Tag: fmm

Lionel Prince – Untitled (2017)

Back in February, when I juxtaposed an image of Bernini’s The Ecstasy of St. Teresa and Brassaï’s Le phénomène de l’extase, I had rather something else in mind when I started.

See the juxtaposition I suggested was not exactly insightful: someone else had connected Dali’s The Phenomenon of Ecstasy (which includes the woman’s face from Le phénomène de l’extase) with the face of St. Teresa in Bernini’s sculpture.

Initially, I wanted to present Bernini, Brassaï in tandem with something more modern and art porn-esque and to categorize it as a ‘follow the thread’ exercise.

At the time, I was unable to find a satisfactory third image. This would’ve been utterly perfect.

Compare this detail of Teresa’s face with the above:

image

Also, from the stand point of visual dynamics, I’m starting to believe that the bottom edge of the frame has an implicit correlation with the notion of the so-called fourth wall. Consider the above and how it’s #skinnyframebullshit orientation places the viewer in the POV surrogacy with the person belonging to the lower of the two penii. Note how landscape orienting the frame adds the impression of a voyeuristic fourth party:

image
Source: lionelprince
image

[↑] Source unknown – Title unknown (201X); [↖] Zishy – Arya and Bailey Room Mates (2016); [↗] X-Art – Raw Passion (2016); [+] Source unknown – Title unknown (201X); [←] Source unknown – Title unknown (201X); [→] Source unknown –  Title unknown (201X); [-] Source unknown – Title unknown (2015); [↙] Source unknown – Title unknown (201X); [↘] Source unknown – Title unknown (201X); [↓] Nubile Films – Title unknown (201X)

Follow the thread: GIF Exception Edition

Source unknown – Title unknown (201X)

As much as there are performative heteronormative expectations when it comes to the FMM threesome, i.e. it’s perfectly upstanding, straight and good as long as penii don’t touch…

…it’s not something I’ve ever understood. But this makes me think about the mechanics of what porn instructs is the most common bodily configuration for two penis-havers engageing with a vagina-haver.

Like the owner of the lower cock is mostly passive. (If you’ve ever seen these scenes, it’s nearly impossible to get a workable rhythm going and the movement of the person in the middle is only really compatible with the person who is able to thrust and retract.

Second–while any sort of consensual sexual sensitivity is good in my book–there’s a way in which this configuration almost certainly amplifies the sensation of the person in the middle. Two of three orifices are full and there is skin to skin contact in both directions. That alone would be an emotional and intense feeling for me–even before you got down to whether it was pleasurable.

Then there’s also the way that in the heteronormative world there’s this proscription against penii touch. (For that reason I’m always interested in depictions of vaginal double penetration.)

But the rear wall of the vagina and the back wall of the anal cavity are not actually that thick, so there’s almost certainly a way that although penii aren’t touching they are engaged in conversation through a screen–like a supplicant confession to priest.

If any one of the the three orgasms, the body cavity they are inside would server as a resonating chamber of sorts.

And I think that’s why I end up looking at a lot of group sex porn–it’s not the fantasy of the explicit exchange that entices me, it’s the ease with which this sort of thing is depicted in pornography and the fact that that ease of trust and intimacy is nothing something I’ve ever known (or, unfortunately, am ever likely to know).

Source: cockartporn

Source unknown – Title unknown (200X)

It was the perfect picture of utter spirituality
and utter degradation. I was fascinated and could not turn away my eyes.
By watching them I in effect permitted their mating to take place and
so committed myself to accepting the consequences—all because I wanted
to see what would happen. I wanted in on a secret.

–Annie Dillard, The Force That Drives the Flower

Source unknown – Title unknown (20XX)

I have so many complicated feels about this…

On the one hand the way she’s curled in the frame with the dude pressing into her from the left while pinning her wrist against the couch as the other guy leans in so that she take his cock in her mouth is super problematic–tied up in patriarchal notions of female receptivity and convenience with regard to male sexual gratification.

