Greta Christina

Home | Writing | Personal | Contact

Greta's blog link  

Girls Gone Wild

Please note: This piece contains sexually explicit material. If you are under the legal age in your location for reading sexually explicit writing, or if you are offended by sexually explicit writing, please stop here and do not read any further. By continuing to read this piece, you are confirming that you understand that this is adult material and that you are of legal age to read it.

Girls Gone Wild
by Greta Christina

THE TEASE

I'm sure I started seeing the ads around the same time everyone else did. Suddenly, the late-night TV shows were full of them: the pulsating graphics, the loud, leering voice-over, the drunken college girls pulling up their shirts to show their pixilated boobs. The first one I watched in appalled fascination; the next several dozen I flipped away from, disdainful and dismissive and rolling my eyes in amused disbelief.

And, I will now admit, somewhat turned on.

It was the first time in a long time that I'd felt embarrassed about being turned on. To be more precise, it was the first time in a long time that I'd felt embarrassed about what was turning me on. I am a happy consumer of very graphic porn, and I typically like my porn kinky and perverted and pretty fucking nasty. I will happily watch (or read about, or look at photos of) young ladies in school uniforms being spanked and fondled by teachers and nuns, or a woman being given an enema and forced to keep it in while she's beaten with a cane, or Rocco Siffredi shoving his cock down a porn actress' throat and holding it there while tears pour down her face. I will watch it, and I will jack off to it, and I will write about it in the national press if I can. But somehow I couldn't admit, even to myself, that I was getting turned on by the "Girls Gone Wild" videos. Or, to be more precise, by the TV ads for the "Girls Gone Wild" videos.

The problem wasn't that they looked exploitative, or that they looked pornographic (if anything, they didn't look pornographic enough). The problem was that they looked tacky. Adolescent. Dumb. The kind of thing yahoo Dartmouth frat boys would jerk off to. I didn't want to admit to even a remote possibility that I shared pornographic tastes with yahoo Dartmouth frat boys.

I have to say, the whole phenomenon puzzled me. I mean, why on earth were these videos so popular? Why were they selling at all? Hardcore video porn is readily available to anyone with a credit card. You can rent it at your local video store or have it discreetly mailed to your home, fast and cheap and no questions asked. You can easily see explicit, seriously graphic videos showing almost any kind of sex you can think of. Why would you pay money for videos where the main feature is drunken college girls showing their boobs?

But I started thinking about it a bit. (Always a dangerous move.) And it occurred to me that "Girls Gone Wild" did seem to offer some things that hardcore porn didn't. Some of it might be the verisimilitude, the easy suspension of disbelief. If you're an ordinary Joe, it's pretty hard to honestly imagine yourself having sex with porn stars. But it's not hard to imagine yourself in a huge, noisy street party, watching uninhibited-for-the-weekend girls pull their shirts up. And it's not much of a stretch to imagine one or more of those uninhibited girls going off with you and doing even wilder things in private.

There was more to it than that, though. For one thing, the "Girls Gone Wild" ads were all about the "reveal," the moment when the woman goes from being covered and decent to being naked and shameless. I love that moment. It just makes me swoon. They don't do it nearly enough in hardcore video porn -- and they don't make nearly a big enough deal of it when they do. Hardcore porn is often like a crappy lover -- it rushes through the foreplay to get to the "good stuff," so impatient to get off that it ignores the nasty, teasing buildup that makes the good stuff so good. The "Girls Gone Wild" ads held the promise of videos that didn't rush, videos that would give you that lovely, swoony "reveal" moment... over and over and over again.

But I knew that couldn't be the only thing "Girls Gone Wild" had going for it. As much as I personally love the sweet moment of sexual revelation, I found it hard to believe that this was the force driving millions of customers into this company's arms. There was something else "Girls Gone Wild" seemed to offer, something the video-porn industry just doesn't have a grip on: transgression.

