A Tender Moment

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

A Touching Moment

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Why Mainstream Media Never Gets Sex Scenes Right

Closeup from Madison's ride that hopefully won't get Google cranked up, unlike the gif just below that this image is from.

This is porn. You'll be tested on this later! This is bondage porn, not vanilla porn, which is also covered in this post. You can if you like imagine that Madison Scott's wrists are not tied to her ankles and she isn't ballgagged. If that's what works for you.

Source: Kink.com video 9799, "Taboo Teaching" featuring Madison Scott and Mark Davis.

If you watch mainstream media that deals with sex, porn and the sex industry you will soon conclude that sex is a Very Bad Thing that is Definitely NO Fun that no sane person would participate in. 

Now if you are a healthy, sane, normal adult human being who has actually had sex, your experience of sex was probably that it felt WONDERFUL, maybe the best feeling EVER. Pure pleasure, the very apotheosis if you will, of pleasure. So why does mainstream media always portray it as a bad experience? There are several reasons.

This is Holly Hunter tied to a bed in an upper spreadeagle, stark naked from the TNT television series "Saving Grace." It's one of the, if not the, raunchiest bondage images I've ever seen on broadcast cable TV. Hunter is seen like this for ten or fifteen minutes of the show. (Which is also very rare, most of the time when mainstream media shows partial nudity, it's only for a brief second or two.) It's the old "got tied up for consensual sex and then the partner leaves them tied up" scenario. Natually she's tied face down. This is BY FAR one of the raunchest mainstream media sexual images. Most are far tamer and far shorter. 

1) Mainstream media is CENSORED and CANNOT portray sex accurately. They cannot show naked human beings having sex with their genitals. While there are all sorts of reasons for censoring explicit sexual imagery, some more valid than others, the undeniable fact is that censorship prevents viewers from seeing how sex is done, preventing viewers from assessing it. 

It's actually a moot point: everyone who can have an orgasm knows what orgasms feel like, and everyone who has had sex with someone else knows what sexual intercourse feels like. Pictures of people having sex won't change their opinions either way. But if you cut out the explicit parts, you don't really show why people enjoy sex so much. The effect is that happy sexual relationships are portrayed most often without sexual imagery. It's just the nature of the beast.

A scene from "Spartacus: Gods of the Arena" shows a slavegirl being raped by Baritatus, in a television series that aired on the Starz premium channel. She's naked and collared. One of the advantages of slave girls in sex scenes is that the drama is already present: she is a slave, she has no choice about the sex, it's rape by nature. So any sex scene involving a slave is dramatic by nature, even if all that happens is apparently consensual sex.

2) Most movies (and TV shows) generally involve some conflict or other. The dramatic elements often show up in the sex scenes and generally makes them unhappy in one way or another. It's not a matter of intentionally trying to make sex look worse than it is, but overall, it has that effect. This tends to be more the case with movies and TV shows where sex is central to the plot. A movie or show about people who have a wonderful relationship with lots of happy and fulfilling sex and that's about it would be derided as porn. (It's the same reason science fiction movies and TV shows tend to be about dystopias instead of utopias. Utopias where everyone is happy and living their best lives don't tend to produce drama.) Hence, sexual relastionships that make people unhappy tend to be far more common in mainstream media than they are in real life. Once again, it's the nature of the beast, not the result of intentional censorship.

Many speculate that "Game of Thrones" would be classified as porn under Mike Lee's proposed censorship bill. Here's Emilia Clarke and Jason Momoa porning things up. Of course, most of the scenes in Game of Thrones do not involve sex and/or nudity, but censors are a VERY inclusive bunch when it comes to defining porn. 

3) Culture War Issues. Sex in media is not the cental issue of the culture wars, but it is an issue. And for the people who want to censor, it is a central issue, an issue for which they have great passion. I would not be surprised to learn that some portion, maybe a very large portion, of the people who are the most strident about censorship, like that stupid little weasel Mike Lee (Senator from Utah, Crazy) have a fetish for preventing other people from having orgasms on their own terms. He has recently proposed legislation to censor all porn, basically, all images of naked men and women, having sex of otherwise. He does this kind of shit regularly, one might also say, compulsively, without success. But the bill he's put forth is straight out of the Project 2025 playbook, so things might go differently this time. I hope not. 

