Posts
Monday, February 9, 2009
Macro + Genitals = Art
As the title says. Extreme close-ups after the jump.I don't know much of anything about photography, but I do know that I really, really like what they call "macro", that takes high-resolution, very sharp and in-focus close-up pictures. They are gorgeously full of detail- truly a visual feast.
Of course, there are lots of really amazing examples of macro photography. Nature is a favorite- flowers, leaves, water droplets, insects, lizards, and human eyes all lend themselves well to macro photography. Like the following photo. Pretty, right?
But I've found a subject I like a whole hell of a lot more: genitalia. Oh, sure, there are so many admittedly lovely pictures of genitals all over the Internet and in magazines. Many purport to be "close-up", which is often still at least half a foot away. I guess I just want "extreme close-up". There is something so incredible about the textures of our genitals, the stray, kinky hairs, the rich pink and flesh tones. Of course, some pornographers have gotten down on the macro shot, most notably Abby Winters, as amply evidenced in many sources. But because the majority of porn seems to ignore a deeper look at our parts, allow me to indulge you below (note: clicking on the pictures will take you to their original sites, where you can enlarge them and seriously soak in the sumptuous detail).
Romita Tempranillo's "Marbled". Cock has never looked so beautiful.
Herbus' "Dangle". There's just something so soft and almost delicate about this picture.
xandergr8's "front". Where to begin? Everything about this picture is just gorgeous.
Scottyskins' "Penis 9". You don't often get to see piss-slits in such detail, and it's surprisingly pretty. And there are quite a few more in the series.
Domnimes' "Skin". An incredible study in foreskin.
Loughborough's "Lower". The seam of testicles continues to fascinate me far more than it should.
Nuder82's "Ripples". Such an apt name for the incredibly wrinkly testicles.
ickylust's "Macro - Pretty Kitty". Pretty, indeed. Sigh. More like gorgeous.
MademoiselleKaterina's "lips sealed". Incredibly beautiful when enlarged.
StellaHase has a gallery full of macro studies of her body, all beautiful. Here, "Pink Tango". This truly qualifies as art.
And this one, "Waves of pink". Amazing.
SolitaryMist's "Nipple2". Nipples get a little more macro love by "mainstream" photographers, thank goodness.
sopbubblan's "Nipple". And the elusive male nipple, just as pretty.
Lest we forget that the pussy isn't the only orifice involved in sex, a study of a more oral kind: devil-without-horns' "It makes me smile".
Ecchi-Senshi's "Eat me". Almost as if recorded from a deep-throated dick.
I was expecting to find at least some macro studies of the anus, but, much to my surprise, none were to be found, but for this oft-circulated comic picture, whose true origins I cannot find. Was there really an art showing? Whose art is it? And, are those really assholes, or deceptive belly buttons? Brownies for anybody who can clarify.
So that's it. I felt very arty last night when I collected all these photographs, and I just had to put them all in a blog for posterity (and to share with you all). Enjoy.
Of course, there are lots of really amazing examples of macro photography. Nature is a favorite- flowers, leaves, water droplets, insects, lizards, and human eyes all lend themselves well to macro photography. Like the following photo. Pretty, right?
But I've found a subject I like a whole hell of a lot more: genitalia. Oh, sure, there are so many admittedly lovely pictures of genitals all over the Internet and in magazines. Many purport to be "close-up", which is often still at least half a foot away. I guess I just want "extreme close-up". There is something so incredible about the textures of our genitals, the stray, kinky hairs, the rich pink and flesh tones. Of course, some pornographers have gotten down on the macro shot, most notably Abby Winters, as amply evidenced in many sources. But because the majority of porn seems to ignore a deeper look at our parts, allow me to indulge you below (note: clicking on the pictures will take you to their original sites, where you can enlarge them and seriously soak in the sumptuous detail).
Romita Tempranillo's "Marbled". Cock has never looked so beautiful.
Herbus' "Dangle". There's just something so soft and almost delicate about this picture.
xandergr8's "front". Where to begin? Everything about this picture is just gorgeous.
Scottyskins' "Penis 9". You don't often get to see piss-slits in such detail, and it's surprisingly pretty. And there are quite a few more in the series.
Domnimes' "Skin". An incredible study in foreskin.
Loughborough's "Lower". The seam of testicles continues to fascinate me far more than it should.
Nuder82's "Ripples". Such an apt name for the incredibly wrinkly testicles.
ickylust's "Macro - Pretty Kitty". Pretty, indeed. Sigh. More like gorgeous.
MademoiselleKaterina's "lips sealed". Incredibly beautiful when enlarged.
