solo orgasms

harcos · 2006-05-29 15:54:07

Someone recently posted that they prefer the BAs in which the woman has "help from a partner". Those are sometimes nice - but I really prefer those where the woman is obviously masturbating solo, to a really good orgasm.

I have also wondered how many of the "orgasms" are actually faked ones. Some of them do seem to be, though of course it's impossible to be certain, even when you're right there in person. I've had the impression that at least a few of the BAs were mostly acting jobs. Some of those are excellent acting jobs, if that's what they are, and they are as stimulating as all but the best of the "real" ones.

Tonning · 2006-05-29 18:12:07

Impressionist Claude Monet used to paint the same scene several times in one single day, in the morning, at noon, in the evening and so on. I'd like to see a woman orgasming on her own, from being "fucked", from being "eaten", wile being active one, while recieving. I imagine they respond differently under different stimuli and under changing circumstances. The variation brings joy to life.

Therein lies one good use for the overkill section, right?

Besides - I have my own rules for detecting fake O's - not put into a system, but they're there. One has obviously got something to do with overdoing things, f ex by being bodily active, phonetically active, facially active (facial exspressions) and verbally active at the same time (gross overdoing). No agonee mentioned, though.

harcos · 2006-06-01 13:44:01

I agree with most of that Tonning. I do see a lot of overacting in some of the BAs, and also some (many) of the women appear to get very turned on, much more quickly than any woman I've known in person. I think very few women get really turned on in less than a few minutes.

If a good sexual flush appears, to me that's usually a sign of a genuine turn-on. But it's still not a sign of a genuine orgasm.

deanco · 2006-06-01 21:35:34

Woah... hold on, Harcos - how do you know what the agonee has been up to before filming began ?

harcos · 2006-06-03 11:46:24

That's a good point Deanco, and I can see that there may be a reason to cut out video of foreplay (to make the video clips shorter, for one thing), or even some masturbation or partner sex. There's no doubt in my mind that some of these orgasms are genuine - but there's also very little doubt that some of them are fake. It's hard enough to tell when you're right with the woman, harder still to tell when you're viewing a video. Maybe, for me, really good acting on a video is as good as the real thing on a video. I do like the fact that very few of these women are screamers. All the women I've been with in real life have been "non-screamers" - which deosn't mean they've been quiet, but at least they don't wake the neighbors <G> - H

elfman11 · 2006-06-04 08:42:03

Lauren reckons that she has got very good over the years filtering out the fake ones. One or two might get through simply by the laws of probability but I don't think there will be many. At the end of the day we have to trust peoples integrity, both the sites and the contributors.

Elfman.

HiFlyer601 · 2006-06-06 18:54:03

True Orgasms?? Not failsafe, but worth a try. Look at the pupils of the eyes before, during, and after. In a true orgasm, the pupils almost always dialate a little (or alot). The theatrics may be forced a bit, but the orgasms would be verified.

HF

66Steve99 · 2006-06-07 04:57:18

I have to wonder, why would they bother to fake orgasm for a video?

Presumably the agonees don't settle down to a session unless they're horny anyway; if they don't reach orgasm then surely they would just have another go later; and if vanity is the reason then I doubt they'd be contributing to a site like this anyway.

Somehow it doesn't strike me as likely that there are many agonees who only 'get one shot at it' and feel obliged to produce a result by faking it - especially among the solo contributions. I'm sure it happens from time to time for reasons I can't fathom but I really doubt it would be a large percentage.

In my experience girls like orgasms just as much as boys do, and I can't see what would be gained from faking it.

dauphinb · 2006-06-08 06:47:04

wortgames wrote:

I can't see what would be gained from faking it.

I agree, and I second Elfman's comment about Lauren's discernment. She and/or Richard have posted here several times that they "don't publish fiction" (OWTTE), and I believe them.

I'd be surprised if more than a handful of truly fake orgasms are even submitted to BA (as you say, why would anyone bother to fake it?), and I'd be even more surprised if more than five (out of 550+) had made it onto the site. What I actually believe is that every single one of these videos shows a person having at least one genuine sexual climax.

That said, I suspect there's a sort of orgasmic "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" at work here, by which I mean that I doubt what we see here is exactly what we would see if we could somehow watch the same agonists when they were truly private. I think every agonist's performance/experience is affected by the presence of the camera and the consciousness of observers. In a very few cases, I've felt like, while there's a real orgasm there, the outward signs of orgasm have been consciously amplified; most of the time it's much more subtle than that.

