Tuesday, June 23, 2009

Everybody's a Pornographer

For a while I've been noticing with a certain curiosity the amount of porn that is available/linked in the blogs I'm familiar with. A couple of posts over the weekend brought the topic to the forefront of my mind. And I realize there are three parts to the topic: looking, presenting, and performing. As you'll see, I'm wondering about the behavior involved. There are more questions in my mind than answers. And I'm not presenting my moral opinions at this point, just wondering what's behind phenomena which I would not have expected to experience when I was a teenager.

As a general matter, it seems to me that there is much more of this around than 50 years ago. Back then, if you wanted porno, you had to buy a magazine or go to a porno movie house. And I think it's fair to say that most people did neither. So why the change? Is it just that the internet has made it so much easier to distribute and get the stuff, or did the "sexual revolution" of the 1960's actually lead to a change in people's acceptance of it?

Somebody suggested to me that porno is especially prevalent among gay men. I certainly see a lot of interest around here, but I don't know how that compares with straight guys' blogs.

Looking: Certainly, lust has always been with us. So the potential market was always there. But has the increased ease of viewing which the internet has brought also led in a way to an increased appetite? Perhaps, if you never bought a porno mag or went to a porno movie, you didn't feel that you had to see it. But if you come across something on the internet, you begin to develop a desire for it. And has that sexual revolution made people more accepting of, and willing to indulge, their lust?

Presenting: I've been struck by the number of blogs where "eye candy" is routinely part of the posts. I'm not talking about the ones that have pics and videos as their only purpose. I mean regular bloggers who are spicing things up. Considering that what they post is available on the sites they copy it from, I wonder what's the point. To keep people reading he blog? To save readers the trouble of finding it on their own? To show what the blogger likes? To prove that the blogger really does like boys?

Even more remarkable to me are the bloggers who do a "journal" blog for a while and then decide they need to produce a "picture" blog, too (as if the sort of stuff they post on it weren't available  a link or two away). What's that all about?

Performing: This doesn't actually happen on the blogs, so far as I've noticed. But people post either explicitly or implicitly about webcam type contacts in which they've either had someone perform for them or have performed for the other person. And there is the related phenomenon of all the people who send nude photos of themselves to others, many of which end up circulating on the internet.

If lust was always there, and at least a potential audience for porno existed 50 years ago, I very much doubt that many people would have been willing to display themselves for the world to see. So what's happening now? Is it a loss of a sense of privacy? Is it exhibitionism? Do the transmissions in phone-like mode give a feeling of privacy, as if both parties were together in the same room? (Even though we know that the audience is potentially the whole world.) Does it somehow satisfy an emotional need? Maybe there are different motives for different people. And is it different for the viewer than a video from another site?

14 comments:

torchy! said...

a thought-provoking post NG, and i'm not even sure i know what i think of it right now. i'm certainly interested in reading what the other commenters think.

quite a few months back, i posted a small number of 'hot' photos (what i would classify as porn), to illustrate a story, normally with an attempt at an amusing caption that linked in with my post.

i know you commented on my recent post 'well busy' which featured such a pic (one which i had doctored with photoshop to fit the post). i've become significantly more uneasy posting such pics, but decided to post that one as i'd already written the post some time back. however, all that type of pic will be gone from my blog within a short while.

as for the eye candy on my blog, which i'm not even sure would be classified as soft porn, i started posting that as a fill-in at weekends, to keep up a one-a-day post. it's not part of the journal of my daily life, but then neither are the funnies that i post from time to time.

both the funnies and the eye candy posts do seem to be quite popular with my readership.

sorry, i'm rambling a bit now. i'll leave it and maybe chip in later.

all the best
torchy!

Mirrorboy said...

Me thinks you were referring to me in your post somewhere, so i'll give you my view. ;)

I've got no idea what the 'sexual revolution' was. lol

I think the main reason for journal bloggers occasionally including boy pics is because it's just... fun. It's like me putting cat pics up (obviously they're not sexual. lol. eww) but they're nice pics to look at. And to a degree i think the same thing applies to boy pics. It's eye candy. Looking at cute/hot boys is a pleasant thing to do. lol

The reason why i started a solely picture blog with Jake was because it was simply fun. It was fun finding pics that i liked and showing them to others. There's also the added benefit that doing so brought more traffic to my journal blog... lol. But that's not the reason why i made the pic blog. Anyways, i left the pic blog behind so it doesn't apply anymore. :P

I can't comment on the history side of things cos i haven't been around for much history. :P

love

naturgesetz said...

@ torchy! — there's a good boy! As I said, I wasn't thinking specifically about you when I decided to post something. One of the two people whose posts (both photo-free narratives) got me started on the topic knows who he is because I told him. The other might guess, but it really doesn't matter, because this is intended to be general, and not directed at specific individuals. Just something for readers to think about, not telling anybody to stop what they're doing.