StellaHase has a gallery full of macro studies of her body, all beautiful. Here, "Pink Tango". This truly qualifies as art.
And this one, "Waves of pink". Amazing.
SolitaryMist's "Nipple2". Nipples get a little more macro love by "mainstream" photographers, thank goodness.
sopbubblan's "Nipple". And the elusive male nipple, just as pretty.
Lest we forget that the pussy isn't the only orifice involved in sex, a study of a more oral kind: devil-without-horns' "It makes me smile".
Ecchi-Senshi's "Eat me". Almost as if recorded from a deep-throated dick.
I was expecting to find at least some macro studies of the anus, but, much to my surprise, none were to be found, but for this oft-circulated comic picture, whose true origins I cannot find. Was there really an art showing? Whose art is it? And, are those really assholes, or deceptive belly buttons? Brownies for anybody who can clarify.
So that's it. I felt very arty last night when I collected all these photographs, and I just had to put them all in a blog for posterity (and to share with you all). Enjoy.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Incest Singalong
Inspired by my previous post (and the realization that I haven't done one of these for a while), here is a singalong devoted to lust and love between relatives. And let me tell ya something- it's actually pretty hard to find any good songs on the topic, once you sift out all of the parent-child abuse and subsequent revenge murder songs (you have no idea how common this theme actually is!).
1) "The Incest Song" from the KOMP Morning Show. Ah, your quite expected country song about "keeping it in the family".
2) "I'm My Own Grandpa" by Ray Stevens. Everybody's favorite funny song about the twisty intertwined branches of an incestuous family tree and a crazy conclusion.
3) Ah, good ol' "Oedipus Rex" by Tom Lehrer. Sure, Oedipus' tale isn't exactly heartwarming, because ripping out your eyeballs just doesn't make anybody think happy thoughts. And yet I still love this song. How can you not belt out "He LOVED his mother!"?
4) "Shame And Scandal", covered by Madness. Technically, this song isn't about true incest (just listen to the lyrics), but it certainly is about some familial confusion and lots of shame and scandal. Plus I want to groove to it.
5) "Incestuous Love" by Marc Almond. This is quite possibly the only song that speaks about parent-child adult consensual love in a positive (or at least neutral) way. It's very beautiful, actually.
6) "Sister Incest" by Sunset Sphere. This song is so dark and pretty and Gothic that I love it for the music alone, but the lyrics only add to it, creating a sort of decadent and magical world of shifting incestuous relationships, one you might find in, say, Ann Rice's "A Witching Hour".
7)"Can't Make Love" by Emmy Laybourne & Sam & the Music Of U.S. Bombs. The funniest and most lighthearted song on the list, I fell in love with it the moment I heard it. (Plus I love 'Helen' from "Superstar"). Not to mention that it's terribly catchy.
8) "Mississippi Love Song" by Courtney Conaway. It's fun, nothing more, nothing less.
9) "He's Just Like My Brother", GiggleMaker2000's parody of Rhianna's "Don't Stop The Music". Technically, this is an odd one, since it's GiggleMaker2000's mocking of the way that Rhianna consistently calls Chris Brown "like a brother" but then engages in all sorts of sexual innuendo. So, no real incest. But at the same time, it's about people roleplaying incest fantasies. So I say it belongs. And, whoa, it's dirty!
10) "I F'd Your Mom" by The Steve and JJ Show. A very funny and crude Boy Band-esque take on, erm, motherfuckers. Certainly, few guys who trash talk with "I fucked your mom." intend to hear "Me too!" as a response. :)
So that's it. Maybe no robust anthems that you can belt out, but a good mix in all.
1) "The Incest Song" from the KOMP Morning Show. Ah, your quite expected country song about "keeping it in the family".
2) "I'm My Own Grandpa" by Ray Stevens. Everybody's favorite funny song about the twisty intertwined branches of an incestuous family tree and a crazy conclusion.
3) Ah, good ol' "Oedipus Rex" by Tom Lehrer. Sure, Oedipus' tale isn't exactly heartwarming, because ripping out your eyeballs just doesn't make anybody think happy thoughts. And yet I still love this song. How can you not belt out "He LOVED his mother!"?
4) "Shame And Scandal", covered by Madness. Technically, this song isn't about true incest (just listen to the lyrics), but it certainly is about some familial confusion and lots of shame and scandal. Plus I want to groove to it.
5) "Incestuous Love" by Marc Almond. This is quite possibly the only song that speaks about parent-child adult consensual love in a positive (or at least neutral) way. It's very beautiful, actually.
