just an aimless question about porn

The guys I know usually play video games on them when they get the chance. I play an adult version of Pokémon called Dark Summoner and then some poker games. Other guys play Mafia games and stuff like that.

In a pinch, you can use a smartphone to view porn, but the image is usually small and picture quality is ... meh, even on the sites built for mobile applications and even on "HD" devices.

It's a common misconception that men think about sex and watch porn nearly every moment of their waking lives ...

we think it about in our sleep too!

well I read it on here. People are complaining that their husbands or boyfriends watch porn on their phones any time they have a chance. To which I say: "Wow, these guys must have really good vision. Acutely good vision."

And, they are not masturbating to porn - if they watch it on their phones all the time, "all the time" must include their being dressed and, more or less, in public view. So they are just watching it, without masturbation. Watching low resolution images on a tiny screen every moment they have a chance. Bizarre? Very bizarre. But again, I got that notion from reading candid accounts on this site - I did not come up with it on my own.

That is bizarre. There might be guys that are like that, but I would think watching that much porn can't be healthy. It's not like they're well produced movies with intense plot development and deep characterization.

Sometimes I wonder what kind of person goes through all the work of going to medical school and becoming a doctor only to do this sort of cosmetic surgery. Maybe it pays well. Or maybe it is mostly boys who never grew up, who decided what breasts should look like from watching porn.

This is why I prefer to watch porn without women in it. Straight porn is far too fake in my opinion. I don't understand the attraction to women with fake bodies either, but on the same note I also don't really get the attraction to women in general. I guess I don't really have a problem with overly fake women in porn with it so long as the people who enjoy it are able to separate real life from fantasy.

All of the issues you brought up are valid. Personally, I think you get what you pay for. I like well produced porn with attractive talent that's competently shot and is well lit. In my experience that's nearly impossible to find without paying for it so that's what I do.

As for the content of porn, the repetition thing is a problem. Like with any style of movie, you just have to find some that don't suck. The best ones I find employ a variety of angles to avoid that problem. That being said, guys have always and will always want to see penetration. We are visual creatures and we want to see every part of a woman but especially the *****. I happen to be a bi male so I can add that I feel the same way about cock in videos.

Even though this post probably makes me sound like some sort of porn aficionado, I am not an authority on porn or even a huge consumer of it. I just happened to spend some time awhile back solving the problems you brought up for my own consumption. Like most guys I know, I need just enough porn around for "maintenance", if you get my meaning.

I have a friend who is a neurologist. She works very part-time, with veterans with spinal cord injuries. Basically helps with the disability paperwork. It is boring but it is part time, so she can spend a lot of times with her two daughters. But it is the kind of mostly bureaucratic work that is not well paid. Some time ago she was invited to join a private practice where they were given BOTOX injections for cosmetic reasons. She was appalled that doctors - yes, the ones who went to medical schools - would stoop to that level. But now she sometimes regrets that she declined to join them, because it does pay well.

I do what your meaning, thanks.

I guess it is either my not being a guy or something else, but...

...on my most recent plane ride, we got free movies as a compensation for the delay, and I started to watch Last Tango in Paris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia...

...I got a headache (I am prone to them - not because of the movie, no ) so I stopped soon, but I did watch the beginning...

...there is an erotic scene there that was done superbly, in my humble opinion. Superbly. My hat's off to all the creative talent involved in the production.

In the scene, Marlon Brando, clothed in a very long thin fabric coat, ****s a young woman. The fabric of his coat is so thin and soft that it drapes around his body and moves with each of his forceful thrusts. With each thrust, the fabric's wrinkles and folds change (that creates an incredible interplay of shading and light). At the end, the camera very quickly focuses on the woman - the woman is sitting on a raised surface (a table perhaps?) with her legs spread just a bit so that you can see her pubic hair (a normal, perfect triangle of dark pubic hair - the movie was done in France/Italy in 1972, so nobody knew of waxing back then and there).

Powerful? Very powerful. Creative? Very creative. Original? Original.

I need to see the rest of the movie.

Just scanning the wikipedia article, I see one critic's response with which I fully agree just based on that one short scene:

"thrusting, jabbing eroticism"

So, my question is, how can close-ups of mechanical penetration ever compare with that? Why are they necessary? If instead of showing his whole clothed body, and, via the whole body (and, obviously, all the intricate lighting work that must have been planned and executed with sheer professionalism), depicting the paroxysm of the orgasm, they'd show Marlon Brando's PENIS, I very much doubt that it'd be interesting. Then again, maybe the high quality paid porn you describe does give the ability to actually feel the pulsating action in close-ups, and not just see the (boring) in-and-out movements.

Or, perhaps it is just my not being a man.

I understand that, but not being healthy is about the consequences of such viewing, and my question was about the motivation for such viewing. Because, to the best of my understanding, those guys were not PAID BIG BUCKS to view porn on the phones. So, they were somehow motivated by non-monetary returns... That is what puzzles me.

oh, on the site that I watched, the worst part was women kissing women in a pathetically fake way while looking at the "audience" from the corner of their eyes. All the movements were affected. All the makeup was excessive. I am sure that there is true lesbian porn where women kiss women because they want to, and not because it is supposed to stimulate men, and, therefore, actually focus on kissing and not looking at the audience and away from the person they kiss (???). As is, it was beyond ridiculous.

Yes, there is such a thing. I have included a link to the Wikipedia page.

Abbywinters.com - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is all women. I think this is as close as it gets to true lesbian porn. And I have seen enough to know they aren't constantly looking at the camera.

