God. Damn. I’ve been wanking to this stuff for three days, and its been working through the massive amount of antihistamines I’ve been taking for my cold, which is impressive. Normally when I have a cold, I’m sexless, wankless, and cranky. I’ve been cranky and sexless the past few days, but not wankless.
See, some new porn found me. Yeah, they found me. Its nice when I get an email from someone who’s *actually* looked at my site, checked out some content and such and says “We think you’d like our stuff”, AND THEY ARE RIGHT!
Normally when that happens I get crap. But this is some good shit.
Now, I don’t particularly have a fetish for straight boys being forced into gay sex…but I do like porn where boys do things to other boys and the boys being acted upon seem kind of scared and in pain. Straight Hell delivers.
Lets share some photos!
Anyway, I’m going to go mastubate review more of their content to share. They’ve got videos too, hehehe.
22 responses so far ↓
1 Mariella // Jan 14, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Dude, the accents are wank-fodder enough for me. I was sold after the first “WOT YEW DOOIN?” Great find!
2 maymay // Jan 14, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Wow. Do you think they could have possibly picked a more offensive name for their site? Way to go sex-negativity.
3 Wendy Blackheart // Jan 14, 2009 at 9:53 pm
@maymay – I don’t love the name, and I’m not always a fan of the forced gay genre, but I do love the end results.
4 maymay // Jan 14, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Sex is one of those things wherein the ends do not justify the means. This is because it’s the means that sex is all about.
I am usually very pro-porn, but I just can’t see myself pursuing any relationship with this brand because its success would be contrary to the site’s own business goals. And, I might add, your own stated ideals.
Maybe some people can rub away the larger implications of what’s going on here while they rub their genitals, but I have done exactly that for long enough that I speak from experience when I say it grates at you, and ultimately it destroys your motivation.
This site has some fantastic models and some fantastic fantasy scenarios, and they are missing a huge opportunity to do something much more appealing than what they have done. And the irony of it all is that they wouldn’t even have to change a whole lot to make that a reality.
5 Wendy Blackheart // Jan 14, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Maymay, why not tell this to the company themselves? It is constructive feedback, and you never know, they might change something.
I’m often torn about things like this, because I *adore* the product, and I want hot gay bdsm porn that I like (well, at this point any porn where hot boys are the focus, and it there are ouchies, so much the better. And anal rape. I like that.)
Though I wonder – would they have done this branding if it didn’t appeal to *someone*? I mean, someone must like it, right? Ah, IDK. I’ll leave the rant to you, and weigh in again later. :)
6 Gael // Jan 14, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Now that I think about it, it is pretty awful. Like, sex with a dude, that’s hell? That’s the very, very worst thing that could ever happen to you? Not a lake of fire or eternity in ice? Nope, turns out hell is other people’s cocks.
7 maymay // Jan 14, 2009 at 11:34 pm
That’s exactly what I plan to do, Wendy. :) A rant is in the works, and I’ll publish it on my blog when I get a chance, and possibly even email it to the company after I do so as well.
As for the argument that they’ve used this branding because it at least appeals to someone, I don’t think this is very logical reasoning at all. There are many situations in which you can frame something to your own detriment, but that someone else with their own agenda and motivation likes a lot. That doesn’t mean it’s not a mistake, or not stupid.
8 Sue // Jan 14, 2009 at 11:43 pm
While, no, it isn’t exactly the most ’sex positive’ title for a site, I don’t see how it is bothersome in the context of the site. It is, after all, ABOUT straight men being forced to bottom to gay tops and this is supposed to be their worst nightmare… their “hell.” Hence straight hell.
While it isn’t portraying homosexuality in a positive light, it’s not meant to. For some people it is the forced hellish vibe that gets the juices flowing. For some people it is ONLY if forced into hell that they can explore alternate sexuality. And for some people, the title is probably the hottest thing about the branding.
