Ok, this isn’t really a post about semiotics of semen, at least not in Saussure’s sense of signs deconstructed into signifier and signified. Although I’m sure if I’d just taken that dang course back in 1984 or so, instead of just backyard seminaring with a bunch of roommates who did, I’d be able to take a pretty good crack at the real thing.
Instead I just liked the alliteration in “semiotics of semen.” :-)
But seriously. I keep getting reminded of semen because any time I try to look at pretty much any kind of pornography involving heterosexuality then sooner or later semen’s going to show up. Which people have been remarking upon for going on two decades now.
Not that semen isn’t a perfectly laudable substance but the way it’s presented in pornography is kind of odd. I mean, for one thing it is presented. Placed. Precipitously. In plain sight. (If I may again alliterate.) And that’s the thing. Most of the time if you’re having sex with someone you don’t put semen where everyone can see it because it doesn’t feel as nice.
You know what feels really, really nice? To be locked in a passionate embrace with your partner, sometimes after barely enough time to rip each other’s clothes just loose enough, but preferably after what at least seems like hours of increasingly steamy, turgid, creamy, dreamy kisses and caresses, till your partner’s breath is hot and short against your cheek or ear and at least one of her hands is locked in your hair, pulling your face into the crook of her neck where you’ve been ravishing her throat with lips and tongue and teeth, your own hands less coordinated, yes, but still purposefully able to ruck her hem up to her hips, to crook them under her knees and pull them up and wide somewhere between your hips and her shoulders (a process that she’s perfectly capable of, of course, but you might both enjoy), and then perhaps with her hand, perhaps with yours, she glides your cock deep inside her not in one quick gulp but in sweet, increasingly slickery, increasingly deep sips. And then as your hips surge down into her and hers rise up to meet yours, and you feel her aiming her blood-hard clitoris to bump, bump, bump against your pubis, and her ankles cross against your lower back with one heel in the cleft of your ass pulling you tight, tight into her and the base of your rocks and grinds against her and her inner rings of muscle milk, milk, milk the length of your cock, and as both your pants break down into near-confused oh, oh, oh’s and she bites down hard on the muscles high above your collarbone and from your belly to the cheeks of your ass you feel deep wrenching, clenching squeezing of familiar but no less mysterious for it muscles pumping once, twice, in rhythms older than our species before you first collapse against each other, breath slower but far, far deeper, confused fingers unclenching as self-consciously as they earlier had clenched unconsciously, aftershock quivers against your bellies, murmured mmm’s, and woah’s and the sort of solemnity-breaking giggles that follow before one or the other of you leaps or reaches for a cloth (if there’s upholstery to be rescued) or maybe just wet, splishy wiggles (if there’s still room for two somewhere else on the bed.)
That? That feels great! Really great! As you can imagine. As you might not even need to imagine because, after all, that’s so often how things work out.
Or work out in life…
...but not in porn.
In porn, if you’re a man, you can get maybe to where your partner begins to dip and slip you inside, to where you and your partner begin to badminton your cock back and forth between you, until you and… who knows… maybe even she is on the verge of something warm and close and wet and wonderful happening and… in porn…
you stop! And then, in porn, you remove yourself from where you were and, usually, wait while the camera zooms and refocuses before… using, usually, your own hands you ejaculate. A “money shot,” to be sure, but an orgasm? Meh… and while the camera’s attention is elsewhere your face can reflect your true feelings your partner, her face usually very close to the camera, must continue looking pleased, even eager, for… however long it takes you to do by hand what you’d almost surely rather do some… any... other way.
Yes, indeed one might wonder why, and many, including me, have speculated endlessly.
Here’s a new possibility I hadn’t considered: most hetero porn and quite a lot of gay and/or lesbian porn is made for men, right? And mostly what men do with it is watch while they masturbate, right?
Which brings up an interesting bridge for men between masturbation and porn.
There’s certainly a story about (heterosexual) men’s distaste for looking at other men’s cocks but, unlike women who ordinarily don’t see their own vulvas, or even the vulvas of other women, at at least some points in their lives most men, certainly most American men, see cocks in abundance in lockerrooms if nowhere else and, of course, whenever they masturbate or even pee, see their own cocks, soft and hard, easily a dozen times a day. And when we masturbate, and when we ejaculate, we very often see it spring forth from our bodies whether in dribbles or jets.