And yet, that’s countered–to a small degree–by the way that she is stretching to meet the dick she’s sucking and the way her foot is pressed into the other guys face is probably some foot fetishist shit but it does suggest a degree of control and willful participation.

(I also completely fail to understand non-queer instantiations of group sex–but then I tend not to really understand normal human boundaries beyond the most basic notion that your right to swing your fists ends where my face begins. Also, I find it hilarious that with that heteronormative wisdom that a woman is supposed to save herself for a man while men can fuck whomever, whenever–that strictly hetero threesomes increase the woman’s number by two and the male participants by only one. Lastly, if you’re in a threesome, why not maximize your pleasure. I mean I’ve never been in a full blown threesome but the times I have that have gotten close, I’ve instinctive engaged physically with both participants. I just don’t understand how it’s any fun any other way. And if you’re a dude who likes gay-for-pay lesbian action and still fully believe that the actresses are straight but you’re not okay sucking a little bit of dick to liven things up then you are super gross.)

Really, what appeals to me is the sort of twisted empathy I feel towards her. I’ve mentioned before how we speak of desire most often in terms of hunger. I don’t experience it that way. My experience of desire is closer to thirst.

I don’t think you can read this in a way that illuminates anything about thirst but as far as hunger, I feel like these dudes are hungry for her body and their very real and physically demonstrable hunger functions simultaneously as a sort of you are hungry and I care about you so I want to feed you, I am not hungry but I am thirsty and the way you need me takes a bit of the edge of the thirst I feel.

I have to have that feeling of being needed and if I were ever in a situation to have people need me in a fashion of a kind with the above image, I would not squander it.

Source: xxx-filesss

Source unknown – Title Unknown (201X)

There is no end to the way the marketing of pornography as if it’s an a la carte menu alienates me.

It’s like there’s the default menu–straight, heterosexual and cisgendered. Solo, oral, anal, gonzo, creampie, teen, milf.

The gay porn that I’ve seen benefits from it seeming as if the dudes really, super actually want to be fucking each other. Sorry not sorry; thirst is hot, y’all.

Lesbian porn that is of a for us by us sort of bent is unquestionably my preference.

But I just don’t understand the segregation of menus. Like, can we get porn where one scene is your typical Vivid-esque cis-het, blowjob, vaginal penetration, rough anal sex followed by facial money shot and the next scene is army guys hazing the new recruits in the barrack’s showers. You don’t have to watch it if that’s not your thing. But I think being confronted with things that aren’t particularly what get you hot and bothered serves to normalize them as valid expressions of human sexuality.

I don’t know where these images are from. My guess is that their probably from one of those cliche reluctant bi- productions–where there’s an element of forcing someone to do something they don’t especially want to do.

I’m super put off by that for many of the reasons most mainstream porn makes me feel like I need to take a dozen scalding showers. Like where are all FFM threesomes depicted so that the ladies get it on with each other and the stud but almost all FMM porn involves the studs high fiving over the woman they are penetrating from either side. Like seriously, if there was a possibility that every now and then the woman in an FMM would say to the dudes, you don’t get to touch me until I see you suck each others’ cocks, I’d watch a hell of a lot more porn.

Source: Unknown

While I object to the sepia tinge, strobe vignetting and canted frame, the pervert in my is intrigued by this image.

I have certain reservations about imagery depicting threesomes; therefore, I appreciate how the above eschews the typically stultifying heteronormative script.

I read something about fluid sexual orientation. Namely, I don’t stop to ask is that boy gay or bi. (Although I admit that with the way his head is being forced into the woman’s pubis, I could understand that reading.)

Does it really matter? Everyone here is clearly enthusiastically engaged/invested in the proceedings.

‘Straight’, ‘gay’, ‘bisexual’ and ‘genderqueer’ are words, labels. Increasingly, treated as if it were a discrete street addresses: 123 Main Street, Podunkville, ID.

I don’t think it’s that simple. At best, ‘bisexual’ is comparable to one New Yorker telling another she lives in Brooklyn–as opposed to Manhattan, Queens or the Bronx. (As far as I’m concerned there are only four boroughs.)

