Better Porn

From Nina.com:

During the early days of filmed porn, 60’s 70’s 80’s, the medium was accused of all sorts of socially heinous acts. The very existence of triple X rated material was seen as dehumanizing and degrading to women. Whatever may have been going on behind the scenes, much of the product seen by the public did not reflect these negative impressions any more than mainstream Hollywood films did. These plot driven, character heavy adult film efforts would, sometimes, rival their more “legitimate” counterparts. Men and women seemed to be shown equitably, within context, in sexual explicitness. Times have changed, however; we’re more enlightened. With the development of video technology, the home market, and the success of the amateur adult vids, production of plot driven films are being done, essentially, by only two companies. The mainstream market is dominated by gonzo/wall to wall sex videos. In the past, sex scenes lasted about 10 to 12 minutes, the gonzo efforts have doubled, sometimes tripled that length. Question: In this more accepting, informed era, is the product better? With more time for sex in the feature, has it become more exciting? More stimulating for the viewer? Or has it become what it was once accused of? Let’s take a look, starting with:

Titles- In the first 30 or so years of porn, titles tended to be either those of the more standard Hollywood variety(the 60’s), ones filled with double entendre(the 70’s), or amusing sexual versions of movie blockbusters(the 80’s); the words sluts, whores/hoes, and bitches rarely found their way into mainstream adult faire. That’s not the case in this decade, these derogatory female terms are quite common; and make no mistake, in spite of the industry’s attempts to co-op the words and legitimize them, they are still considered extremely insulting. Who can argue with the idea that if a person calls ones mother, daughter, sister, girlfriend any one of those colorful descriptions said person wouldn’t be risking an understandably violent response. There are no comparable male terms used in porn.

Camera/Filming- There have always been certain specific techniques in shooting porn. Are they still applicable and/or equitable in today’s society. You decide.
The Close-up; undoubtedly one of the oldest camera shots in the business, let’s define it as “any single shot that prevents the viewer from observing cause and effect simultaneously”. Primarily for males, its purpose is to bring us the “nasty” details; showing us what we normally wouldn’t see, enhancing the scene as if we were in there performing the act ourselves. This unimpressive camera trick is used by every Tom, Dick, and Harry filming a scene. Pretending to show us more, this overused chestnut does quite the opposite. We see only what the producer wants us to see at that moment. Our chose is gone. You want to see a face contorting in pleasure while the clit is licked, thrusting breasts during a particularly good stroking moment, toes curled in ecstasy at the time of orgasm, good luck; unless the director is exercising restraint….it’s close-up time! Cheap and sometimes cynical, the close-up serves more to hide mistakes or lack of chemistry between the performers. Often ill-timed, this highly overused shot lacks subtlety or finesse, it interrupts the flow/continuity of a scene, diminishing whatever heat has been building, turns the performers into mere body parts, robbing the scene of any real personality, and rendering it generic. Nothing stops a scene in its tracks as effectively as this shot, when given length. No matter the porn film style, a close-up is a close-up is a close-up; it only has weight because of what we’ve seen before it. Close-ups should be in service to the scene, not the other way around. Less is more.
The Cutaway; the oldest editing technique in porn. Sharing many of the same faults as the close-up, its purpose is time compression, getting us from point A to the hotspot and back at the blink of an eye. Eliminating camera pans, real time transitions, or anything else that may be sloppy the cutaway disturbs flow at the whim of the director. Considering how often it’s used, producers/directors think viewers have the attention span of a newborn. This antique, also, falls into the less is more category.
Angles; relatively new to the business, with lightweight technology, directors have taken to twisting the camera at a 45 degree angle; typically for female superior positions. The shot was last used to great effect by the 1966 Batman TV series. Because of its somewhat disturbing effect when viewed, they used it for close-ups of the villains. Question: Why have many mainstream porn directors embraced this off kilter camera shot? Are we supposed to be subliminally disturbed by the woman being on top? Or are they just trying to be artsy? Uh huh. This is gonzo, folks!

Foreplay- What! Where? In the early decades of adult viewing, you saw more kissing, stroking, breast play, some attempt to excite the women; today, with more sex per minute, there seems to be less prep time. Kissing is merely cursory. The male performers squeeze women’s breast like play dough, sucking on the nipple once or twice to prove they saw it. Fingering is of the piston in hole variety, no skill, apparently nobody is bothering with the G-spot anymore. Guess these days the female doesn’t have to be stimulated/warmed up.