I know that sounds weird. How could college girls pulling up their shirts be more transgressive than explicit triple penetration, or rubber enema bondage, or any of the other far-out delicacies the modern porn industry has made available to the general viewing public? Yes, yes, the mainstream porn biz is doing filthy, filthy things, and their marketing departments will natter at great length about how this week's release is pushing the envelope like nothing you've ever seen, totally extreme to the max. Whatever.

Yet as soft-core as they obviously were, "Girls Gone Wild" looked like the real deal. "Girls Gone Wild" seemed way more transgressive than hardcore porn -- because the girls themselves felt that way. The girls in the TV ads are crossing their own boundaries, breaking their own rules. They aren't "Wild Girls" -- they're "Girls Gone Wild," emphasis on the "gone," on the idea that they didn't used to be slutty exhibitionists and you're getting to see them cross that line. They seem like they're probably fairly normal girls when they're not at Mardi Gras or spring break, and they seem to think that what they're doing is naughty and dirty and slutty and bad -- and, therefore, way more fun.

And that's something the porn industry just can't give you. I don't care how many guys are jerking off in the actress' face or what she's putting up her butt -- she's a professional. She's almost certainly done this before, and if she hasn't done this exact thing, she's sure done plenty of other things that aren't all that different. There's no way that she feels like a good girl breaking the rules, no way she's feeling that sudden exhilaration of stepping over a line and gazing into a bigger and freakier sexual world. She stepped over that line long ago, and she's been in that big, freaky world for a while. I'm not knocking it -- I have a lot of respect for professionalism in the porn industry; in fact, I often wish there were more of it. And I like seeing people get nasty when they're comfortable with their bodies and their sexuality. But if what you want is the thrill of watching someone break their own rules and do dirty things they never imagined themselves doing, you aren't going to get it from the Vivid Girls.

Which leads me to the other very special thing that "Girls Gone Wild" seemed to offer... and here's where we start getting into some seriously fucked-up regions of my psycho-sexual geography. Because the other thing "Girls Gone Wild" appeared to offer was humiliation. Not faked, not acted, not a fantasy. When the girls in "Girls Gone Wild" stepped over that line, it seemed like you'd be getting to watch, real-time, while they shamed themselves: like you'd be watching them let go of their dignity, place themselves in a position of public debasement, offer their bodies up for the crude enjoyment of a leering public eye. While I certainly don't think flashing your boobs in public needs to be any of those things (God knows I've done it enough times, and it didn't feel that way to me), it seemed that these girls would feel that way. The girls in the GGW ads seem like fairly ordinary, non-sex-radical girls, "girls next door" if you will, girls who most of the time would have some degree of modesty and sexual shame. And what you got to see in these videos -- or what it seemed from the TV ads that you got to see in these videos -- was the moment when they let go of their modesty, and let themselves experience that tingly, twitchy, nakeder-than-naked blend of eroticism and shame. In my fucked-up and deeply kinked little libido, that had more oomph than almost anything mainstream porn could provide.

The more I thought about all this, the more it turned me on. The "Girls Gone Wild" ads went from an occasional bit of fleeting, guilty pleasure when the ads came on, to full-time masturbation material. Interestingly, I never imagined myself as one of the wild girls: I've been around way too many blocks way too many times, and not even in my most fevered sexual imaginings could I picture myself feeling embarrassed or naughty about pulling my shirt up for the camera. (For one thing, I've already done it more than once...) No, my typical "Girls Gone Wild" masturbation fantasy always put me behind the camera. I'm the one enticing the giggling girl to pull up her shirt, or pull down her pants, or take a shower for the camera, or fondle her girlfriend... and I'm the one who's then enticing her to pull down her pants and spread her butt cheeks, or get on all fours in the shower, or turn her naked friend over her lap and spank her while she giggles and writhes, or any of the filthy things I was hoping might be on the videos. And I'm the one making sure my leering eye caught every bit of it on tape.