@ readers — Maybe it's only fair, since I brought the topic up and may seem as if I'm on my high horse talking about everybody else, to give at least partial disclosure. I look at the pictures. I look at some vids. I visit some sites that some people have linked. I visit some sites that are linked to the links.

At this point I can say that I see little that really turns me on. I'm not very interested in looking at posed shots or erections. And in hard core, I don't really want to see the sex, just the nudity. Candids, naturist photos, guys playing nude rugby — IOW guys being themselves but without any clothes — are the sort of thing I'd rather see. And for the most part, I can enjoy the beauty without arousal. An artfully done strip can be another matter. But it's only after I've spent (wasted) several hours going from video to video that it can suddenly get to be too much, and I realize I've got to get away from the screen within a couple of seconds or something will happen.

naturgesetz said...

@ mirrorboy — crossing posts. Thanks for your comment. What you say makes sense. I don't think I'll try to give an in depth explanation of the sexual revolution, but before it people tended to be "Puritanical" and to keep quiet in public about sex, and afterwards they were more open, and they were more likely to encourage and celebrate sexuality and sexual activity.

Anonymous said...

I'll give you my view. You might not like it my old friend! lol

But believe it or not, countries like the USA and GB etc. are basically sexually repressive/oppressive societies. I believe it has mostly to do with non-secular religious conservatism, that is honestly toxic to individualism.

Its human nature to yearn for the taboo and unordinary. If that nature is subsidized with forbidden temptation it tends to lead to such things as pornography and deviance.

Now I dont agree with the often depiction of young guys on some of these blogs, but why worry so much about the depiction of gods creation? Why is observance equated with immorality.

I think the question you should be asking is why isn't there MORE people posting such perfect creations. Rather than trying to pussy foot your disapproval of such smut.

Anonymous said...

Joe!
I'm coming back to this because I have observed most of the same things you are talking about.

Gregory Harrison said...

Hi NG,
Your posts are always thought provoking. Much like Torchy I'm not really sure what I think on this topic. I don't have any porn on my blog because I want people to read it because of the content not the eye candy. At the same time though I do enjoy the pics of hot guys on other peoples blogs. I suppose I don't really have an opinion on this so I suppose I'll shut up and let the clever people do the talking. Just wanted to say good post though.
Take Care
greg

Anonymous said...

Interesting post NG. I'm not sure I have much to say or add, but I wanted to let you know that I read this and that it has provoked some thought in me.

naturgesetz said...

Thanks for the comments, guys. Thought-provoking was exactly what I was hoping for, so I'm glad you found it so.

Just yesterday, I got a book I had ordered last week: "Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body in Simple Language." It's the Pope's talks adapted into everyday English by Sam Torode, published by Philokalia Books.

There are a couple of talks on nude art. Here's a bit from them.
"The dignity of the person must always be upheld."
"To an extent, objectifying the body is necessary in art. This raises a number of problems as the motives of artists and viewers are brought into question. These problems do not mean that the nude human body is an inappropriate subject for art — only that this is a complicated moral issue, not simply a matter of artistic taste."
"Among sinful human beings, sexual privacy shields the gift from the gaze of lust. We don't just wear clothing to protect ourselves from the weather, but to guard our dignity."
"In art, as in life, the right to privacy must be respected in order to preserve the gift-giving meaning of the body."
"When the gift-giving meaning of the body is obscured, distorted, or misrepresented, art becomes a lie. This is what happens in pornography. The body — which was meant to be a free gift from one person to another — is depersonalized and reduced to an object for lust."
"But in the end, it is precisely this — the whole truth about man — that is lost when privacy is violated and the body is reduced to an object for lust."
"The naked human body has a 'language.' It expresses the spirit. When given in trust and love, the body is the basis of a communion of persons. Because the naked human body has such importance, it must be depicted with great care to preserve its meaning in art."
"Because the glory and beauty of the human body is a t stake, we cannot remain indifferent to culture. We do not oppose pornography out of a narrow, puritanical idea of morality. Nor do we oppose it out of a Manichæan fear or hatred of the body, as is often asserted. The exact opposite is true. We oppose pornography out of respect for the dignity of the body."

Mr. Urs said...

Sometimes I think that reading some journal blogs makes me more of a voyeur than looking at boys in explicit poses on pictures and videos. On the other hand reading thought-provoking posts like yours keep me from surfing porn right now, since I'm without my partner on business-trip alone in my hotel room. Only inspiring blogs save me from my weak flesh (I know, I could sublime my libido into something creative).

