> I've never been in the business of seeing,
>much less analyzing, cum shots. -gn
rilly. i promised i wouldn't post. but i can't resist. i think, greg, that you just gave yoshie the illustrative reaction she desired. hah!
to kelley, greg nowell writes:
>GN: Yeah, but ya see, you can go with this any way you
>want. Domination, whatever. But look at it this
>way. The typical porn jerk doesn't have a lady in his
>life.
oh geez, you've *got* to be kidding? where the hell do most people encounter their first look at porn, greg? i have no doubt that most people find it around their parent's home. and hell i grew up in the loverly let it all hang out, 'how to make love to each other,' 'fear of flying' 70s.
there are also plenty of couples who make use of it in their sexual lives--witness the burgeoning porn industry for het and homsex couples. Good Vibrations and Libido seem to cater to the up-scale, intellectual crowd --not that they can't be 'porn jerks' and ferpete's check out your local bookstore: the favorite, most perused section is the section with all the sex books (data collected from students who i take on field trips to observe how the bookstore is set up marketing-wise and how people use the bookstore)
>He can't come in a woman.
maybe he wants to cum with or in or near a man? het-oriented in this convo or what?
>And he spends his
>time watching actors who can't come in a woman either,
>not because they can't, but because their work contract
>forbids it.
hah!
> So it's not power over the woman, per se,
>it's the fact that the humiliation and frustration of
>the actor coming in empty air is equivalent to the
>lonely rejection of the fart jacking off and shooting
>sperm into empty space.
hah! how do *you* know?
> There is more pathos than
>power here.
as if the two are separated.
indecently yours, kelley
"'love the freak; love's the freak"