So finally my curiosity (and my libido) got the better of me. Among other things, I wanted to know if the videos lived up to the promise of the TV ads. Would there, in fact, be more and wilder footage they couldn't show you in the ads? Or was that just a come-on? And my libido was dying to know: Would this actually be a turn-on? Wouldn't an hour or more of drunken, softcore amateur porn and girls pulling up their shirts get a bit dull after a while? Would "Girls Gone Wild" make me reach for my vibrator or reach for the remote? I decided I had to have the courage of my erotic convictions, that a woman of my stature in the sex-positive community shouldn't be afraid of a little bad taste and commercial hype. Besides, nobody but me had to know. (Unless I wrote about it in a big sex anthology or something...)

THE ACTUAL VIDEOS

See, all this stuff I've been saying about transgression and humiliation and the moment of sexual revelation -- that's just speculation. I've been telling you what's hot about the "Girls Gone Wild" TV ads. I haven't said a damn thing yet about the actual videos.

I wound up getting three "Girls Gone Wild" DVDs: Girls Gone Wild: Uncensored, a DVD collection of the first three videos they released; Girls Gone Wild: Doggy Style, the one with Snoop Dogg; and Girls Gone Wild: Bad Girls/Girls Who Like Girls, a two-DVD set that I hoped, based on the title and the description on their website, would be more explicit than the other videos.

The DVD with their first videos is very much what you probably think of when you think of "Girls Gone Wild": shot after shot of Mardi Gras or spring-break girls pulling up their shirts to show their boobs or pulling down their pants to show their butts and occasionally their pussies, with intermittent footage of moderately more explicit activity. Watching it was very much what I'd expected and feared: tedious, grating, marginally arousing but ultimately a grave disappointment. True, the girls aren't as completely hammered as I'd expected them to be -- a lot of them definitely seem tipsy, but none of them are puking-and-falling-down drunk. But apart from that, Girls Gone Wild: Uncensored confirmed every nasty, uncharitable thought I'd had when I first rolled my eyes at their stupid TV ads.

Actually, in some ways it was worse. Whatever eroticism there might have been in the sight of girls showing off their goodies to the crowd was all too often disrupted by the sight of unwanted, groping hands reaching into the shot. Ugly, gross, upsetting. The prevalence of fake boobs was disappointing as well: It's always distressing to see young, attractive, healthy women who've cut their lovely breasts open and replaced them with ugly, plastic blobs. I'd have thought that the absence of silicone would be one of the biggest advantages that reality porn could leverage over pro porn, but apparently not. And the sound -- a relentless, one-note cacophony of drunken frat-boy hollering and "woo-hoo"ing -- was like a jackhammer going in the next room. Even turned way down, it gave me a headache.

And for all the supposedly uninhibited bacchanalianism, those first GGW videos have an odd absence of sexual pleasure. Sure, there's a certain amount of sexual activity along with all the flashing: tit-licking, tit-fondling, butt-smacking, dry-humping, even some brief cunnilingus -- most of it girl-girl, with a few guys in on the action -- plus pouring beer on tits and similarly idiotic spring-breakitudes. But almost none of it seemed like the girls were doing it to get off. It seemed like they were doing it for show, for the crowd and the camera and the shock value. The fondling and such usually didn't last very long, and it didn't look focused, and the girls didn't seem all that interested or turned on, and it typically ended with them collapsing in fits of "I can't believe I just did that" giggles. I'm not saying they weren't enjoying themselves -- most of them seemed to be. I'm saying that the pleasure they were seeking didn't seem to be sexual. Not physically sexual, anyway. I think they were enjoying the attention, the recognition of their beauty and hotness, the power they had to get the crowd worked up, the exuberant thrill of the forbidden, the triumph of going further than the other girls and being the baddest and bravest and hottest and most attention-getting of all.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'm not one of those Puritanical feminists who think seeking sexual attention is an automatic sign of poor self-esteem. I think that's crap. We're social animals; we seek attention in a zillion different ways, and seeking sexual attention is no more screwed-up than seeking attention for your art or athleticism or intellect. I'm saying that there's a huge difference between sex done for sex's sake and sex done for show. (I used to work as a stripper, so I'm intimately familiar with that difference.) And the latter is a whole lot less interesting to watch. In Uncensored, you could usually tell when it was real and when it wasn't, when a girl was letting another girl grope her to get the crowd screaming, and when she was doing it for the pleasure of a hand on her breast. The times that it seemed real were actually pretty hot, even kind of beautiful. But those moments were few and far between, and they didn't last very long (nothing in this video lasts very long), and if anything, they made the rest of the video that much more frustrating. (Girls Gone Wild: Doggy Style was much the same in all the abovementioned ways, only with better production values, a lot less spontaneity, and intermittent footage of Snoop Dogg irrelevantly wandering through the action and blathering.)

