Self-referencial parody is the only way to go in a post-viagra world.
Most believable performance I've ever seen.
|infinite zest |
I saw Ron Jeremy at the bank I go to one time. I guess he lives in my neighborhood and owns a fuckspot somewhere.
|Rodents of Unusual Size |
Where is Frylock when you need him to make comments?
Also, did he always have a pubestache?
Watching this in 1080p is something else.
|John Holmes Motherfucker |
OKAY, NOW LISTEN CARE FULLY, EVERYBODY! IF ANYONE OTHER THAN THE CHAT ROULETTE GUY EVER MAKES ANOTHER MILEY CYRUS PARODY VIDEO, , I'M GOING TO BLOW THIS PUPPY'S BRAINS OUT!
So everybody just step away from the camera. That's right...
|il fiore bel |
A video was made of how they made this.
I feel like the movie 12 angry men is playing in my head. Do I think he's sexy? I don't know, but I think we need to look at the facts first before deciding this isn't sexy. This man has not only had more people choose to film him naked than any of us, he's literally bested every human being living and in history.
After carefully considering the issue, I have decided that I enjoy this video unironically.
I don't really think Ron Jeremy's professional success is a function of his sexiness, though. Ron Jeremy is a workhorse who specializes in heterosexual pornography; people don't watch his films to see HIM naked, they watch his films to see his young, nubile partners naked. He does lots of films, and has fantastic stamina, but is he sexy? No.
In fact, I'd argue that part of Ron's success stems from the fact that he is decidedly *un*-sexy. Ron puts guys at ease. He's a fat, hideous toad, even less appealing than most of us mere mortals. Ron is the sort of guy we can all picture ourselves being, no matter how lazy and unmotivated we might, yet he is still able to secure an endless stream of beautiful young cunny willing to do anything for him. He gives his audience hope.
Ron Jeremy as aspirational programming? Dear Lord, man! If only there were some way to monetize this phenomena!!!
Well, "hope" maybe, but I doubt if most of his audience has a 9.75 inch dick
While we're on the subject of unexplained phenomena in porn: why does heterosexual porn even have men in it to begin with? Women for the most part aren't buying the product, and if a guy is buying it to look at Ron's 10" cock then I gently suggest there is a world of porn for just that, and it's time to come out of the closet. The popularity of girl on girl porn for men is unsurprising; it's this other thing that has me baffled. Perhaps Homer is right in that you're supposed to imagine being Ron, but that also eludes me...
Now now, BS, denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
The heterosexual part is shorthand for "straight guy", as you know. I suggest very few women are consuming the stuff. What hetero women want is something I call "emotional pornography". The romance novel is the classic example. The Batchelor/ette TV show is the more modern take. Either way, the actual fucking is pushed to the back in deference to the emotional/relationship action.
Literal answer: Heterosexual/"straight" porn requires the presence of a penis to ensure the viewer that the act of intercourse is really taking place. Without the camera's focus on genital/genital contact the scene is stripped of any realism, and it might as well be softcore or simulated R-rated sex.
It is a weird phenomenon, though. Us straight dudes who view porn usually do so with the intent of focusing on an attractive woman/women and her/their carnal talents. Yet in order for the scene to feel "right," the cock still has to be of reasonable size or larger, I guess because the bigger the lady in question can take the better.
I'm sitting here typing this, suddenly realizing that if I watched a scene with a tiny-dicked male participant, I would get less enjoyment out of the scene than I would if it was some dude with a 7 incher or a monster hog.
I didn't mean to say that straight women are the intended audience, simply that 'heterosexual' kind of implies that it's a man and a woman fucking. You know, because words.
Quad9: might have something to do with what Homer said. Men want to be able to imagine that they're that guy, but not 'that guy with the four-inch pecker'. So I guess you're a little sensitive yourself about the size issue. That's cool, we can't all be alphas.
I'm comfortable with my size and believe it gets the job done.
I'll just argue that watching a woman wolf down a freakish dong must appeal to some primordial caveman fantasy, and try to leave it at that.