My point is that if you haven't heard much about this it's not surprising. The general public isn't at all interested in censoring sexy stuff right now, they're a LOT more concerned with not being rendered homeless or unemployed by the economic antics of the current dementia-addled semi-octogenerian in chief. As they should be. But these censorship crazies never stop, because they're compelled to attempt censorship for their own freaky reasons.

Religion rears its ugly head, along with sex. NOW we're getting kinky! Image source: kink.com video 22717, "The Sins of Sister Summers" starring Angell Summers.

3) The Religion Grift. But there's more to it than weird sexual obsession with other people's orgasms. There are also cultural forces at work for censorship in America, primarily religious in nature. Catholics in league with Protestant evangelicals were responsible for the Hayes censorship era that hamstrung movies and TV shows for decades, and they still form the bulk of the cultural pressure for censorship, now with extra added Mormons as well. (Mike Lee is a Mormon, and they are censorious bunch.)

Mormons are also avid consumers of porn, like many evangelicals and Catholics. Three different religions, but they have censoriousness in common. And they all claim that they're doing it for good of others, most especially for (let's say it all together now!) "the chilllldreeeen."

This is, of course, bullshit. Not because many religious types aren't actually concerned with preventing children from being exposed to explicit sexual images, I'm sure many are, especially among the base. It's bullshit because the censorship never stops with the children, most especially if it's unopposed. Protecting the children is a wedge issue. If censorship succeeds "for the children" the goalposts are immediately moved to protecting the adults.

Religions want to censor sexual materials because most of them, at one time or another, were in a position to control the sexuality of their followers. In the case of Catholics and Protestants, you had to go through the church to get married, and that gave the church a powerful gripping hand on the libidos of young men. Especially since the church and the families REALLY pushed chastity on girls and women.

Now there were good practical reasons for this. From the Bronze Age to medieval times, a woman who had a child without having a mate was in for a hard time, in most societies.  And safe, effective birth control did not exist. So chastity was important for young women, because men wanted to be sure that the children they were providing for were in fact their own children. At the same time, a man who could impregnate a woman without having to help care for her and her children is a reproductive winner. More offspring, no costs. Which is why the general culture tends to make chastity much less important for men.

Nuns have always been a bit problematical in the Catholic faith: shouldn't they be out there having babies to further God's glory?

Image source: "Filth and Sin" kink.com video 34016 featuring Ana Foxxx and Chanel Preston.

A religion that pushes chastity on young women is therefore a good thing from the viewpoint of the parents who want their daughtrs to succeed in Bronze Age and medieval societies. It's also a good thing for the state. The state's rulerse generally wants their population to increase so they'll have more agricultural workers and soldiers to make them more wealthy and powerful. They also want their population healthy, because you get more work ($$) out of healthy subjects. They also want their population to be kinda dumb and very prone to be submissive to authority. All things the Catholics, Protestant evangelicals and the Mormons are big on. (Mormons are a bit late to the party compared to the other two religions, but they do share those traits.)

All of the religions cited are against porn, but their opposition to porn is just an effect of their desire to control the sexuality of the men and women in their charge. They want to prevent young people from getting sexually aroused and doing sexual things that the church authorities can't control. Curtailing access to porn is just a means to that end. It made sense in a time with no safe, effective birth control and harsh Bronze Age morals about women who had sex outside of marriage (thanks in large part to the church).

 The state finds the religious focus on celibacy outside marriage very useful, since it keeps the population growing and ensures that the men who become soldiers will be healthy, ignorant and conditioned to responding unthinkingly to authority. These are grifts that have been around for so long that they are not recognized as grifts. Now THAT'S a successful grift!

 With the advent of safe, reliable birth control, however, the problem of out of wedlock childbirths is greatly reduced. Not entirely eliminated, of course, because not all young women or men have sense enough to use contraception. Plus, these religions are fighting with all their might against contraception and abortion, creating all sorts of horrifying medical stories about women who need abortion for medical reasons and can't get them in red states. The religions claim that their reason is that all life is sacred to them, even as yet unborn life.