If it was called gayheaven.net instead of straighthell.net it wouldn’t exactly be branding itself towards its audience. It would be like a sadomasochistic site naming itself meninpleasure instead of meninpain. Yes, pleasure is “better” than pain by many people’s standards of what is positive/negative, but some of us like pain.
Anyhooooo…..
Thanks for the foxy link, Wendy, I AM a fan of the forced gay genre and this is a sexyhotnaughty spot for it!!
xoxo
9 maymay // Jan 14, 2009 at 11:52 pm
So, Sue, exactly who do you suppose this site’s audience is supposed to be? They obviously believe women will be interested in the content if they’ve reached out to Wendy, so clearly they are not solely interested in attracting ostensibly straight men who have fantasies of forced gay sex.
By the way, Men In Pain is a site whose name is actually far better and yet whose contents is far worse. Remind me again how a close up picture of a man’s penis getting blowjob or a handjob, which seems the single most common imagery in the Men In Pain galleries, is supposed to be painful?
My point is that neither of these sites align their content to their branding, and this is an unambiguous symptom that showcases how male sexuality, as perceived by whoever the consumers of such porn is intended to be, is completely fucked up.
10 Sue // Jan 15, 2009 at 12:44 am
I’m assuming that their intended audience is: straight males, gay males, straight women, gay women (and anyone else) who fantasize about forced gay sex.
11 maymay // Jan 26, 2009 at 12:37 am
@Sue: By that logic, I’m guessing you wouldn’t have any trouble with a site called GayHell.net which depicts men being forced to fuck women, right?
By the by, that site doesn’t exist (at least not yet). I wonder why people suppose that a site like “StraightHell.net” has a viable-enough business model while a site like “GayHell.net” doesn’t.
If that’s not discriminatory, I don’t know what is.
12 Sue // Jan 27, 2009 at 10:24 am
I don’t know maymay, I can’t really see myself getting too horrified over a gayhell.net either. I’m sure there are people out there (other than me) who are into the notion of a gay man being forced to have sex with women.
The thing is, there’s politically correct overkill, in my book. Sometimes fantasies are naughty. Sometimes the things we fantasize about turn us on BECAUSE of the naughty factor. Just the fact that they are taboo, and naughty, and that other people would be squicked out just… yanno… does it for us.
That’s what’s so great about human sexuality, a wide DIVERSITY of turn ons and offs. And sometimes those turn ons and offs reflect social attitudes in perverse ways. Yes, straighthell.net reflects an attitude about homosexuality that still persists. An attitude and social mores that I’m not nuts about: that gay is ‘hell.’ But it is not ONLY a reflection of that attitude, it is also a reflection of the way that some people have found an outlet for their sexuality DESPITE those attitudes and social mores. (i.e. in the face of overwhelming social pressure that gay is ‘hell’, the only way some people can express their own sexuality is by being ‘forced’ to do so by someone else).
I think it’s a little over the top p.c. to expect that the world is full of sunshine and lollipops and that everyone’s sexuality must reflect only the most positive aspects of anything that could possibly rub up against someone else’s sexuality. Besides, we’re all grown ups here, we can deal, yanno???
Back to the branding notion. I think it is presumptive to assume that because something doesn’t appeal to you and your ideals of how sexuality should be expressed, to say that they’ve misbranded their ‘product’ to their target audience. Um, do you even *get* my point that they’ve branded quite well for their target audience, even if you don’t happen to be IN that audience?
13 maymay // Jan 27, 2009 at 11:54 am
Sue, thanks for your thoughtful replies. As I’m sensing a bit of aggravation—and as I have a tendency to bring about confrontational attitudes in people—let me preface what I’m going to say next here with the fact that I really do find this conversation interesting and that I’m happy to be having it with you. I debate in pretty heated ways, so I hope you’ll read this in that light.