I'm not dense, BS, just fishing for more of an answer. Quad seems to be exploring the space tho.
Here's the thing. You the viewer, are the third person in the room unseen, the subject. The people in the frame are the objects of desire. If I walk into the room and there's two girls there, I might think "hey honey, glad you invited your friend, lets get busy". If a guy was there, I'd wonder "How'd the fuck YOU get in here?".
Yet in porn, the guy rogering your lady is just fine. Baffling.
But not all of the people in the frame (or things, in the case of object-fetishism) are necessarily objects of desire. I think for most heterosexual porn-watchers, "the guy" is simply window dressing. Maybe he is there so we can project ourselves into the action? Maybe not? Most people, I don't think they think too hard about the guy or the deeper ramifications of his being in the shot, because their focus is on the object of desire, and the object of desire is not the guy.
Unless he is, in which case, I could see some people getting weirded out by the idea of having a dude in the shot. I guess it all comes down to personal preference; how much do YOU notice the guy? And what might this say about you?
Is this really that complicated?
Straight men love women craving dick. This usually requires there to be a dick present.
OK, so things seem to be converging on the "crave cock" argument. I'll buy that. Presumably, the more cock craving, the better. And a common hetero porn theme is gang sex. Almost invariably one lady, and a bunch of guys. So there they all are, the girl is buried in cock, one in every orifice and between her toes.
Talk about the elephant in the room!
What you rarely see is a bunch of women, and one guy.
If you take this notion of porn to the limit of infinite guys say, you get -1/12 or gay porn.
Let's not forget that Mr. Jeremy, behind the dong, is a charismatic funny guy, and a decent self-aware actor. As such he's one of the few besides John Holmes who have been able to take the genre from the stigma surrounding dramas like Linda Lovelace's and into something that people can comfortably watch at parties, laughing at explosive organsms the way they'd cheer watching the Death Star explode.
After a nap, I'm finding it hilarious that this conversation is basically "You know what's weird about normal porn?"
This is how far we've gone through the looking-glass, people. We have guys here bringing up straight porn as if there's something weird about it. Put your goddamn animes and scat-fetishisms away! AND GET OFF MY LAWN!
Hey, I don't know about all that stuff, I'm just trying to understand why straight porn directed at men has so much cock in it. I haven't begun to process the whole cartoon horse vagina fucking thing that's all the rage now amongst the young people. KIDS TODAY! I TELL YA!
Zest - that's true. Mr Jeremy does have a certain grace and nobility of bearing that lends itself well to his mission as chief diplomat of the industry.
Oscar - "What you rarely see is a bunch of women, and one guy."
I'm going to have to stop you there. There is plenty of FFM porn! I don't have the exact statistics handy, but I suspect it to be at least as common as MMF porn, if not more so. At the very least, it is hardly "rare".
Now, the two broad categories of gang-bang porn may not be exactly equal, and they seem to fill two different needs. MMF focuses on a single object of desire, often with strong degradation/ humiliation themes, while FFM focuses on the understandable fantasy of having multiple partners at once. But one does not seem to be any more popular than the other, and cock does not seem out of place in either. Whether it's Sailor Moon gasping for air as she chokes down a dozen youma tentacle-dicks, or the Mane Six going down on one lucky brony, the cocks are mere props, framing and worshiping the object of desire.
Once again, I submit that the "issue" you raise is entirely up to individual self-perception. Most people do not dwell on the cocks; if one does, that may say more about one's own drives than about the porn itself. Porn, like art, lies largely in the eyes of the beholder. How the audience perceives and understands a text is at least as important as author's intent, especially when the author may forgo meaning altogether (as, I suspect, is the case with many porn directors).
I almost want to deduct a star for Ron compromising his artistic integrity by wearing that fleshtone speedo for the nude scenes.
Unlike Miley Cyrus, he's not doing this as part of some put-on ongoing teenage rebellion, or to be sexy, or to use nakedness and five credited writers to break ground with "bold" pretentious arthouse shit.
That is why this is eleven-fold better than the Miley version.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|