Porn and Masturbation Ethics – Part 2
Over at AdultDVDTalk.com there is a thread going entitled Reality v Myth…, with the initial poster offering that more often than not, the behind the scenes “bonus footage” on porn DVDs offers glimpses into the reality of porn production he’d rather remain unaware of while he’s masturbating. This has given rise to a lively discussion of what constitutes “reality” in porn, and how a viewer might or should be effected by their perception of that reality, and what might constitute ethical behavior for a pornographer. To this discussion I’ve offered:
Mrs.C is fond of saying, usually in reference to things like life insurance for children marketed at their grandparents, that just because something isn’t illegal doesn’t mean it’s not criminal. Sometimes these are yet to be closed gaps in the law; sometimes these are loopholes that are deemed necessary to ensure larger freedoms.
Living in a free society not only means we have the right to make bad choices for ourselves, we also have the right to make bad choices for other people . Even good-hearted people may sometimes be confronted with difficult decisions, not because of legal considerations, but because ethical ones; and many industries, professions, and trades find it useful to develop codes of conduct or ethical guidelines to help define behavior, that if not illegal, is a discredit to other people practicing the same craft. It’s interesting to consider just what such a code might look like in an industry predicated on transgression.
RE: Reality v Myth
Even a Ken Burns documentary is more fake than it is real. Despite the fact that I use the word three times in our tagline, my core belief is it’s a rather feeble word to describe dancing phosphors. (Perhaps in leaning on the word so heavily my ethics are compromised.)
A better word might be “authenticity”, which I believe is determined through a dialog between the producer and the viewer, largely centered around the type and quantity of cognitive dissonance the viewer is willing to endure in order to be able to enjoy the producer’s offering.
Sometimes this cognitive dissonance is merely a mild suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer, but the bargaining between pornographer and masturbator is usually more complex.
Obviously I’m not uncomfortable with the idea of porn. I think cunts and cocks and and assholes are beautiful, and I want to make beautiful films that are all about how these beautiful parts can and do come (cum?) together.
But over the years, I’ve become rather conservative with what risks I’m comfortable asking people to take in front of my camera, and what perceived risks I’m willing to accept while I’ve got my cock in my fist and I’m jerking off. The way we produce our films is very much a reflection of what is regarded by most mainstream porn producers as a financially untenable attitude toward these risks.
Every time one of you buys one of our DVDs, you help us prove them wrong.
January 4th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Great points, Tony. My favorite “reality” anecdote is an alleged encounter Picasso had with a guy who asked him why he didn’t paint more realistic looking images. He supposedly pulled a photo out of his wallet and said “this is my wife, this looks like her.” Picasso allegedly said “She seems very small and flat and she’s very rectangular.”
As for porn outtakes it seems absurd to me that (at least pre-viagra) they’d spend all this time off-camera trying to fluff the actors so he could appear to spring on-camera with a spontaneous actress-pleasing erection. As if real women don’t get a kick out of coaxing someone hard. As if being coaxed isn’t pleasurable in its own right.
I’m not saying that outtakes and backstage photos are the bee’s knees. I’m just saying that, as you say about Ken Burn’s or anyone else’s work, there’s a lot of interesting (and in porn, arousing) stuff that happens off camera that gets overlooked by assumptions about what does or doesn’t look “real.”
Thanks, Tony,
figleaf