I do get that, Sue (really). Personally—and I’m being blunt here—I think that’s reactionary, defensive, and ignorant, but I’ll be the first to readily call that opinion. It’s the classic argument whereby some say “kink is kinky because it’s underground, inaccessible, and taboo,” versus those of us (like me), who think that’s utter bollocks and actively harmful to humanity at large.
I can never recall feeling excited because of the naughty or taboo aspects of a thing. Those things are not sexy to me, they are viscerally enraging because it is that very attitude that keeps me from being regarded positively by those uninformed about these sexual issues who are around me (as well some of them who are informed, by the way). Those attitudes are the ones limiting sexual diversity, not encouraging it.
You say this is over-the-top political correctness. Is it really? I have had my personal life actively, unendingly, torturously invaded by social mores like these because I am who I am. What mediating factor could possibly cause me to have fewer social rights that makes my protestation against these things “politically correct overkill”?
Explain to me again why this is a good thing. Explain why having only one outlet, one way to express one’s sexuality is in any way promoting sexual diversity. Explain to me again how this is any different from ostracizing bisexuals because they are neither gay nor straight. And on that point, what about a “BisexualHell.net”? Would that be people forced to have sex with third-gendered people? Animals? Aliens?
I’ll be pretty impressed with the creators of any site who successfully make it appear as though people attracted to all genders are not enjoying having sex with a partner because of that partner’s gender, as this site does for masculinity. And that’s the point here: “StraightHell.net” is about negative representations of masculinity. It is at that point—and not a moment sooner—where I draw the line in the “it’s okay because it’s your kink” thing. That (sometimes valuable) philosophy is not and should never be a truism, lest we all suffer for it.
Look, social mores being what they are, I am happy that less passionate people than I who need it do have an outlet for their sexual fantasies, but that fact alone doesn’t make this site celebratory of diversity in any way. That’s why I don’t buy the diversity argument you’re making.
First of all, as someone who does have fantasies about forced gay sex, the StraightHell.net content (or at least, the still photographs I’ve seen from it) does appeal to me.
Second, I’d be the last person to presume to tell others how to express their own sexuality. No where am I telling people that, and I’m unsure of exactly how you managed to read my previous comments that way, but will acknowledge that you have.
Third, I still wonder who you think their target audience is supposed to be. Branding is all about communication, and to be successful in attempts at communication you have to have at least some idea of who you’re talking to. You said,
So, first, I am in the assumed target audience you stated, even though you erroneously got the impression that I was not. More to the point, though, it sounds a lot like you’re saying the target audience is “everyone,” which in communicative terms is the equivalent of saying “no one.” That’s a big part of what I’m saying is technically, if not morally, wrong with this branding effort.
Which group of people gets the nod here? I can’t think of anyone. By implying that gay sex is a straight man’s “hell,” they are telling gay tops they are undesirable, they are telling straight men who don’t have fantasies about forced gay sex that they’re at the wrong site (obviously), and—here’s the kicker—they’re telling straight men who do have fantasies about forced gay sex that they shouldn’t want what they want, which is their own site’s content!
How is that the optimal business model for this company? Only in the sex (and religion) industries could this possibly work, because it is predicated on taboo, shame, and wrong doing. It’s fantastic news for the owners of the StraightHell.net business that human sexuality is so instinctual a drive in our species that their content will always be compelling to a large portion of the population. However, their branding is not actually helpful to their own goals, and it is in fact because of social mores they should be happy to see eradicated that they have chosen to base their branding efforts on an economy of self-hatred over one of self-love.
And again, I don’t think any of this has anything to do with their content; I want to be “forced” to have gay sex just like the next “forced”-gay-sex-loving-man, but I don’t want to be told that I should hate myself for it while I purchase porn about it and I doubt there’s anything in this world that will make me believe other people want to be loathful of their own sexual desires, either. (Well, except maybe devout Catholics, but we all know they’re hopeless anyway. ;)
Phew…I really should finish that draft post I have on my own blog about this instead of stealing Wendy’s comment thread, but I just haven’t gotten around to it yet. Sorry about that, Wendy.