6) "Sister Incest" by Sunset Sphere. This song is so dark and pretty and Gothic that I love it for the music alone, but the lyrics only add to it, creating a sort of decadent and magical world of shifting incestuous relationships, one you might find in, say, Ann Rice's "A Witching Hour".
7)"Can't Make Love" by Emmy Laybourne & Sam & the Music Of U.S. Bombs. The funniest and most lighthearted song on the list, I fell in love with it the moment I heard it. (Plus I love 'Helen' from "Superstar"). Not to mention that it's terribly catchy.
8) "Mississippi Love Song" by Courtney Conaway. It's fun, nothing more, nothing less.
9) "He's Just Like My Brother", GiggleMaker2000's parody of Rhianna's "Don't Stop The Music". Technically, this is an odd one, since it's GiggleMaker2000's mocking of the way that Rhianna consistently calls Chris Brown "like a brother" but then engages in all sorts of sexual innuendo. So, no real incest. But at the same time, it's about people roleplaying incest fantasies. So I say it belongs. And, whoa, it's dirty!
10) "I F'd Your Mom" by The Steve and JJ Show. A very funny and crude Boy Band-esque take on, erm, motherfuckers. Certainly, few guys who trash talk with "I fucked your mom." intend to hear "Me too!" as a response. :)
So that's it. Maybe no robust anthems that you can belt out, but a good mix in all.
Friday, February 6, 2009
In The Wider Scheme Of Things, Incest Is Relatively Boring
Oh yes, we're going to talk about incest. If you think you can handle it, (and have forgiven me for my horrible titular punnage), jump on inside.
Oh, and Maggie and Jake Gyllenhaal, as far as I can tell, aren't incestuous siblings. Even if he is channeling "Redneck sister-lover" in that outfit, they've got their arms around one another in a way that's loving and possessive, and her face looks apologetic but proud to be open about their love and he looks slightly ready for a fight should anybody say an unkind word. Even if Gyllencest would be really, really hot.
But enough blathering. I'm not actually here to talk about the sexual appeal of taboo love (maybe later). This blog's a bit more straightforward than that.
Last night I watched BBC America's airing of Brothers and Sisters In Love, and was incredibly fascinated by the stories- and heartbroken over some. The documentary followed several incestuous couples and a near-couple (most brother-sister but one mother-son couple), all who were separated while young or never even knew one another, and then met later in life and either began relationships only to find they are related, or knew of their relation but found themselves struggling with an attraction. It also introduced me to the concept of GSA, or "genetic sexual attraction", a widely acknowledged but as of yet not scientifically studied phenomenon wherein reunited relations who have never met before begin to develop obsessions over one another, often but not always romantic or sexual in nature.
And yes, it might gross you out. In fact, outside of the big three gross-outs (necrophilia, zoophilia, and pedophlia), I'm not quite sure there is anything that inspires more instant revulsion and the absence of any sort of rational response (unless of course it is sexually attractive female twins wanting to share a man, in which case, it can help you sell beer). I don't think I'd ever given it more than a shudder before I watched the documentary (because everybody, possibly excepting those orphaned after every living relative was killed, instantly thinks of their own family). But when you remove it from your personal life and the idea of gettin' down with your blood relatives, the resulting picture is one of love, pure and simple, in a world full that greets it with hatred and hostility.
The most heartbreaking story was of Patrick and Susan. Patrick was given up for adoption as a child and reconnected with his biological family at the age of 23, and soon after fell in love with his sister Susan. They've become quite famous, given that they've challenged Germany's anti-incest laws, which took away their four children and imprisoned Patrick for a two-year sentence. Watching them get harangued by their neighbor and burst into tears at being told their daughter would be taken away, my heart was literally breaking. I simply cannot understand the need to interfere in the lives of consenting adults, in what is truly a victimless "crime".
Ah, but is it? So many people immediately turn to the question of the children of incestuous couples in order to produce a victim. We are a nation grown up on shocking images of what the product of incest look like: "The People Under The Stairs" offered up its gruesome namesakes, and the murderous villains of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Wrong Turn", and "The Hills Have Eyes" are all explicitly or implicitly portrayed as incest-borne offspring. Real classy, isn't it? Top it all off with a heavy dose of stereotypical backwoods hillbilly incest (I can almost hear the banjos now . . .), and you have a widely distorted view of what children of incest look like. Congenital birth defects and recessive diseases have morphed into psychosis and subhuman monstrosity.
