“This documents serves to inform you that this project will require you to be fully nude and/or witness others fully nude and participate in graphic sexual situations (…) By accepting this Project assignment you may be required to do any of the following: appear fully nude; wear a pubic hair patch; perform genital-to-genital touching; have your genitals painted; simulate oral sex with hand-to-genital touching; contort to form a table-like shape while being fully nude; pose on all fours while others who are fully nude ride on your back; [and] ride on someone’s back while you are both fully nude.”
- Pure erotica from a consent form signed by Hollywood extras involved in the new HBO Westworld series. If this was an effort to cull free advertising, it worked. Now I’m wishing I had a subscription to HBO. But even more than that, lawyers writing erotica? Can anyone tell me what this means: “contort to form a table-like shape while being fully nude”. Is this some new fetish I don’t know about?—or lawyer-speak for doggy-style? And here I thought I’d read everything… And what’s a pubic hair patch? The reality is probably dull and embarrassing, but HBO could probably work up a pretty hot series based on the life of Hollywood extras—no doubt portrayed by Hollywood stars. Irony anyone?
Categories: Miscellaneous, News - Sex & Erotic, RedBud, Uncategorized
The Erotic Writer 
“And what’s a pubic hair patch?”
Probably reflects current fashion to shave everything, evidently a look not desired for some scenes. No idea why women and men find the bare look attractive, but then I don’t get tattoos, either. I admit it.
Actually, I like the look, and for the same reasons that classical sculptors (the Greeks and Romans) never put hair on their marble pussies — because the shape of a woman’s body is beautiful and especially so when visible. You can see where all those lovely curves terminate in that wonderful, little, dividing slip and invitation between the thighs. And the same goes for a man’s cock and balls. Arousing and beautiful without the hair (though, sadly for me, only insofar as I imagine it in the company of, or inside of, a woman’s anatomy).
By the way, Joe, are you as flummoxed by a “table-like shape” as I am? The only thing that occurs to me is this (and a close-up), or this, or perhaps this? I’m leaning toward the first option. For lack of a better term (maybe the lawyers couldn’t bother googling?) the pose is called “The Crow“. And since I was googling ‘human furniture’, I want this for my birthday.
Hmm. Yes, the David is without hair and he looks fine (and let’s not go anywhere near the idea of The Donald without hair), but in my quick search I could not turn up a classical-era nude marble *with* cleft—with a mound that might reflect pubic hair or not, but no cleft.
As for the table, I thought the same thing as you, the first item, although I didn’t add the ball gag and I think the figure needs to be straighter. I know I’ve seen it, in a non-porn setting, but couldn’t turn one up. Ah, for the days of Yul Brynner! Bet he couldn’t do the table, though.
I’ll pass the human furniture idea on to the guy down the street who has a life-size male nude carved from a huge tree trunk, in his driveway.
Oops, correction! Take another look at the David. That appears to be a clump of pubic hair, or a very bad skin condition. He still looks good.
Yes, but David isn’t Roman or Greek. That’s Michelangelo — the age of fig leaves for the most part. :-)
//I could not turn up a classical-era nude marble *with* cleft//
My comment conflated the hairless women of classical sculptures with my own enjoyment of the little cleft — so visible without hair. I didn’t mean to give the impression that classical statues of women always revealed that little nook. But consider this:
This comes from classical Greece. Consider the frescos of Pompei. To my knowledge, no hair and some pretty explicit stuff. It’s possible that there’s a statue with that divine cleft, but if so it was either destroyed or hasn’t been dug up yet. This one comes very close.
Very nice, both of them.
Just took a closer look. Make that very very nice to the first one!
Yeah, kind of amazing isn’t it? Our taste for the erotic, what we love in each other, really hasn’t changed for thousands of years. I mean, here we are, and in all likelihood their descendants.
Come to think of it, she does look a little like my grandmother, in her younger days…
OK, fair enough. (And the hell with fig leaves, generally.) But here’s Greek c. 340 BC, with hair:
and Aphrodite, same era—no hair, but no cleft, either:
Anyway, I take your point and agree that the classical look is, well, classical. The little-girl look on actual living grown women still doesn’t do much for me.
Cheers!
After closely examining Perseus (and his grievous injury) I’m not seeing the hair.And, you know, looking at Aphrodite, the goddess of love(making) after all, I do — I swear — see a very suggestive indentation. I mean, if we’re splitting hairs [cough]. :-)
Indeed. Bless ’em all, male and female.
The post post convo was as interesting as the post itself. :D LOVED what you want for your birthday…practical and beautiful, too.
nilla
Isn’t it? I could keep a little plush tentacle right under her breast — where her heart would be.
Lots of irony. Loads and loads. (Which a table-like shape is obviously good for–receiving lots of loads.)