top of page

Group

Public·67 members

Gay Facial Movies


Biological models have typically framed sexual orientation in terms of effects of variation in fetal androgen signaling on sexual differentiation, although other biological models exist. Despite marked sex differences in facial structure, the relationship between sexual orientation and facial structure is understudied. A total of 52 lesbian women, 134 heterosexual women, 77 gay men, and 127 heterosexual men were recruited at a Canadian campus and various Canadian Pride and sexuality events. We found that facial structure differed depending on sexual orientation; substantial variation in sexual orientation was predicted using facial metrics computed by a facial modelling program from photographs of White faces. At the univariate level, lesbian and heterosexual women differed in 17 facial features (out of 63) and four were unique multivariate predictors in logistic regression. Gay and heterosexual men differed in 11 facial features at the univariate level, of which three were unique multivariate predictors. Some, but not all, of the facial metrics differed between the sexes. Lesbian women had noses that were more turned up (also more turned up in heterosexual men), mouths that were more puckered, smaller foreheads, and marginally more masculine face shapes (also in heterosexual men) than heterosexual women. Gay men had more convex cheeks, shorter noses (also in heterosexual women), and foreheads that were more tilted back relative to heterosexual men. Principal components analysis and discriminant functions analysis generally corroborated these results. The mechanisms underlying variation in craniofacial structure--both related and unrelated to sexual differentiation--may thus be important in understanding the development of sexual orientation.




gay facial movies



A study conducted by researchers from the Center for Theoretical Study at Charles University in Prague and The Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic examined the possible differences in facial shape between homosexual and heterosexual individuals and found "significant" shape differences in faces of heterosexual and homosexual men.


The authors concluded: "Our results showed that differences in facial morphology of homosexual and heterosexual men do not simply mirror variation in femininity, and the stereotypic association of feminine looking men as homosexual may confound judgments of sexual orientation."


A facial is a sexual activity in which a man ejaculates semen onto the face of one or more sexual partners.[1] A facial is a form of non-penetrative sex, though it is generally performed after some other means of sexual stimulation, such as vaginal sex, anal sex, oral sex or masturbation. Facials are regularly portrayed in pornographic films and videos, often as a way to close a scene.[2]


The performance of a facial is typically preceded by activities that result in the sexual arousal and stimulation of the ejaculating participant. After the prerequisite level of sexual stimulation has been achieved, and ejaculation becomes imminent, the male will position his penis so that the semen discharged will be deposited onto his partner's face.


The risks incurred by the giving and receiving partner during the facial sexual act are drastically different. For the ejaculating partner there is almost no risk of contracting an STI. For the receiving partner, the risk is higher.[9] Since potentially infected semen could come into contact with broken skin or sensitive mucous membranes (i.e., eyes, lips, mouth), there is a risk of contracting an infectious disease.


In the 1970s, the hardcore pornography genre introduced the stereotypical cumshot (also known as the money shot) scene as a central element (leitmotif) of the hardcore film, in which the male actor ejaculates in a way ensuring maximum visibility of the act itself.[13] These scenes may involve the female actor "calling for" the shot to be directed at some specific part of her body.[14] Now facial cumshots are regularly portrayed in pornographic films, videos, magazines and internet web sites.[2]


In addition to mainstream pornography, the popularity of facials has led to creation of its own niche market,[15] like video series that specialize in showing the act. In 2010, psychologist Ana Bridges and colleagues conducted a content analysis of best-selling heterosexual pornographic videos showing that over 96% of all scenes concluded with a male performer ejaculating onto the body of his female partner.[16] The mouth was the most common area to be ejaculated upon. When all regions of the face are included, facial cum shots occur in approximately 62% of scenes where external ejaculation occurs.[17]


When feminist pornography emerged in 1980s, pioneer Candida Royalle always excluded facial cum shots, and with few exceptions all other male external ejaculations, from her sex scenes.[18][19] Ms. Naughty's (since 2000)[20] and Petra Joy's work (since 2004) has followed the same principle.[21] In the early works Tristan Taormino (since 1999), facials were also deliberately excluded, but after her thinking about feminist porn gradually changed, she sometimes included such acts in her later productions.[22] Erika Lust has occasionally featured facials ever since her 2004 debut The Good Girl.[23]