Oral -Currently, the industry version of foreplay; probably the second most inequitable act in porn today. No sexual move has become more lopsided than this one. Fellatio is performed more than twice as often as cunnilingus. Example: Recently viewed ‘Superwhores 8’. This wall to wall sex feature clocks in at almost 3 hours; of that, only 5 minutes, over two scenes and three women, is devoted to muff diving by men; whereas every scene has a blowjob, including two scenes given exclusively for this purpose. In any average full length 5-6 scene vid, women are orally serviced less than half the time. When mutual pleasure is in supply guys are blown 1-5 minutes, women fall under 1 minute. Add to this the male is typically given mouth attention at almost every transition in a single scene (3-5 times). Grouping doesn’t change this imbalance, more men they all get sucked by her, she may get a minute; more women, they all blow the guy, he may do one or two who sit on his face. Then there are the numerous POV features where oral stimulation on the young ladies is nonexistent. Now here’s the icing on the cake, there are countless all blowjob features and compilations, but there doesn’t seem to be a single feature devoted exclusively to guys orally servicing women, in the history of adult film making. Now, one would think that the men would be anxious to show off their oral skills; the ability to turn a woman to butter with the flick of your tongue, have her become an uncontrollable sex animal with some well placed sucks, hear/watch her beg for more as she writhes under your devastating oral techniques; but, these “studs” can’t waste their time, they seem more afraid of the vagina as if it’s too nasty or unmanly for them. Why aren’t the women demanding more equitable attention?

Ira Levine responds:

I don’t believe there ever was a golden age of porn and feel no great nostalgia for that mythical era. It’s true that the early titles were shot on film and often had higher production values, as there were fewer of them, fewer companies making them and the perception of a greater need to meet the demands of the Miller test. The dialog-heavy, leaden attempts at story-telling written by non-screenwriters to be delivered by non-actors had as much to do with creating the illusion of "artistic value" as they did with any real concern for the sensibilities of audiences.

With a very few exceptions – virtually all of them made by Radley Metzger – none of the early X-rated films rivaled their mainstream counterparts in quality. Legal porn originated during the real golden age of mainstream indie pictures like Easy Rider, MASH, Bonnie and Clyde, American Graffiti, Mean Streets. Deep Throat hardly measures up to a real erotic comedy of the order of Shampoo.

And as to the so-called "equitable treatment of men and women" back in the day, if you haven’t checked out some of the real classics of that time – Behind the Green Door and Defiance come to mind – I think you might be surprised by the level of non-consensual sexual activity visited upon the female players. Indeed, I think most current XXX producers would hesitate to make a video that portrays rape as entertainment in the unashamed manner of Green Door.

Moreover, back then the players were less attractive, the sex less artfully performed and the technical quality of the productions often very spotty. If you really like hairy pussies, dirty feet and lighting so inept you often couldn’t even see the hardcore, not to mention the terrible synthesized soundtracks, then I suppose there might be a certain quaint charm to the older material, but let’s move on from these picture-maker’s gripes to the core of the argument.

"The mainstream market is dominated by gonzo/wall to wall sex videos. In the past, sex scenes lasted about 10 to 12 minutes, the gonzo efforts have doubled, sometimes tripled that length. Question: In this more accepting, informed era, is the product better? With more time for sex in the feature, has it become more exciting? More stimulating for the viewer?"

For me, absolutely. Sex videos no longer pretend to be movies. They more accurately resemble live coverage of dance performances or professional sports. Personally, I think the subject of sex videos should be sex. I’m not averse to some story-telling if it facilitates the mission, which is to arouse the viewer, but in feature porn, so much time is wasted trying to set up elaborate visuals and galumph through cliche plotting, performers are often too exhausted to give us energetic sex scenes by the time they’ve sat around feature sets for twelve hours waiting to do what they’re best at. I think the porn of today is much more honest in its intentions and delivers on its promises far more frequently than did their over-praised progenitors.

"Titles- In the first 30 or so years of porn, titles tended to be either those of the more standard Hollywood variety(the 60’s), ones filled with double entendre(the 70’s), or amusing sexual versions of movie blockbusters(the 80’s); the words sluts, whores/hoes, and bitches rarely found their way into mainstream adult faire. That’s not the case in this decade, these derogatory female terms are quite common; and make no mistake, in spite of the industry’s attempts to co-op the words and legitimize them, they are still considered extremely insulting. Who can argue with the idea that if a person calls ones mother, daughter, sister, girlfriend any one of those colorful descriptions said person wouldn’t be risking an understandably violent response. There are no comparable male terms used in porn."

Of course, anti-porn feminists have seized on this very claim to make their case the porn is all about. You state without qualification that the dirty talk of modern porn is "considered extremely insulting" regardless of context. Context is everything where this kind of language is concerned. Many people use dirty words in private as a stimulant to sexual excitement with no intent to insult. Surely the same language used on the street, with a stranger, an acquaintence or a family member might provoke a hostile response, but hostility of intent is the real consideration. For what it’s worth, my mother once told me she liked dirty words in the bedroom, even when applied to herself, and I’ve had many partners who shared that taste. Moreover, claim that no such charged words are hurled at men in contemporary porn is simply false. "Fuck me harder, you lazy son of a bitch" and many variants thereof are heard quite frequently in today’s videos.