14 Daniel // Jan 27, 2009 at 1:01 pm
MayMay… For me, as a straight man, part of the “forced gay/bi” thing that is hot, is that *in my head* homosexuality is forbidden.
I don’t hate myself for having these fantasies, nor for wanting to actually do it.
There is precious little good forced bi/forced gay porn available. I’m glad these guys are around, even if the name isn’t very PC.
15 maymay // Jan 27, 2009 at 1:17 pm
@Daniel: That’s cool. Of course, everything you’re saying is furthering my points here, which is great.
As for there being precious little good forced bi/forced gay porn available, I wholeheartedly agree with you. In fact, I don’t know if you’ve noticed this, but there is precious little good porn that depicts anything remotely close to male submission. Hence why I’m crowdsourcing my own pornography. Feel free to help me promote masculine submissive diversity a bit if you’re so inclined. :)
17 Sue // Jan 27, 2009 at 3:03 pm
I’ve moved my rambles to my blog instead of hijacking the comments entirely here. :)
18 Wendy Blackheart // Jan 27, 2009 at 3:20 pm
Probably a good idea, though May and Sue, you’re both welcome to hijack my comment threads anyday if its gonna be this good!
19 Ranat // Jan 28, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Maymay left a comment for me on a post I wrote bitching about the big cock cult suggesting I check this thread out, and I have, and now feel the need to post my own gratuitous opinion.
I must say that I find valid points on both sides, and that my opinion lies somewhere in the middle. I’m interested to see what maymay’s upcoming rant says about it. Personally, I fantasize about both straight-forced-gay and gay-forced-straight scenarios, because they add another layer of non-consensuality– someone being forced to do acts that are fundamentally contrary to who they are. I love mindfucks, and honestly, rape fantasy is my top kink. So the idea of the content (which I have not actually looked at) appeals to me greatly.
As for target audience, I would guess there are three main ones: women who enjoy watching m/m anal sex and m/m forced anal sex (which is a very large demographic in my experience), gay men who fantasize about giving it to the prudish, homophobic straight man (giving a whole new meaning to ’stick it to the man,’ since straight men currently rule the world), and men who identify as straight or are culturally straight but who still have gay fantasies or desires that they have no outlet for. I think Sue makes a very good point when she says that some of the people from the latter group may only be able to fantasize freely if they think of it as “forced.” I find this very similar to my own defensive reaction to always heal my imaginary victims after I torture them. So in that case, I think StraightHell has branded their product very accurately, if not politically correctly.
As for political correctness, they’re not in the business to be politically correct. They’re not in the business to help people become free from the cultural stigma of their desires and help everyone be more tolerant and happy about their sexuality. They’re certainly not in the business of helping stigmatized minority sexualities be viewed in a more positive light. They are in the business of making money, so I think maymay’s argument is ultimately with capitalism, not StraightHell dot com. In capitalism, if you want to make money, you find a great deal of demand OR a target audience with a lot of money, and you give them what they want, regardless of how politically correct, moral, or right it is. Any quality of the product is there solely to increase profits. They are not in the business of making the world a better place, and they never will be. This does not excuse them in any way, but I also think it would be a mistake to think there is the remotest chance of them caring about how the title of their porn paints gay men negatively or feeds on straight-identified men’s shame at their homosexual desires.
Which is why I like crowdsourcing and making your own, as demonstrated by Male Submission Art and HyperTextual Porn. It’s opensource, non-profit, honest, and real. Almost nothing that is made for profit will be any of those things (there are rare exceptions).
Is it right that many men with homosexual fantasies should only have an outlet full of shame to express their sexuality? Of course not. Is it real? Yes. Can we change it? Hopefully. Can we make capitalism change its ways? No. The most we’d ever be able to do is make capitalism pretend to change its ways so it can make more money looking morally good (ala the “Green” movement).
So, that’s my two cents until maymay comes up with his rant.