In reality, yes, there are complications from producing children with a relative. In the case of close (i.e. immediate) blood relations, there is as much as a 50% (but usually 6.25% to 25%) chance that the child will be born with some sort of problem. At first glance, it seems like the perfect factoid to forever banish incestuous reproduction to the law books. And yet the same statistic is true for others: somebody who carries the Huntington’s Disease gene also has a 50% chance of passing that gene on to his or her children. There is no call, however, to stop such individuals from marrying and procreating. Or, for that matter, women over 40 or anybody else with a high chance of producing less-than-perfectly-healthy children. Can we say "double standard"? And moreover, the entire argument assumes that incestuous couples will want to have children in the first place, an assumption that is often erroneous.
But the people who speak out against consensual adult incest are not concerned with double standards, myths, stereotypes, or unfair laws. No politician in his/her right mind would endorse changing incest laws- it would be career suicide and, if he has any living relatives, more than likely fodder for every late night comedian.
It's rather ironic to me, actually, to watch how other movements for tolerance, understanding, and a live-and-let-live policy tend to trample on incest when it's convenient. For as long as gay marriage- or even homosexuality- has been an public issue, there have been opponents who use the "slippery slope" argument: if we accept homosexuality/allow gay marriage, then what comes next? Must we do the same for polygamy, incest, bestiality? Gay rights activists have understandably been outraged, and have called it out as what it is: a distraction, and a muddling of the issues. Homosexuality is not the same as any of those, and to lump them altogether is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. I most certainly agree. And yet, all our protests against such statements tend to devalue incest. Instead of merely calling out the ploy, the message that gets sent instead is "How dare you compare gay love- beautiful, sacred, and normal- to the sick perversion known as incest?". It's self-preservation, I suppose, since anybody who championed the rights of both gay and incestuous folks would become "proof" of insidious plans to doom America, and probably be demonized by the gay rights movement for rolling back all the progress that has been made by throwing other persecuted sexual minorities under the bus.
Not that the pro-incest community is all that much better. Even the documentary drew a sharp divide between those dealing with genetic sexual attraction and those who form romantic/sexual relationships with siblings/parents with whom they grew up and were raised. Sufferers of GSA almost sound a little bit like the gay apologists of today who rant about the gay gene. Just as "I was born this way!" implies a justification and therefore some sort of wrongdoing, many incestuous couples resulting from GSA are quick to paint themselves as the helpless victims of a scientific force. "Don't blame me." They seem to be saying. "Incest is horrible, disgusting, wrong, dirty, and vile, but I didn't choose this, it just happened to me! So please, even though I would never be this way if I could help it, accept me and my horrid relationship." No wonder incest hasn't made much progress. And inevitably, we reach the bottom of the heap- the non-GSA incestuous couples who offer up no justification, no rationalization- just their forlorn pleas of "But we love each other."
I'm just so tired of hypocrisy and seeing the victims of one sort of misunderstood love- be it interracial, inter-generational, between different socioeconomic classes, same-sex, or even incestuous- perpetuating hate towards another. It might sound cheesy to say it- heck, it feels cheesy to say it- but there's so little love in the world. If the two people who find it happen to be related, I couldn't be any happier for them. The law is meant to protect people, not hurt them. So why is it keeping consenting adults in love from one another?
Oh, and Maggie and Jake Gyllenhaal, as far as I can tell, aren't incestuous siblings. Even if he is channeling "Redneck sister-lover" in that outfit, they've got their arms around one another in a way that's loving and possessive, and her face looks apologetic but proud to be open about their love and he looks slightly ready for a fight should anybody say an unkind word. Even if Gyllencest would be really, really hot.
But enough blathering. I'm not actually here to talk about the sexual appeal of taboo love (maybe later). This blog's a bit more straightforward than that.
Last night I watched BBC America's airing of Brothers and Sisters In Love, and was incredibly fascinated by the stories- and heartbroken over some. The documentary followed several incestuous couples and a near-couple (most brother-sister but one mother-son couple), all who were separated while young or never even knew one another, and then met later in life and either began relationships only to find they are related, or knew of their relation but found themselves struggling with an attraction. It also introduced me to the concept of GSA, or "genetic sexual attraction", a widely acknowledged but as of yet not scientifically studied phenomenon wherein reunited relations who have never met before begin to develop obsessions over one another, often but not always romantic or sexual in nature.
And yes, it might gross you out. In fact, outside of the big three gross-outs (necrophilia, zoophilia, and pedophlia), I'm not quite sure there is anything that inspires more instant revulsion and the absence of any sort of rational response (unless of course it is sexually attractive female twins wanting to share a man, in which case, it can help you sell beer). I don't think I'd ever given it more than a shudder before I watched the documentary (because everybody, possibly excepting those orphaned after every living relative was killed, instantly thinks of their own family). But when you remove it from your personal life and the idea of gettin' down with your blood relatives, the resulting picture is one of love, pure and simple, in a world full that greets it with hatred and hostility.