And so, perhaps contrary to expectation, I think maybe the appeal of the “money shot” for porn viewers isn’t so much a demonstration that it’s “the real thing” but that one sees in images the reminder, the cue, the proxy for their own masturbation which, being masturbation, must inevitably fall without rather than within.
Maybe so. Or maybe no.
What I do know, though, is that being aware of the agency of actors in porn no less, obviously, than the actresses, is that however much such aerial ejaculations might encourage, or inspire, or comfort, or (if my thesis is mistaken) merely entertain the average customer the leave something to be desired for the actors themselves and thus only distract me with how little I’d like to do that.
Again that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t enjoy masturbating for a partner, of showing her even as, perhaps, she showed me. And if instead it’s she who’s plying me with hands or mouth or other parts of herself then it’s obviously her prerogative to direct my expression wherever she will. But neither of those special circumstances carry with them the relentless inevitability of male orgasm ejaculation semen production in porn.
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-11-06 08:06.
Oh but I'm such a money shot girl. I love the cum. I especially love watching men masturbating. Preferably many of them, all standing over me... but enough about my fantasies. *grin* One of my favorite genres of porn lately is the handjob. I love the ones where she really loves it, and you can tell... she's working hard to make him cum, and it's making her hot just doing it. God, I can so relate. *satisfied sigh* Maybe I'm spoiled, because Mr. Kitt is rather like the Energizer Bunny in that department. There isn't just one. He can keep going and going... and going. It's truly delightful. For me, if the focus is on her wanting his cum, waiting for it, eager for it... then it's hot. To me, that makes it even more hot that the internal cum shots where she's just laying there...
[Agreed. If you're into it then it's great for you. But when a minor kink gets expressed everywhere, and it's *not* your kink, then it gets a little distracting. Especially if one's own particular kink was geared more towards depictions of mutual sensation. :-) Thanks, Selena. --fl]
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-11-05 22:06.
I would like to humbly point out that there are many porn videos which do feature 'internal cum shots' or 'creampies', though what percentage of the overall mainstream porn world they make up I do not know.
...I've gotten the impression that while these videos do lie well within the spectrum of mainstream porn, they still have a bit of a 'fetish' value to them, in that you usually have to specifically search them out while the 'moneyshot' is ubiquitous.
I guess what I'm saying is that the, er, more 'traditional' conclusion of hetero coitus is alive and well in mainstream porn, though compared to what happens in (non-porn)reality it's probably underrepresented while the external cum shot is probably overrepresented.
This gets at what you're saying about how what we like to watch may sometimes be different than what we actually like to *do*. And I mean that 'we' to include men and women alike.
[I'm embarrassed to admit I may just not have seen enough post-1980-or-so porn to have seen non-money-shot sex. I also admit I haven't watched very much gay or lesbian porn since I'm way more fascinated with the slow-motion pratfall that is industrial heterosexual porn. But! If I haven't seen anything about it in casual browsing then I can rest my case anyway. I clearly agree that what we like to see vs. what we like to do can be *very* different -- it's one of the really wild things about fantasies in general. Thanks, Albinosquid. --fl]
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Mon, 2007-11-05 23:09.
I've found the same as albinosquid, you can find it if you look specifically.
When I first started using hardcore porn (by which I mean, porn in which the penetration is explicit) I was hugely disappointed that the culmination always seemed to be focussed on the ejaculation - I was looking for orgasm to be the moment at which their bodies most forcefully came together, and there they are - separated!
Nowadays, it's a bit more fuzzy, because (again with the BDSM here) I find that there's a whole lot of other things going on mentally in real life when I recreate those money-shot scenes with a real lover, that tie into the BDSM mindset (things like, humiliation, marking of territory, anointing her, denial of something or giving of something... the list goes on). But there's very little of that in mainstream porn - it's just, "oh, right, time for the 'grand finale'". Very few of those ever got my attention. Those that did where the ones where the actress showed a lot of reaction: either a really dirty "cat that got the cream" look (pun intended) or else, an "OMG how disgusting!" look (because that's the humiliation thing I mentioned before). Mostly, though, she just sort of blinks and looks at the camera, as if waiting for someone to wipe her clean ready for the next scene. Which isn't really what I call sexy.
