By Cory Doctorow at 4:40 am Thu, May 26, 2011
This fan-made YouTube music video is composed of non-pornographic introductory scenes from pornographic movies. It's all shirtless, hunky gardeners, smouldering looks, lingering touches and suchlike.
Bad Lamps - Never Know the Difference
I think that I saw a normal, non-pornographic scene – Meg Ryan in ‘City of Angels’. What gives?!
I watch these type of movies for the credits.
All I can think of is the ozone destroyed by all the hairspray and other “product” used in the ’80s clips.
Slow news day, Cory? :)
Could only take that music for about a minute, but does anyone else basically see this:
Regarding your posts sourced from reddit. Could you please include the comments section of the post? Because reddit’s strength is the comments section and I would prefer if we could see it. Thanks.
It could just as easily be a montage of 80s and 90s daytime soaps.
I swear, some of them look like real actresses in these clips
They are actors and actresses, porn is not documentarys even though the whole gonzo thing is about fooling you into believing that it’s ‘real’, just like ‘reality’ TV-shows. Porn is not prostitution.
I like porn, historical costume-porn the best.
This vid was nice.
What’s amazing is how sweet and sensual it all seems. You know, without all the abusive and degrading stuff that comes afterward.
Oh, some BB readers are still subscribing to the idea that “it is pornography therefore it is abusive” and “it is pornography therefore it is degrading”. Why?
You really don’t know much about the Porn industry, do you?
I probably know more than you since I have first-hand experience from actually been part of making porn. So, my question stands: Why?
People seem to assume that the porn industry of today is the same porn industry of ten or twenty or (eek) thirty years ago. Performers now have trade organizations and regular health screenings, and get a much bigger cut of the pie than they had before (with their own branding rights). It’s been steadily transforming into a real business with central backing rather than the fly-by-night operations of old. The internet completely revolutionized the industry, both by creating a huge medium for distribution and profit as well as putting a mainstream spin on sexuality as a whole in the US.
It doesn’t mean much for all the 80’s performers in the clips above, but it means a lot for everyone going forward. Slowly we can crawl away from sex as a power struggle to sex as just another thing that people do, and a decade of freely available porn has helped push the idea into the open (and away from taboo and stigma) more than the previous decades of intellectual discourse.
Because most of it is.
This is almost exactly what I was thinking. Well said
I thought I was watching Dawson’s Creek or something.
Iiiiiiiiiiiiiii delicious!! First saw this done in Armand Van Helden’s “Koocky.” Happens around 2:25 but watch the whole video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMMU9NrDAno.
Brilliant, and sweet, especially the closing shot. Also a good indicator of where you are on the “old perv” index – just total up the number of 1980’s porn stars you recognize by name.
…a good indicator of where you are on the “old perv” index – just total up the number of 1980’s porn stars you recognize by name…
For me, it was a trip down memory lane. I was trying to total up the number I’ve met in person. The number I’ve spent any time with. The number of hours I’ve spent trying to get Ron to just shut the hell up. :-)
Funny thing – When you work in that industry, even on the fringes (like I did), you quickly realize these are people and not mere masturbatory inspiration. They run the gamut – kind to evil, brilliant to stupid, funny to serious, talented to the worst kind of hacks, damaged goods to predators.
Try to keep in mind, people, that those are real souls in those clips.
Oh, and the editor clearly had a thing for Ginger Lynn. I sure can’t blame him.
I only watched it for the “shirtless, hunky gardeners”…and was sorely disappointed.
Likewise, although the guy who appears at 1:33 is phenomenal. The downside of these compilation videos is that when you want more information, like names or titles, they’re almost impossible to find.
“He fixes the cable?”
Don’t be fatuous, kpkpkp.
“Oh, some BB readers are still subscribing to the idea that “it is pornography therefore it is abusive” and “it is pornography therefore it is degrading”. Why?”
There’s a diff between understanding that most porn is abusive and misogynistic and claiming that it’s all automatically that way.
It (including this selective montage) caters to a hetero “male gaze” whose bearers, both male and female, are trained in certain abusive ways. But it doesn’t have to be that way all the time, and, sometimes, rarely, it’s not.
+1 for what millie fink said: both that it doesn’t HAVE to be that way, and (importantly) that here in the real world of people and things… it almost always IS that way.
That pesky free will thing does tend to affect the definition of abuse.
By your logic, if I have sex with too many people (and who determines that number? You?) I’m being abused. Self-abused, maybe? Usually I do that on my own.
At any rate: my choice. Their choice.
THIS. Thank you.
That gentleman isn’t handling his chainsaw correctly, but he does have a superb lumberjack moustache.
Saw a young and not so fat Ron Jermey around 3.15ish. The hedgehog.
I wanna know who the actress is in the still shot before the video rolls. Anybody?
Adrenalynn – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrianna_Lynn
I’ll try again, apparently the moderator didn’t approve my first attempt. I believe it’s Adrenalynn (Adriana Lynn). She has a tattoo that reads “Jared’s Little F***doll” around the place where she makes number two.
I know RIGHT!??
Someone knows her name, you know someone does!
Her name is Reply
Jean-Claude Van Damme at 2:18?