The most heartbreaking story was of Patrick and Susan. Patrick was given up for adoption as a child and reconnected with his biological family at the age of 23, and soon after fell in love with his sister Susan. They've become quite famous, given that they've challenged Germany's anti-incest laws, which took away their four children and imprisoned Patrick for a two-year sentence. Watching them get harangued by their neighbor and burst into tears at being told their daughter would be taken away, my heart was literally breaking. I simply cannot understand the need to interfere in the lives of consenting adults, in what is truly a victimless "crime".
Ah, but is it? So many people immediately turn to the question of the children of incestuous couples in order to produce a victim. We are a nation grown up on shocking images of what the product of incest look like: "The People Under The Stairs" offered up its gruesome namesakes, and the murderous villains of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre", "Wrong Turn", and "The Hills Have Eyes" are all explicitly or implicitly portrayed as incest-borne offspring. Real classy, isn't it? Top it all off with a heavy dose of stereotypical backwoods hillbilly incest (I can almost hear the banjos now . . .), and you have a widely distorted view of what children of incest look like. Congenital birth defects and recessive diseases have morphed into psychosis and subhuman monstrosity.
In reality, yes, there are complications from producing children with a relative. In the case of close (i.e. immediate) blood relations, there is as much as a 50% (but usually 6.25% to 25%) chance that the child will be born with some sort of problem. At first glance, it seems like the perfect factoid to forever banish incestuous reproduction to the law books. And yet the same statistic is true for others: somebody who carries the Huntington’s Disease gene also has a 50% chance of passing that gene on to his or her children. There is no call, however, to stop such individuals from marrying and procreating. Or, for that matter, women over 40 or anybody else with a high chance of producing less-than-perfectly-healthy children. Can we say "double standard"? And moreover, the entire argument assumes that incestuous couples will want to have children in the first place, an assumption that is often erroneous.
But the people who speak out against consensual adult incest are not concerned with double standards, myths, stereotypes, or unfair laws. No politician in his/her right mind would endorse changing incest laws- it would be career suicide and, if he has any living relatives, more than likely fodder for every late night comedian.
It's rather ironic to me, actually, to watch how other movements for tolerance, understanding, and a live-and-let-live policy tend to trample on incest when it's convenient. For as long as gay marriage- or even homosexuality- has been an public issue, there have been opponents who use the "slippery slope" argument: if we accept homosexuality/allow gay marriage, then what comes next? Must we do the same for polygamy, incest, bestiality? Gay rights activists have understandably been outraged, and have called it out as what it is: a distraction, and a muddling of the issues. Homosexuality is not the same as any of those, and to lump them altogether is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty. I most certainly agree. And yet, all our protests against such statements tend to devalue incest. Instead of merely calling out the ploy, the message that gets sent instead is "How dare you compare gay love- beautiful, sacred, and normal- to the sick perversion known as incest?". It's self-preservation, I suppose, since anybody who championed the rights of both gay and incestuous folks would become "proof" of insidious plans to doom America, and probably be demonized by the gay rights movement for rolling back all the progress that has been made by throwing other persecuted sexual minorities under the bus.
Not that the pro-incest community is all that much better. Even the documentary drew a sharp divide between those dealing with genetic sexual attraction and those who form romantic/sexual relationships with siblings/parents with whom they grew up and were raised. Sufferers of GSA almost sound a little bit like the gay apologists of today who rant about the gay gene. Just as "I was born this way!" implies a justification and therefore some sort of wrongdoing, many incestuous couples resulting from GSA are quick to paint themselves as the helpless victims of a scientific force. "Don't blame me." They seem to be saying. "Incest is horrible, disgusting, wrong, dirty, and vile, but I didn't choose this, it just happened to me! So please, even though I would never be this way if I could help it, accept me and my horrid relationship." No wonder incest hasn't made much progress. And inevitably, we reach the bottom of the heap- the non-GSA incestuous couples who offer up no justification, no rationalization- just their forlorn pleas of "But we love each other."
I'm just so tired of hypocrisy and seeing the victims of one sort of misunderstood love- be it interracial, inter-generational, between different socioeconomic classes, same-sex, or even incestuous- perpetuating hate towards another. It might sound cheesy to say it- heck, it feels cheesy to say it- but there's so little love in the world. If the two people who find it happen to be related, I couldn't be any happier for them. The law is meant to protect people, not hurt them. So why is it keeping consenting adults in love from one another?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