But their real reason for fighting abortion are revealed by the fact that these religions are fighting against women's access to contraception, all forms of contraception. No pill, no IUD, no condoms, no nothing. The religious justification of this is that whether or not a woman gets pregnant as a result of having sex is, and should be, a function of God's will. But the real reason is that the religious leaders want to be the ones whose will is enforced, and their will is always that the women in their charge should be pregnant at every opportunity, which creates more followers. That's all there is to it. Every religion wants more followers because that means more money and power for the leaders. All their religious claims are simple grift. (They're against porn for the same reason: men who are masturbating to porn are not impregnating women. It is possible to do both, as I personally can attest, but that's not a major consideration for religious censors.) 

When the state gets involved, autonomy about sexual choices vanishes.

Image source: Kristy Lynn and James Deen in kink.com shoot 21250, "Bribing an Officer."

4) The State Grift -- The state generally has the same goals as the religions with regard to their population: they want more citizens for more money and more power. They also want their citizens conditioned to obey authority unthinkingly and conditioned to create lots of new citizens. Catholics, Protestant evangelicals and Mormons all deliver on these demands, so the state and religions generally are tight with one another on sexual issues.

If you don't believe that the state and the major religions are in line on sexual issues, just look at the current makeup of the Supreme Court: six out of the nine current Supreme Court justices are conservative Catholics in a nation with a population that is only 20 percent Catholic. The justices were hand-picked by conservative legislators to take down Roe v. Wade, and they did it.

I should add that conservative politicians are the ones who work most substantially for religions. The left has been much less cooperative, as many Americans are either not religious at all, or are not deeply religious. They tend to vote more liberal, though they can be censorious over some issues, rarely sexual issues however. I might add that there are many Catholics who are not deeply religious often cross Catholic teachings on sexual issues, particularly contraception.

Fortunately there are forces opposing these forces. Big, powerful forces, too. 

"Look, I'm worried about keeping my family housed and fed. I could give a rat's ass about someone watching this, OK?"

From kink.com video 36433, "Fear Play: Cherie DeVille's Roleplay Fantasy" featuring Cherie Deville and Tommy Pistol.

1) Bigger Issues To Deal With -- As mentioned before people have much bigger problems on their plates than porn. The issues that need to be dealt with are life-endangering in some cases, and life-ruining in others. It's going to be very hard to convince people who are worried about high-priced groceries and rent and mortgages to get all worked up about preventing other people from seeing images of people having sex. It's not exactly central to most people's lives right now.

 There's been no groundswell over Lee's call for censorship. It has only gotten responses from some leaders among the Usual Suspect religions and conservative pols mentioned above. The people have other fish to fry. 

2) Been There, Seen That -- Most of what I've talked about is familiar to most people who've followed these arguments. But here's something new: people are not prone to get roused over the dangers of porn any more because they KNOW porn. Practically all the adults in the US have had the opportunity to watch hardcore porn of whatever they like, for decades. It isn't the dark, hidden, secret sexy thing it once was, and it hasn't been since the 1970s when home video players made it possible to watch porn in complete privacy, huzzah! It's been normalized, as some like to say.

Well the political conservatives and the censorious religions have not been going huzzah! But there was nothing they could do, it was the 70s and only their core groups were interested in censoring adult videos. There were attempts at censorship but they got nowhere. And now that most Americans have had four decades to experience porn, most of them have come to the reasonable conclusion that it's just not a big deal. It's good for keeping the old libido at manageable levels when there's no prospect of managing it with a partner and that's about it. Some people have claimed to be addicted to porn, but it's hard to know to what extent it's a real problem because of course the censorious types are all over that shit. But overall, it seems to be a manageable problem.

My suspicion is that the public's familiarity with porn videos have removed the bogeyman factor from porn. Back before the 70s porn was this big dark hidden thing that could be everything the censorious types said it was. Now the censorious types are decrying the dangers of porn to people who are outside their core who know the "dangers" of porn for the bullshit that it is.

