Tag: ejaculation

Source unknown – Title Unknown (201X)

The videography on this is utter shite–(Jerry Seinfeld voice) I mean: what is the deal with that corner where the walls meet? Is this a demonstration of every degree angle between 85 and 100 that isn’t 90?

But this isn’t about the videography. It’s not even about the ejaculation, it’s the way he’s trying so hard to hold back and then just begins to writhe due to the stimulation overload of his orgasmic response.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a double-fisted hand job before and I’d wager this is from a gay porn source.

The thing that I wonder–and if you aren’t in to TMI, you can skip this part: I really don’t know why after the initial spurt, the hand job provider ceases to stimulate the glans/corona. Yes, both become SUPER SENSITIVE after ejaculation; but, where I come from heightened sensitivity is just another part of the total experience. And can, in the right hands, be used employed to transcendent effect.

For instance if it had been me on the receiving end, I’d have wanted at least this in addition if not something a little more.

(via mullets-make-me-moist–whose blog is really just fucking fantastic.)

Molhada & Quente – Untitled (2014)

I’ve mentioned my fascination with depictions of ejaculation several times. Mostly it’s the synesthesia wherein watching ejaculation results in a sympathetic resonance. Even without that freezing the essentially random trajectories and their illustrative fluid dynamics is just fucking endlessly intriguing to me. (Further, I think due to the customary highfalutin pretense of fine art photography wanting to explore questions of pornography without being pornographic has caused ejaculation to be a woefully under explored photographic motif.)

I have mixed feelings about the above image. On the con side of things:

  • the close-up framing diminishes contextual clues as to locations and circumstances
  • in tandem with the shallow, low contrast tonal range there is an even further disjunction from interpretable visual cues–rendering the image little more than blow job on a beach.
  • if proximity to the subject comprises a spectrum of voyeur to participant, the camera is–in this case–without question: participant.

By the same token, most of the cons also contribute–at least tacitly–to a knee-jerk efficacy. For example:

  • Although the close-up is a poor creative decision, it does bestow depth and dimensionality to the stream of semen.
  • the tonal range is distinctly reminiscent of some early twentieth century photographer whose name–despite four cups of coffee–I cannot currently retrieve.
  • the caption accompanying and the Molhada & Quente’s mission statement–which I have not reproduced here–it would seem the proximity of the camera to the action was intended more as POV documentation first for the couple and second for mass consumption.

It is entirely understandable why this was shot the way it was–arguably even justifiable. And I’ll never suggest it’s not an interesting image, though I would argue against suggestions it is good. My point is merely the potential for it to be good or even great is built-in. Should the camera have been backed two feet away from the proceedings, it would’ve been indubitably clear that this is public sex.

And I admit I am a context whore but in this case I thing more context also equals a more transgressive document–a result of which I will always be vociferously supportive.

X-Art – Sex and Submission feat. Teal & The Red Fox (2014)

I run–ostensibly–a sex blog. Porn flits across my dash on the daily. Surprisingly, in the two years I’ve maintained this site I’ve found myself seeking out pornographic content less and less frequently.

Recently, I did go rather out of my way to check out two videos–the above [based on the intriguingly atypical way the money shot is handled, i.e. not in close-up/ not involving a(n intentional) facial and the way the stud doesn’t disengage just because he’s come] and Courtney Trouble’s indiequeer Fucking Mystic [based on the glowing recommendation from a genderqueer acquaintance].

Viewing both in the same week, there’s definitely an added push to compare and contrast. The first thing I feel should be noted is the above is not only the highlight of the X-Art video, it’s the only thing you need to see of it. Despite high production values–horizontal tracking shots, holla–everything remains paint-by-numbers pro forma porn.

Alternately, if you can squint passed the paper thin ‘plot,’ Fucking Mystic is hands-down-your-pants haute–even if it does suffer exstensively from a questionable-to-downright-shite production values–wild tracks and tripods, yo; learn them, live them, love them–and despite it’s amazing anything goes approach to sexuality, it ends up turning a little pro forma (anal penetration) itself. [A justification along the lines of it’s a queer critique of mainstream porn holds a few ounces of water at most.]

It all leaves me wondering, why high production values and real-ish depictions of non-exclusively heteronormative content can’t sit side by side more often.

I know the adage be the change you want to see in the world. And truth be told, I confess that I am very interested in the prospect of directing a (singular) porn movie. Unfortunately, I have zero idea how to go about it.

Source: deliciousnights

Source unknown – Title unknown (XXXX)

I like this v., very much.

Yes, I do have a fixation upon creative, non-sexist strategies for the visual depiction of ejaculation.

& yes, there’s def/ room for improvement as far as the line work here…

…but: the core idea–the physical act of seminal ejaculation as an event resulting in beauty–reads unambiguously as-is

& this is exactly the sort of work that if I ever had a space to truly claim as my own, I’d want this displayed prominently. I gives me very warm and fuzzy feels.

(Also, I’m borrowing knitphilia’s pretty masculinity and crafty cocks tag because they are v. apropos.)

