ArtsEtc.
Hump Day experiments with porn, offers advice
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Nicolette Pawlowski:
- How to navigate the love triangle (October 27, 2009)
- The art of swinging and lap dancing (October 6, 2009)
- A 'mouthful' of help for oral sex (September 9, 2009)
- Sex 101: What to do in dorms (July 18, 2009)
- 'Firsts' shouldn't determine final dating potential (May 5, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
I like porn. Let me rephrase that. I love the idea of porn. I’m one of those women who is tired of the romantic story plots and 20-second sex scenes in “Desperado” and “Mr. and Mrs. Smith.” Watching sex is hot, especially when the sex I am watching is hot. That means getting dirty and sweaty, watching pleasure and excitement play on the faces of the actors who pepper their bed with moans and heavy breathing. It doesn’t have to include orgasms, but I’d like the porn to attempt orgasms with everyone involved.
When I approached this porn review, I wanted to get a range of tastes. My friends and I chose women-centered porn, artsy looking porn, transsexual porn and so on. I thought we had a veritable feast for every sexual desire. We were very excited.
We chose four videos, which were judged on the following five categories: Hot Sweaty Sex, Hot Orgasms, Plots/Realistic Scenes, Creativity and Worth the Time/Money. The following is a condensation of each review:
“Pirates II”: A twist on “Pirates of the Caribbean” with a lot of sex. Not very hot or sweaty in sex or orgasms. Fake tits, fake orgasms. Too many facials. It scored higher on plot, as it was a whole pirate story, but frankly we just wanted them to stop talking. Too much plot, too little fucking.
“Les Femmes Erotiques”: Arsty film. Real boobs. Sensual. Condoms were actually used! But that’s as good as it got. Not hot or sweaty. Fake orgasms. Way too many clothes and accessories. Everyone wore gloves! If you have a latex/accessory fetish, this may turn you on.
“The Buck Stops Here”: Transsexual porn. Raw. Gave it bigger points because it was honest about its purpose. The actors were realistic; some of the sex seemed enjoyable for all parties involved. Condoms! Yay! If you’re into raw fucking, this may be an option.
“Girls Playing with Girls”: A two-part porn with two separate couples going at it for around 30 minutes each. The first couple was not into it, but the second couple was HOT! They seemed to be really into enjoying each other. One even orgasms. Had a problem with the long nails. It’s a bit too sensual and not extremely satisfying if you are looking for some good fucking.
Of the five videos that we watched, only half of “Girls Playing with Girls” came close to achieving some satisfaction. So that we wouldn’t end the night with such dismal reviews, we watched Kink.com, the Sex and Submission and Whipped Ass sites being our favorites. Real people, real pleasure, communication and really fun. My co-columnist also took part in the porn-reviewing extravaganza and below are her results.
Suzie: I have a big secret. I am terrified of porn. I do not like to view sex acts I perceive as uncomfortable. I hate cum shots with a passion. It always bothered me that I’m a bit porn-phobic. So, when my co-columnist recommended doing a porn review, I was a little excited. It was a chance to go out and find something I liked or prove my point that Vanilla Suzie and porn would never mix.
I went to a sex shop. I had an eye for train wrecks. No matter what I pulled out of the pile, it featured large pictures of painful-looking sex and cum shots. I rented the best of the worst and sat down to see if I could reconcile my perceived distaste with reality. Turns out, my body wasn’t having ick-reactions, in fact, I was wet. But my head could not get over some things. Why all the spitting? Is lube not cool these days? Where were the condoms? And the switching from anal to vaginal and back. SO UNSAFE! It was a lineup of some of the biggest sexual no-no’s and all I could do was keep a tally of all the ways they were not asking for consent, not using communication and spreading disease.
Overall, my review of the traditional porn I saw was that it contained the following five elements: sex that was designed to look good on camera, not feel good, fake female orgasms, cum shots, anal sex (but no analingus) and forcible blowjobs. I wanted to like it, but I could not find a female participant who I could relate to. They all seemed to be in pain and their orgasms weren’t real. When it comes to sex, I personally have one golden rule: If it’s not fun, don’t do it.
