I don't have the video, but the evil people who do, Gawker, have it available HERE.  I haven't seen it.  It's apparently over thirty minutes long.  But I included the above link so that everyone may read the description of the tape.  The description is probably better than viewing the tape itself.  The author appreciates the absurdity and stark humanity of the act.  That Hulk Hogan having sex isn't simply a man having sex: he can't be divorced from his wrestling character and be simply a man getting his dick wet.  

When I heard about the tape, I went searching gleefully through Ecosia (browse with them and plant a tree!) to find it.  Lord Ristretto and myself are wrestling fans, he much more than me.  When I asked if he wanted to see it, his response was something like, "Fuck no."  I laughed and said I wanted to see it because "I like watching car wrecks."  

I can't help but feel guilty.  It is spying, an invasion of privacy, and, apparently in this case, filmed without Hogan's consent.  He isn't a sexy young superstar who had taken naked pics on her phone and then had them splashed over the internet by hackers.  Both are violations, yes, but he wasn't at all complicit in the film's creation.  This doesn't make him more of a victim than, say, Jennifer Lawrence or Kate Upton.  It makes it that much sadder.  

This is truly a car wreck, just as with Lawrence and Upton.  And we truly enjoy it.  It's not out of malice, I believe (and I want to believe).  It's because we love them.  I have no opinion about Pamela Anderson and have never had an interest in watching her leaked sex tape.  When I learned that Jennifer Lawrence's photos were leaked, I immediately searched for them while I was standing in the middle of Best Buy.  And we love Hogan.  Because he's the Hulkster, the inventor of Hulkamania, a wrestler who reveled in his absurdity and whose absurdity made him brilliant.  We can refuse to watch the video out of respect for his privacy, but we shouldn't be entirely condemned for watching it.  After all, we will always want the things we love, and as naked and raw and completely as possible.

This is Ariel and her alien.  They are incredibly adorable and sexy together.  Scroll down and see for yourself.

These pics aren't about an alien fetish, or an attempt to make a soft-core porno version of the X-Files and Agent Scully.  It's much simpler than that.

This is about playfulness, irony, humor.  It's sexy because it's clever and creative and unusual and there's so little of that in porn and erotica these days.  Sex is usually depicted so seriously, discussed so earnestly, that there's little room to have fun.  Ariel and her alien (and let's not forget that enigmatic enormous silver ball) and deliciously fun, lacking self-consciousness, and encourages us that things that are humorous and bizarre are also sexually arousing.

Ten years ago I had an encounter with a young alcoholic who was fluent in Greek and Latin and had a passion for Classical Studies.  He wooed me with ancient Roman artifacts, Absinthe from France and cannabis vodka.  He had me at "alcoholic".

I knew it was a brief, fleeting encounter and though I could want more, I wanted to keep it "professional" (for lack of a better word) and remain distant, almost platonic.  But during our encounter, when we had almost reached the apex of our "relationship", he asked me to look him in the eyes.  And I did.  And it changed everything.  It was unfair, a low blow, and suddenly I started to think of him not as a mechanism or device, but as a human being who shared many of my interests and could have intelligent conversations and had an ample supply of absinthe.  

Which brings us to the above porno gif: looking someone in the eyes changes the meaning of the encounter.  Porn isn't about connection of minds, but the connection of genitals.  Erotica involves eyes and artifacts and illegal vodkas.  Porn doesn't need to be about personalities, no more than a toilet needs to have a heated seat to work.

But Erotica, good Erotica, Erotica with a capital "E", needs extreme, aggressive eye contact.  We need fluttering eyelashes, wayward glances, and seductively drooping eyelids.  Erotica is that moment when the man/woman asks their partner in the encounter to look them in the eyes, thereby changing and disrupting and making wonderful everything.

(As for the alcoholic, I bought a copy of Inferno to read, as it was his favorite and called him the next day.  No answer, no return call, and I felt really, really, stupid.  But I learned that men need to keep their eyes to themselves.)

I call this the vanilla BDSM batch of Disney Porn, made for the post-Fifty Shades of Gray audience.  The sexuality in these is not only soft core, it's pretty.  The BDSM is light, jaunty, amused, playful, loving.  The couples are sharing a wicked secret that is oh so delicious.  I feel as if I've become jaded, and these healthy, positive images should be mocked.  After all, isn't that what the hardcore Disney porn does?  Mock the puritanical, innocent, naive nature of the stories and characters?  

But why should it be mocked?  Why shouldn't Disney characters be positive images?  Because then one of the biggest corporations on the planet would be doing something good?  And that's not something a liberal wants to admit?  Very likely.

But these images weren't put out by Disney.  And now that I think about it, these are all BDSM images where the man is the dominant and the woman submissive.  A sexist posture, but also an attitude that would appeal to most women.  Because, from the statistics I keep reading and hearing about, most women find the role of submissive to be very sexually exciting.


And, MY BOOK, MY BOOK, MY BOOK: Dying in Pleasure

We've all heard about it, perhaps even looked at some of it online.  I heard a rumor that real Disney animators made Disney porn on the side, secretly, and it was available out there in World Wide Web Land.  I'd never seen it.

This is making Disney adult, and on par with Barbie art and sexualizing the doll (which I discussed several blogs ago).  But it has an added element of childhood.  It cannot be ignored, as much as we wish because it is so uncomfortable and dangerous.  But these cartoon characters are those which we embraced as children and let our children embrace.  This becomes a sexualizing of childhood, of making our innocent years something much more.  

But children ARE sexual creatures.  I've had many friends tell me about their masturbation experiences and sexual acts between the ages of five and twelve.  It should not be at all shocking that children are attracted to Ariel, Belle and Snow White.  That children would have similar, yet much more ignorant, sexual fantasies as we would.  Perhaps the appeal of Disney porn is not that it's so shocking, but that it's so comfortable---it speaks to the elementary sexual creature that we were, and explodes it into all it's splendor.