Whoops, I should have specified more clearly. I meant gay porn with men. Lesbian porn is the most fake porn. The women in the videos are straight and it is for men, not for lesbians. Real lesbians don't have sex like that. I don't even really classify it as "gay porn" because it is not porn for gay people. It is just a bunch of women putting on a show for men.

Gay porn is still fake. All porn is fake. But at least the men in it look real and usually appear to be genuinely enjoying themselves.

I actually happened on a niche porn site many years ago. It was a site for gay fat Swedish men. (Parenthetically, since Swedes are known for being svelte, it must have been a REALLY NICHE site).

At that time, I quickly closed the browser being disgusted, but now that I am comfortable with extremes of body weight, I would watch it because indeed it seemed to be genuine. About people who genuinely enjoy themselves.

I understand exactly what you mean. As a film buff and a big fan of lighting, I would find creative scenes like this very interesting to watch. But when guys want to look at porn, they are not always intersted in the lighting or creativity of the scene. They want something that gets to the point. They would see the coat as annoying because it obscures the act. Penetration does get repetative, but at the end of the day, that is what turns guys on.

I think I was unclear when I described the lighting. I did not admire the lighting - I was moved by the force of the scene. Sheer, raw force. Then I analyzed what (I think since I am not a student of film so I do not know) probably made the scene so forceful, and lighting came to mind because it seemed to play such a big role. But that was after the fact - when I watched it, I was moved and not calmly observing the lighting effects. It was very forceful, direct, candid - a great scene. Since you like these kind of things, you should definitely watch it. I should too - I stopped after that scene.

But the point it - for me this scene was greatly moving and NOT BORING, and in-and-out close-ups are not moving and boring. So, apparently, for men they are not boring - they are repetitive, but not boring. Right? Because for me - I would rather watch table tennis - same thing, more or less (movements back and forth and back and forth), but at least it is sometimes unpredictable and the reactions of the players are fun to watch.

And I thought that I was weird for thinking that the repetition was dull. It just isn't the same thing watching on a screen as being in the same place as a participant. To begin with, so far there isn't a type of pornography which can convey the pheromones.

I am sure that most porn contains more than just close-ups of penetration. I would get bored from watching just penetration. It is the shots of the woman's body and face cut in with it and the sound as well. Porn that, in my opinion, is worth watching would have a lot more than just close-ups of penetration.

I think that the beauty of the repetition in real life as a participant is that it is kind of similar each thrust, but at the same time not quite - at the same time, each thrust is a little different from the next, and that combination of sameness and difference is just so lovely. From what I have seen in porn (again, I did not look much because of boredom), they are not able to convey that sameness/difference occurring simultaneously. so it becomes sheer repetition and yes dull as you say.

besides pheromones, I guess porn does not convey tactile sensations - the feel of skin, hair, etc.

low earthy kind of sounds? really low roaring kind of sounds? panting sounds? sounds of heavy breathing? I imagine you would like those kind of sounds that are genuine and not affected.

I would like that too.

As opposed to:

That porn that my partner showed me - there was a section with cartoonish kind of porn, and a cartoon woman with humongous breasts that she supported with her hands (which was hysterically funny and not ugly since they were clearly grotesque without trying to appear real) had a large black phallic looking object slide up and down between her breasts and then she started making squeaking sounds, which, I deduced, were meant to convey her climbing towards an orgasm, at which point I asked him to stop the video because I was not interested in learning how mice orgasm: the creature in the cartoon was literally squeaking!

In much of genuine mouse communication, the frequency is too high for us to hear.

Helium, maybe?

I do think women and men get turned on by different things. Men are very visual. We want to see. From "checking out" someone walking by to watching porn, the visual leads to arousal for us. Women, on the other hand, seem to be more tactile. Most women I know could care less about say seeing a penis but they actively enjoy feeling it. I've also noticed women talk about scent, which honestly would be the last thing I'd notice. As an aside, the fact that we're visual is why so many stupid guys get caught sending pics of their penis to women; they just don't get that women aren't triggered by the same stimuli.

I also think that porn is relatively utilitarian for a lot of guys. They just want ten or so minutes of video with sufficient visual imagery to get them off.

My last thought is that taste also really dictates what kind of porn people watch. Once they find the style and content that works for them they stick with it.

Oh, so I did the right thing stopping the video, as the voice was indeed climbing to those heights at which it would be out of the human range of perceiving sound frequencies .

Did not get the joke about helium.

That!

Plus, I can see how a picture of a man that includes his penis might be interesting to look at, but a picture of a penis separated from his owner REALLY does not interest me.

Before I figured out what I did wrong with Skype (my prefs were set to "Skype me!" so I was inviting attention - once I figured it out, I reset the prefs to the most private level which is the opposite of "Skype me!"), I did get those kinds of offers from men whose profile picture was a penis shot.

Then Harley added that I was not just attracting attention by having the "Skype ME!" setting, but also by having a picture of a white goose as my profile picture. He made the connection I had not been able to make on my own - a white goose is similar to a white swan, from where we go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leda_(mythology), and then you know what happened - it is indeed very sexually suggestive to have a picture of a white goose on Skype. Apparently, all those guys wanting to share the pictures of their penises were well versed in Greek mythology.

Breathing in helium makes a person's voice high pitched and squeaky.

got it. the porn cartoon's voice was probably computer-generated, but now I know how to do the same thing without computers - breathe in helium. Go to a grocery store, find the floral department where the helium balloons are sold, and ask the clerk to give me a bit of helium to breathe in. Then, record amateur porn with squeaky orgasm sounds .