default_mobilelogo
  • Hits counter

    Today: 139
    This Month: 7178
    All time: 81269
  • Archives

  • When Did Porn Become So Homogenized?

    Jeremy black and white in studio underwearLast night a group of us where sitting around the bar at the studio looking at some old vintage porn magazines and remarking at how erotic and sexually enticing this type of imagery used to be. What I mean by vintage is 80’s magazines like Men and Playgirl and the likes of that. In these images the guys are not your perfect well-defined bodies like what we see today, but where average guys seem to have a presence and actually looked like they were completely enjoying exposing themselves which I think added a level of accessibility to indulge the fantasy. These were guys you could possibly pick up on the streets or could even have been your neighbor next door, for a place like Montana. I once had a friend who worked in the business say there are three major things that qualify you for porn, one is good looks and a connection with the eyes, second was a good body that we would want to hold next to us, and the third was having a big dick which would satisfy the sexual portion of the illusion. He would say a person would need two out of these three qualities to make it in the industry and the combination could go either way. In modern porn it feels like we are often verging on actually containing just one of elements whereas in the vintage 80’s porn every single model seem to possess all three, page after page, after page, after page… The photography was sensational, most featured models would begin with a page with them dressed and somehow placed in their everyday environment. On a horse, in their back yard, a construction site, an actual garage. Great detail was placed on making these subjects normal and the photographers of this era paid great attention to the detail of the light and environment. Many of the images were actually quite a bit sexier with their cloths on than without them on. It was fantastic, the more I looked the more I began to realize that it was actually this type of photography that drew me into photographing these sorts of images from the beginning. There was a time when the great male photographers like Bruce Weber and Steven Underhill brought there level of expertise to this media rising porn to a artistic level and the photographers became an important part of the illusion. To hell with art, I just wanted to indulge my desire and live the fantasy of my dream centerfold for May, and there where enough in each magazine that I could have one for each week until the next publication came out. So what has happened with this beautiful world of tantalizing and teasing of most carnal need? It seemed to begin disappearing long before the Internet become popular. Was there just an over explosion in the industry and a shortage of models and extraordinary photographers? Did the industry decided to cut cost in order to produce quantity? How is it that the thing that becomes so enduring to all of us becomes so depersonalized without any sort of interest to wrangle us with its seductive enticing power? This is the industry that makes more than probably any other industry in the world, so as the price escalates on what we pay for why doesn’t the quality escalate? Wouldn’t they have more money to spend on upgrading the quality? Perhaps I am just a romantic at heart, I do like my sex dirty, but I still what to believe in the world of erotic fantasy. The Internet is paved with lots of dick; perhaps after a while it all begins to look the same but I still want to dream and live in a world where people are human, where I can shake their hand and have a conversation, and be pulled in by their mystical seduction.

    VIEW FULL IMAGE: Jeremy #314

     

    This entry was posted in Emotions, Friends, Gay, Homoerotic, Inspiriation, Montana, Photographers, Pornography, Sexuality. Bookmark the permalink.

    2 Responses to When Did Porn Become So Homogenized?

    1. Marklin says:

      >Porn became homogenized when it became so cheap to make. Its all a formula. These days you know exactly how each film is going to go right down to the position and the timing very cookie cutter. What I find interesting is my Lesbian friends have been complaining about this for years. They where upset over what straight men filmed as their fantasies and tried to market it as something erotic for them. Interestingly many of them started to watch gay male porn instead. It's very rare these days for porn to turn me on, I have become my lesbian friends, bored with what many gay for pay actors are willing to do for cash. Most look like they would rather be anywhere else, hell some even chew gum. I too miss the days when gay male erotica was underground, it seemed a little dangerous back then. Who knows maybe I have just become a jaded old queen.

    2. David Stalling says:

      >Interesting thoughts, Terry — and once again you have me pondering such things. This is a similar topic as your recent post about the difference between art and porn. Erotic art, like you create, appeals to me on many levels and evokes a variety of emotions. When I look at porn, on the other hand, I only want and expect it to appeal to me on a more primitive, lustful level (or, simply put, turn me on sexually). For that, I tend to prefer most modern porn over vintage — as I generally find the models more sexually attractive and the content more explicity sexual. There is a lot of trashy, generic porn out there — but I love what some company's, like BelAmi, produce; hot, young guys enjoying themselves while having sex. Then again, I sometimes get more turned on by beautiful guys in skivies or boxers, because it leaves more to the imagination. I guess good porn, like beauty, is (as they say)in the eye of the beholder.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>