But here's a Zen-koan for those of you who worry about this: If someone does fake an orgasm, but does it so well that you, as an observer, can't tell the difference... then what's the difference?

elfman11 · 2006-06-09 20:08:27

dauphinb wrote:

I suspect there's a sort of orgasmic "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle" at work here, by which I mean that I doubt what we see here is exactly what we would see if we could somehow watch the same agonists when they were truly private.

I agree. I think that has to be true.

Elfman.

stingray78 · 2006-06-10 05:06:14

Suspecting little {show business} here?

dauphinb · 2006-06-10 07:44:14

stingray78 wrote:

Suspecting little {show business} here?

Not at all. In fact, I think -- with only a potential tiny handful of exceptions -- all the contributors are being as "honest" as is humanly possible. It's just that the awareness of being watched can't help but affect the experience in subtle ways.

In no way does that mean I think anything here is inauthentic, much less fake.

Vaudeville · 2006-06-10 16:18:14

I don't know what the rest of you think , but for me, one aspect of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is actually rather hot as it applies to BA: I just love the agonees who are quite obviously turned on (or get more turned on) by the very presence of the camera. That gives me the feeling of watching someone living out a fantasy, which I find very erotic.

Vaudeville.

takochan · 2006-06-13 10:29:01

dauphinb wrote:

here's a Zen-koan for those of you who worry about this: If someone does fake an orgasm, but does it so well that you, as an observer, can't tell the difference... then what's the difference?

Very nicely put.

I would also second Elfman's "At the end of the day we have to trust people's integrity, both the site's and the contributors'." That trust isn't a problem as far as I'm concerned.

takochan

dauphinb · 2006-06-14 05:13:58

Vaudeville wrote:

I just love the agonees who are quite obviously turned on (or get more turned on) by the very presence of the camera.

I'm split on this one: If the agonee is just extra turned on by the extra "person" (in the person of the camera), that's hot... but when they conspicuously involve the audience in the scene, by talking to the camera ("I'm going to try to have an orgasm for you now; hope you enjoy it as much as I do...."), that doesn't really do it for me. In general, the fly-on-the-wall-for-a-private-moment scenario best suits my own particular brand of voyeurism.

BTW, I feel the same way about mainstream porn (which I rarely look at since discovering BA and IFM): Those "POV" and "Sex Simulator" DVDs where the actress talks directly to the viewer leave me distinctly cold. How can I imagine I'm secretly watching her if she keeps talking to me?

PS: Is "Vaudeville" on BA by chance related to "Burlesque" on IFM? Or are the related handles just coincidence?

al · 2006-06-14 10:35:06

I see your point. I don't define it as voyeurism, though.
In my case I call it the preference of consentual unmanipulated self-expostition. During that, I don't want to be addressed, or even worse, controlled! Please, leave my level of arousal to me. If the performer is not confident enough to live without subtle attempts to "handle" her audience, she's not ready to give it all.
And watching secretly or not, I prefer the feeling of honesty, genuinity, purity. Not the feeling of witnessing a "stunt".

elfman11 · 2006-06-14 15:50:20

al wrote:

I see your point. I don't define it as voyeurism, though.
In my case I call it the preference of consentual unmanipulated self-expostition. During that, I don't want to be addressed, or even worse, controlled! Please, leave my level of arousal to me. If the performer is not confident enough to live without subtle attempts to "handle" her audience, she's not ready to give it all.
And watching secretly or not, I prefer the feeling of honesty, genuinity, purity. Not the feeling of witnessing a "stunt".

My feelings exactly. I want to be invited in. I don't want a guided tour.

dauphinb wrote:

Is "Vaudeville" on BA by chance related to "Burlesque" on IFM? Or are the related handles just coincidence?

Yes dauphinb. Vaudeville is indeed our old friend Burlesque from IFM. I am delighted to see that he has joined us here. Just one big happy family, Ain't we? (Hopefully now the forum here will begin to pick up again).

Elfman.

Vaudeville · 2006-06-16 20:43:47

What? Yes ... uhh ... hello! (Comes confusedly in through the forum door, having been away for a while.)

Yes, Dauphin, due to an act of supreme stupidity (I pride myself on those) I don't have the same username here as I do on IFM. Clever Dauphin, connecting the dots! And I thought no one cared .

I too find it off-putting when the agonee is consciously trying to manipulate her audience, even though my particular brand of voyeurism has nothing to do with imagining that I'm secretly watching her. The lack of manipulation is one of the things that sets BA and IFM apart from other sexually oriented sites, and I most certainly want to keep it that way. However: if the lady in question is more turned on by (whichever the case may be) the camera itself or the fact that people are going to watch her having an orgasm, that does not constitute manipulation to my mind. On the contrary: that constitutes hot!