[Yeah, I'm never sure what to make of that sort of mock outrage look in porn. Real outrage? I could handle that (and maybe dial 911.) Real enthusiasm? Ditto, minus the 911 call. But that whole "oh my this is so dirty / can you imagine" sort of thing? It's like watching Cal Worthington commercials knowing that, minus the hystrionics, it's all about something regular people do all the time. Thanks, SDE. --fl]
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-11-06 10:38.
First, this is why lesbian porn is the only porn worth watching.
Second, that said, I do LOVE to watch a guy jerk off.
Third. Um...crap...there was a third, but I got distracted with trying to close my mouth after reading your description of my sex life :)
OH! Messy is the only way to do sex right. That was it! No running like a ninny to wash up.
[Exactly! There's a time and place for everything, right? :-) Thanks, Biscuit. --fl]
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-11-06 09:10.
Oh my. That was a wonderfully steamy description in the middle Figleaf. And definitely reflects my preferences.
I think it is about intimacy for me. When a man comes in pussy or mouth I find that intimate, affectionate. While watching a lover masturbate can be fun, playful, it doesn't have that intimacy. The "money shot" distances people at the moment at which I want to see them closest. I guess I am very touch-centric.
Anyway, to each his own, but the sheer dominance of the money shot in mainstream porn does befuddle me. I am tempted by your explanation in terms of the agency of the masturbating male view. But I wonder if it is also just easy to film. The economics of porn are all about the fast turn around.
[As I mentioned, every now and then it's fine -- even exciting -- as would be ballet slippers or writing initials in lipstick or prostate massage. But every single time? Outside of "fetish/specialty" categories? It starts to sound like one of those occasional John Cleese skits that they wouldn't let go of even though it sort of bombed. Thanks, E. --fl]
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-11-06 13:17.
Seems we're in a society where we constantly have to prove ourselves and cumming outside of her or on her proves orgasm occurred. (Have to wonder in porn whether the woman ever cums? How can she prove she came?) I would much rather see the guy cum inside her and hold her close and shiver and quake with her in his arms (and vice versa). Now that would be hot. But I'm probably not in the majority when it comes to porn as much as do enjoy good porn.
[See... see... I think that might be sort of backwards in the sense that yes, there's a fairly large market for porn, and it *could* be even bigger, except that the template for it was established way, way back when you sort of actually *did* have to be a pervert to make the considerable effort to find it in the first place. Anyway, technically yes, you might not be in the majority of porn consumers, but you probably *are* in the majority of what most people would enjoy. If more people were making it that way. Thanks, Red. --fl]
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-11-06 19:37.
Figleaf, you trickster! I am actually taking that dang course right now, and when I saw the title of this post I was wondering how you were going to analyze the signifier and signified of semen.
Although, I think that you'd have to go further away from Saussure to Barthes for the kind of analysis that you're going for. ;-)
[Well, while I think I could make a good case that the signifier "semen" (both the sound, the text, and the substance) have multiple, um, signified's you're right that since *in this post* I really was just playing around with the sounds and not the meanings (at least in the title and with some of my aliterations) then yeah, Barthe's perspective might be more appropriate. But in either a Sasseurian or a Pierce-ian sense, I think one could have a field day trying to deconstruct semen as it appears (hmm, as it literally *appears!*) in porn. Whereas in *non-porn* sex semen itself is usually unseen yet *still* signified by sounds... such as "aah, aah, aah!" :-) At least until the next morning, whereupon it becomes a signifier for "time to wash the sheets." :-) Thanks, Anna. --fl]
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-11-06 23:00.
I find myself very obsessed with the female cum shot, the porn that shows women climaxing and ejaculating themselves. What I find so interesting is the PROOF that the woman has in fact cum. So that version of porn does exist, redheadeditor, though I wonder how much of a marginalized kink it is...
[Let's just say that while some women really do squirt something from their urethras when they have an orgasm (usually a particular kind of one) it is *not* proof when you see it in porn. First, because most women's orgasms *don't* involve squirting anything (and so not squirting in't proof of not coming) and secondly because on video you can't really tell "squirting" from peeing and therefore "squirting" isn't proof of coming. I promise. Thanks, AIYP. --fl]
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Wed, 2007-11-07 18:16.