I don't think the sexual revolution is to blame for higher presence of porn. It's more the technical revolution of the internet, which provides us with anonymity (who blogs under his real name?) and easy availability (Google) - and in recent years easy 'publishability' thanks to Blogger.

It was different, when you had to show your face to consume these kind of goods. Even ordering the stuff and getting it delivered in unmarked envelopes was risky. And keeping them on an encrypted drive on the computer is safer than when mother could find them under the mattress.

I don't think it's weird that some people put those things also in their journal blogs. Those blogs are about things that are on our mind. And carnal pleasures are quite often on mine.

Though, since my blog is read by some 'real life' friends and I still want to keep some privacy, I don't publish pornographic pictures. I just don't want them to know in too much detail what turns me on. That part of my life belongs to me and my partner. This is were I draw my line of dignity.

Anonymous said...

I'll tell you right now there are lots of blogs I have to be careful about when visiting lest I end up you know...

Joe, I wonder many times if things were not a bit better when you were younger. You don't seem to be a quarter as "angsty" as myself and more again as some of the bloggers that are younger than me--and you lived in hell (or at least people claim so!).

So, I really long sometimes for the days when pornography was difficult to get. I struggle with it more than I want to although far, far, far, far less than I used to.
Maybe I'm forgetting that many people don't see porn as harmful at all.

Doomed But Cheerful! said...

Eye-candy, even art, is a welcome guest on my screen. Porn - and it depends on how you want to define that, is not. In the same way that I will share some of my thoughts about - well, anything, I suppose - maybe I will share something that caught my eye, that I would willingly share with my friends.

The fact that there is a preponderance of male eye-candy (as opposed to, say, Georgian English furniture, or Dutch pottery, etc) on my little blog, is only because this is my play space, where I am able to be open with the homosexual side of my character.

I tend to agree with the commentator's observations about the beauty of form, balanced against loss of privacy and dignity.

I remember the first time I bought a gay magazine - it was from an asian grocer-cum-newsagent - I had purposely driven to the other side of the county, in the hope that I would be neither recognized nor remembered. And that was in England *after* the sexual revolution had taken place ...

My point is, that for some, who are exploring there sexuality, ready availability of imagery on the net can be valuable, though some individuals will also report a growing dependence on it, to the point that they are fatigued, addicted and/or dsgusted by it. I haven;t found anyone yet who reports that they have become autoerotic, in that they are unable to maintain a realtionship with a person, as a result of exposure to porn - but I am sure there are some; maybe they haven't recognised it yet, or feel ashamed to admit it.

Of course, some of us are more 'mature' than others: our sexual urges change, reduce, and so on. Others are on medication that affects sex drive - I was only chatting with someone yesterday, who was lamenting the cost of improved memory and concentration, at the cost of their sex drive.

So - the presence of porn on blogs - I can only say it is a matter of taste whether one would post it, and the same if, having visited a blog that contains porn, whether one would choose to visit again.

There is another driver to post pictures: keeping the readers' attention. Simple typographical 'rules' about large blocks of text being best broken up into columns with a picture here and there only came about because ..........
Sorry - I dropped off there for a moment. Pity one can't include a picture within a comment! Well, here's a link to a Big Boy.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/verhelstaal/3617334692/
Go on - have a look, I dare you!
G =]

torchy! said...

lol @ g's big boy. yes, i was brave enough to look :O

as for your dignity comment NG, the way i read it is that my 3 infrequently posted eye candy series: everton mints, fiveplay and kiss torchy, are all ok to post as i believe dignity is maintained. i also feel that they celebrate beauty. the kiss torchy series pics are intended to be erotic rather than pornographic - there's no rudey bits on show and the guys at least look as if they have feelings for each other.

torchy!

naturgesetz said...

Thanks for the further thoughtful comments, guys.

A. Friend comments in part about me. I'm not sure why I'm less "angsty" although I'm inclined to think that not having seen hard-core porn until I came upon it on some of the links to links from various blogs, so not until I was in my mid-sixties, has something to do with it. By then, as Gurney suggests, I might have attained some level of maturity. Then there is the fact that I was extremely cautious about sexual matters in my younger years — I may have developed some habits of mind which make it easier to deal wit some types of material. And it just occurs to me that having developed an interest in nudism several years ago has enabled me to regard simple nudity as non-sexual.

And Gurney's Big Boy is certainly spectacular. Thanks for the link.

The question of art vs. porn is certainly an interesting one. It occurs to me that there could be some people who are so sensitive or so lustful that even an acknowledged piece of art like Michelangelo's "David" could be arousing for them.

Again, to all, thanks for sharing your thoughts. There is a lot to think about there, and I'm not going to try to discuss it all in detail. Readers can ponder it for themselves.