The Sex Tech

This is another new section! Reviews are going to be over just about any kind of media - anything from porn movies to books that detail behaviors that might be rationally linked to sexuality somehow, even if they aren't directly about sex. I will try to mention what type of media I'm reviewing in each post to this section by putting it in parenthesis in the titles. My first post to this section is, clearly, on the porn video "Who's Nailin' Paylin?" Specifically, I'm focusing on the first part of the movie, since I have only watched that much so far.

Most people who watch porn know that the great majority of porn is pretty bad in the way of entertainment. This is because the type of entertainment is more important to the consumer than if it has other positive elements. Thus, porn reviews are unlikely to ever focus on grammatical or factual elements of the entertainment or even care if a storyline is sensible or entertaining itself. In fact, most porn consumers dislike porn with a storyline (my preferences are such that I like porn with a storyline, but because I differ from others so much in that regard, it would be unfair to judge what I view accordingly). That being said, I'm going to do my best to base my reviews on porn according to what I know the preferences of others tend to be. This porn may get a little special treatment, though, since it is intended to lampoon Sarah Palin and her ... um ... political gaffes.

This Paylin porno (another is supposed to be released soonish) starts in a manner much like most other porns, with barely a storyline, almost no introduction and the participants jumping into sex rather quickly. The porn actually didn't follow the script I linked to in my previous post very much at all. It jumps right to the point where the Russians knock on Paylin's door and then she looks out the window to see the broken tank with really bad but amusing effects and the Russians enter, sit on a couch, first crotch shot is in less than a miniute and a half with an upskirt camera angle (sitting) and panties on and moments later Palin is getting naked and preparing herself for cock sucking like a good little politician. References to her being a politician, though, are pretty minimal. This is probably good since if I was reminded too much of the real Sarah Palin in this porn, I probably would have found it very very very very VERY creepy. I would not have found it arousing.

My first complaint, actually, is that the video was more than half way through before on-camera kissing (at some point, it is possible that there was some kissing, but since the camera was angled down at her jacking an actor off, you can't see it). Now, I have heard rumors about some porn actresses not wanting to kiss early on in a shoot or before they're familiar with their co-stars, but here's the thing. Studies show that people look at faces and facial features before they look at the body when watching women in a sexual context. Many also have preferences for kissing while caressing for at least a short time before actually fucking. I know this is contrary to what many people think, since the stereotypical thinking is that men like to skip foreplay. However, it seems to be the case that the problem isn't skipping foreplay, it is that many men like shorter periods of foreplay than women and suck at detecting what cues a woman is giving regarding what they want. This becomes a bigger problem when either partner or both partners are averse to talking during sex. But, I digress. My point is, kissing should be happening earlier in the porn so that you can better get the attention of the majority and so that people's brains and bodies aren't having to catch up to whatever is going on in the porn. While many men are already jacking off when they turn on a porno, it is not the case that all people do this. I suspect (though, this is pure speculation) that this is because men like to be led on. I might have to go in depth about that suspicion at some other time.

The actress does look very much likee Sarah Palin, though, with larger boobs and an awesome jiggly ass (I'm not generally fond of jiggly ass, despite having one myself - thus, this is a great compliment). The idea of Sarah Palin having a jiggly ass and ass dimples also amuses me. Her breasts do something that I find unattractive in many implants in that they don't move like normal boobs. I like boobs, I like boobs to jiggle, though. If her boobs jiggled like her ass does, she'd be perfect. Many people, though, don't care, so I probably should not dwell on this problem. Speaking of boobs, the actors did a great job of playing with Paylin's ass, but they did a sucky job of playing with her boobs. I'm guessing both actors were ass men. This is perfectly fine, but many viewers of this porn are going to be boob people and even if she's not got the best breasts on the planet, some of us want to see you actually play with her breasts, not grab and drop it like you just want to see it flop. They should have followed a very important rule in porn: queeze, tease and play a little, PLEASE!