In fact, one of the most startling changes – and a healthy one to my way of thinking – is the extent to which feminine sexual aggression is now accepted in porn. Women are no longer expected to be coy, shy, reluctant, indirectly seductive or otherwise more reticient then men when it comes to sex. They’re encouraged to be raunchy and get down and dirty just like the guys. Why shouldn’t they be free to demand what they want, even if it isn’t PC or "lovingly erotic?" There is more to female sexuality than soft-focus romanticism. I consider the latter construction of women’s ideas about sex a male projection that smacks of the madonna/prostitute dicotomy, which I regard as inherently sexist.

"The Close-up; undoubtedly one of the oldest camera shots in the business, let’s define it as “any single shot that prevents the viewer from observing cause and effect simultaneously”. Primarily for males, its purpose is to bring us the “nasty” details; showing us what we normally wouldn’t see, enhancing the scene as if we were in there performing the act ourselves. This unimpressive camera trick is used by every Tom, Dick, and Harry filming a scene. Pretending to show us more, this overused chestnut does quite the opposite. We see only what the producer wants us to see at that moment. Our chose is gone. You want to see a face contorting in pleasure while the clit is licked, thrusting breasts during a particularly good stroking moment, toes curled in ecstasy at the time of orgasm, good luck; unless the director is exercising restraint….it’s close-up time! Cheap and sometimes cynical, the close-up serves more to hide mistakes or lack of chemistry between the performers. Often ill-timed, this highly overused shot lacks subtlety or finesse, it interrupts the flow/continuity of a scene, diminishing whatever heat has been building, turns the performers into mere body parts, robbing the scene of any real personality, and rendering it generic. Nothing stops a scene in its tracks as effectively as this shot, when given length. No matter the porn film style, a close-up is a close-up is a close-up; it only has weight because of what we’ve seen before it. Close-ups should be in service to the scene, not the other way around. Less is more."

Now here we find considerable agreement. I find hardcore close-ups better in small doses. I prefer the viewer feel like an invisible voyeur in the room, free to come in for minute inspection of the details of a sexual act, but overall enjoying the spectacle at enough remove to give it some context. I too like to see faces and bodies react to sexual stimulation. That’s why I shoot most of my hardcore in medium shots, where the penetration is still clearly visible, but so are the people. Nonetheless, I think a good, hard close has its place and I would miss them if they all vanished. There are many all-sex shooter, BTW, who agree with me on this, ranging from Andrew Blake to Michael Ninn to John Stagliano (who is the original gonzo shooter and a great fan of close angles, but who insists, in his words, that "the sex should tell the story." Oh, and let me add that I prefer dissolves to hard cuts, but I don’t shoot on-camera transitions because they’re usually clumsy.

"Question: Why have many mainstream porn directors embraced this off kilter camera shot? Are we supposed to be subliminally disturbed by the woman being on top? Or are they just trying to be artsy? Uh huh. This is gonzo, folks!"

And that interpretation is utterly paranoid. You give videographers credit for subtle imaginations they don’t possess. You were closer to the mark when attributing the proliferation of "Dutch" angles to technology. Small, light video cameras can move in ways big film cameras can’t. I think many shooters try to use that dubious advantage to make their work look more creative than it is, often with annoying and distracting results, but I see nothing sinister about it.

"Foreplay- What! Where? In the early decades of adult viewing, you saw more kissing, stroking, breast play, some attempt to excite the women; today, with more sex per minute, there seems to be less prep time. Kissing is merely cursory. The male performers squeeze women’s breast like play dough, sucking on the nipple once or twice to prove they saw it. Fingering is of the piston in hole variety, no skill, apparently nobody is bothering with the G-spot anymore. Guess these days the female doesn’t have to be stimulated/warmed up."

I’m with you on this 100%. The lack of foreplay is not only a turn-off to the participants, it’s a turn-off to the viewers, who may also like a bit of warm-up. I think it’s just a result of laziness and an effort to get through too long a day with too many scenes in it in too short a time. Cheap producers are more to blame for this than directors, male performers or some conspiracy against female pleasure of which this industry is quite incapable of fomenting. My scenes tend to run quite long because, like you and millions of other male and female audience members, I like watching people get worked up. Hardcore without foreplay turns into industrial hydraulics very quickly and is just about as interesting.

Intriguingly, however, there are some interesting counter-trends. Who would have guessed that squirting videos, which are all about making female sexual pleasure visible, would become such a popular genre? Part of the problem here, as we shall discuss, has to do with what the camera can and cannot see. But overall, your point is well-taken. Let’s have more lead-in with more interesting variations in the process.