20 Ranat // Jan 28, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I left two more cents on how this subject related to the post where maymay had suggested this thread to me, in case anybody’s interested.
21 Ranai // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:03 am
I like the pics and the domain name turns me off.
Yes, I think is possible for people (not only for gay and bi men, for various other sexual minorities too) to internalise external hatred to such a point that it undermines one’s own sexuality. It would be easy for me to say “It doesn’t bother me, it shouldn’t bother you either” as a het woman whom homophobia doesn’t directly hurt. Maymay, you are a person whom this actually concerns.
Fantasies of abduction, rape and torture exist across the spectrum of genders and orientations. For people who are into nonconsensual fantasies, the nonconsent factor works regardless whether their pairings of choice are more taboo or less taboo in the context of their societies. That’s why hetero fiction of men being forced by women, and women being forced by men, also work just fine for their respective audiences.
In reading nonconsensual gay fiction, I’ve come across authors who did not just paint the fantasy of someone being forced against his will. They did not just paint the fantasy of a person who is forced by an individual whom he does not want to have sex with, and a fantasy of a person forced to have sex with someone whose gender as a whole he is not sexually attracted to. Their text affirmed the notion that absolutely any sex between men is a shameful act in itself. I think this is an internalisation and reproduction of external hatred.
The other nutty extreme I’ve come across in gay porn is the ideology that straight men don’t really exist. Every man on earth who hasn’t had sex with a man yet is just repressed and misguided, and once they’ve had an experience having sex with a man (by force if necessary), no man will ever want to go back to boring unsexy revolting females again. If it weren’t so out there, this notion would feel threatening to straight women, who might think that our own sexual options would decrease once the taboo against sex between men decreases.
I think as women who are attracted to men, while we might get off on male-male sex fantasies, we can also be somewhat in danger of falling prey to the (erroneous) idea that homophobia in real life works to our advantage. No, I don’t think that as straight women we actually have a vested interest in the continuation of homophobia. It’s a blatant lie. But it is a lie that homophobes of either gender subtly or not-so-subtly try to sell to us. I think we should keep this in mind. That’s why I think that on the topic of homophobic rhetoric in porn, perspectives of gay and bi men matter more than perspectives of straight women.
I’d also be interested in the porn producers’ perspectives, though I realise that writing a comment on “Is our current domain name a depressing turnoff, repelling potential customers from our hot content?” isn’t anyone’s idea of fun.
By the way, the first time I ever clicked on straighthell.net from a comment on Beej’s blog, it sported the slogan “Because they fucking deserve it”. How’s that for weird fantasy ‘justification’ for enjoying nonconsensual fiction? Sounds to me like dominance and sadism undermining its own sexuality by making up hypocritical pretexts for rape fantasies. They seem to have ditched this slogan by now.
22 Sue // Jan 30, 2009 at 1:37 pm
I’m going to continue to *fail* at completely understanding how anything called “___hell” has some far-reaching consequences. I’ll accept that it could be because I’m experiencing it from a limited viewpoint. But it isn’t out of condoning homophobia or any sort of wish to perpetuate and/or ignore mythology about limiting any sexuality. I’m pro-expanding sexuality and pro-accepting all sexualities, in fact.
But I’ll fail based simply on the fact that to me, any “_____-hell” title is simply a play on words. And a fairly common one. I use the word “hell” quite a bit when scene-chatting. The same way I’ll tell a sub, “you’re fucked now,” I’ll tell him “you’re in hell now.” A quick googlequest to see if the word hell has been used in other porn name context shows that there’s analhell, straponhell, pimpfromhell, scathell, babehell.
Even though I am failing in understanding the outrage, I accept it whole-cloth as the authentic reaction others have. And the issues underlying those reasons are thought-provoking….
And I wonder if I keep musing on the topic in order to return to the site in question over and over again… yanno, just for research purposes. ;)
Trackbacks
Leave a Comment