OK, it's dangerous to leave me along too long at home, but hey, you get the benefit.
I'm sure they thought the "young girl gets seduced" motif hadn't been done quite enough, so they hired a young-looking actress to play the "reluctant good girl." But she did too good a job and she really looks like the, "Hey, I think I'm being raped here" girl. In the 11th minute, she's handed a dildo that she looks at as if it were a rattlesnake. The older woman keeps saying, "you are totally in control" while ignoring every bit of body language the younger girl can muster without screaming "Stop!" Every step of the way it's just creepy. It's not until 17:30 that she even seems to find any enjoyment as the older woman goes down on her. And even as she returns the favor, she looks detached, even as the older one moans and groans in complete disproportion to the action we can see. The final few minutes is pretty good though. :-)
When I see clips like these, I wonder, again, about the "real" story behind some of the actresses. I have no doubts that some women are in porn for all the wrong reasons, reasons I won't list here. But when I see women who look as if they would rather be getting grilled by the IRS (that's not a fetish is it?) than kiss their co-star, I wonder. But don't the directors see it? Do they think that the "ick" factor cranks up the arousal for enough viewers to make it worth turning a majority off? This wasn't presented as a fetish video where the pain/humiliation/subjugation was the major draw, it was a standard seduction scene with an age difference to make it a little different. It had, as another down side, horrible set-up. Why can't editors actually watch the final product before it goes out?
I think I'm a pretty typical porn consumer. I like beautiful people doing sexy things and I don't want to feel like I'm contributing to institutionalized rape. Some anti-porn activists say that all porn is rape, because by definition, it is coerced. The coercion may be economic need, addiction driven, the result of abuse, or the lack of opportunity for women in the corporate world, and I'm sure some of it is, but not all of it.
To say that women in porn are all victims does a great disservice to all women. It says that women can't make free choices, that they lack the strength of will or intellect to weigh the pros and cons of a career in porn, and by extension, in any career. There is a natural reflex in many people to protect people, even when it's from themselves. Many activists are probably sincere in their belief that they are helping, but they do so at the risk of eliminating choice from the women they are trying to help.
Now, does this argument fall down in the case of Lindsay Lohan and Amy Winehouse? Given unlimited resources ($$), time, and opportunity, they made choices that landed them in jail, and, for Ms. Winehouse, the morgue. Ironically, or perhaps on purpose, Ms. Lohan is now serving time in the morgue, hopefully this will make her realize she doesn't want to be there permanently. Should we take more of their freedom away to save them from themselves? Should this be done by the courts? the family? their employer? I hope Lindsay pulls out of this because she can be so beautiful, smart, and funny, but free choice is a cruel double-edged sword.
OK, but back to this clip. What choices does the actress make to get herself into, or out of, this situation? Does she have any at the point of the camera's rolling? Does she think she has options? Let me repeat that, Does she THINK she has options or has the situation gotten out of hand and she feels trapped?
I know that she's not a 1st time actress. She's been in lots of films. Maybe she's a really good actress after all, but all I know is that the discomfort she showed felt very real, and made me uncomfortable enough to write about if for far too long. Maybe that's a sign. And BTW, she is a lot less reluctant in this one.
Should a simple porn clip on a Thursday afternoon make me think so much?