Why I'm SSL Reviewing a 1977 Hustler
So there is a fab lady named Jill Hamilton. She made it into the Orgasm Equality Allies List a good while ago for her various writings. She's awesome and she's goddamn funny. She writes the blog In Bed With Married Women, which you will not regret reading.
Now here's where Hustler comes in. She had a give away on her blog, and we readers had to comment and tell her what we wanted so she could pick randomly and ship shit out to us. I saw she had a vintage Hustler, and so I asked - nay begged - for it. I promised to both SSL Review it cover to cover and to also masturbate to it. She chose me, but not randomly. It was because she wanted me to do all those things, and do them I will!
You can see my first SSL Review of the Advice column HERE. This post is an SSL review of the porn movie reviews (they range from ERECTION to TOTALLY LIMP). Just as a reminder, an SSL Review is a critique specifically of discussion and/or depiction of female orgasm and/or female masturbation in media (usually I do this for movies or TV not magazines, though). I will particularly pay attention to the realism and scientific accuracy of the depiction/discussion and how it fits within the larger cultural conversation about female orgasm and female sexuality.
Is a 1977 Hustler Kinda Gross?
Good question. Yes. There are plenty of normal ol' nakedness and regular ol' sexual stuff in there that's perfectly tasteful to the average porn-goer. However, there are also a shit-ton of strange non-joke jokes and cartoons and pretend advertisements that are straight up racist, about child molestation, crazy rapey and/or harshly sexist. If you ever wondered why some 70's feminists got real into talking about how shitty porn was to women, just read a 1970's Hustler cover to cover, and it'll make more sense. Plus, it's so goddamn gossipy. There's tons of stuff about what assholes other porn publishers and stuff are. It's pretty petty-ass shit.
Hustler Sept. 1977 X Rated Reviews
This was interesting to me because it is clear that at this time, there was still this very real idea that porn movies could and should rise above a jerk-off aid. There are somewhat serious plots in all these porn flix, and they are reviewed as though they should be a good movie as well as explicit and arousing. We just don't talk about porn this way anymore. It was a different time with hopes and dreams for porn that have been largely thrown to the wayside. However, these reviews are so wierd and funny in ways that don't fit into SSL reviews, I want to first give you a quick highlight reel for each of the movies that were reviewed, and then SSL review - because the actual SSL Reviewable moments are slim, but the craziness in general is weighty.
 |
| Hustler Sept. 1977 X Rated Reviews |
The Movies:
REFLECTIONS: This is about brother sister incest, but the review believes it a lame, surface look at the issue. "Instead of a serious and far-reaching inquiry into incest, Reflections is an inane, simplistic exploitation of a complex problem." These are things that happen in the movie: Sister continually tries to arouse her brother by fucking his friends; Brother and sister mutually masturbate; female cousin tries to get even with brother/sister for sexually rejecting her in childhood through emotional/sexual manipulation. Brother tries to drug and rape cousin, but sister catches him in the act, kicks him out and does her cousin while pretending it's her brother. The review thinks sister comes off as a "cockteaser" and brother comes of as a "pansy." (given half erect rating "slightly worthwile. Probably get it up on your own.")
COUNT THE WAYS: Billed as the "the most erotic love story ever filmed," this Hustler review whole-heartedly disagrees, calling it nothing more than "nonstop sex between all those West Coast regulars we've been seeing to much of lately." Basically hippie professor keeps his job by screwing the dean's domineering daughter, but then falls in love with one of his pupils. Romance and jealousy ensue, and prof "displays his 'deep emotions' by deciding he respects his pupil too much to ball her at the first opportunity." However, apparently things like terrible dubbing and sex scenes unrelated to the plot make this a Hustler non-favorite. (It gets a three-quarters erect "Worthwhile. Almost gets it up. However, it can still be beat.")
PORTRAIT OF SEDUCTION: So a woman marries a much older man, but then starts an S&M relationship with her punk, domineering stepson. He also has a lady bisexual lover that gets in the mix. Hustler loves the sex scenes, but is a little bored with the S&M stuff after "last year's flood of flagellation films." It also thinks the plot stinks. Now let me just give you this quote to roll around in your brain. "In order to break the monotony of having the stepson and stepmother ball repeatedly, some rather pretentious bondage and ass-fucking is thrown in. Even though the butt-plugging is some of the most graphic I've ever scene, the rupturing of a hemorrhoid in one sequence is sure to be a turn-off." Indeed. (It gets a three-quarters erect "Worthwhile. Almost gets it up. However, it can still be beat.")