Saying I am a bisexual woman who prefers women to men is analogous to mentioning that she lives off the Lorimer L stop.

If she really trusts the person with whom she is talking, she might say: I’m on Ainslie between Leonard and Manhattan.

Even that falls short. Each of us manifests a singular sexual persona; labels are broad, vague and ambiguous, they will always fail to summarize the intricacies of our desires. Words merely facilitate communication by nudge us toward a better heading, towards the truth.

Source: st8guy4mf

Source Unknown (There’s an awful bleached version floating around with more recent origin.)

I’d have posted this solely based upon how  pink her cheeks are, honestly. (I’m a sucker for actually physiological discernible cues of sexual arousal.)

But there’s also her mouth hanging slack, half-open–I can almost here her rapid, shallow, slightly raspy breathing.

And despite not really being a fan of close-ups or selfies, this somehow works as an image–if for no other reason than the boy on top seems to be the one taking snapping the picture (therefore justifying participant proximity to the action).

Also, the image implies the explicit without revealing much more than would a skimpy swimsuit. For me that serves to narrow the focus sharply to the passion and immediacy acting in the moment. To me, that’s always haute as fuck.

kalkibodhi:

Easing into the scene

KalkiBodhi Archives

Source

I don’t usually post flat out porn but I find something about this impressive.

It’s not the composition. A full third of the frame has been cropped out and although I loathe cropping, in this case it’s a vast improvement.

Still, the best bokeh in the world can’t mask the dead light of a rented-for-the-day Hollywood Hills mansion.

What’s more the framing is too close to ground the participants in their environment and too far away to really get an eyeful of the action.

I won’t bother going into the relationship of proximity to the action–beyond a certain point the camera ceases to be independent from the action it’s recording. The trouble with that is the camera is fundamentally incapable of participating in the action. (Ask: were I standing at the distance the camera is would I be watching the proceedings or would I be a part of them.)

There’s the stereotypical absence of body hair–totally your choice if that’s how you are comfortable but, for my part, I resent the implication that smoothly shaved genitals and underarms are the norm.

Also, despite my ironic discovery that I am really into at least the notion of group sex, I am somewhat put off by threesomes. Excluding MMM and FFF (which I didn’t even know was a thing until last week), FMM and FFM threesomes tend toward degrees patriarchal heteronormativity and lipstick lesbianism that I like to convince myself don’t really exist.

For example: dude bros high-fiving over some young woman’s back, the it’s not gay as long as our dicks don’t touch mentalities or the way FFM fantasies are inextricably embedded in the weave of patriarchy.

If women could bring strap-ons to the party or a boy would eat a dick or take it in the ass, I would be all over threesomes. (Although I admit I despise slut-shaming so overwhelmingly that a part of me really digs that FMM pairings result in a +2 partners for the woman; while each boy only gets a +1.)

All that notwithstanding, the sex portrayed here avoids the appearance of mechanization. Note: how the boy on bottom’s mouth hangs open–already beginning to recite baseball statistics in his head; his eyes open only enough to trace his erection from its based until it disappears below the cleft in young woman’s ass. For her part, she looks as if she actually really wants to give head to this muscle-y gent–she uses her hands to stroke his shaft and tug on his testicles.

This lacks the rote performance of pleasure as result of mechanical repetition that ruins 90% of porn for me. And while it does occur to me that it is unlikely the scene ends in mutual pleasure for all parties, what strikes me is in spite of the pornographic trappings, there is a a feeling that at the least this woman is respected by these men; they may even acknowledge her as capable of deriving pleasure from this exchange.

I am not sure I could articulate how I jumped to such a conclusion. Yet, I do find it interesting that–not that it is degrading for a woman to have a man ejaculate on her face if that’s something she wants–but if you look at the other sample images from this scene the muscle bound guy pulls out and comes on the her stomach while the other boy spills himself onto her breasts.

Source: st8guy4mf