This is a post about the real and the not real. Like in The Garden of Eden. Like in The Canterbury Tales. Like in film. Like in art. Like in pornography. And this is a post about the human psychology that determines what is real and not real.
From art history:
The "Ill-Matched Couple," Lucas Cranach the Elder.
The "Unequal Marriage," it is sometimes called. An "arranged" marriage, it is sometimes called.
"Transactional sex," it is not called. Or was not then. If you sell yourself (or are sold by your parents) for sex for LIFE that is an arranged marriage. If you sell yourself (or are sold) for sex temporarily that is transactional sex, sometimes called "prostitution."
"Ill Matched Lovers," Quentin Massys. Transactional sex. The subjects would never be attracted to one another in real life much less have sex. The young, beautiful woman does it only for money.
"The Reluctant Bride."
If you don't want to do it, even if you really do not want to do it but you do it, you do it for money, you do it because other people want you to do it, you are "The Reluctant Bride." You are not forced to do it! So, it's not rape. You're not being sold into sexual slavery because...I don't know why. The element of free will is missing to a greater or a lesser extent in all of those circumstances. Free will, "reluctance," is overcome by money or some other external source. If you marry, even an ill-matched mate, even if you marry for money or from some degree of coercion, if you do it however reluctantly we in the West from time immemorial do not consider marriage in any circumstances to be rape or prostitution or coerced in any way, or bartered sex, or, or, or. It is marriage. It used to be that a man could remove the stain of rape against him by agreeing to marry the woman.
It gets weirder still. In Victorian times a wife was expected to submit but not enjoy. "Lie still and think of England." You were a receptacle. If you liked sex you were not...pure or a “real” woman or something. That is not different from traditional porn. "Thou shalt not kiss," you don't get an orgasm, you just lie there and do your best imitation of a toilet.
You see ill-matched couples frequently in contemporary porn. A beautiful young woman and, in many cases, a repulsive man.
This is a well-matched couple in looks. "The Procuress." The figure at right pointing to her palm, a universal gesture demanding money, is a woman. The young woman being pimped is playing a lute, a popular trope for sex because of its seductive sound. (It looks like the young woman would do it for free with this guy and the old procuress sees that and steps in to bring the girl back to "reality.")
Titled "Shower of Gold." Doing a nude scene only for money. Not in "reality."
Looking at the artist while holding open the door to the fireplace she is telling us that the young man has won her in the courtship.
Cuckoldry, Wittoling.
"Woman Between Two Ages."
She is looking at the painter, at the cameraman today. She is posing, acting, it is not "real." She is offering a pair of eyeglasses to her older husband, her left index finger and thumb forming the "okay" gesture. She is inviting her husband to watch only, not to participate, to acknowledge himself as a wittol. Her right hand also makes the "okay" gesture, a small hole, and her younger lover's finger penetrates it. The young handsome cavalier gets her pussy, not her "old dotard" husband. Her husband's cloak is clearly exaggerated to make a "wizard's sleeve" signifying then and now a vagina distended with use.
She is offering her vagina. That shawl is vagina shaped. It is in her lap. Another instance of the "wizard's sleeve."
Eyeglasses or other tools of ocular enhancement, opera glasses, mirrors, are not uncommon in art history.
Women like to watch themselves. Who doesn't?
She probably is at the opera. Is there voyeuristic innuendo nonetheless? The glasses are intentional by the artist. She is watching, not looking at the painter. Does she like to watch?
These women clearly do.
In modern porn the woman very frequently ignores the man, even during sex, to look into the camera. In both modern porn and in art history, when the woman doesn't look at the man she is not engaged, she is role playing as actress, just as a wife or prostitute role plays as a sexual outlet. In each instance the woman is not really there.
"Vecellio," by Titian. "Okay, ACTION! Now rub one out." Female masturbation for an audience. Like webcam porn below. She looks at the painter, it is not candid, it is posed. The cherub draws back the curtain for the voyeur.
Hell, that's the same woman in the same pose.
We should put this in the category of "masturbatory orgasm." Subtle, no? (Obviously not an Englishwoman.)
Dueling orgasms.
Female exhibitionist, abashed. Surprised male.
Creepshot!...If a creepshot is posed, is it a "real" creepshot?
Or is it a matter of how good the acting is?
In art history when a husband deliberately exposes his wife to the gaze of another man it is called depicting the legend of King Candaules.
In modern porn when a husband photographs his wife nude for dissemination on the internet it is called candaulism.
What if you don't want your wife exposed...but you really do?
"The Pack Saddle." The artist paints himself painting the seal of chastity on the vagina of his wife. To prevent the A-word in bold at upper right.
A different artist fastening a chastity belt onto his wife.
In both art history and in modern porn the woman is frequently as much a voyeur as the painter, cameraman, audience. In porn, sometimes the woman laughs as the man fucks her! In hyper "realistic" webcam porn the couple, male and female each, both amateurs, frequently ignore each other. They look at their feed to see the reactions of their audience members, frequently pausing to say "Thank you!" when a member gives them money! Transactional sex. They are acting; to that extent the sex is not real, they do it only for the money. It's acting, it's a job or you do it for your job (the last only very discreetly).
