In respons to this week’s Wise Guys installment by Angelo, Johnny and Chris about the appeal of the facial, fellow Wise Guys FigleafÂ and MarkÂ wanted a piece of the action. Apparently, this is THE week to talk about money shots:
Iâ€™m not even stepping into the whole â€śfacialâ€ť business. Iâ€™ll just point out Charlie Glickmanâ€™s thoughts from a post that arrived in my newsreader moments before this one:
Instead Iâ€™ll just say I think the â€śmoney shotâ€ť is a seriously stupid dual artifact of porn. First, in the production of porn itâ€™s just way more convenient to towel semen off skin than out of bodily orifices and therefore itâ€™s more cost effective. This is why, at least early on, it was the low-budget porn shops that did money shots rather than the well-heeled ones. Second, for decades, anyway, porn was primarily an aid for male masturbation and so, I think, money shots are a way to help watchers identify with male actors.
I really think the masturbation element is key. Yes, youâ€™ll occasionally see menâ€™s parters â€śfinishingâ€ť them off, but for the vast, vast, vast majority of cases the man essentially stops interacting physically with his partner, steps back a ways, and basically jacks off.
Again, fine if youâ€™re at home alone. But seems to me sort of the whole point of sexÂ with a partnerÂ is to have sexÂ withÂ themâ€¦ not justÂ onthem.
Now, that said, donâ€™t get me wrong. If youâ€™re both into it (and increasing numbers of both men and women seem to be) and itâ€™s all good clean fun forÂ bothÂ of you then great. Lots of great things about â€śsexâ€ť donâ€™t actually involve sex.
Also, that said, another name for â€śmoney shotsâ€ť is â€śthe withdrawal method.â€ť And while nothing in life is certain, when ejaculation occurs outside a partnerâ€™s body it at best reduces the odds of pregnancy and STI transmission and even at worst it evens them out between the semen donor and semen receiver. So thatâ€™s ok too.
But at the end of the day, for me, the physical pleasure reduction of orgasm via masturbation rather thanÂ withÂ a partner isnâ€™t worth whatever symbolic enjoyment it seems to bring other people.
So, again for me, thanks but no thanks.
Wise Guys must think alike â€” fellow WG figleaf, you stole my thunder! I, too, have Glickmanâ€™s blog in my feed, saw the coincident timing in yesterdayâ€™s post, and planned to link not only to it but to the first article he links to, â€śHe Wants to Jizz on Your Face, but Not Why You Thinkâ€ť:Â http://jezebel.com/5875217/Â â€” totally, uh, topical.Â