Pornographers have long made liberal use of makeup, tanning sprays, lighting, and camera angles. Who wants to see real—real blemishes, scars, acne, cottage cheese—when you can see perfect, or so the argument goes. But these tools have been blunted by high definition cameras and increasingly crystal-clear close-ups. New York Times writer Matt Richtel offers his own view into the mutually evolving worlds of porn and technology. Richtel scrubbed away the word porn from his title and replaced it with “sex movies.” His title’s verb, “could be,” implies that he’s speaking hypothetically and ostensibly gives him credibility as an observer and breathing room, lest he come too close to Jesse Jane.
Fortunately for us, plenty of writers in blogs and online magazines don’t care if they get their hands dirty. They don’t bother sanitizing their every sentence for a high brow publication. After all, major American newspapers are the only forum to reflect on global media (here, the movies, articles, blogs, cameras, presentations, etc.). One enormously powerful community of porn watchers, actors, and commentators is the gay audience. Richtel speaks only to women in heterosexual porn, but had he reached out to men of any sexuality, he mightn’t have reprinted the same clichés about men caring more about technology than looks. He would also have realized how old hat this topic has become and that gay viewers and producers have been at the cutting-edge of these technologies for at least five years. (I would be more than happy to share links to blogs, video reviews, and articles which discuss this very topic, but I fear they’ll be edited out.)
Consumers have already demanded high definition porn to watch on their $3000 plasma televisions. Much content has been filmed and released, to mixed reviews. Some consumers lust after the high definition experience and want, or think they want, high definition porn, so they’ll keep buying. Others want the high definition experience without unsightly, if all too human, blemishes magnified 1000-fold. They’ll gravitate to HD-DVD or Blu-ray discs that’ve been heavily edited and airbrushed. To be sure, better editing technology is within reach of anyone willing to commit the time and money. Porn’s rewards ensure that. If gay porn production company Raging Stallion can easily edit away condoms, giving the appearance of unprotected sex (which, though condemned widely by health professionals and gay public, nevertheless makes up a huge percentage of demand), surely moviemakers can paint away blemishes. Maybe they can even import technology from computer animated features like Shrek to make poorly constructed silicone breasts bounce in a more “lifelike” fashion. However, there’s something to be said for amateur porn. Barebones production and grainy video haven’t stopped tens of millions from enjoying XTube, the youtube of porn. Clearly the global community demands porn of all stripes, though I personally enjoy the free kind.