Psychologically, isn't that the point of, e.g. masquerade balls, Mardi Gras? You can hide behind a mask and go naked in public or engage in orgiastic sex. You can do things you would never really do.
So how about if you adopt a porn name, a pseudonym? That was not really me, Benjamin Harris, acting in that gay porn flick, that was "Franklin Post." Pause: Would that not a great porn name? Unpause. That was not really Ernest Hemingway getting buggered by his wife in Garden, that was "David Bourne." Even if the fig leaf is transparent it works for real people psychologically. It distances them from what they did.
If we put many of the above factors together we are redundantly layering over reality with plausible deniability. A woman self-denominated Myriam Flamingo engages in bondage sex with a man unknown to her on film for which she is paid while wearing a wig after smoking some weed. Presto, change-o, she's a modern day porn actress! That is not so different from the women in art history.
From art history:
The "Ill-Matched Couple," Lucas Cranach the Elder.
The "Unequal Marriage," it is sometimes called. An "arranged" marriage, it is sometimes called.
"Transactional sex," it is not called. Or was not then. If you sell yourself (or are sold by your parents) for sex for LIFE that is an arranged marriage. If you sell yourself (or are sold) for sex temporarily that is transactional sex, sometimes called "prostitution."
"Ill Matched Lovers," Quentin Massys. Transactional sex. The subjects would never be attracted to one another in real life much less have sex. The young, beautiful woman does it only for money.
"The Reluctant Bride."
If you don't want to do it, even if you really do not want to do it but you do it, you do it for money, you do it because other people want you to do it, you are "The Reluctant Bride." You are not forced to do it! So, it's not rape. You're not being sold into sexual slavery because...I don't know why. The element of free will is missing to a greater or a lesser extent in all of those circumstances. Free will, "reluctance," is overcome by money or some other external source. If you marry, even an ill-matched mate, even if you marry for money or from some degree of coercion, if you do it however reluctantly we in the West from time immemorial do not consider marriage in any circumstances to be rape or prostitution or coerced in any way, or bartered sex, or, or, or. It is marriage. It used to be that a man could remove the stain of rape against him by agreeing to marry the woman.
It gets weirder still. In Victorian times a wife was expected to submit but not enjoy. "Lie still and think of England." You were a receptacle. If you liked sex you were not...pure or a “real” woman or something. That is not different from traditional porn. "Thou shalt not kiss," you don't get an orgasm, you just lie there and do your best imitation of a toilet.
You see ill-matched couples frequently in contemporary porn. A beautiful young woman and, in many cases, a repulsive man.
This is a well-matched couple in looks. "The Procuress." The figure at right pointing to her palm, a universal gesture demanding money, is a woman. The young woman being pimped is playing a lute, a popular trope for sex because of its seductive sound. (It looks like the young woman would do it for free with this guy and the old procuress sees that and steps in to bring the girl back to "reality.")
Titled "Shower of Gold." Doing a nude scene only for money. Not in "reality."
Looking at the artist while holding open the door to the fireplace she is telling us that the young man has won her in the courtship.
Cuckoldry, Wittoling.
"Woman Between Two Ages."
She is looking at the painter, at the cameraman today. She is posing, acting, it is not "real." She is offering a pair of eyeglasses to her older husband, her left index finger and thumb forming the "okay" gesture. She is inviting her husband to watch only, not to participate, to acknowledge himself as a wittol. Her right hand also makes the "okay" gesture, a small hole, and her younger lover's finger penetrates it. The young handsome cavalier gets her pussy, not her "old dotard" husband. Her husband's cloak is clearly exaggerated to make a "wizard's sleeve" signifying then and now a vagina distended with use.
She is offering her vagina. That shawl is vagina shaped. It is in her lap. Another instance of the "wizard's sleeve."
Eyeglasses or other tools of ocular enhancement, opera glasses, mirrors, are not uncommon in art history.
Women like to watch themselves. Who doesn't?
She probably is at the opera. Is there voyeuristic innuendo nonetheless? The glasses are intentional by the artist. She is watching, not looking at the painter. Does she like to watch?
These women clearly do.
In modern porn the woman very frequently ignores the man, even during sex, to look into the camera. In both modern porn and in art history, when the woman doesn't look at the man she is not engaged, she is role playing as actress, just as a wife or prostitute role plays as a sexual outlet. In each instance the woman is not really there.
"Vecellio," by Titian. "Okay, ACTION! Now rub one out." Female masturbation for an audience. Like webcam porn below. She looks at the painter, it is not candid, it is posed. The cherub draws back the curtain for the voyeur.
Hell, that's the same woman in the same pose.
We should put this in the category of "masturbatory orgasm." Subtle, no? (Obviously not an Englishwoman.)
Dueling orgasms.
Female exhibitionist, abashed. Surprised male.
Creepshot!...If a creepshot is posed, is it a "real" creepshot?
Or is it a matter of how good the acting is?
In art history when a husband deliberately exposes his wife to the gaze of another man it is called depicting the legend of King Candaules.