I'm not really keen on being picky about bodies, so I hope I don't come across as vain or hyper critical when I mention body details, however, when roaming about the web in search of how other porn reviews are done, I decided that I needed to keep some of the trends that I saw and toss some out. Since much of porn is based on audience desires, mentioning body quirks becomes a part of the business. I dislike that for a couple reasons - firstly, it boils people down to only their physical appearance and while the actress knows she's being paid partly because of her appearance it still makes me feel all vain and icky inside. Like a smurf that dressed up in madonna's cone bra and stripped for Gargamel so he could masturbate - not because he was into it, but because Gargamel actually managed to catch him (would there be an icky feeling to that? I guess I imagine there would be - were the smurf into it, though, it would be the opposite of icky). Also, my body is waaaaaaayyyyy less than perfect, so if I applied the same scrutiny to myself it would be horribly depressing and make me want to hide. However, if I just said, "she's gorgeous" and didn't bother to add any commentary, this review would probably not work. I will, however, make sure that my commentary is more relevant to the individual in the porn rather than just porn presentation. This means that if someone has a zit in some porn, I don't care and will very likely not comment on it unless it looks like some sort of evidence to a greater problem (like an obvious disease or something). I will, however, mention elements of someone's body that porn watchers might be looking for. We have belly fetishists out there, for example, that would probably appreciate the well-toned body of Lisa Ann (the actress who plays Paylin in the movie) - those fetishists, though, might notice that during only one scene, you can faintly see the scar on her from a caesarean section. At the same time, I'd have to say it is probably the neatest done scar from such a procedure that I have *ever* seen, and for that, kudos to whoever her doctor was! The most noticeable part of it is the white dot at the top of her mons. I also may comment on things that I seem to think about when watching porn, which may come across as vain (like the breast implant comment) but those comments are never going to be something I use to judge the whole person and are more about my preferences and not something I expect everyone to agree with me on. Lisa Ann's breasts and her body are really things she needs to be happy with, not me. A very positive thing for Lisa Ann, though, is that despite her breasts, she does look more like a realistic girl with her clothes off than many porn starlets. Refering back to studies that I've seen on attraction, men prefer women who's bodies show good signs of fertility. Rounded body parts, soft features and a good waist to hip ratio all contribute to those signs. This makes Lisa Ann fit well into the realm of women who look more like the girl next door than the seemingly more common starlet that is overly skinny.

Guys in porn often come across as props. While this makes sense for the majority of consumers, who tend to be heterosexual and say they just want to see a real dick in porn so they can fantasize about their own dick doing the same thing, for people who are bisexual or want to see dick for other reasons, this can be a problem. Fortunately, in this movie, one of the men kind of transitions between prop and more-than-a-prop*. Thus, there's some great scenes where he does more that seems to be based on a desire to actually get her off rather than just get him off (he even licks her ass). That part of the movie, though, is rather short and he soon goes back to being movie prop.

Based on the first scene, the movie is only barely good for political comedy so far. Though, it was extremely funny when the movie is mentioned in the prank call done by the Masked Avengers and Palin doesn't bother to even comment, just thanking her caller for him enjoying her documentary on her life (prankster's description, not hers). The lack of humor in the first part of the movie, though, is probably due to the very fast planning and preparation for the film. There were many opportunities for jokes in there but the film was rushed to get it done by a deadline that was reasonably close to, but still before the election. Given that timeline, though, the movie is pretty good. Other porn spoofs and lampooning films that I've seen may have been better put together, but they are often not put together in such a short amount of time. Because of this, overall, I give the first scene of "Who's Nailin' Paylin?" a 7 out of 10 nipple-lick rating.

*I think that a great title for guys in porn who get to do more than provide dick is "more-than-a-prop." For example, when Ron Jeremy was in the movie, "Pornstars from Mars," he was more-than-a-prop, he was President Bushwhacker!