Warning: Declaration of Suffusion_MM_Walker::start_el(&$output, $item, $depth, $args) should be compatible with Walker_Nav_Menu::start_el(&$output, $item, $depth = 0, $args = Array, $id = 0) in /data/22/2/51/136/2051788/user/2247910/htdocs/Toys/wp-content/themes/suffusion/library/suffusion-walkers.php on line 0
Feb 202014
 

In the first part of my commentary on “porn for the blind,” I suggested that visual forms of porn don’t retain much of their eroticism if they’re made accessible. Erotic picture does not necessarily equal erotic tactile picture.

This isn’t because blind people’s erotic sensibilities are any different from those of people who can see (the continuums of what people find erotic are the same whether a person can see or not) but because the frame of reference is different. The whole of a visual image is more than just the sum of its parts.

Today, let’s find out what happens when people give audio descriptions of visual erotic material.

As always, I’ll be as objective as I can, but I’m only one blind person among many, so reactions may vary.

PornForTheBlind.org is a crowd-sourcing site at which people can upload their narrations of mainstream porn trailers from around the net. There are no guidelines for these descriptions, and no obvious forms of oversight for what is uploaded.

Listening to the handful of descriptions I was able to get through, I was bored to tears, and ready to go do the laundry or some other equally mundaine, non-erotic task.

This site falls into the category of interesting, not erotic. Describing what video porn looks like is not the same as consuming it as porn. The erotic elements are not there.

Granted, each narrator describes differently (there are no guidelines or even guiding principles for describers) so the quality varies. But, while some were narrated more helpfully than others, none of the descriptions floated my erotic boat.

What does lacking erotic details look like? No coherence, lots of ums and uhs, no emphasis on using sexy or descriptive language, no panache, and most of the narrators sound bored out of their skulls. The majority of the narrators speak in a monotone, and don’t seem to have practiced their spiel ahead of time.

Perhaps consequently, many of the descriptions are funny (not erotically funny), and the funniness is more painful than entertaining. The language used is often clinical at best, and missing colour supplied from adjectives, setting descriptions, and sexual slang.

this article explains the nature of the material on porn For the Blind this way:

…there’s something hot about the absolute amateur quality of the submissions, just like a homemade snapshot capturing real sexual energy can have more impact than a studio photograph of a professional model.

If there’s something hot here, I’m missing it. This writer may be confusing amateur with raw. (She is also, I suspect, assuming that everyone describes with the rich detail she uses; Her descriptions (which she provides links to in her article) are, so far as I can tell, the exceptions, not the rule.) She sounds like she’s enjoying herself, and does supply descriptive detail.

There is definitely something raw about the porn being described, but the descriptions lack “sexual energy” and are so stark E.G. (“there is a man lying on a couch; a woman is on top of him; they’re having intercourse.”) that any raw sexiness is edited right out.

Again, we have a situation in which making the visual genre accessible to people who can’t see strips much of the erotic appeal out of the content. With Tactile Minds, I assessed part of the problem as being the presence of too much stylized detail. With Porn for the Blind, I believe we have too little.

were the narrators of these clips to script their narrations, using words which set the stage and describe the mood of the activity as well as what is happening, I think we’d have more of that sexually raw content available in the audio. As it is now, we’re just hearing what happens on the screen. This is not the same watching experience as that which people watching it firsthand get; They’re absorbing the mood of the setting, the characters’ actions and body language, all with their own concepts of what is sexy informing their reactions. While word choice in narrations would necessarily influence the hearer’s perception of the scene (we’d be getting the narrator’s perception of what’s happening) it would add more in the way of interest and appeal than what is currently there.

So, the description I quoted above might then become: “A man is reclining on a leather sofa; he lies still as a woman straddles him and vigorously fucks him.” or, it might read: “A man reclines on a leather sofa, arching his hips up towards the woman who straddles him, her long hair brushing his chest as their pelvises rock together. (No, I’m not going to sign up to describe porn any time soon, but hopefully you get the picture.) :)

It may be too that this genre of porn really cannot be narrated. Listening to these descriptions reminded me of the time I watched a full-length artsy erotic film with some friends, and the machinations they went through to describe to me what was happening on-screen left all of us in peals of laughter. The film was essentially a montage of elaborate sexy scenes that switched about every minute. The scenes in a 30- to- 45-second trailer flip even more rapidly, and with less context, than those in a full-length film. Keeping up with these flips, plus supplying evocative information, is a challenge for any person trying to describe, and if it is going to be done, should probably be done by someone who has experience with providing audio descriptions.

So, in short, Porn For the blind is an interesting exercise the result of which ends up pretty far away from the intent.

Conclusion: Not erotic, not entertaining, and (because of the generally inexpert description) not even overly educational as to what happens in porn.

Next time, a review of a site with exclusively audio content.

  One Response to “Porn for the Blind. Is it a Thing? (part two)”

  1. Porn for the Blind. Is it a Thing? (part two) text

    you talkt about a review of a site with exclusively audio content.

    can you tell me the site’s name ?

    Thank you so muts.

    Gr,

    Marc

 Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>