In modern porn when a husband photographs his wife nude for dissemination on the internet it is called candaulism.
What if you don't want your wife exposed...but you really do?
"The Pack Saddle." The artist paints himself painting the seal of chastity on the vagina of his wife. To prevent the A-word in bold at upper right.
A different artist fastening a chastity belt onto his wife.
In both art history and in modern porn the woman is frequently as much a voyeur as the painter, cameraman, audience. In porn, sometimes the woman laughs as the man fucks her! In hyper "realistic" webcam porn the couple, male and female each, both amateurs, frequently ignore each other. They look at their feed to see the reactions of their audience members, frequently pausing to say "Thank you!" when a member gives them money! Transactional sex. They are acting; to that extent the sex is not real, they do it only for the money. It's acting, it's a job or you do it for your job (the last only very discreetly).
Today when a man or a woman commits adultery he or she will often excuse it with "exceptions." It's not sex if...
It's oral.
-"Eatin' ain't cheatin"
-"It was only a blowjob."
-"It was only a blowjob."
If you can't get pregnant by it.
-It's anal, not vaginal. (!)
It's done with a member of the same gender. Two women, less commonly, two men, having sex, that's not cheating, that's...?
It's out of town. "Out of town rules apply."
You got drunk or did drugs.
Drinking or doing drugs or consensually being forced--all remove free will and hence guilt. They make the sex at a remove from the real. Thus bondage, rape fantasies, rape play.
Did, what is her name, the actress in that movie who got double penetrated...damn...Well, think of another one. Actresses who perform in "love scenes" in mainstream films are not really having sex, you see, they are...Nymphomaniac! That's the film. The woman had interracial vaginal and anal sex...She was not really having interracial double penetration sex, she was playing the character in the film, yeah, it was my pussy that was being fucked by one guy and yeah, that was my actual asshole getting fucked by the other guy at the same time but it wasn't really ME. Do you think I would ever really do that?...Don't answer that question...I was just acting, I got paid MONEY to do that scene. See?
If you write that you were buggered by your wife but you, the writer, were not buggered then you have not "really" been buggered. But if you write about it, or paint it, you have fantasized about it, you have "lusted in your heart" about it and your lust is real.
These are two pretty intimate painted portraits of aristocratic, white European women with young "Moorish," i.e. black, "servants," i.e. slaves. There is loving physical touching by the white woman. Could be maternalistic, absolutely. Absolutely.
Not here, though.
When you use a model, whose lust is it? In the above two paintings the only lust is shown by the Moorish children, not by the white aristocratic women. Interracial sex happened for real between white aristocratic women and young black slaves in Europe. (Why would that not be child rape? Because they're slaves, silly. (Also, the boys clearly want it.)) But the children are not posed, they're not going to pose, even on command, with eyes bulging at white tits or smiling, staring at white ass. The artist is painting his and his white European aristocratic clients' fantasy.
The legend of Leda and the Swan, in this painting a black swan, which is obviously fucking her.
If you write about a legend, or paint a legend, do you own the legend? If the character in the writing or the model in the painting poses with a black swan fucking her does the character own the legend?
If you write that you were buggered by your wife but you, the writer, were not buggered then you have not "really" been buggered. But if you write about it, or paint it, you have fantasized about it, you have "lusted in your heart" about it and your lust is real.
These are two pretty intimate painted portraits of aristocratic, white European women with young "Moorish," i.e. black, "servants," i.e. slaves. There is loving physical touching by the white woman. Could be maternalistic, absolutely. Absolutely.
Not here, though.
When you use a model, whose lust is it? In the above two paintings the only lust is shown by the Moorish children, not by the white aristocratic women. Interracial sex happened for real between white aristocratic women and young black slaves in Europe. (Why would that not be child rape? Because they're slaves, silly. (Also, the boys clearly want it.)) But the children are not posed, they're not going to pose, even on command, with eyes bulging at white tits or smiling, staring at white ass. The artist is painting his and his white European aristocratic clients' fantasy.
The legend of Leda and the Swan, in this painting a black swan, which is obviously fucking her.
If you write about a legend, or paint a legend, do you own the legend? If the character in the writing or the model in the painting poses with a black swan fucking her does the character own the legend?
If you wear a disguise so that your identity is not revealed, is that really you?
Psychologically, isn't that the point of, e.g. masquerade balls, Mardi Gras? You can hide behind a mask and go naked in public or engage in orgiastic sex. You can do things you would never really do.
So how about if you adopt a porn name, a pseudonym? That was not really me, Benjamin Harris, acting in that gay porn flick, that was "Franklin Post." Pause: Would that not a great porn name? Unpause. That was not really Ernest Hemingway getting buggered by his wife in Garden, that was "David Bourne." Even if the fig leaf is transparent it works for real people psychologically. It distances them from what they did.
If we put many of the above factors together we are redundantly layering over reality with plausible deniability. A woman self-denominated Myriam Flamingo engages in bondage sex with a man unknown to her on film for which she is paid while wearing a wig after smoking some weed. Presto, change-o, she's a modern day porn actress! That is not so different from the women in art history.
