frustrated, with a side of theory

I'm pretty pro porn/erotica/prurient media/what have you. To me, it's about both pleasure and free expression. So long as those involved in the creation are adult and consensual (as much as anyone can be), I'm all for it, even if it's not to my taste.

But, my support and enthusiasm is largely theoretical. I've got issues; I don't think I make any secret about that. But, ironically, as I work through them, as I make progress towards what feels healthier for me, porn gets more and more unsatisfying. Part of it used to be, I think, the thrill of transgression, and a fair amount of that was powered by sublimated shame. So, less shame on my part is good, right? Right, except... even as an imperfect fuel, and one of which I was often painfully aware, it could get the fire started. Now, there's too much self awareness, and not enough shame, for that route to work.

I think it might be a problem with the way I participate with media. For me, it's all about the entryway of character. For media to really *click* for me, I have to be able to project myself through the lens of one character, even if fleetingly, to experience the scene/moment as "real". This extends way beyond the prurient, and is one of the reasons I love some writers as I do (Gibson, when he's good, for a fetishization of detail that's everyday sensual and not unknown to me; Yashimoto for emotional resonance and palpable optimism; Carroll for a voice that seems comfortably close and familiar).

But this is problematic when it comes to the prurient in specific. As my identity changed, and I changed my body to be more in line with it, I have a hell of a hard time finding a lens through which to focus myself. Mainstream hetporn is teh suck, big time; in the rare instance that they actually have attractive people (disproportionally girly; and there aren't any lean, lithe outies much), the forced personae make them decidedly unattractive. Watching checked out fuckbots recreating sexist stereotypes just does nothing for me on the naughty front, except make me nauseated, and that is so not my kink. But, in the off chance that there are my flavors of pretty getting busy on screen, page, or print, I run into the brick wall of identification; which of the options arrayed before me will fit? If I focus one way, it makes sense to think it might be the "guy", but... no, that doesn't work, at all. So, the girl? Um, no... it seems all focused on parts (well, OK, part) I don't have, and so that's out, too. I could try a psychological fit, but again with the sexism and stereotyping, so, nope.

If I try to find porn/erotica with bodies sort of like mine, whoa... lets just say if stereotypes in hetporn makes me uncomfortable, the intersectin that creates "shemales" gives rise to embarassingly patriarchal caricatures. Unless I'm willing to give up every tiny bit of self respect for a short minute of a reaction (and I'm not), there's nothing for me there.

I've tried the -only material (girls only, boys only) but I guess I'm just not a very good voyeur. Even putting aside the problems with stereotyping (both bodies and personae), I have a hard time watching pretty people doing fun things to one another without trying to imagine myself in the mix. Plus, musclebound gym bunnies and half starved siliconebunnies aren't all that compelling one at a time, so what makes people think more of them is better?

I can't help thinking I've taken a wrong turn somewhere in social constructivism, but I'm not sure that's just it. I do think many/most (almost all?) base, either actively or historically, a large part of their sexuality on roles, models and filters culturally available to them, but this is not a perception supported by wide anthropological sampling, just my own imperfect observations. As I've touched on in other posts, if I'm not an "X who does/likes Y", how can I get to Y without being some sort of X?

I just want some good porn, damn it.