I'll admit there's a certain hotness to it all: for many of the reasons I mentioned at the start of this piece, plus a few more I'll get to later. After a couple of hours with Girls Gone Wild: Uncensored, I was definitely ready to head into the bedroom for a session with the vibrator. But the images in my head weren't the ones I'd just seen. They were the ones I'd hoped to see, the ones I'd wanted to see and hadn't. That's not what I want from my porn. Even my softcore, frat-boy reality porn.

Which is why I'm glad I got more than one DVD. Because Girls Gone Wild: Bad Girls/Girls Who Like Girls is a whole other kettle of wax.

I am still somewhat embarrassed to admit this in public, but this video is surprisingly hot. Like, really. Like, I thought about it obsessively for days after I first saw it. For one thing, Bad Girls/Girls Who Like Girls is rather more explicit than Uncensored or Doggy Style. The brief scenes of girls pulling up their shirts and making out in the streets are accompanied by longer, more elaborate scenes of girls in hotel rooms: seriously fooling around or even having flat-out, unabashed lesbian sex. It's much less of a titty show and much more something resembling actual porn.

This does make the video hot -- but not just for the obvious reasons. It makes the video hot because it gives it some variety and some direction. Bad Girls/Girls Who Like Girls has an actual arc of arousal: The eroticism builds, unfolds, starts with a gentle tease, and gradually gets nastier and more serious. The flashing doesn't just go on and on ad nauseam; it starts somewhere, then takes you somewhere else, seduces you and draws you in, with increasingly greater delights and the promise of still greater delights yet to come. It's still a tease, but it's a fun tease, a tease with a purpose, a tease that actually results in something other than the repetition and frustration and "one note endlessly blaring" quality of Uncensored and Doggy Style.

But there's something else cool and special about Bad Girls/Girls Who Like Girls. It has the unique payoff of a documentary or really good reality TV: You don't know what's going to happen next. Nobody knows what's going to happen next. Not the camera guys, maybe not even the girls themselves. It's not like a standard porn movie, where you and everyone else knows that the blowjob will be followed by fucking, followed by anal, followed by the money shot. There's suspense, doubt about how far they're going to take it. As a result, there's sexual tension. Real sexual tension, the kind you get when you're making out with someone for the first time and you don't know how far things are going to go.

Of course, GGW isn't the only reality porn on the market. You can get "real couples having real sex" videos elsewhere. I've seen many of them -- they're hot; I like them. But Bad Girls/Girls Who Like Girls is different from those; not necessarily better, but different in a way I appreciated. It has a spontaneous quality, with a sense of adventure and a spur-of-the-moment flavor that's hard to find in standard porn. Even with the most authentic, unscripted, do-your-own-thing "real couples" video, you know that the filming was scheduled and planned well in advance, that the couples thought carefully about what to wear and what toys to bring and maybe even what sex acts to do. There's a huge difference between that -- between videos of long-term couples carefully choosing to explore their loving sexual connection in a public forum -- and giggling party girls getting crazy with each other in a hotel room because a "Girls Gone Wild" camera guy asked them to and they decided, "What the fuck." These are both good things, but they're good in different ways, and the latter definitely has charms that the former doesn't.