"Oral -Currently, the industry version of foreplay; probably the second most inequitable act in porn today. No sexual move has become more lopsided than this one. Fellatio is performed more than twice as often as cunnilingus. Example: Recently viewed ‘Superwhores 8’. This wall to wall sex feature clocks in at almost 3 hours; of that, only 5 minutes, over two scenes and three women, is devoted to muff diving by men; whereas every scene has a blowjob, including two scenes given exclusively for this purpose. In any average full length 5-6 scene vid, women are orally serviced less than half the time. When mutual pleasure is in supply guys are blown 1-5 minutes, women fall under 1 minute. Add to this the male is typically given mouth attention at almost every transition in a single scene (3-5 times). Grouping doesn’t change this imbalance, more men they all get sucked by her, she may get a minute; more women, they all blow the guy, he may do one or two who sit on his face. Then there are the numerous POV features where oral stimulation on the young ladies is nonexistent. Now here’s the icing on the cake, there are countless all blowjob features and compilations, but there doesn’t seem to be a single feature devoted exclusively to guys orally servicing women, in the history of adult film making. Now, one would think that the men would be anxious to show off their oral skills; the ability to turn a woman to butter with the flick of your tongue, have her become an uncontrollable sex animal with some well placed sucks, hear/watch her beg for more as she writhes under your devastating oral techniques; but, these “studs” can’t waste their time, they seem more afraid of the vagina as if it’s too nasty or unmanly for them. Why aren’t the women demanding more equitable attention? That’s the question."

Actually, I have a question of my own. Why does a guy who supposedly prefers features spend so much time watching titles like "Superwhores," much less go to the trouble of timing out exactly which players get what percentage of oral stimulation? It was while reading this paragraph that I began to suspect your motives. If I liked what you claim to like, I would avoid gonzo or all-sex videos and concentrate on finding the material that excited as opposed to repulsed me. You won’t find a copy of Cum-Fart Cocktails in my collection, and that’s no accident.

That said, you’re right about the disproportionate ratio of oral sex activity reflected in porn but, alas, this is mainly a visual problem rather than a political one. As the great critic Kenneth Tynan (an early supporter of cinematic porn, BTW) once remarked, "as drama, cunnilingus isn’t a patch on fellatio." Good munching shows the camera almost nothing – just the back of a guy’s head buried between a woman’s legs. True, we can watch her react to it, which is pleasant for a time, but the footage is inherently soft-core. When an attempt is made to show pussy-eating as hardcore, it’s lame. The guy has to stick his tongue out a mile and tickle the woman’s parts so the camera can get in there. Anyone who has ever given a woman head knows that she can’t feel that, so any reaction she shows to it must be inauthentic, and inauthenticity is the one sin that cannot be forgiven in this medium.

No such problem with fellatio – plenty of movement, lots of in-and-out, the clearly visible evidence of an erect penis – in short, something obviously real. This is not to make excuses for not shooting oral on women. I always do it and I instruct the male performers (or female performers for that matter) to get in there and do it like they would at home. If the camera misses a few seconds of hard as a result, so what? I want to see the woman grabbing the man’s head and thrusting her hips up at him. Give me credit for being able to imagine what’s happening down there.

This whole problem isn’t about anyone feeling that pussy eating is nasty or unmanly or any such complex emotional response. It’s about the constant pressure to fill the screen with anatomy every second, and it’s a drag. But it’s not political.

 

Nina Hartley writes:

As Ernest pointed out, you attribute to bad intensions what is merely due to cluelessness on the part of producers and directors (taken as a whole; there are plenty of individual directors and producers who do give a shit and have a clue), many of whose personal lives are less than satisfying.

The people who make porn, on both sides of the camera, are mostly products of an American upbringing, with all of the sexual conflict and ignorance and fear that grow and fester in a cultural atmoshphere that vilifies the body so completely. Add the comercial component and you’re not going to get art. When America respects sexuality enough to give grant money to study it and for artists to address it, then we’ll see some really great stuff. Till then, I’m afraid, we’re going to continue to swim in the muddy waters of contemporary porn.

But, I’m with Ernest: if this trend disturbs you so much, why do you spend so much time studying it? Explicit material is designed to arouse you in a pleasurable way, not an upsetting way. So I rarely look at porn I know will not be my cup of tea.

I recommend any title by Candia Royalle, as her movies are well constructed, with plots, character developement, no anal, no group sex, lots of interaction between the partners, etc. She has music written for them and used to be a performer, herself, so she really brings it. Any woman can watch her movies with peace of mind: the working conditions are good, the pay is good, an no one does anything he or she doesn’t agree to. Great stuff, actually!