[Source: REDACTED] – Title Unknown (201X)

I’m less than convinced posting this isn’t an ill-advised misstep: it’s irredeemably pornographic. produced by a pay-porn site whose ethos aren’t exactly in line with my own (or this blog) and it’s desaturated from the original (an marked improvement, actually).

Also, I am sure if I bothered to watch the video of which this is a part, odds are I would be repulsed.

Yet, this scratches entirely too many itches I’m feeling right now for any decision to exclude it not to smack of a certain degree of dis-ingenuousness. 

Frankly:  it really fucking turns me on.

Why?

I’ve noted previously my affection for and belief in the artistic potential in the visual dynamism of the ejaculatory act.

And although I am not every going to be first in line on ass play day, depictions of pegging appeal to me insofar as they implicitly flip the gender stereotypical, heteronormative script.

From what is glimpsed in this two second clip, my guess is this video flips the scripts but then amplifies the staged physical and verbal abuse to a level that would result in castigation were the gender roles not so clearly inverted.

What gets me about this clip–and I think it would’ve been enhanced in a wider shot–are the muscle tremors playing over his stomach. After all, he’s been brought to orgasm with an enormous dildo compressing his prostrate. His ability to exercise autonomous control over his body is effectively short-circuited; he is completely at the mercy of his partners.

It’s that feeling of being at the mercy of someone I trust completely is what I miss most about sex. Being pushed up against a wall and told in a whisper almost too soft to hear: you’re boundaries are bullshit. If you say ‘no’, I’ll stop. But you won’t say ‘no’.

And my desire to share that experience–to know the give and take of mutual needing–makes me thing this isn’t a two second clip but a much longer one. Where the woman continues to stimulate the man, reminding him there’s no such thing as too sensitive

cute*blue – Bubblegum Lovers (2013)

I really, really, really, really, really like this a lot.

I am not really into ass play– for reasons. But I do try to take a don’t knock it till you try it/don’t try it till you knock it take when it comes to sex.

This is maybe the first thing I have ever seen that has made me crave switching places with these folks.

The reason for that shift is probably due to the real and meaningful communication. I loathe the the masculine assertive, i.e. take that dick and the feminine receptive, i.e. fuck me, fuck me, fuck me tropes.

And most of the imagery I see depicting pegging does little more than flip the same old gendered script. Major turn off.

But the way this shows these partners checking in with each other is really, really, really, really, really hot.

Source: cute-blue

Source: Unknown

Um… so, uh… yeah: LOVE THIS. For you know, reasons and stuff.

At the same time: I hate it, omfg sooo much.

For once my objections have fuck all to do with curmudgeonly hyper-criticality. I object because I am devastated.

I have been trying and failing to make a self-portrait that is alarmingly similar to this; really, this and my idea two might as well be fraternally twinned.

But to top a sundae of injury with rainbow sprinkles of insult: this is just flat-out so, SO much better than any of my fumbled false starts and artless misfires.

And although I have no intention of giving up–I’m exactly the sort of fool for whom the prospect of defying impossibility actually serves as compelling motivation.

Of course, motivation alone doesn’t address the fact that I am not getting any younger and I will never be ripped with six-pack abs.

But my phenomenal lack of physical attraction isn’t even the most profound hurdle. This was almost certainly taken by another person. I only have and will likely only ever have–sadly: recourse to the self-timer.

Source Unknown

The customary context for depicting ejaculation–i.e. the pornographic money shot–thoroughly pisses me off.

What upsets me is not so much behavior–any goings on between consenting parties are awesome my book–it’s the ubiquity of the presentation.

(Cindy Gallop’s TEDTak outlines the trouble with such ubiquity better than I can.)

Beyond that, the fact that the woman is expected to wait passively, looking up, making eye contact with her lover–getting semen in your eyes is worse than nosing tequila, FYI. If she really wants cum all over her face, why can’t she exercise some agency and lend a hand. 

Bringing me to the other thing–and I can only speak from my own experience here–but the best self-induced orgasm ever is only marginally better than the shabbiest orgasm contributed by a lover. Why drive cross country in a Maserati only to stop and walk the last furlong to the driveway of the destination?

Lastly, the act of ejaculation–when there’s some force behind it, is both really fucking visceral and with the projectile trajectory taking on endlessly fascinating, liquified globular forms, goddamn visually dynamic.

My own failed efforts not withstanding, I am obsessively convinced of the possibility of depicting ejaculation in ‘fine art’ context.

This .gif is equally a failure In terms of artfulness. But from the standpoint of pornography, it’s an interesting a departure.

Not to mention as far as cum shots go, the distance and arc are not only impressive but also quite lovely.

dirtyberd:

.

Four years or so ago I watched The Work of Mark Romanek while tripping balls.

Beyond the a vague recollection of the occurrence, I don’t remember much of it except that the dish soap genie thing near the end of Fiona Apple’s Criminal video struck me as undeniably ejaculatory.

Since then I’ve flirted with making a picture not unlike this one on a number of occasions. But this steals practically my entire playbook with the black and white, flashbulb aesthetic.

Of course, I’d want a wider frame. Granted, this would diminish the apparent force of the seminal spay. A loss more than made up for by the flash freezing the trajectory in a floating, ethereal stasis.

Source: hotpornpics