Finally... I don't quite know how to say this, but the hotel-room scenes in Bad Girls/Girls Who Like Girls are just fun. Enormously and infectiously fun. The three girls in the hotel room in Bad Girls -- Rachel, Amy, and Rebecca -- are hilarious. Playful, giggly, trash-talky, vivacious, they're natural exhibitionists, into each other as much as they're into being on camera. They're clearly no innocents: They know their way around each other's bodies and their own, and they're more than just a tiny bit kinky. But they're not jaded or bored either, and they still have enough reticence and modesty to make it fun and nasty when you watch them overcome it.

And Girls Who Like Girls has one of the sweetest, most touching, most genuine lesbian sex scenes that I've seen in any porn -- and that includes by-lesbian-for-lesbian porn. Michelle and Christine, the young women in the hotel room, are real lovers -- Michelle has doofy argyle socks under her sexy black boots, and they talk during the lulls about their sucky job schedule that keeps them apart -- with genuine affection and a few years behind them. For them, it's not about giggly exhibitionism: It's about deep love and pleasure. The raucous party you can hear outside the room only emphasizes the sweet, peaceful joy inside it, and the sex is so authentic it makes your heart stop. When they're giggling and wrestling, there's not even a hint of, "Oh my God, I can't believe I'm doing this," or, "Did the camera get that angle?" Their sex is stunningly real, with real kissing and real finger-fucking and real cunnilingus. You can tell the cunnilingus is real because they aren't pulling their heads back and sticking their tongues out and lapping away to give the camera a good shot. The footage is less explicit than most mainstream porn... but that's not because the sex is less authentic. It's because the sex is more authentic. It's because they're fucking for each other, not for the camera. And it's so fucking beautiful that it almost made me cry.

Now, before you run off to the GGW website with your drooling mouth hanging open and your credit card in your quivering hand, I should make something very, very clear: This is not nature's perfect porn. This is a seriously mixed bag. Even though Bad Girls/Girls Who Like Girls is nastier and more authentic by far than the other GGW videos I saw, there's still an element of doing it for show instead of for pleasure -- not nearly as much as in Uncensored and Doggy Style, but still more than there should be. There's also way too much sameness among the girls: While the GGW videos aren't anywhere near as homogenous as a mainstream porno, the girls are still overwhelmingly young, slender -- and white, white, white. And the unscriptedness means that tempting ideas often get dangled under our noses only to be dropped or ignored. I was so very titillated when Rebecca in Bad Girls said she had "dirty, kinky titties that need to be punished"... and so very disappointed when neither Rachel nor Amy picked up on this charmingly obvious hint and obliged her.

Worst of all, the camera guys in the hotel-room scenes are often annoying, even intrusive. You can hear them talking to the girls while they're taping, and thus you can hear them not being able to shut the hell up. They offer their own running commentary on the action, commentary that (for the most part) adds nothing to the mise-en-scene except yahoo-dude stupidity and annoyance. And their intermittent directions to the girls interrupt the spontaneity, imposing (or trying to impose) what they want to see over the natural flow of what the girls want to do.

I did enjoy Bad Girls/Girls Who Like Girls. I even enjoyed it a lot, certainly far more than I'd expected. But I can't be 100 percent sure that I would have liked it as well if my expectations hadn't been so low.

BUT WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN?

What does it all add up to? Was my pre-having-any-actual-information analysis anywhere near on target? What is the place of GGW in the socio-sexual landscape? The politico-economic landscape? What do I think of these videos as a dyke, as a sex radical, as a radical feminist, as a porn aficionado? Were my expectations fulfilled? How would I rate them on a scale of one to ten? Would I recommend these videos to a friend?

