Top-opolis

[bridgeburner]

Hiya Stirbird,

The porn industry is, obviously, all about making money, and they way they make such money is to represent in imagery and movies those things that people find the most hot, the things that they yearn for, the things that they will pay money to see and get off on. Internet porn has spread out and accessed almost all fetish niche markets. The increasing amont of extremely degrading porn being offered suggests something about real people's tastes: they (porn producers) wouldn't make this sort of stuff if it wasn't selling well.

It has never been my position that there isn't a market for degrading porn. My position is that it is a much smaller percentage of the porn produced because the audience for it is a smaller percentage of the buyers. Remember, the inital premise in this discussion was that the primary desire of the male sex drive is to degrade the sex object. In order for that to be true then degradation sex would necessarily be the most commonly expressed not only in reality but also in our pornography.

Turn what you said around for a second: the pornstar may be thinking that she gets more money for a piss shoot than a standard sex shoot. Don't you think the porn producer would rather pay her less, and make cheaper, more "normal" porn, if that is what was selling, what people wanted to see? If he cuts his overhead costs he can offer such porn at more competitive prices. But instead he's paying top dollar for piss actresses. He's not doing so because he's an artiste or because he loves piss, he's doing it because that is what is selling. Whether we approve or not, it's what those who pay for porn want to see.

There's more than a bit of supply and demand politics going on with this. Special interest kinksters are such because their interests are not in the mainstream --- they're not being catered to or fulfilled by the regular market's offerings. When something comes along that does cater to that kink it's going to be glommed onto by anyone and everyone who's been waiting for it. When the demand is comparatively high in relation to the supply, you can charge a lot more money for your product.

There are a lot of things that affect the price of the end product but subject matter is one of them. You'll generally pay more for niche porn than you will for mainstream stuff. This isn't only because it costs more to pay the talent but simply because the producers know the folks who want it are willing to pay to get it.

The company I work for has more than 20 different content providers but only one of them submits BDSM content. They're one of the more expensive feeds because there is demand for the content and not many people are making it, but the reason all 20 of our vendors aren't doing it is because the market (Litsters notwithstanding) isn't big enough to support them all.

That's like saying that if sex were at the root about homosexuality, then homosexuality would be the primary form of sexuality practiced, rather than a minority sexuality. Why shouldn't sex be at the root of most niche or minority sexuality practices, including homonsexuality, lebianism, foot fetishism, transvestism, sadomasochism and degratdation? Why does sex being at the root of them automatically guarantee that each interest should be the majority sexual interest?

Smaller numbers practice these forms of sexuality than practice "straight" heterosexuality because not everybody has the same erotic needs or preferences (or fixated on the same fetishes in childhood, if you prefer). The only reason that I can see to give these activities a non-sexual root source is political, and politics tends not to have much respect for realities that contradict whatever attitudes or polemics the political are pushing as the "right ones," I've noticed. :/

There's a very human political tendency to take those sexual practices we find uncomfortable or actively disagreeable and do a form of scapegoating by claiming they aren't about sex: claim they have a non-sexual source at their root. We can't relate to them, we don't even want to relate to them, so they must be nonsexual, right? That attitude ignores all the thousands of people who do get off on these activities sexually, who need them in their lives and yearn for them...or it's calling them liars and their very real needs "unreal." That's close to saying, "If your practice is not my practice it must be wrong!"

edit: I think I digressed a little here. What I think about your original point is that no specific activity, whether degradation, homosexuality, even making babies, is at the root of human sex. At the root of human sex is a physically and emotionally based desire and yearning. Far up the trunk and into the branches that yearning expresses itself in hundrds of varied forms, each different. What they have in common is the sap of desire desire which feeds all of this variety.

You misread my post. (perhaps my lack of commas was the reason)

I said that "if sex were, at root, about degradation then...."

translation: if degradation was the main point of sex

I don't agree that degradation is the main point of sex for either gender as a whole. It is the primary drive for certain individuals, but it is not the underlying impetus for the species.

Which pretty much amounts to what you say in your last paragraph. We're on the same page here as far as I can tell.


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

i think the common male preference for degradation in a 'hot' context is shown in the *very* widespread 'come on her face' shot. Indeed feminists and law makers in our region explicitly called that degrading and for several years, the official censors went through porn films and deleted any 'cum' on the face. *One drop* would be snipped out.

it was a losing battle, because, among others, *gay males* objected that the (face) receiver wasn't actually degraded.

Most facials aren't humiliating nor are they intended to be --- they are intended to reinforce the idea that a man's ejaculate is gold-dust ambrosia. Even within Literotica stories, where cum-guzzling sluts are present they don't often feel humiliated by their addiction --- they are happy consumers. They crave and adore sperm by the bucketful. Again, the most widespread fantasy isn't that crying debased women are forced to take a cum-bath, but that hot adoring women are begging to wallow in your ejaculate.