There are a variety of views ranging from facials being an act of degradation and elicit humiliation to being grounded in mutual respect and elicit pleasure.[24] Feminist views of the depiction of male-on-female facials are primarily critical, even amongst some sex-positive feminists (including feminist pornographers), although other sex-positive feminists regard it as always acceptable, or only acceptable if certain conditions are met.[25][26]


Feminist pornographers disagree amongst themselves whether facials should be regarded as representing or having the effect of gender inequality, should therefore not be considered feminist and thus excluded from feminist pornography, or that such depictions can be feminist if many female viewers enjoy it, or depending on a number of factors such as consent, context, chemistry, and performer agency.[25][26] It is widely recognised amongst sex-positive feminists that the fact that people see facials in porn can lead them to want to do it in real life with their partners as well, and that this could (but, according to some, does not necessarily have to) have a negative impact on real-life sexuality.[34][35]


Separately, as some of her critics alleged,[37] Tristan Taormino (2013) has admitted that she cannot control how certain portrayals such as facials may be received by some viewers, 'specifically that men's orgasms represent the apex of a scene (and of sex itself) and women's bodies are things to be used, controlled, and marked like territory'.[38] When making her first film, Taormino 'embraced the notion that certain depictions were turn-offs to all women, like facial cum shots. But my thinking on this has changed over time. I believe viewers appreciate consent, context, chemistry, and performer agency more than the presence or absence of a specific act.'[38]


Author Lisa Moore suggests that Dworkin's explanation does not take into account that it is the pleasure the actresses exhibit that the male partners enjoy, and that it is more accurate to think men want their semen to be wanted.[9] Correspondingly it used to be a porn industry standard for the actress to act eager and loving for the facial she receives, and not in displeasure. If displeasure was shown it was usually considered a failed shot.[39]


The eerie mise-en-scene is established by the foggy night,illumined in blue by a full moon. Having seen Christ praying alone, we arestartled to notice the outline of a robed figure lurking behind him, out offocus, staring at him from the bushes. We then cut to a close up on thefigure's face, which we intuitively know is Satan's. The genderambiguity is startling. Beyond the shaved head and eye brows, and body-hidingdark robe, Satan's face bears light-colored makeup to obscuregender-revealing facial contours; the look is similar to that made famous bygender-bending rock star David Bowie, in his androgynous Ziggie Stardustpersona. Against expectations, Satan is played by a woman (RosalindaCelentano), but with a voice dubbed by a man. A first impression of thischaracter is uncertainty as to "its" gender. Satan looks directlyinto the camera when s/he observes and addresses Christ from a slightdistance. This hard gaze, made into the camera and thereby directly at theviewer, is a technique used in horror films to induce uneasiness, as theaudience itself is made the object of the cinematic gaze. The edginess isaccentuated by a slow-motion camera technique that reveals no blinking,making the figure's appearance and gaze even more unsettling, as itnever wavers. The figure is beautiful, disturbing, seductive and predatory.It establishes what Bartunek says was an intentional motif running throughoutthe film, that "evil is a distortion of something good. [...] It isweird, it is shocking." (9) Thus, this gender ambiguous"queer" character is established as the embodiment of pure evil.Satan speaks to Christ in vox masculine, giving voice to doubts intended toplague Jesus; Christ in response prays to God for strength and perseverancefrom this, as Bartunek describes it, "weird," "shocking,""evil" figure's psychological onslaught.


How this symbolism of the child relates to discussions of thefuture is the central concern of queer theorist Lee Edelman in No Future:Queer Theory and the Death Drive (2004). Therein, he argues that childrenhave been fetishized such that "the Child has come to embody for us thetelos of the social order and come to be seen as the one for whom that orderis held in perpetual trust." (59) In political terms, this means that,"as the radical right maintains, the battle against queers is alife-and-death struggle for the future of the Child." (60)Edelman's work draws connections between the concern for the Child inthe symbolic world of literature and movies (as the lynchpin of a meaningfulfuture) and the political realm. Any threat to the Child and the protectionof its innocence is a threat to the future. Indeed, as Edelman notes, concernwith protecting the wellbeing of the Child is a particularly potent totem forpoliticos because violence done to the Child ("our future")involves nothing short of a death drive. This death drive would mean not onlyan end to life as we know it (reproduced literally and ideologically fromgeneration to generation), but also more broadly "the violent undoing ofmeaning, the loss of identity and coherence." (61) 041b061a72


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
Group Page: Groups_SingleGroup
bottom of page