This is of course how my libido works, and I'm not speaking for anyone else. I just wanted to clarify that I too find it an unpleasantly efficient coolant when the lady is doing "porn talk". There are exceptions, come to think of it, but aren't there always? One of the exceptions for me is Anne's "Joy" video over at IFM, and since you quote that one almost verbatim, Dauphin, I take it you were less than impressed by it? There are videos both on BA and IFM that I've responded negatively to, but of course I won't name them.

Yes, Elfman, one big family. Let's get this show on the road! Let's resurrect the BA forum.

Vaudeville/Burlesque/Whatever .

Last edited by Vaudeville (2006-06-16 21:11:34)

dauphinb · 2006-06-17 23:37:52

Vaudeville wrote:

I too find it off-putting when the agonee is consciously trying to manipulate her audience, even though my particular brand of voyeurism has nothing to do with imagining that I'm secretly watching her.

I think I should clarify that I didn't mean to be saying I have some sort of peeping-tom fantasy (though I can see how it might sound that way, from what I wrote). It's not that I get off on violating anyone's privacy; it's that I get off on authenticity, and I imagine that what happens in private when nobody's watching is the most authentic version of one's sexuality (unless, of course, your particular kink is being watched! ). It's actually something of a dilemma: The idea of actually violating anyone's sexual privacy strikes me as distinctly uncool, and therefore unsexy... but the level of "reality" I'd like to be able to see is probably only seen behind the walls of that privacy. My ideal "porn" would be if people gave fully informed consent for their sexual lives to be filmed... and then actually forgot the cameras were there. Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Vaudeville wrote:

I just wanted to clarify that I too find it an unpleasantly efficient coolant when the lady is doing "porn talk". There are exceptions, come to think of it, but aren't there always? One of the exceptions for me is Anne's "Joy" video over at IFM, and since you quote that one almost verbatim, Dauphin, I take it you were less than impressed by it?

Oh, no: I made that comment in the context of critiquing mainstream porn films and the "virtual sex" DVDs available on the mainstream porn market. Somehow it doesn't (usually) bother me when an IFM/BA participant addresses the camera... perhaps because the presence of the camera is an explicitly recognized part of the IFM/BA "reality." It's like the difference between documentary and fiction film: If somebody in a documentary talks directly to the camera, that seems natural; if somebody in a fiction film does it, it breaks the spell and seems fake. (Note that it can be done effectively in fiction film -- think Woody Allen, for one example -- but mainstream porn rarely rises to that level of craft.)

Last edited by dauphinb (2006-06-17 23:38:37)

Vaudeville · 2006-06-18 01:26:56

While I don't find peeping toms acceptable, I have no problem with a peeping tom fantasy, but OK, I see your point. Your particular "kink" about authenticity must have caused you a lot of frustration before you found BA and IFM. I'm much the same way - fed up with insincere "products" - and I know I certainly went through a period of frustration with regards to Internet porn. Your ideal sounds most pleasing, about the real life sex with the forgetful participants, but unless some sort of hypnosis is involved, you're right, it is but a dream .

I'm glad you didn't mean Anne - I'm quite a fan of hers .

I don't agree 100% about the difference between fiction and documentary. To an extent you are correct, of course, but I think one can get a displeasing sense of "acting" from what is ostensibly a documentary as well, however genuine the item might be in other regards (that is, I'm not talking about fake orgasms). I do have an example of this as pertains to IFM/BA, several in fact, but it would be rude to mention them, and besides, at the end of the day it's all about what floats one's individual boat, so I'm in no position to be critical of specific submissions. Again, I agree with your point to, let's say 95.7 percent or so . Yes, and Woody Allen: his films often give a sense of being documentaries, especially since the acting in them is usually very naturalistic.

Burlesque.

dauphinb · 2006-06-19 06:57:04

Vaudeville wrote:

Your particular "kink" about authenticity must have caused you a lot of frustration before you found BA and IFM. I'm much the same way - fed up with insincere "products"

Indeed. I wasted a lot of time on so-called "amateur" and "real people" stuff before I found BA and IFM (not to mention the site that must not be mentioned, except that it often is mentioned!). You may have seen, though, my response to the Bishop over at IFM regarding a fondly remembered mainstream porn product that contained at least hints of "authenticity."

