More Sex, Better Sex with Categories

While it is particularly fun to have favorites, to be on a team, or root for one thing over another, the truth is that there are lots of really great things out there to like, and for the most part, it comes down to taste and preference rather than truly distinguishable differences.

I love my iPhone, I have been an Apple boy since I was quite literally a toddler. The Macintosh almost literally grew up with me. There are differences between products, things one system does better than another, but at the end of the day, I prefer Apple. I prefer their aesthetic, their design philosophy, their choices and their execution. It’s not perfect, I’m not going to pretend it is. But I am happy with my phone, my computer, and the Apple digital life.

So what does this have to do with two guys fucking on film?

 Some rights reserved by LearningLark

Writing erotica has really helped me understand that entertainment is about consuming things that you enjoy and delivering content that meets expectations with just enough spice to keep a reader guessing and coming back for more. It’s easy to criticize the genre, and to force false comparisons to other types of writing, literary fiction for instance. However, that misses the point entirely.

I don’t go to the movie theater to have my mind expanded. I go to enjoy myself and sometimes see the world a little differently. And I don’t watch erotica to contemplate the solution to institutional racism, but it’s always amazing when unexpected parallels are curated within the scope of the project at hand.

All erotica is not equal, and all studios are not producing equatable media. We need a more intelligent way of talking about what we like, and a better way to help focus our efforts toward audience expectations while still allowing room for growth and surprise.

Some rights reserved by  Markus Grossalber

Erotic literature has a flame rating system, and while it’s linear, in fact describes five mostly separate types of stories that appeal to five different reader experiences. They bleed into each other a little bit on the ends, but there is a definite difference between a 1 flame and a 3 flame, and a 3 flame and a 5 flame.

I’d like to develop something even more meaningful for erotic film, and actually something that could cross all media spectrums as well.

I hesitate to call them ratings though, as that has a whole load of moral underpinning that is beside our point here. Let’s think of them as targets, as sub-genres even.

Vanilla (V) — This is the stuff you see on TV after 9:00 or in the skin-a-max flicks on cable. There’s naked bodies, but it’s short and usually window dressing to a story. It’s an opportunity to peek inside the bedroom door, but you’re gonna have to use your imagination to get the juicy stuff.

Steamy (S) — Think Game of Thrones, the camera doesn’t play coy, if there’s a cock out, you see it. If people are fucking, they’re not rolling under blankets, and hopefully it’s mostly physically possible. Sex is more than just a quickie, it may be a moment in the beats of the story, and if your GoT, then you try to have as much naked exposition as possible. But sex is probably simulated, and still not a focus independent of something else story-orientated.

Erotic (E) — This is indie-erotica, where I like to live. Sex is un-simulated, but the story is still a key piece of the cinematic experience. However, it does take time to explore sex for sex’s sake, not only to advance a story. Or the story is being told using sex to show something about characters. But that’s the point, these are characters not just models.

Carnal (C) — Most studios who do high production videos would fit in this category. Sometimes it’s a very simple setup, though more than just “Pizza’s here.” Or it can be something more complex, including full story. But unlike indie-erotica, it’s primary focus is the sex, and usually spends 60%-70% of screen time showing sex. Close up insertion shots may be present to greater or lesser degrees, but the cinematography is still more focused on the beauty of the sex rather than the mechanics of it.

Hardcore (H) — I affectionately refer to this as “Gonzo” or as Devon Hunter calls it “pistons and under-carriage.” There may be a setup, but usually this is a visual focus on the parts of the body, cock shots, ass shots, hole shots, cum shots. POV and amateurs with handheld cameras would fit here, as would studios who focus on close-up action. (We may knock it, but the sheer prevalence of it can’t be discounted.)

So why all the trouble and labels? It’s not to pigeon-hole anyone, rather I think it’s actually freeing. If you make hardcore scenes and your fans want hardcore scenes, you don’t have to be angsty cuz you don’t have story. And if you make indie-erotica, then you don’t have to worry that you didn’t show enough cock or you did some color-grading.

Instead of pretending that we can compare and contrast all erotica, we should understand the intention and genre of each type of erotica, and work to make things better within those expectations. Trying to do story while having 10 minutes of dick time is going to break down both ways.

But these categories are flexible, and not meant as prescriptions for directors and producers to follow. Rather they are a way for us to describe what we’re seeing, and ensure that we don’t fall into the trap of false comparisons. It also lets us talk about what we like and why we like it in a more robust way. It’s not a competition, it’s not a matter of bad vs. good. Each sub-genre has its goals, and its audience, and understanding that should lead to better connections for fans, and a more evolved discussion about the ways we can make all of erotica better for everyone.