When I see porn now, I can’t stop thinking about cancer. That’s because I’ve heard that some sexually transmitted viruses cause cancer.
“Most cancers are caused by viruses,” some of which are sexually tramsmitted–
The higher your number of partners, the greater your risk for cancer. So yeah, most porn is abusive to the “performers” too.
My favorite remains this one:
Just look at those fucking hipsters.
am i the only one alive who finds that oliva newton john era gymnastic stuff really unsexy?
I’m with ya.
I dig the video. I also think that porn should be brought in from the fringes, past the taboo line, so workers rights can be standardized.
ya know, there are a wide variety of porn styles out there. Not everything is “abusive and degrading”, unless that’s what floats yer boat, so to speak. Similar to child porn being lumped in with the term “pornography”. Folks like to paint with a big brush (pun intended) and are prone to knee jerk reactions, especially when it comes to our western psycho-religio response to sex.
Actually, the french musician BOOGERS has a better version of it : http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xeqxbu_boogers-the-devil-revisited-by-loje_music
Anon#30: Thank You for the Boogers link, that song was a real trip. Dark, repetetive stuff, just how I like it.
I wonder how much of this montage was compiled one-handed. :D
From the comments:
Seeing a whole bunch of girls who are about to have sex with someone else reminded me a lot of high school.
That heavy-lidded and after this we get cocaine, right?-look is just timeless.
The stasche dude on the phone looks like a porny Don Draper …
Funny how some of the shots looks like taken out of your average tv series for the era…
IWood: “my choice. Their choice”
That would be a good objection if we lived in a world with real equality of opportunity for all and functioning and decent universal social security. Tell me when we get there. In the meantime, in the real world, what the exploiters call “choice” is rather a desperate least worst alternative from an unjustly limited range of options.
But if someone with the best possible opportunities in life, stable mental health, a supporting upbringning from non-destitute parents choose a career in sex on film and continually gave his/her informed consent to what was happening then one of the usual objections to porn would not be present in that case (though some of the other objections might still apply).
On the one hand I feel sort of good about the fact that I could only name four of the “actors”. On the other hand being able to identify those four in particular reinforces the fact that I am old fart.
I do like the track.
Sex (dare I say ‘love’? No.)…is so confusing….
….oh, damn that stupid Cupid anyhow!
“…if we lived in a world with real equality of opportunity for all and functioning and decent universal social security.”
we don’t. we never will. ever.
people have sold their bodies since. . .well, before money was invented. Porn is just a new invention where better looking prostitutes can have their actions recorded for all posterity.
Abusive? Degrading? Sure. . .I suppose that is mostly correct.
Last time I checked, however, being dirt fucking poor, hideously scarred, congenitally stupid or any other host of unfortunate conditions could be described as ‘degrading’.
So, because these women (we’ll leave out the lumberjacks in this i suppose) are not, as is suggested; rich, happy, successful with a loving supportive family life: porn is bad.
So then drugs are bad, yes? Guns. . .definitely bad. War? Oh my so bad.
It’s just a rough, tough schoolhouse here on Planet Earth, ain’t it?
Sorry…it’s part of my persona to play the crank…and it’s ok if you don’t like pornography.
But, it’s not going to go away.
Unless of course. . .you would perhaps advocate. . .censorship?
That is all.
I can’t believe that fluffertrax internet radio station hasn’t been mentioned. They used to play only cheesy 70s porn music. I’m not sure what they’re up to these days.
“She has a tattoo that reads “Jared’s Little F***doll” around the place where she makes number two.”
Holy mackerel, I just googled that image. I’d never seen that before.
gwailo_joe: “we don’t. we never will. ever.”
Very often have those benefitting from the exploitation of fellow humans used various excuses. A common one is “this is how it is, things will never change, no use trying”.
The defenders of slavery used that excuse.
Those objecting to universal suffrage used it.
And now you are using it.
It is factually false.
The fact is that much in society is malleable. We can at least decrease the exploitation significantly. There is amble proof of that from empirical internationally comparative science. Look up the figures of the part of population without access to adequate health care in the US and compare them to the figures for Norway or Denmark, for example.
I find it curious that someone can look back at the enormous progress humanity has made and then make dogmatic claims that this or that further social development is will never ever happen.
Yes, there are also other problems in the world. How is that an objection against my argument? We can be both against war and against the human exploitation that most porn production involves.
“Unless of course. . .you would perhaps advocate. . .censorship?”
If you become convinced of a moral argument it will internally guide your action. No need for censorship or external pressure then. Of course, if someone abdicates from taking moral responsibility over his/her actions and try to excuse his/her actions with sweeping cynicism then I see no problem with governmental enforcement against his/her behaviour.
There’s actually an article about the porn industry health program on the LA Daily News’ site from yesterday
Reminds me of how the red light district of Paris was run until WW1, when the British army had it closed down for fear of the soldiers refusing to return from leave.
“Could only take that music for about a minute”..are you kidding me? The Bad Lamps are the next big thing. You will see. Check out this song called “Fancy Dresses” by Bad Lamps: http://badlamps.bandcamp.com/ I just fell in love with this band today after seeing this video (not because of the video but because their music is amazing). I’m a fan now.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin