Beauty, Morals, and Technology

Miss Daisy and I often get into some interesting discussions on the issues of the day. A few days ago we had an funny and odd email/phone conversation about beauty, morals and technology as relates to Hollywood and pornography. For this to even begin the long torturous march towards making sense - you have to read it for yourself.

After reading, feel free to weigh in in the comments section.
-------------------------------

Coletrain: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/12/03/wtv03.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/12/03/ixworld.html

Apparently my girls Eva Longoria and Anna K are "flawless" in any medium. Not so for Heather Locklear.

Miss Daisy: Have I mentioned yet that you're an idiot?

Coletrain: Just because I like to keep up with the world I live in doesn't make me an idiot... But I am sure I sound silly to a man who would move into a cave if one was available on Lake Shore Drive.

Miss Daisy: I find it funny that this is an old story. Last year they were discussing how HDTV would ruin porn because the "actresses" would look so much worse. They also mentioned Cameron Diaz in that article. Apparently, she's badly pock-marked. Why anyone cares about this stuff still baffles me. Yes, technology will take some wonder away from these people, but it would help if I regarded these people in any way. Eva Longoria couldn't hold a candle to Ingrid Bergman or Donna Reed as an actress or as a talent, and George Clooney would've been embarrassed by the talents of Fred Astaire or Bing Crosby. Hollywood is just filled with vapid imbeciles making uninspiring stories up for the unfulfilled masses.
Count me out.

Coletrain: Actually, the new theory is that HDTV/DVD and more "real" porn is good because the "actresses" look more like “real" women and will be less likely to cause men to pull away from those real women in their lives. In other words, if the chick in the porn looks like your wife, you are more likely to go bang her after watching it.

And Hollywood talent critiques from a man who has watched and enjoyed most of Rob Schneider's movies tend to fall flat.

Miss Daisy: That's a horrible circular argument you've just committed. Because you're arguing that the actresses should worry because it takes away their more austere qualities yet its okay for pornography which relies on that same theme of wonderment of the viewer with how hot a particular actor or actress is. Guys don't go to strip bars and talk about how ordinary the girls look, they talk about how hot they are. Television works the same way.

Come on, give me a break. You have tried to argue that AFI made a gross misjudgment by leaving Highlander out of their top 100. Good taste and you are on opposite sides of the room.

Coletrain: There is a difference between hot/gettable and hot/unattainable. Hot/gettable women are measured by a standard that you create in your head. Hot/unattainable women offer themselves as a standard for all others to be judged.

With pornstars - there is a problem if you are using them to see if your wife/gf measures up. That is how relationships fall apart and how addictions are formed. With "normal" actresses, being the standard means the cover of fashion magazines and lots of endorsements and cash.

When you measure pornstars by your own standard - it is them that measure up or not, and your wife/gf is more likely to be successful on that scale. Yet this is bad for actresses because if makeup/soft light/camera angles/massive surgery/devil worship can no longer make Heather Locklear the end all and be all of beauty - her career is over, period.

Miss Daisy: Weak argument. I don't think Joe Six-Pack makes a conscious discernment between Jenna Jameson and Jill Kelly and Eva Longoria and Heather Locklear. They're all, in Joe Six-Pack's head, pretty much not attainable goals.

Coletrain: Please... Jenna Jameson and Jill Kelly were huge back when we started college - 10 years ago. JJ doesn't even do hardcore anymore.

The newest thing is amateur/reality stuff. Things you find on the internet aren't the gorgeous chicks in lingerie with the porn grooves in the background with different actors doing voiceovers.

You're behind the times.

Miss Daisy: Isn't being 'behind the times' in terms of porn a good thing? I would say 'yes.' My girlfriend would be proud to know that I know nothing about the porn industry in its current constitution. Spanktravision and you, though, apparently have a very close relational bond...As per what's popular now, the bottom line is still the same for Joe Six Pack, its a girl he's never ever going to see or hope to attain. The amateur/reality star becomes the new new thing and is thrust into the mainstream spotlight.

Coletrain: You are totally missing the point - the amateur/reality thing highlights the girl you can see and could reasonably obtain. What do you think "girl next door" even means? Glamour is dead in porn and is dying everywhere else. Have you ever seen pictures of Donna Reed in a mugshot or on a bad hair day? I bet you could name 25 actors/actresses who you've seen not at their best without even thinking hard.

Allow me to be clearer... Joe Six Pack probably has a pretty good shot at one of the chicks on the bangbus or Crackwhoreconfessions.com.

Besides, if you are interested in internet/video technology - it pays to keep up with porn. Every breakthrough in video streaming, high def, information storage, ad usage, spam, popup blocking and spam protection, and better file formats have had their origins in pornography.

Sex really does sell.

Miss Daisy: Donna Reed has been dead since 1986. And I don't ever remember her looking bad because the Hollywood of the 40's, 50's, and 60's, didn't stalk movie stars on their daily sojourns. So our images of Audrey Hepburn or Ingrid Bergman or Donna Reed are just their celluloid countenances in all their grandeur. The old guard will retain their glory forever. Britney Spears has 22 cameramen following her trashy ass around SoCal and very few actresses these days could achieve the mystique of an Audrey Hepburn because she was secluded and cosmopolitan. I can't think of a Hollywood starlet that is as intelligent as she was. Hepburn could speak fluent English, Spanish, French, Dutch/Flemish and Italian. Grace Kelly is another one. My only memories of her are on screen. Or being the Queen of Monaco. Whichever. And for most of those actresses of that day, the memories stay on screen. Hollywood pimps 'glamour' to the tabloids now. Should I really care that Brad Pitt is adopting Angelina Jolie's kids? Why do I know this! Because its on every website, msnbc, cnn, you name it. The 25 actors/actresses you're talking about aren't yesterday's stars. You're talking about TODAY'S stars. I can't remember Cary Grant ever looking out of sorts. Ben Affleck or Heath Ledger or whoever his modern day equivalent is, we've seen looking like they're strung out on smack.

You're right, Joe Six-Pack does have a shot with those girls. I don't think I like what that says about America. And you are correct that the most lucrative thing on the internet has been pornography. And they lead the way for technological advancement. Again, these are not good signs. I'd like to ask a better question: why has their been the 'amateur craze' to begin with? What precipitated this??

Coletrain: It will take too much time to research the source, but I read somewhere recently that Hollywood contracts back in the day mandated that actors and actresses looked their best in public - even when buying groceries. If you ever watched late night TV (leno/letterman/conan/etc) [you would notice] that older stars are more likely to look presentable than younger stars on interviews.

As far as the amateur craze, I don't know the start of it - but I know that it is part of the democratization of Hollywood and sex, if you will. All access, all the time, every man has got a shot. Add to that a relaxation of public morals, and the fact that the ability to produce porn has gone down considerably... which is notable since it was pretty cheap before.

Category:

• Sex
• Society
• Relationships