-B

 

[Pure]

you mean "swallow in"

 

[alice_underneath]

Most facials aren't humiliating nor are they intended to be --- they are intended to reinforce the idea that a man's ejaculate is gold-dust ambrosia.

Thanks a lot, B. Next time I'm in close contact with the stuff, I'm liable to burst out laughing!

~~~~~

A question for the males in the crowd....

I am curious to know what a man is thinking when he ejaculates on a woman's face.

Any volunteers?

 

[Pure]

Urban dictionary

has several definitions of 'facial,' the first few of which are rather neutral as regards intent or effect. but i see definition 9

facial [9]

3)When a guy blows his load all over the girls face after a bj. Usually does it because it looks more degrading than her spitting/swallowing

[Example] 3)My girlfriend Chelsea has me pussy whipped, but i return the favor by giving her a facial and degrading her

 

[RJMasters]

Thanks a lot, B. Next time I'm in close contact with the stuff, I'm liable to burst out laughing!

~~~~~

A question for the males in the crowd....

I am curious to know what a man is thinking when he ejaculates on a woman's face.

Any volunteers?

Strange that you mention this Alice...I do not think I have ever came on a woman's face before. The neck, the breasts, the lowwer tummy and the small of the back and ass.

Admittedly now that you brought this up...I do find the thought somewhat hot. But for this particular activity I fall pretty square with how BB described the typical thought...

Again, the most widespread fantasy isn't that crying debased women are forced to take a cum-bath, but that hot adoring women are begging to wallow in your ejaculate.

So unless "she wanted" to hold my cock against her cheek and feel the shaft spasm and the warmness on her face made her feel owned by me, then I don't think it would be something I would do purposefully in order to degrade her. In fact when looking at pictures of porn where a woman has cum on her face, I do not find it very hot unless you can see a devilish delight in her eyes and enjoyment in her facial expression.

Cock worship or adoration it appears controls a large part of my motivation as to if I would or wouldn't do this. If adoration is present, then it would be very high on my fantasy scale. If it wasn't, then it kills it for me. Why would I say this? Because I think...it shows clearly for me...that with this activity, degradation is not the puppeteer of my sex drive.

Now push my lycan button and all bets are off, but that's a different story alltogether....geesh I am mess

 

[Pure]

hi, bb,

those are good points:

bb--- they are intended to reinforce the idea that a man's ejaculate is gold-dust ambrosia. Even within Literotica stories, where cum-guzzling sluts are present they don't often feel humiliated by their addiction --- they are happy consumers. They crave and adore sperm by the bucketful.

P: these themes, however, are not (necessarily) inconsistent with degradation. here are several reasons: if semen is ambrosia, it's to be savored and swallowed. There are now any number of videos that have managed to make this fantasy live, since a bare 'swallow' isn't that interesting. she should open her mouth, show it to be full, then swallow.

drinking something as ambrosia is *not inconsistent with degradation, depending on how the spunk is viewed, i. e, if it's a bit disgusting, then to swallow is to revel in something disgusting.

take the term 'scum' as in 'scumbag', which often means a filled condom.
take the term 'scum sucker'-- is it a compliment?

in my urban dictionary search, i came across 'cum bucket.' ask yourself *why is this very derogatory-- same reason.

HOWEVER if swallowing is a sign of respect and of being 'hot' (seen the "I swallow" tee shirts?)--as I think it is-- what is taking it on the face? for many, degradation, as stated by many women and enforced by censors as I described.

further, if one misses the point, consider the popular bukkake movie. this *multiplies the semen on the face, typically, till it covers the eyes, etc. now, I agree, some models (seemingly) 'revel' in the 'warm bath,' but even the porn actresses seem, often, to have a 'grin and bear it' attitude or show 'uncomfortable toleration'.

again we are back to 'reveling.' IF it is in something low, filthy, or disgusting, "scummy," viscous, then the very *lack of shame is itself a sign of degradation: hence 'she's an eager little cum sucker,' while a kind of recommendation for a 'date,' is a remark with possible negative connotation, i.e., she's so depraved as not to know it or care about it.

 

[Recidiva]

This also comes across to me as more objectification, this time with symbols as self. Objectifying the woman, objectifying the cock, objectifying the semen.

Separate symbols from the act itself, the interpretation of how you think about these objects completely altering the experience.

 

[Pure]

yep

and 'objectification' is commonly said to be bad, or bad for the woman.

is it? comments?

 

[Recidiva]

yep

and 'objectification' is commonly said to be bad, or bad for the woman.

is it? comments?

I think it depends entirely on your attitude.