HARD SOAP, HARD SOAP: This one is a porn comedy which Hustler says usually aren't as good as they should be, but this one "proves comedy and sexuality can be combined to produce a genuinely funny movie." It's a parody of a TV show I've never heard of - Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman, which was itself a parody of soap operas. So, this comedy-porn is about a middle class housewife who "compulsively takes on the problems of the world -- all of which happen to be sexual." She helps people like the milkman who says he can't satisfy his wife, a peeping-tom paper boy, and her sister. Her psychiatrist husband is the one and only John Holmes, and her friend is the one and only Candida Royalle. Again, there's a great quote in this review I must give you. "The only aspect of Soap lacking punch is the photography. In an anal rape sequence, for instance, the cameraman failed to photograph the actual penetration - either a shadow or a set of balls seemed to get in the way of the camera." Hustler thinks this movie has something for everyone and would appeal to both sexes. (It gets Erection! "If this doesn't get it up, you are probably dead because it is almost a constant turn-on")
BEL AMI: This one is about a "sexual misfit, who after not getting laid for years, lands a job at Playhouse magazine, where he finds himself surrounded by an abundance of pussy." The misfit is Harry Reems, one of the actors from Deep Throat, and this movie apparently was shot in Sweden just before he went on trial for his role in Deep Throat. The only plot point we get is that ladies quickly find that Reems is a great lay. Hustler thought this was a great flick because 1. Reem's voice was dubbed which freed him to focus on stage presence, and 2. the Swedish ladies were mega-hot. (It gets Erection! "If this doesn't get it up, you are probably dead because it is almost a constant turn-on")
The Actual SSL Review
The only part that speaks about female orgasm really only does so in a round about way, but it's worth quickly discussing. In Hard Soap, Hard Soap Hustler writes:
...when her milkman confesses that he can't satisfy his wife, Dominique suspects it has something to do with the size of his organ. She has a look, cops a feel and gets in a good fuck, during which she repeatedly asks in a Mary Hartman monotone, 'Do you think you'll be finished soon? I'm expecting someone.' Afterward, she advises the milkman to talk dirty to his wife when he balls her.Her final advice to talk dirty, isn't bad. I mean who doesn't enjoy a little nastiness, amiright? However that her first worry was about the size of his dick both reflects and reiterates some deeply held beliefs: 1. a wife should orgasm when her husband 'balls' her (i.e. puts his penis in and out of her vagina), and 2. that a small dick probably won't get the job done, but a big one probably should.
These were things believed strongly when this was made in 1977 and still today. It's joked about, depicted in media, and is the background understanding in all kinds of sex advice and sex writing both then and now. But, contrary to popular belief, it's mostly bullshit. There is no physical scientific evidence that shows stimulation inside the vagina causes female orgasm. As it is now, we already know that the majority (upwards of 70%) have never orgasmsed that way, and I suspect it's actually much more than that because some women may not admit to their lack of 'vaginal orgasm' even in surveys. Women do, however, orgasm from stimulation of the external clitoral glans/vulva area, so chances are it wasn't that the milkman had a small dick, it was probably that he was 'balling' her instead of stimulating her clit.
However, I will give the ol' ladies-need-a-big-dick thing a little credit, but only in the following way. Maybe if the dick is a certain length, it can withstand certain movements from the lady as she grinds her clit against his body without falling out during intercourse. Maybe with a smaller-dicked guy, she couldn't move her clit up against his body the way she likes without feeling like it's gonna plop out and ruin the rhythm. So, it might have an effect, but it's also possible that another women might have a movement preference that works better with a smaller or more average sized dick. So when it comes to intercourse, it's really not about a bigger dick being able to put more pressure on the vaginal walls or hit up farther in the vagina (just as stimulation in the vagina has never been shown to cause orgasms, neither has extra super duper stimulation in the vagina caused by big ol' donkey dicks). It's about whether the clitoral glans area is stimulated or not.
Vulva Rating
So, this altogether was a wierd and fun read, but it just reinforces old, incorrect assumptions about what makes the ladies come. It is not helpful or progressive and takes away as opposed to adds to success of orgasm equality. This gets 0 vulvas. I would have given it a 1 vulva rating because there was cunnilingus (wierd and masked as it was) pictured on the first page and there was mutual masturbation mentioned (even if it was between a brother and sister), but I didn't because I was not a big fan of the busted hemorrhoid or the anal rape...and I can take vulvas away if I feel like it.
NO VULVAS
No comments:
Post a Comment