What Anonymous (and Linda Williams) said. I don't know that it is so much familiarity as it is some indication that the performers really are enjoying themselves. Historically, that really meant that the men were enjoying themselves (who cared about the women?), but I think there has been a shift, and that female ejaculation films--no matter how obviously faked--is a symptom of that. Actually, my pet theory is that as more and more people have gone to college and seen films of female ejaculation in human sexuality courses, it has created a new demand.
I long for a day when the focus isn't so much on the end-product, but when a cum-shot can stand in for other ways of distracting us from the artifice (good story, good "acting," good production values), it seems as if it's here to stay for a while.
[Again I'd agree it's supposed to represent how much fun they're having except that... it's not as much actual fun! As anyone who's actually *had* sex before they've seen porn sex recognizes pretty quickly. :-) Thanks, Alex. --fl]
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Thu, 2007-11-08 12:38.
It's so weird to me that in Japanese porn they blur out the genitals but will show semen dribbling around.
And I can understand the "proof is in the pudding" mentality of seeing a cumshot, it does lend a bit of a mental rush to witness an orgasm.
And I had a male lover who was totally into cumshots - German Goo Girls, anyone? The "grosser," the better. He was one of the only guys I've been with that preferred to pull out and cum on me so he could watch it instead of cumming inside. He claimed the sensation of cumming inside was too sensitive, but it makes you wonder about intimacy issues, yah?
Yay female ejaculation!
[Hmmm... Now you've got me totally wondering if come shots are really the point in porn then is there a more interesting way to do it that doesn't involve getting it in someone else's hair. Also, not to sound judgmental but your ex-partner sounds like a doof. :-) Thanks, BK. --fl]
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Tue, 2008-01-01 02:48.
Also late to the party :-)
Speaking as a (totally amateur) porn producer, my money would go on the popularity of the stereotypical money shot being largely a by-product of the filming process. It is not always easy (or even possible) for a guy to "perform" with all the stopping & starting & rearranging that goes on, the sex that occupies 10 mins in the finished film might have taken an hour or more to produce in reality, and (here I am speculating as I've only worked on my own homemade stuff) all the extra people milling around probably don't add to the mood either.
After all that, it may be that the only way the guy *can* cum is by finishing himself off. And if he can't, a faked facial (I have it on reasonably good authority that it's not that hard to fake, again haven't tried it myself) is thought to be a lot more convincing than a hard thrust and some moans.
Which of course (for me anyway) leads to the question of why *his* orgasm is the necessary finale of the scene, but perhaps that's straying a little from the topic.
p.s. In my marketing stuff I play up the genuine female orgasms...I feel it sets me apart from the mainstream and it seems to be a good selling point to men and even a few women, perhaps evidence of a trend?...I do not squirt but you can often clearly see the orgasmic flush effect on my arms, torso and face.
["...leads to the question of why *his* orgasm is the necessary finale..." And that really is an excellent question, y'know. Even if porn really was just for men I'm not sure that many men time their masturbatory climaxes to those of the actors. Thanks, Cherie. --fl]
Submitted by 1737 (not verified) on Tue, 2007-12-25 19:06.
A little late to the game here, I realize...
Sure the inside, together ejaculation is preferable, at least to me, but I'd be horrified if I saw a condom-less porn actor cum inside his partner. Unprotected sex is only ok in today's porn because he pulls out. That may not have been the case pre-AIDS, but it is now, and it seems that as a result we have external ejaculation.
I hate that it's made its way to her face because I think it's demeaning and gross, and it was a huge reason why I turned against porn entirely, but outside of putting a condom on, stopping to pull out is the responsible thing to do. I think it's less about the visuals than about the cultural more of not enacting or promoting unsafe sex.
[Interesting point, Dizzy, but I'm not convinced because I'm pretty sure the money-shot business started well before HIV awareness. It certainly started *concern* about HIV came to the porn industry. And finally, *if* the idea was HIV avoidance then yeah, ejaculating in the nose or eyes is just a plain freakishly worse alternative, infection-pathway wise. Thanks. --fl]