ErosBlog

The Sex Blog Of Record
 
 

A Survivor In The Smut Business

Saturday, May 25th, 2013 -- by Bacchus

Silent Porn Star has an exclusive interview with Irv O. Neil — a writer and editor of smut for books, magazines, movies, video, the web, and your Kindle since 1974. It looks like SPS will be doling out the interview in parts (only the first of which is up yet) but even this man’s list of all the porn jobs he’s had reads like a history of the industry. Here’s his memory of Times Square, back in the day:

Eighth Avenue near Times Square was lined with streetwalkers, some of whom were really beautiful and sexy – amazing blondes in hot pants and platform shoes. I was smitten. Strip clubs, inexpensive massage parlors, hookers and dominatrixes advertising in Screw, porn movie theaters with live shows. The Melody Burlesque with the porn stars as feature dancers and where girls danced naked in your lap for a dollar – and with its infamous “Mardi Gras,” where customers lined up to eat out the dancers at a buck a lick…

 

Why Steve Writes Smut

Friday, January 25th, 2013 -- by Bacchus

I do not write smut. Instead, I write about smut — a subtle but very real distinction. Still, like everybody who does not write a particular thing but who sees a lot of it and fancies themselves an educated consumer of it, I flatter myself that I could write that stuff, and maybe I even might do it one day soon, who knows? (Breath: never hold it in this situation, you will turn blue. Pro tip.)

Still, I thought Steve Almond’s Why I Write Smut: A Manifesto sounded relevant to my interests. And sure enough, it’s a fast and worthy read. My personal favorite of his fifteen reasons is #7:

Because President Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky did have sexual relations, and while I could care less about the big phony scandal that story became, I am interested in the sweet and deranged version of love that passed between them. Aren’t you?

On the other hand, I wish I could change Steve Almond’s mind about #13 by challenging all his wrong-headed assumptions about pornography that are buried in this densely misguided paragraph:

Because, though I watch pornography, and am terrifically involved with it for about two and a half minutes, I am most often made sad by pornography. Not simply because it involves the self-exploitation of people who probably have suffered a good deal of misfortune, and not simply because porn stars can perform in manners that often seem like physiological, geometrical, and even gravitational impossibilities (and thus make me feel like the abject sexual nebbish I surely am) but because porn stars are actors being paid, most often, to simulate pleasure. They drain sex of its single most intimate aspect: the vulnerabilities that bring us to the act in the first place, the drama of our imperfect bodies as we seek to make a communion of our desires.

But I can’t change his mind — and it would take a whole long ranty blog post just to try — so I’ll content myself with observing that accusing porn stars of “self-exploitation” is condescending and dismissive of their agency, which is not something that nice people do, even in the privacy of their own heads and sure as hell not out loud as part of an otherwise-intriguing literary manifesto.

Similar Sex Blogging:

 

My Erotica, Your Smut

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 -- by Dr. Faustus

I realize that on any number of occasions Bacchus has expressed skepticism about the validity of the distinction between “porn” and “art”. Perhaps such skepticism is well founded. But in the spirit of friendly controversy, I shall offer an explanation of the distinction.

Bertrand Russell once introduced the concept of “emotive conjugations,” meaning that the words we use are determined by the person of the speaker. His example was as follows:

I am firm.
You are stubborn.
He is pig-headed.

The concept transfer nicely into the porn-versus-art debate, to wit:

I enjoy the erotic arts.
You get off on porn.
He is addicted to horrible smut.

Though perhaps the distinction doesn’t apply to absolutely everyone. Cue the classic Tom Lehrer song!

 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
 
cupid