It makes for a very difficult time for censors, which is why I don't think there will be any popular groundswell for censoring porn. But that doesn't mean porn censorship won't happen. The political conservatives and the religious types don't understand that the sexuality control game is over as far as the majority of Americans are concerned. They've still got their core constituencies buffaloed, and they hope to get the rest of us under control, by re-instituting censorship of all pornography, making it dark and mysterious once again, and most of all getting a gripping hand on everyone's libido again.

This will not exactly be a great campaign issue for anyone except a few politicians in deeply conservative areas. That may not matter, because Trump, the Heritage Foundation and others are working very hard to end democracy in the US. If they succeed, voters won't matter. If the President can deport people, even citizens and legal residents, with an executive order, and so far he can, he can probably jail pornographers and and even porn viewers with an executive order.

The courts may have opinions on such orders, but the Trump administration has already demonstrated a willingness to ignore the decisions of the Supreme Court and all the other courts, and if they continue to get away with that courts will no longer have any power at all. If things get worse (and they're certainly headed in the general direction of Worse) there will probably be other Executive Orders that will put Executive Orders about porn in perspective.

I don't think porn is politically exciting enough to get banned for its own sake. I think the most likely avenue for a porn ban would be if the conservatives who run our government want to use it for a distraction to keep people's attention diverted while they do much more dangerous stuff, like end habeus corpus or declare martial law or end elections, much more important goals for them.

Although I don't think  most people would support an executive order banning porn, I do think about 27 percent of the electorate will, if Trump issues one and especially if he starts using his bully pulpit to encourage his people to support banning porn. The Trumpers will support anything Trump says, no matter how ridiculous or even how harmful to them personally it might be. They've proven it time and again. And you can be sure that if the Trumpers get wound up about banning all porn, they will jump on the bandwagon with everything they've got, though that's not nearly as much as it once was.

A porn ban might succeed if used as cover for more dastardly deeds, sliding through as more energy is spent battling more pressing issues. This is very much in keeping with Project 2025 strategy. It's still a very chancy thing, but it could happen.

Now as far as the porn ban and mainstream media getting porn right, obviously if a ban succeeds, that won't happen. Not even porn will get porn right if it's banned! If porn isn't banned, the Usual Suspects will work hard to "other" porn and make it socially unacceptable. This is highly unlikely to work, because the continued availability of porn and its natural attractiveness to people will continue to normalize it, making it even less likely to get banned.

I think the real problem with mainstream media getting sex scenes right will continue to be the first two reasons I listed: the censorship of mainstream media, because explicit images of naked people having sex are unlikely to be shown in media open to people of all ages. It's not a problem, just the nature of the media. And mainstream media will likely tend to continue to interject drama into sex scenes because peaceful, happy sexual relationships aren't all that dramatic.

That's a blowjob, alrighty. Chloe Sevigny in "The Brown Bunny."

Where I see long-term effects will be in movies. As porn normalizes sex scenes, movies will probably allow more and more explicit scenes. It's already happened to a certain extent: Chloe Sevigny gave an explicit blowjob with a cock seen entering her mouth in "The Brown Bunny" and Sharon Stone famously flashed her pussy in "Basic Instinct" and they both continue to get roles in movies, so not much in the way of blowback for them.

Elizabeth Berkley drop-kicks a rapist in Showgirls, with exposed pussy. Now THAT'S a drop-kick!

However, there is one obvious counterexample, and that's Elizabeth Berkley's appearance in "Showgirls." For the story of a Las Vegas nude dancer/stripper/entertainer Elizabeth went fully naked in several scenes, and the film bombed hard. Elizabeth Berkley got a share of the blame, but the director got most of the blame. (Interestingly, "Showgirls" has since developed a cult following. I've watched Showgirls, and it didn't seem teriffically awful to me. My suspicion is that Showgirls pushed the nudity and the sexuality harder than the mainstream critics were ready for, hence the strange vigor of the bad reviews.) Fortunately Berkley's career has gotten back on track since, though not as readily as Sevigny and Stone did.

