sex” class trope of women ultimately unmoved by sex.
Submitted by 1701 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-10-23 10:05.
Jackass Porn - I think you've coined a term for this type of ridiculous display. Perhaps you should trademark it before the porn marketers get their grubby little mitts on it. :)
Very hot and sexy picture. Perfect for us gals who definitely are not part of any "no-sex" class unmoved by sex. You really are a fine specimen of the mature male homo sapien, both physically and intellectually.
[Glad you like the term, Bunny. And as always, surprised and delighted that you like the photos. Thanks! --fl]
Submitted by 1701 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-10-23 11:35.
I'm not quite sure how a rubber chicken would arouse anyone. The only thing that would be cool is if it was a display of how much she could fit in there. Other than that I see no point and why use a rubber chicken to do so?
I guess it's getting harder and harder (no pun intended) to arouse people.
[See, that's the thing. It's *not* harder to arouse people! It's just not! It's like those floor supervisors who try to fix a machine on the line by hitting it with a hammer. And then when that doesn't work they think the problem is they didn't use a big enough hammer. No, the problem is always that *he hit it with a hammer!* Same with this -- it's not that two rubber chickens in the ass would be sexier than one, and if two doesn't work then sure as sunshine three instead isn't gonna do the trick. :-) Thanks, Brock. --fl]
Submitted by 1701 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-10-23 20:44.
Oh, I'm so glad you noticed this review. It provoked me for a number of reasons. One is, I've always felt, in a comradely way, like being in the porn biz WAS like being a carny, a freak show, and that the customer was the "mark." There's this sense of "the civilians dont' know shit."
So this movie in some respects is like a self satire of how everyone feels in the first place. No one performing gives a shit about all these dildoes and double penetrations and hour long enemas and so on, any more than they are serious about a rubber chicken. The Bearded Lady doesn't give a shit what you say, as long as the coins keep dropping in the slot, that's what I was thinking.
I think "jackass" is a good parallel, too, although when I first saw this stuff a decade ago, i called it "rubbernecking porn" because I thought its appeal was like an accident on the highway that everyone wants to gawk at.
I have to go read all your links now...
[Yep, rubbernecking. "Geek" (in the original sideshow sense) works too. 10 years ago I'm not sure Johnny Knoxville was that well known but... yeah, it seems like this stuff is more along the lines of "how stupid and maybe painful can we get?" The sex organs seem... sort of secondary. (The real miracle for me is that anyone could keep it up to whack off onto a baseball bat, not that a performer would then lick it off.) Thanks, Susie! --fl]
Submitted by 1701 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-24 06:29.
by the way, the review is written by Steen, not me. The Random Honest Porn Review is all reader contributions and reviews. I am the mere publisher!
[Oh, good to know, Susie. I'll update the post. Thanks for the head's up. --fl]
Submitted by 1701 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-10-24 07:19.
Hi there, author of the review here. Thanks for the comments, Jackass Porn is probably a very good term for these films, and I would definitely agree that they must be consumed for their extremity more than anything else.
Regarding the sexual enjoyment of the female performers in the film - touché. Yes, I understood the scenes to take place within the standard (for pornography) "women glad to please men" scenario. I believe that's where these films fit in, even if they are extreme in their portrayals of sex.
But as to whether or not someone actually could enjoy these practices, I have to admit I never seriously considered that. If the women in the film (or someone else) actually do enjoy it, that's cool. I don't feel it's inherently wrong or stupid, just that the film's orientation didn't seem geared to take such enjoyment seriously. It is much more of a freakshow, whether it's self-satirizing the industry or not, as Susie mentions.
Thanks again for the insight, and an interesting site. It's going straight into my feed-reader.
[In terms of *agency* I suspect the women performing *were* enjoying themselves. Just not *sexual* enjoyment, more like athletic enjoyment. In terms of what *viewers* see, I think there's a big subcurrent of "mom would have suffered anything for me / I love it when you suffer for me" that's sort of creepy. The big question is how to either reconcile the two outlooks or seriously cut loose the latter. Great review by the way. Thanks, Steen. --fl]