Max Carter by R. J. Sebastian

Technically Speaking: The Beauty of Exposure

From VideoBoys

As we move from the back-room days where erotica is something to be ashamed of, and into a wonderful new period when not only do we accept the sexual nature of our existence, but also the artistic if not the competent production of such erotica, we have to begin to examine our erotica more critically.

Which is not to say that we cannot enjoy it, or find it exciting, while also finding it flawed or capable of being more than the sum of it's angles. It is emotion and performance that capture us most in anything. We are human, and we relate to the humanity in others. I propose this series not as a means of tearing that beautiful experience apart, but rather as a way to widen the discussion around what we love and why we love it, and hopefully influence the production of even better quality erotica as well.

The picture above was selected for two reasons. First, Bruce and his team at VideoBoys has progressed from a site that was dedicated to webcam shows, into a production team that has filmed some of the most iconic scenes at Cockyboys (Jake Bass and Ricky Roman on the black leather couch, for instance.) Second, while truly finding some amazing moments at times, they suffer from one large failing of the DSLR video world, blown-out highlights.

It's a technical issue as much as an artistic issue, but it can be seen very clearly in the image above. Notice the edge of the guys skin, how it becomes nearly pure white and blends into the background, which is actually a window with shears on it. There is a time where pushing the whites to clip is very beautiful, but in this case and in many, many others out there, it is more of a technical issue than an artistic choice.

Canon 5d Mark III popular with CockyBoys

Modern DSLR cameras gained the ability to shoot video primarily because news photographers were under increasing demand to capture motion and still footage at the same time, and often without the benefit of massive amounts of equipment. Despite their amazing usefulness, a digital still camera is not a film camera, it does not posses the dynamic range to cover the full black to white spectrum of light actual film does, nor are they as sensitive as dedicated digital film cameras used for films we see in theaters, or cinematic television shows like BBC's Sherlock.

What they do offer is inexpensive ways to produce high quality images and videos while at the same time having to make trade-offs, choices in order to capture a usable image.

Which brings me to my point. While it is now easy to film two guys on a couch using available light, we are trading off something that I feel shouldn't be traded, exposure.

Jake Piper by Dean Sage

There's no right way to handle exposure, but there is a consensus among photographers that going too far over or under, that is too bright or too dark, removes the "pop" factor from an image.

The image to the left is one I took of Jake Piper in a room lit only by available light. The wall is actually white, and in the original frame, all of Jake's amazing body is visible. I chose to reduce the exposure until I had the pure black behind him, while keeping the bright tones in front of him.

This is obviously an artistic choice, but I wanted to focus on one point, I "correctly" exposed the original frame so that the window and the shears, like those in the VideoBoys image, had their original detail, as well as keeping Jake's skin tones and definition to his body.

What am I getting at then? The tendency to expose for the shadows actually has a negative effect on the rest of the tones in the image, and ultimately yields some skin tones that are pushed too far by the process, in some cases reducing the beautiful definition of the edges of naked bodies, something that is disturbing when we consider that we are entering an era when sex and nudity can be appreciated as art and beauty.

Daniel Ross by Next Door Studios

Of course the opposite can occur too. As we see in this image of the equally beautiful Daniel Ross. I know for a fact he has amazing abdominal definition, and works to keep his body in amazing shape.

However, here the lights are too intense, and come from too many directions, eliminating the extremely important shadows by which the eye can trace the definition of "abs" and which produce the electric effect such a beautiful man can produce in us.

So...where does that leave us?

As we enter a new and exciting landscape, we need be more examined, that is we who produce erotica need to think more clearly, and plan more effectively so that we show off these amazing performers in as amazing a "light" as possible.

To those who blow out the backgrounds and shoot with available light I would recommend reflectors, bounce boards, anything to help fill in the light from the opposite angle and therefore allow you to bring that exposure down and retain both the full range of skin tones, but also have the ability to get even more creative in post-processing and create truly dynamic images.

To those who use too many lights and wash out their scenes I would recommend not being afraid of shadow. Of allowing themselves to think more creatively about where they place their lights and which lights they use. Lack of contour isn't flattering when it comes to the human form. Highlights and shadows are the language of sex appeal.

Above all things, please, please, please consider the fragile nature of skin tones when you light. It is so easy to wash them out or lose them to shadows that are too deep. We are working with incredibly beautiful men, let's honor them and their efforts by ensuring that they always look as amazing on film as they possibly can.

Brandon Vecc by Dean Sage (taken with iPhone 6+)