Sevigny, Stone and Berkley would probably all have been blackballed in Hollywood if their scenes had occurred 40 or 50 years ago. But since the 70s, things have been different. And unless porn gets banned, things will continue to get different. The old Bronze Age grifts of religion and the state have been destroyed by modern contraception and video technology, and the sociopaths who like controlling others will have to use other grifts or lose power. In a few decades maybe we'll develop dramatic conventions that make explicit sex scenes perfectly acceptable in some movies and TV shows. We shall see.

Perhaps one day mainstream reviewers will be able to look at an image like this and see that, in addition to being kinky and sexy, it is beautiful. Look at the way Penny Pax's toes are curling. Look at Carissa Montgomery dommeing it up! The light, the color, the composition of the shot. Beauitiful!

Penny Pax (bottom) and Carissa Montgomery (top) in Kink.com shoot 42344.

Pornovision and Mainstream Media

We live in a bifurcated media world. There is mainstream media, and there is porn, and there isn’t much in between. You know what sex in mainstream media is, here’s a pic if you need a reminder:

Michelle Willians enjoying some doggie-style sex in "Blue Valentine."
No genitals were seen in this scene! But it's shocking, you betcha! Somehow.

You know what porn looks like, here's a pic from an online porn vid:

Notice all the genitals are clearly visible plus Lexi's anus. You can clearly see what's going on here. Very different! This is Lexi Lowe in kink.com shoot 39931. This is porn!

So OK, you say, let us grant that we live in a media world where readily available and pretty much uncensored online porn has very different standards than relatively heavily censored mainstream media, which often can't show female breasts or butts or male butts, and of course no genitals, ever. (Well, almost ever.) As a result of this bifurcation, people who write for mainstream media, and for mainstream online sites, generally pretend that porn does not exist, or that they're only watched by a small subset of freaky men. 

This is of course bullshit, almost all men watch porn of one sort or another. Google AI says 69 percent of men watch porn and forty percent of women watch porn. I personally think Google AI has been lied to a lot, and we need to add 30 percent to both of those numbers to get at the truth. Lot of lying goes on when it comes to sex and porn.

When men and women who watch porn (which is MOST adults) watch mainstream movies and TV shows they don't forget that porn exists. The memories of the porn they've seen remains. And that affects the way they perceived the mainstream stuff. And believe me, they aren't buying the bullshit the mainstream put out while they're pretending porn doesn't exist. 

And this has had a number of implications that mainstream media writers miss, either intentionally or simply because porn is by definition outside their Overton window. Problem is, porn is inside the Overton window of almost everyone who watches mainstream media, because almost everyone watches porn. When viewers think "racy" or "sexy" or "shocking" or "wild" they're thinking of images from porn as well as mainstream media. And when they compare those porn images in their minds with the images that mainstream media call "shocking" and "wild" they know they are being bullshitted, and that the writer is a bullshitter and hence, not credible.

They don't even have to do it consciously, in fact, I strongly suspect the vast majority of viewers don't make conscious comparisons, but still, they make those comparisons. More on that later. In the meantime, just look at the nice pictures.

OMG! Dina Myer shamelessly flaunts her body in a pose just like a dummy

 in a Victoria's Secret underwear store in "Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country!
Gratuitous nudity, you betcha!

Rachel Roxxx shamelessly flaunts her beauty in kink.com shoot 5027. Such porn!

And that is how mainstream media lose credibility, by repeatedly demonstrating that they don't understand that while the WRITERS have neatly parcelled off mainstream media from porn with their words, viewers have done no such thing in their minds. I'm not saying that viewers don't understand the difference between porn and mainstream media. They do. I'm saying that when they hear a media image or video described "shocking" "wild" or "sexy" that the images that come up in viewers' minds includes things they've seen in porn. Their mind isn't parsing things with the care the mainstream writers are paid to. So when viewers hear "wild" "sexy" or "shocking" they see those porn images and the mainstream images that come up in the article are just lame compared to the porn images.

