Figleaf
January 17th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
I’m not even stepping into the whole “facial” business. I’ll just point out Charlie Glickman’s thoughts from a post that arrived in my newsreader moments before this one:
http://www.charlieglickman.com/2012/01/where-does-validation-come-from/.
Instead I’ll just say I think the “money shot” is a seriously stupid dual artifact of porn. First, in the production of porn it’s just way more convenient to towel semen off skin than out of bodily orifices and therefore it’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, you’ll occasionally see men’s parters “finishing” 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 you’re at home alone. But seems to me sort of the whole point of sex with a partner is to have sex with them… not just onthem.
Now, that said, don’t get me wrong. If you’re both into it (and increasing numbers of both men and women seem to be) and it’s all good clean fun for both of you then great. Lots of great things about “sex” don’t actually involve sex.
Also, that said, another name for “money shots” is “the withdrawal method.” And while nothing in life is certain, when ejaculation occurs outside a partner’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 that’s ok too.
But at the end of the day, for me, the physical pleasure reduction of orgasm via masturbation rather than with a partner isn’t worth whatever symbolic enjoyment it seems to bring other people.
So, again for me, thanks but no thanks.
Mark
January 18th, 2012 at 9:41 am
Wise Guys must think alike — fellow WG figleaf, you stole my thunder! I, too, have Glickman’s blog in my feed, saw the coincident timing in yesterday’s post, and planned to link not only to it but to the first article he links to, “He Wants to Jizz on Your Face, but Not Why You Think”: http://jezebel.com/5875217/ — totally, uh, topical. 
In respons to this week’s Wise Guys installment by Angelo, Johnny and Chris about the appeal of the facial, fellow Wise Guys Figleaf and Mark wanted a piece of the action. Apparently, this is THE week to talk about money shots:
More books by Em&Lo »