I think it can be positive or negative for both genders.

As I described, if you use the symbols of objectification to heighten your high, what's the harm?

It's dressing up a thing in your thoughts. That's fine.

However, not knowing the difference between the reality of something you think to invoke lust, and the thing in reality, yeah, that can be a problem.

 

[Pure]

ok, yea or nay

i find it hot when my partner 'objectifies' me (word and/or action).

 

[alice_underneath]

Strange that you mention this Alice...I do not think I have ever came on a woman's face before. The neck, the breasts, the lowwer tummy and the small of the back and ass.

I don't really have experience with the face thing either. The exception would be those times when I am just pleasing him with my hands and feeling mischievous (in a playing-with-the-water-fountain kinduva way). But that's self-directed and therefore a different type of experience.

Admittedly now that you brought this up...I do find the thought somewhat hot. But for this particular activity I fall pretty square with how BB described the typical thought...

Again, the most widespread fantasy isn't that crying debased women are forced to take a cum-bath, but that hot adoring women are begging to wallow in your ejaculate.

So unless "she wanted" to hold my cock against her cheek and feel the shaft spasm and the warmness on her face made her feel owned by me, then I don't think it would be something I would do purposefully in order to degrade her. In fact when looking at pictures of porn where a woman has cum on her face, I do not find it very hot unless you can see a devilish delight in her eyes and enjoyment in her facial expression.

Cock worship or adoration it appears controls a large part of my motivation as to if I would or wouldn't do this. If adoration is present, then it would be very high on my fantasy scale. If it wasn't, then it kills it for me. Why would I say this? Because I think...it shows clearly for me...that with this activity, degradation is not the puppeteer of my sex drive.

Now push my lycan button and all bets are off, but that's a different story alltogether....geesh I am mess

Thank you for addressing my question.

I did not understand the reference to your 'button', so I googled the word lycan. At Wikipedia, I found this description......

"A Lycan is a person who has the ability to undergo transformation into a wolf (Lycanthropy), or in more modern uses of the word into any animal form."

and a photo.......

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e16/alice_emerging/LycanBeast.jpg

I therefore interpret your comment - "Now push my lycan button and all bets are off" - as saying that you might want to degrade your partner if something has happened to provoke or unleash your inner wild beast. Is that right?

At the primal level, we are all animals with urges. Civilization refines and complicates the matter, but the original urges don't go away. That is Pure's point (as I understand it).

Saying that your urge to degrade pertains to your 'lycan button' (i.e., your inner 'animal') might therefore seem to be a vote for Pure's original theory. On the other hand, the animal reference could just be a useful metaphor in describing that particular add-on to your sexual drive.

 

[Recidiva]

i find it hot when my partner 'objectifies' me (word and/or action).

I think I like a few kinds of objectification...

I wouldn't want to do without it, any more than I'd want to do without theater or art.

Definitely turned on by the idea of him thinking of me as "his"

 

[Olivia_Yearns]

I'm not a regular in this thread, but I'm reading with great interest. I consider this possibility:
Straight men are constantly visually aroused by women's faces and bodies, and the ratio of turn ons to orgasms is completely out of balance. The constant frustration of wanting and not having leaves some backlog of resentment. It isn't that degredation is the primary instinct. It is that there is pleasure in payback. eg: for all the times I looked at a pretty face, or tits, or ass and was thwarted, here - I'm putting my lust all over you. You made me wait so long. It's for every time I restrained myself in the presence of a pretty face.

I come to this conclusion because I have a bit of a breast fetish (infantile, I'm sure), and this was a source of shame to me, especially when younger. So I feel somehow deprived and restrained when I feel that attraction in the presence of women. I restrict myself from even looking, because I want to appear polite and normal. Underneath, the frustration has a tone of resentment, as if she's withholding: You look so good, and I'm not allowed to look. If I have a fantasy about a woman, that restraint is reversed, and the objectification is the entire relationship. I think the core of it isn't degradation. It's desire, shaped my my own experience of shame and frustration.

 

[Pure]

ok, but leaving aside 'his true love', how about 'his whore'?

 

[Recidiva]

I'm not a regular in this thread, but I'm reading with great interest. I consider this possibility:
Straight men are constantly visually aroused by women's faces and bodies, and the ratio of turn ons to orgasms is completely out of balance. The constant frustration of wanting and not having leaves some backlog of resentment. It isn't that degredation is the primary instinct. It is that there is pleasure in payback. eg: for all the times I looked at a pretty face, or tits, or ass and was thwarted, here - I'm putting my lust all over you. You made me wait so long. It's for every time I restrained myself in the presence of a pretty face.

