May 29th, 2008
|06:43 pm - Sex and selling|
I was watching an entirely junk piece of telly recently. In it, a young teenage girl had to make the difficult intellectual decision whether to go into glamour modelling or not. Oh, and while we're at it, there's a euphenism for you. Because lying spread-eagled and icy-nipped in an improbable position so men can get their jollies off to it at a later date - why yes, certainly my definition of glamorous.
Anyway, the most interesting part of the documentary was at the end. The girl hadn't seem to grasped that once she stepped into the world of 'glamour' modelling she could never go back to the 'commercial' modelling she'd already been doing. And she'd been a pretty successful child model so far, buying herself a horse, a car, clothes, and lots else. She naturally assumed, as many others would, that doing the topless shoots, going that step further and selling out would bring even more money. But nuh huh. As the glamour models she talked to told her, there wasn't much chance of her making a living at it out of the many trying to do so. After all, there's thousands of girls on the net who'll take their clothes off for nothing. So how are you going to compete with that? The key, they told her, in being successful, was not in baring all but in keeping herself exclusive.
I find these same kind of assumptions when I tell people about my writing. "What do you write about?" they say. "Well," I say, wondering how to put it, how much they can take. "There's a lot of sex in it..." And sooner or later they're telling me I should try to sell my stories. That sex sells, and there must surely be a market. They wonder why I'm sounding so reluctant.
I'm not quite sure either. Perhaps because I din't include the sex in my stories so that I could sell it. That sexual exchange was not a commodity. I meant it as a gift.
October 27th, 2007
|04:05 am - Seduced: Art and sex from antiquity to now|
I just got the catalogue from Seduced: Art and sex from antiquity to now, an exhibition at the Barbican at London.
'The bravest and most intelligent exhibition of the year’ – The Guardian
The focus of the exhibition is the depiction of the sexual act. At first I thought there were some strange omissions, until I realised that erotic nudity, representations of fertility, art about pornography or explorations of gender - art about any of these didn't qualify to be included. So it's an unusual mixture.
I scanned in a few of my favourite pictures. Of course, most of them are much too explicit for photobucket, so I've doctored a few images to blot out genitals etc, because they were too much fun not to post.
( Enjoy! )
Current Mood: mischievous
October 26th, 2007
|09:56 am - 35 Euphenisms for female parts|
I was looking forward to the BBC adaptation of Fanny Hill, because that book was the first pornographic literature I ever read and I have fond memories of it.
So far, I'm a bit disappointed. They took out the sex and put in plot. Damn.
So, instead have 35 of the many terms that Cleland used in his novel for the female downstairs parts. Some of them are rather wonderful. ( Pleasure-thirsty channel, anyone? )
We pornsters often bemoan that the average thesaurus deserts us just when we need it the most. Even pir8fancier had to ask her flist recently for the correct punctuation of blow job - those kinds of terms are just not in the dictionary. Why isn't there a dictionary/thesaurus for erotic writers? It would be so handy. It's not like there's not a lot of us about, or that erotic writing is a new invention.
Ah well. I'm not online so much at the minute. The new series of The Mighty Boosh is due in a few weeks, and I'm busy trying to get my Boosh fanfic done before canon nails it on the head. Back I go to write.
Current Mood: busy
October 16th, 2007
I wanted to write today, but my brain is not cooperating yet.
THEREFORE: CAT MACRO SPAM: THE ONE WITH THE (mild) SEX
( Some rude words but no rude images )