Tag: gay porn

Cocky Boys – Colby Chambers, Mickey Knox & Levi Karter (2016)

Heavy breathing, exaggerated moans, skin impacting skin percussively. A focus on the extremity of action–one body disappearing into another, the gaping void of a mouth/orifice, carnal fondling of erogenous zones.

At most, pornography can appeal to only two senses: seeing and hearing. The exaggeration of these aspects is, ostensibly to make up for an absence of other sensory elements–touch, smell and taste.

I think this both tangibly and intangibly contributes to porn’s tendency to preference pleasure as the impetus for sexual expression.

This drives a one-dimensional perspective with regard to sexuality.

What I find intoxicating about this clip is that sans audio and with the additional of subtitles, these clips take on greater richness. There’s a give and take, an effort to communicate not only just with regard to pleasure but also the extremity of emotional presence that can come with intense sexual experiences. (Also, the subtitles really hammer home the power dynamic that can sometimes be at play in sex, in a way that I can’t recall seeing before.)

Plus, this is just super hot to stare at.

Helix Studios – Tailgate Fuck (2012)

Don’t get me wrong this is not a good image and there’s nothing noteworthy about this scene from which it appears to be a production still.

However, it does tie in with a preoccupation of mine: depicting sexuality in fine art.

I’m convinced its possible to create something that is indisputably Capital A Art but that also features pornographic content. I certainly don’t suggest that to do so is at all easy or uncomplicated.

A more reliable (and perhaps less artful) approach seems to be to use the notion of less is more as a starting point and designing explicit elements so the function through implication.

This is an excellent example of the second directive. It is abundantly clear what’s going on, but–strictly speaking–there’s nothing especially explicit about the presentation. In other words, what you see serves as a guide to what remains unseen, instead of presenting the unobstructed and completely unambiguous scene.

Plus, I’m always down for imagery that places actions that typical occur privately in ostensibly public places.

Rome Grant – Untitled Polaroid (1973)

Anytime I post something vaguely homoerotic, I lose followers. It’s super lame.

Look: if you enjoy watching people fuck, you don’t have to experience sexual arousal in response to every image but your expectations should never be for strict exclusivity. Namely, in the process of seeking out people you want to watch fuck, you should categorical expect to encounter depictions of people who fuck in ways that are not your cup of tea. That’s fine–probably normal-ish (whatever the hell that even entails). But it is hell of problematic when your desire to watch people fuck is only acceptable when limited to watching people fuck if, when and only as long as you never have to see anything other than folks who fuck the way you want to fuck. (That approach is what’s indicated by the term echo chamber.)

If an image of two guys fucking like the one above elicits anything less empathetic than thinking oh, hey, great for them but where’s the lesbians already? then you have some personal growth to which you need to attend.

(If you’re a pervert, embrace that shit. It’ll make your life a lot easier and–I would argue–more fun.)

Back to this Polaroid, though: I won’t go so far as to recommend Grant’s work to you–it’s marred by staid commercial trappings, a lack of thoughtful editing and has all the subtlety of a train wreck in Quiet Town–but this is fucking so exquisite.

Source: romegrantphotography