But the issues don't stop there. The readily availability of online porn vids also has other effects on viewer perceptions of mainstream media. It greatly diminishes the viewers' interest in seeing mainstream "sex scenes" or "nude scenes" because if a viewer wants to see a sex scene or a nude scene, they can just watch a stardard online porn video and get much nakeder, sexier images. Especially now that porn is full of absolutely beautiful women who are in many cases just as beautiful as Hollywood stars.

Upper left: mainstream actress Sydney Sweeney in "The Voyeurs," upper right: vidcap of porn actress Christina Carter in kink.com shoot 3441, lower left, mainstream actress Nicole Kidman holding curtains, lower right, porn actress Haley Spades taking selfie. I am not making direct comparisons here: I am not saying that Christina Carter is as beautiful as Sydney Sweeney or that Haley Spades is as beautiful as Nicole Kidman. I am saying that all four actresses are striking beauties. If there is a beauty gap between porn actresses and mainstream actresses, it isn't a huge one. There are a LOT of gorgeous women making porn.

So sexy is no longer the selling point for mainstream movies and TV shows that it once was. It's not even close. When viewers see a mainstream sex scene like the one in "Blue Velvet" they are absolutely unimpressed because they have seen WAAAY sexier and WAAY better sex scenes in porn, often featuring very attractive porn stars.  

Left: Mainstream movie actress Milla Jovovich as Leeloo in "The Fifth Element" a costume frequently described as "shocking" and "gratuitous" by professional pearl clutchers. Right: porn star Pepper Hart putting "gratuitous" in perspective.

Viewing mainstream sexy content with alarm falls flat for the same reasons that calling it sexy falls flat, but damn, they still do it. One of the biggest offenders in this regard are the Youtube channels WatchMojo and MsMojo but there are plenty of others. Sex scenes that go "too far" "grautuitous" nudity, etc. Invariably the tame mainstream scenes are Not All That compared to actual porn. And viewers know that, undermining the intended effect.

It's an even more pronounced phenomenon when, as most often happens, the media attempt to have their cakes and eat them too, by viewing mainstream nude/sex scenes with alarm while at the same time using the appeal of nude/sex scenes to attract viewers. This is clearly the mechanism in a lot of WatchMojo and MsMojo nude/sex compendiums. Porn imagery just puts the "shocking" nature of such scenes in perspective and makes viewers realize how very thin the rationale for such compenediums are.

Top: Haile Berry shockingly exposes her breasts in a gratuitous topless scene for a mere $500,000 in the movie "Swordfish." Bottom: Chanel Preston's left nipple is shockingly exposed as she is anally reamed by a guy, forcing her lips up against another womans labial lips with every thrust in kink.com shoot 38578, aka "The Hunt."

The awareness of porn imagery also makes all the conventions mainstream sex scenes have to prevent nudity more obvious and unbelievable. Like the scene when a woman sits around after sex with a sheet covering her breasts. Women don't do that for real unless the room is cold or they're insecure about their body. But gorgeous actresses do it in mainstream sex scenes all the time, because they have to hide their breasts for censorship reasons. Nobody buys it, people know how they behave after sex, and what the porn people do after sex is a lot closer to what real people do than what mainstream media people do, i.e., they lie around naked. They've just been naked and fucking each other, what do they have to hide from one another?

This also extends to mainstream documentaries about sex in the movies. Generally such documentaries deal only with mainstream movies and TV shows, either leaving out porn entirely or mentioning some porn films without pointing out how very different they are from mainstream sexual imagery. And so the old familiar happens: everybody who has watched porn, which is practically everybody, knows the documentary is bullshit because it only covers mainstream sexual imagery which is incredibly lame compared with porn.

Now comes the part I was talking about talking about later earlier in this post, the part about people not making CONSCIOUS comparisons between mainstream and porn imagery. This is where we get into BRAIN SALAD SURGERY. Er, brain surgery. Ok, so the brain is divided into two halves, the left half and the right half. Bilateral symmetry to the max. They're connected by a thick bundle of nerves running between them called the corpus callosum. It's what allows us to have the illusion that we have a single brain instead of two half wits, which is definitely what all of us are.