Vaudeville · 2006-06-19 12:44:19

If the site that must not be mentioned is the one I think it is, I'm actually a member of it, but then again, if it isn't, I'm not. I'm also a member of another site that's all conventional, mainly boring stuff, but that site is entirely free, believe it or not (they don't even spam you!), so I go there every now and again to have look.

I did see your response at IFM, and that product seems to have its advantages. I had a similar experience recently: I bought a Swedish porn DVD a while back (I guess I wanted to hear all those naughty words in my own language for a change ), but I didn't get around to watching it, since I expected it to be more or less rubbish, and there's so much good stuff on BA and IFM to keep up with. However, one day I half-heartedly put it in my DVD player, and lo and behold: about fifteen minutes into the movie, one of the ladies had what was indubitably a real orgasm. I, erm, didn't get much further in my viewing at that point in time, but most of what I saw was a great deal hotter than what I'm used to seeing in that type of porn, so I know I'll go on watching it. I guess I was just lucky that the hype for it was actually true: the title of the thing is "Kåt på riktigt", meaning "Horny for Real". Truth in advertising? In the porn industry? How odd!

Burlesque/Vaudeville/Prince of Wales (uh, no, not that last one.)

tannsolo · 2006-06-27 02:06:37

dauphinb wrote:

My ideal "porn" would be if people gave fully informed consent for their sexual lives to be filmed... and then actually forgot the cameras were there. Hey, I can dream, can't I?

Oh, dauphin, we are SO on the same page there! (We almost always are, but you get my point.)

How shall we make this happen? Perhaps you film your life and I film mine and then we trade tapes!

Actually, seems to me that BA and its sister sites (well, especially IFM) come the closest to doing that that I've ver seen, with the added benefit of very talented people editing out the boring bits where someone gets up to blow their nose, feed the dog etc.

As for the topic, I am with those of you who assume that these are real orgasms; what would be the point, after all, and to not trust these people's integrity means not trusting our own. The person who suggested looking at pupils and eyes would never be able to discern whether I'd been faking or not, because my eyes would be closed. My friend Mr Vaudie-Burl might be similarly perplexed, as my first orgasm hits about one minute into things.

Meanwhile, I havely surely had many hundreds of orgasms with someone else present, and I can't recall ever in my life wanting to fake one. ever.

Why?? I know women used to, because they wanted to get out of having sex, or having sex for longer than they wanted it, or so my mother has told me; but wasn't that in the old days (ie: before women and men discovered the clitoris, or at least it became part of the discourse of sex?)

(I know this thread has basically said what it needed to, but I wanted to find a harcos post to see if he'd actually been inspired by y'all's exhortations and joined us at IFM.)

heart-stopping shudders to all,

siobhan thandi

Last edited by tannsolo (2006-06-28 02:14:46)

Vaudeville · 2006-06-27 13:39:49

But what a lovely way to be perplexed, on the other hand.

Burlesque & Vaudeville Inc.

#1 2006-05-29 15:54:07

solo orgasms

#2 2006-05-29 18:12:07

Re: solo orgasms

#3 2006-06-01 13:44:01

Re: solo orgasms

#4 2006-06-01 21:35:34

Re: solo orgasms

#5 2006-06-03 11:46:24

Re: solo orgasms

#6 2006-06-04 08:42:03

Re: solo orgasms

#7 2006-06-06 18:54:03

Re: solo orgasms

#8 2006-06-07 04:57:18

Re: solo orgasms

#9 2006-06-08 06:47:04

Re: solo orgasms

#10 2006-06-09 20:08:27

Re: solo orgasms

#11 2006-06-10 05:06:14

Re: solo orgasms

#12 2006-06-10 07:44:14

Re: solo orgasms

#13 2006-06-10 16:18:14

Re: solo orgasms

#14 2006-06-13 10:29:01

Re: solo orgasms

#15 2006-06-14 05:13:58

Re: solo orgasms

#16 2006-06-14 10:35:06

Re: solo orgasms

#17 2006-06-14 15:50:20

Re: solo orgasms

#18 2006-06-16 20:43:47

Re: solo orgasms

#19 2006-06-17 23:37:52

Re: solo orgasms

#20 2006-06-18 01:26:56

Re: solo orgasms

#21 2006-06-19 06:57:04

Re: solo orgasms

#22 2006-06-19 12:44:19

Re: solo orgasms

#23 2006-06-27 02:06:37

Re: solo orgasms

#24 2006-06-27 13:39:49

Re: solo orgasms

Board footer