I went to my locally lesbian-owned sex shop in town. I gave my demands and asked for variety (lesbian, light bondage, hetero and something weird). I took my four movies home and sat down with two friends for a night of nachos and naughtiness. The highlights of our viewing are below:
“Silken Sleeves”: BDSM. This porno is 50 minutes long, and it’s broken into four seasons. It features an older female mistress and a younger female hostage. The mistress catches the hostage, ties her up and makes her cum using flogging, knife play and hot wax. The plot was interesting, the sex was a little awkward at times but hot and the knife play put us all a little on edge. Worth the time and moolah.
“Crash Pad: Volume II”: A series about a fictional apartment that women visit to have sex with other women. The keys are passed around and the whole thing is filmed by a nameless chick in the apartment next door. Voyeurism, strap-ons, threesomes, a little humiliation, but no oral sex. Great sex, real orgasms, no music. Male viewer likes super femme womyn, so he wasn’t completely turned on. Worth the time in my book!
Let’s skip my review of the fourth movie. It was only worth it if you could put it on mute and make everyone who wasn’t Dita blurry. It got turned off mighty quick.
Overall, I enjoyed my porn viewing. I was turned on and had a blast critiquing everything. I plan on going back and renting some other titles now that I have an even better eye for what “vanilla” means to me. I’m more relaxed about the idea of partner-watching it because I understand that the whole thing isn’t always hot — sometimes it’s just parts that work for you.
This article was written by Nicolette Pawlowski and Suzie Baker. Nicolette is a graduate student in EPS and a facilitator for Sex Out Loud, and Suzie is a sexual health education coordinator and wannabe homemaker. Sexual Health Week is next week, check out all of the events at Sexoutloud.com!. Comments? Questions? E-mail: humpday@badgerherald.com.
4 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
IP hash: c6814b35
Woman-centered porn with real orgasms? Hit the web. Beautiful Agony, I Feel Myself, and Abby Winters are all you need.
IP hash: 2c2445a2
This column usually has a point. Not this week, I see. How is this article in any way enlightening or informative about sex or sexuality? Yes, we know porn exists. And we’re all very excited that you got to watch some, and yes, we all see that you have REAL taste and standards when it comes to porn-enjoyment. But where’s the real issues??
How many people watch porn? Who watches porn? What kind of porn is there, and what if I only like a certain kind? Do couples watch porn together? How can porn help or hinder a relationship? What possible effects does porn-watchin’ have on one’s own development of sexual tastes and experiences?
These one or two-sentence reviews of a few pornos really piss me off, because you have just completely squandered the opportunity to stimulate meaningful thought or discussion about a topic that a TON of people deal with regularly that isn’t often thoughtfully discussed.
Plus, why the CRAP didn’t you have any DUDES do some porn reviews, as well, or someone who actually watches a substantial amount of porn? It doesn’t exactly sound like you guys have a heck of a lot of experience when it comes to the topic.
One more thing, possibly the most important: porn isn’t about critiquing. It’s about GETTING TURNED ON. I feel like this column totally misses this point.
IP hash: 2c2445a2
I’m the commenter from earlier. I am a dude, and in thinking more, I think I was pretty cavalier in my statements.
I think that this article speaks more for people who haven’t watched a whole lot of porn, or may be nervous or unsure about porn, what it is, what it means to watch it, etc. And I appreciate that it is positive, ‘cause porn is not a BAD thing.
But I just could not relate to the article at all, because the way you approach looking at pornography and the way you think about it is entirely different than the way I approach it and think about it.
This is why I do think it may have been useful, or would have identified with an even larger audience, if you had included some critiques from a dude, or from somebody who has watched a good bit of porn. Then all of us porn-familiar-peeps would have had some representation as well, and someone to commiserate with.
IP hash: 61253e5d
I agree with Suzie! The first time I saw porn I was so confused/disgusted by all the unnecessary spitting.