Top: Dakota Johnson's nipple is shockingly almost visible in this deeply underlit but still very shocking kinky (she's blindfolded!) scene from "Fifty Shades of Gray." Bottom: Dee Williams really leans into her ballgag head harness as she's suspended from the ceiling by ropes while being vaginally penetrated by Ariel X wearing a strap-on in kink.com shoot 27515. The folds of Dee's labia make an interesting pattern around the strap-on in a very artistic sort of way I think we can all agree. 

The two halves of the brain handle separate tasks. For example, the right hemisphere handles visual stuff, creativity, nonverbal communication, spatial processing, basically all the cool stuff. The left brain handles math, verbal communication, analytical thinking, logic, science, reading and writing, basically all the square stuff. The two halves swap information via the corpus callosum, and everything is hunky-dory as scientists say, allowing us to think we're one person instead of two halfwits.

I know this sounds like pseudoscience, but it's all borne out by experimental evidence. People who have particularly violent siezures that are life-threatening are sometimes treated via surgery that severs the corpus callosum, confining the seizures to just half of the brain, making them less severe and hence less life-threatening. Such people have been tested by psychologists and the results of that testing show that these various functions are confined to the different halves of the brain. For example, if you cover up the left eye of a person whose corpus callosum has been severed and show them a picture of a chicken, they can see it but they can't describe it verbally or name it but they can draw a copy of it, because the left eye is controlled by the right hemisphere which handles spatial analysis and nonverbal communication, which includes drawing. If you cover up the right eye of such a person, which is controlled by the left hemisphere of the brainh, they can name the chicken, they can write down the name and describe it verbally, but they can't draw a copy of it. Many such experiments have been conducted, and they give very consistent results. That's how we're wired.

Fortunately most of us have intact corpus callosums, so we function as single  minds which is confusing enough as it is. But here's the thing. Our right brains and left brains do the processing of what we get from our various sensoria before we swap it over to the other half.

Top: Kim Basinger butt nekkid in a wild scene from the utterly shocking mainstream film "Nine and A Half Weeks." Bottom: Madison Scott bounces on Mark Davis' cock while bound and gagged in Kink.com shoot 9799 "Taboo Teaching."

So when you have those visual memories of porn images you've seen and you compare them to the mainstream "sexy" images you've seen, your right brain has already processed it, because that's what it does. And so when it goes across the corpus callosum, you already "know" at a fundamental, nonverbal level that the porn image is a LOT sexier, wilder and more shocking than the mainstream images are. And that the claims about the mainstream images are a variety of bullshit.

These porn images totally destroy the verbal narrative about the mainstream media images in the text even before the analytical mind can compare the images. So there's never an argument, people don't have to verbally process the imagery to know that the claims about it are bullshit.

That is exactly why I have larded this article with mainstream media sexy images in conjunction with hardcore online porn images. All the words in this post, as artfully composed as they are, are just spacers for the images that have actually convinced you of the truth of my proposal that mainstream media are losing a battle they do not even know they are engaged in. You have already been persuaded by the images, my words are just to explain how and why.

Mainstream media think they can wall off their little section of the internet, but they can't. Porn is out there, the images are their own propaganda. They jump right over any garden walls and get to work right in the brain before any words can get in there and confuse things.

These phenomena have a lot of interesting implications. I'll address some of them in a future post.

Bobbi Starr (right) puts a wand right where it will do the most good to Sensei Pearl (left) in kink.com video 13716. In the process they are proving they can look absolutely gorgeous while having sex. This is racy, sexy, wild and so forth. Thanks to this and all the other images in this article, your right brain's Overton window has been embiggened. You have new standards for racy, sexy and wild. And for beauty. And you can't unsee any of it. Seeing is believing! You're welcome!

Worship Your Plastic God, Slut!

I'll take "What's the naughtiest-looking thing you can do without any actual human

body parts coming in contact with any actual human body parts?" for $100, Alex!

 From kink.com shoot 8491 featuring Madison Scott (naked) and Felony (clothed).

Trisha Hershberger Naked Nude and In Bondage

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.