Well, let's see. With a few notable exceptions, my pre-actually-seeing-the-damn-videos analysis wasn't that far off. The girls weren't nearly as drunk as I'd thought they'd be, so I was definitely wrong there. And the whole humiliation angle pretty much dissolved as soon as I started watching. The girls seem perfectly happy to be showing their boobs or making out or whatever, and most of them are quite brazen about it. There is a certain glimmer of the humiliation thing which I'll get to in a moment, but for the most part, that just didn't pan out. (Somewhat to my disappointment, but mostly to my relief -- I was actually pretty uncomfortable with the thought of getting off on real-life, real-time sexual shame, no matter how compelling the idea seemed.)

But the verisimilitude, the transgression, the moment of the reveal -- all of these were there in trumps. Even in the crappy videos that sucked, they were there. If anything, I underestimated the importance of the reveal. The simple sight of naked boobs is definitely not the main point -- the pulling up of the shirt, the moment of naked-boob revelation, is very much the point here. That's not just a lucky triggering of my quirky personal kinks -- it's a decision on the part of the producers, an intentional triggering of what seems to be a lot of people's kinks. There's actually one scene in Girls Who Like Girls where the camera guy asks one of the girls to pull her pants back up, so she could pull them down again. (He was trying to get her coordinated with her friend, and it clearly wasn't enough to have two naked butts onscreen at the same time -- he wanted the simultaneous reveal, the two naked butts being bared at the same moment.)

The GGW producers know that the reveal and the transgression are hot, and they market accordingly. According to Bill Horn, vice president of marketing and communications for Mantra Entertainment (the parent company of "Girls Gone Wild"), "There's something about watching that girl go over the line: go over from, 'Come on, do you want to, do you want to go wild, no no no' -- and then you see, right there, she does go wild. That's appealing to people." That was a little distressing, actually: to find out that my brilliant, sex-radical, sex-theorist theory was actually part of their goddamn marketing plan...

But I can see why. If they'd shot, say, an hour and a half of footage at a topless beach in Italy or Spain, with half-naked women casually swimming or reading or sunning themselves, it'd be unbelievably dull. It's the moment of exposure, and the girl's own excitement at that moment of exposure, that makes it exciting. There are, in fact, a few scenes in GGW of girls just dancing around topless -- and they're definitely less enticing than the flashing.

Interestingly, a lot of the flashing scenes end with the girl pulling her shirt back down over her breasts. (Or pulling her pants back up. Or whatever.) This lends credence to the whole "good girl crossing a line" theory: When she covers back up, you're reminded that she really is a girl next door going wild and not just your garden variety exhibitionist slut. And it's also where the faint glimmer of humiliation finally comes in. It's true that I didn't see much sexual shame when the girls pulled their shirts up to show off their boobs. But I did get a whiff of it when they pulled their shirts back down to cover them again. In that moment, you do see the return of modesty, the hyper-awareness of lost dignity seen in the attempt to regain it. Call it the "what the fuck did I just do" moment, if you don't want to be so high-falutin'. It's subtle, but it's definitely there. And while I doubt they were purposely screwing around with kinky shame fetishes, the "Girls Gone Wild" editors clearly made a deliberate effort to include that moment -- again and again.

Are the girls being exploited? Arguably. In the strict Marxist sense of being used to make money for someone else without being proportionately paid for their labor, certainly. They're being paid for their labor in T-shirts and Mardi Gras beads -- that pretty much settles that. But it's also clear that the girls are getting something out of it: They like the attention; they get off on exhibitionism; they enjoy feeling sexy and wild; they like having an excuse to do dirty things they wouldn't ordinarily do. Money isn't the only thing you get out of being in a dirty video, and it may not even be the most important thing, especially if you're not a pro. I myself performed for an adult video for no money back in my salad days, for a small, indie, low-low-budget lesbian porn company (Clips by Fatale Video, if you want to look it up). If anyone said the producers were exploiting me, I'd be sorely tempted to smack them. I was a grown-up. I wanted to do it; I got what I wanted out of it, and I don't regret it. And I don't like being patronized by being told that I didn't know what I was doing.

