February 8, 2008...7:07 pm

Gay Men Win at Dirty Pretty Pictures. *AGAIN*

Jump to Comments

beautiful_dylan_rosser111.jpg

20 Comments

Filed under bdsm, making porn out of coconuts

20 Comments

  • Thorny
    February 8, 2008 at 8:52 pm

    Yep. And a very nice example too. Do you like the Van Darkholm stuff? Have a look. Vuuurry Puurrdy.

    It never ceases to piss me off that all the best eyecandy I’ve found so far (apart from that I make myself that is) …has ALL been gay…pff
    I mean chrissakes. It’s heartbreaking. You’re right Beej. Femdom is totally fucked.

    Thanks for the picture….x

  • bitchyjones
    February 8, 2008 at 8:55 pm

    Do you mean do I have the Van Darkholm book, Male Bondage? Well the answer would be yes. Of course.

    I have all the photobooks of male bondage… which would total, uh, just that one.

  • The Girl
    February 8, 2008 at 9:01 pm

    Fuck me, that is sexy. Christ.

    And to Thorny: it ain’t just femdom that is fucked. I’m not dominant but I want hot naked dirty men in my pictures too; methinks *porn* is fucked. ;)

  • ladypandora
    February 8, 2008 at 9:41 pm

    Woah…girl!

    Sorry, had to rein myself in, there.

    Very emphatic picture there Bitchy…He’s so dirrrrty I feel I just want to give him a good scrubbing.

  • Thene
    February 8, 2008 at 11:09 pm

    Damn, I want one of those.

  • Loli B
    February 9, 2008 at 4:50 am

    Daaaaaaaaaaamn. -Love- a guy in chains and USED motor oil/engine grease. Too bad I never find them and it’s usually me instead.

    You know, I just watched a movie about how crystal meth was invading the gay community here in the US and damn if it didn’t have plenty of eye candy and the beefcake boys. BUT ALL GAY. >_<

    Ah well. Suppose this is why I keep the gay male friends around.. means I get access to all that.

  • Emily
    February 9, 2008 at 10:19 am

    To some extent gay porn is all women have because it’s focusing on the men as objects of sexual desire. I think this is where people who try to make porn for women and claim they’re shooting it from the womens perspective go wrong, they’re still focused on the women when what we want to see are the men.

    As far as making porn out of coconuts goes I have a Secret Project(tm) later this summer which should be interesting to you if it works out. I’m using a rather good gay photographer who’s a friend of mine. It seemed safer, at least he knows how to make men the center of the shot.

  • Violet
    February 9, 2008 at 11:00 am

    Have you seen this year’s Dieux du Stade calendar? The theme is “Enchainé au ballon”. The cover pic has a guy with chains around his wrists going down to a rugby ball, the first pic of the year (my second favourite so far) has a guy holding ankle manacles behind his back…

    There’s a slideshow with some of them here: http://espresso.repubblica.it/style_design/archivio/1139829
    Some more here: http://weloveguys.blogspot.com/2007/09/dieux-du-stade-2008.html

    I have it up in my kitchen. My husband keeps on making remarks about how he doesn’t get it. This from the guy who made me live with a poster in the bedroom of Helena Christensen naked for about four years until I got sick of her watching me undress and took her down…

  • Thorny
    February 9, 2008 at 11:13 am

    Yes I thought you might have that book, I was hoping you’d say you had some others…dammit… thought I was just too slack in finding anymore. God thats depressing.

    And Girl? Yeah…you’re absolutely right. This isn’t just a femdom fiasco. *Porn* for women in general is an abomination . Makes me weep it does. (Respect by the way)

    But where exactly are all the talented female photographers? And more to the point…as Emily so rightly points out….why arent any of them focussing on males as sexual objects?
    I wonder if its the case that some have tried but found that it has little commercial value.
    Would we put our hands in our pockets for ‘good’ porn? I wonder.

    Maybe we ought to start our own porn site? If we could be arsed….lol

    Certainly love to see the results of your project Emily, if you feel like sharing ;-)

  • The Girl
    February 9, 2008 at 11:19 am

    @ Emily and @ Thorny - I would *empty* my pockets for some *decent* heterosexual porn that focussed on the men in the frame, rather than women. Where do I sign up to hand over my quality British Pounds? ;)

  • Coralina
    February 9, 2008 at 3:39 pm

    WOW!

    Girl’s right: porn for straight women hardly understands we like men and we want to drool at pics of hot men in sexy poses or making things that look sexy and virile!

  • seraglioletters
    February 9, 2008 at 4:37 pm

    This is so so true. I don’t want pictures of men and women making sweet, sweet luuurrv . . . I want raw maleness in front of the camera for my eyes to devour. Bring on da grease, bring on da funk. (Also: bring on someone to restrain me from writing comments on 3 hrs. sleep, pls.)

  • maymay
    February 9, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Men in “straight” porn don’t look like this because no one who’s straight could possibly be interested in looking at men, right…?

  • Innocent Loverboy
    February 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Surely girls who watch straight porn could be interested in men…

  • Thorny
    February 10, 2008 at 3:55 pm

    Surely. So why is it that the straight porn usually focusses on the women in the action? And whats all the girl on girl bollocks about? Straight porn is aimed at tweaking the male libido, not the female.

    Why dont we see the same proportion of boy on boy action depicted in a ’straight environment? Hmm?

  • Emily
    February 10, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    Thorny and The Girl, yes the results will certainly be shared by me and the photographer. Do feel free to email me for further details at harlequin@gmail.com or buisness propositions, I think we can make this thing work!

  • MsSnS
    February 10, 2008 at 9:50 pm

    I don’t really care what the label is, whether the product is for straight or gay. I’ve bought the gay erotica books and been given the gay porn (there’s plenty of that that’s goofy and not sexy too) and that works out just fine. I can see the point of “porn for women” and labeling it straight, but really, as long as it’s out there in some venue, does it really matter? Half the time I don’t care to see other women in the shots because it takes away from that masculinity I wanted to see in the first place. So, I’m glad gay men are good at making other men look like dirty, beautiful fuck toys. Sure, it’d be nice if more female photographers did the same but until that happens, the guys are doing a damned fine job as it is.

  • bitchyjones
    February 10, 2008 at 10:31 pm

    Yes. It matters. It is not okay to mark any image of a sexualised man as gay porn. It assumes all potential viewers of porn are men.

    Also a lot of straight women want to see het sex. I do. I like a bit of guy/guy sometimes and I love to watch guys masturbating but I really like to see het fucking. Yes, porny women are not fun to see - but women I can identify with in my porn? - yes please.

    Every woman who likes looking at naked men knows to type gay porn into Google. Isn’t it ridiculous that this is what women need to do to see decent pictures of men?

  • MsSnS
    February 11, 2008 at 2:49 am

    Of course it’s ridiculous.

  • ladypandora
    February 12, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    Completely with Thorny on the porn issue here.

    I have a loathing for the whole fiasco, something ILB knows about!! It just really is annoying if I am trying to find some ‘quality’ (term used loosely) pornography that doesn’t have a habit of drifting to a close up of a straining face of the lady or an extreme close up of pistoning sexual parts - that is not sexy at all in my opinion. More like an anotomical exhibition than something for your sexual frivoloities.

    Het porn, I think not. It’s got the guys only in mind, not me.

Leave a Reply