I come to this conclusion because I have a bit of a breast fetish (infantile, I'm sure), and this was a source of shame to me, especially when younger. So I feel somehow deprived and restrained when I feel that attraction in the presence of women. I restrict myself from even looking, because I want to appear polite and normal. Underneath, the frustration has a tone of resentment, as if she's withholding: You look so good, and I'm not allowed to look. If I have a fantasy about a woman, that restraint is reversed, and the objectification is the entire relationship. I think the core of it isn't degradation. It's desire, shaped my my own experience of shame and frustration.

This just made me think of when I was little and the youngest of four siblings, all of whom were completely relentless physically and emotionally. Any admission of anything was a weakness. I learned not to respond to any level of tormenting and indian burns and shark bites would just earn you an icy distaste from me. Once I figured that out, they stopped. I was no fun any more.

I'm not sure at all I'd have any other reaction to any sort of power play.

I never got anything I wanted growing up, maybe I never got so far as coveting as a kid, too busy covering my ass.

 

[Recidiva]

ok, but leaving aside 'his true love', how about 'his whore'?

I'm not sure the first excludes the second.

 

[Pure]

just adds a dimension!

 

[Pure]

Olivia said It is that there is pleasure in payback. eg: for all the times I looked at a pretty face, or tits, or ass and was thwarted, here - I'm putting my lust all over you.

P: well stated and insightful! it's consistent with the feelings stated by author of definition #9.

O: It's desire, shaped my my own experience of shame and frustration.

P: welcome to S/M and Topopolis.

 

[RJMasters]

On the other hand, the animal reference could just be a useful metaphor in describing that particular add-on to your sexual drive.

nods

I did mention how this could be accounted for in individuals because of their wiring. At the time I was certainly thinking of the sadistic type wiring when I made these comments.

Even saying that though, sadisticness is not the norm or every man would be a pirate. It is obvious that everyman is not a pirate. Infact most men are not.

I don't think you can say the sexual drive seeks to degrade or humilate, rather what you can say is there are those who are wired in such a way that they need to degrade or humilate in order to get off. For them...what Pure is purposing may very well be true.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I think that there is something rather intensely beautiful about a woman (or women plural, even better) with cum on their faces. It suggests a rather pleasing, willing nature. And, yes, it is also payback for being denied. Even if only subconscious. I would love to get that kind of payback, especially on the women who didn't want me when I was younger (say 18, for instance).

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

Heh! Swallow, indeed!

It is not my contention that these acts cannot be degrading simply that the acts in and of themselves are not degrading.

For some, the act is empty if the object doesn't feel degraded. For others, the reaction of the object is immaterial.

This second group includes not only actors (as in those who commit the action, not as in theatrical actors), but also outside observers who insist on ridiculous premises like the idea that the image of cum on a woman's face is always degrading regrdless of how such a thing is protrayed. It's projection. "I would feel degraded by such an act, therefore the act is degrading to anyone who experiences it."

the very *lack of shame is itself a sign of degradation: hence 'she's an eager little cum sucker,' while a kind of recommendation for a 'date,' is a remark with possible negative connotation, i.e., she's so depraved as not to know it or care about it.

This is entirely dependent upon the observer. The observer feels that a person who doesn't feel shame for certain acts is inferior, but that's all within the mind and value system of the observer. It's completely subjective. I'm not denying that such a person sees degradation and can get off on it, but that doesn't make the situation objectively degrading --- someone else would view the same scenario and see nothing degrading or shameful.


-B

 

[Kajira Callista]

Pure,

Heh! Swallow, indeed!

It is not my contention that these acts cannot be degrading simply that the acts in and of themselves are not degrading.

For some, the act is empty if the object doesn't feel degraded. For others, the reaction of the object is immaterial.

This second group includes not only actors (as in those who commit the action, not as in theatrical actors), but also outside observers who insist on ridiculous premises like the idea that the image of cum on a woman's face is always degrading regrdless of how such a thing is protrayed. It's projection. "I would feel degraded by such an act, therefore the act is degrading to anyone who experiences it."



This is entirely dependent upon the observer. The observer feels that a person who doesn't feel shame for certain acts is inferior, but that's all within the mind and value system of the observer. It's completely subjective. I'm not denying that such a person sees degradation and can get off on it, but that doesn't make the situation objectively degrading --- someone else would view the same scenario and see nothing degrading or shameful.


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Olivia,

for all the times I looked at a pretty face, or tits, or ass and was thwarted, here - I'm putting my lust all over you.

Oh, nice! Very apt, I think.


As for the breast fetish, let's start a club! I've had an obsession with tits my whole life and yes, it embarasses me and frustrates me that I'm not supposed to stare at them. Certainly it's widely considered rude when men stare at tits, but it's a normal and acceptable rudeness. When women stare at tits it's not just rude, it's perverted.


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Hiya KC!