For what it's worth, the GGW producers make the argument that they don't pay the girls because the whole point of the videos is the amateur vibe, and if they offered money they'd be sure to get pros in the mix. A strict Marxist would probably say they were full of shit, but having seen the videos (and not being a strict Marxist), I do see their point. There was one extremely dirty dirty-dancing scene in Bad Girls where I suspect that the girl was a stripper... and while I love and adore strippers, my suspicions did make the scene less hot.

Are the GGW producers taking advantage of the wild girls' drunkenness and poor judgment? Will the girls regret it later? Possibly. If a Girl Gone Wild wants to run for President or something, almost certainly. A lot of us have done things in our youths that we now regret and can't take back. (My entire first relationship leaps to mind.) That's part of how we learn, how we grow, what makes us who we are, blah blah blah. And telling people -- especially women -- that they can't make decisions -- especially sexual decisions -- because they're inexperienced and impulsive... it's beyond patronizing. It's so far beyond patronizing that it moves into contempt. Besides, I saw way less flat-out drunkenness in the GGW videos than I was expecting. Tipsiness, yes. High spirits, yes. Impaired judgment, probably. Drunkenness to the point of obliterating consent -- no. And anyway, according to that nice publicity man Mr. Horn, any Girl Gone Wild who changes her mind can get her footage pulled, as long as she does it before the video is edited. (If she changes her mind after the video's been edited, she has to pay for the extra production costs of yanking her scenes. And if she changes her mind after the video's been released, tough beans -- she's a grown-up, and she gets to live with her decisions.)

Now, Girls Gone Wild was successfully sued recently, by a woman who gave them a verbal okay to being filmed but later said she was too drunk to fully understand the consequences. But the case didn't seem to be about whether she actually was too drunk to consent; the crux was that they filmed her in Virginia, where you have to get written permission to use someone's image commercially. So while the GGW folks obviously aren't as careful about consent issues (legal or personal) as they somewhat piously claim to be, I'm not sure this lawsuit really changes anything ethically.

So where am I now with all this? After spending I don't even know how many hours watching six "Girls Gone Wild" videos on three DVDs (plus one "Guys Gone Wild" disc -- I swear to God, I thought it was just a joke on The Onion, but there really is one), what am I left with?

Weirdly enough, I'm very much where I was when I started. I'm still dismissive (although rather less so), still fascinated, turned on, embarrassed about being fascinated and turned on -- and despite having seen several of the videos, still kind of curious. The whole tease thing is remarkably effective; if it doesn't leave you completely frustrated, it leaves you ravenous for more, hoping to be taken just a little further the next time. I'm disappointed and frustrated with most of these videos, in fact I'm wondering what the hell I'm going to do with them now... and yet I'm finding myself seriously tempted to get one of the new ones. Island Orgy/Daddy's Little Girls, if you want to know. The GGW website promises that "you'll witness sexy 18-year-old Amber loose [sic] her virginity to another girl" and that "sweet young things corrupt each other when Daddy's not around," and I keep thinking that this could be another Bad Girls/Girls Who Like Girls, with the great, nasty scenes in the hotel rooms. I also know I can't get the thing in time for my deadline, so I can't even justify it as research or a business expense. So I keep trying to think of someone else I can write it up for, so I can write it off on my taxes... and so I can order it without admitting that I just want to use it to get off.


Copyright 2005 Greta Christina. Originally published in Everything You Know About Sex Is Wrong, edited by Russ Kick, Disinformation Press.

     

© 2004-2005 Greta Christina , all rights reserved. Except for brief passages quoted in reviews or citations, no part of this Website may be reproduced in any form without the express written permission of the author. (Permission isn't impossible to get -- I'm a nice person, and chances are good that if you ask nicely, I'll give it to you.)
Design by Feast of Weeds.