The Evolution of Want

I don't think people realize how important seeing Sharon Stone's vagina was. That was the moment where America gained its fetish for celebrity naughty parts.

Obviously, Hollywood stars have bared all before Basic Instict graced the silver screen. But that image - that of an A-lister, an Untouchable - and her holiest of holes for all of us to see? That was the pinnacle. We wanted more. If Stone can show her stones, why can't every other actress?

It's a craze the the internet amplified. Mr. Skin made a name for himself (and a nice amount of cash) picking out the scenes where the girls we'd love to know showed themselves to us all. It's a fetish, no doubt. A sexual lust obsessing over seeing the most personal pieces of flesh of those we think we know. That's the basis of celebrity pornography; the nude pictorial of someone who we've only witnessed completely clothed.

Magazines like Playboy and once ground-breaking companies like Vivid would like to claim that the World Wide Web, in all of its free content (and ease of sharing paid content) killed their infallible business models. This is the truth, but not the whole truth. The internet provided much more than a medium for exclusive content to get passed around like J. Geil's flame's centerfold at a Junior High party.

What it did was deflect our tastes. It numbed us. The problem wasn't that we had to pay to see Jenna Jameson naked, it's that we had already seen Jenna Jameson naked. There is little satisfaction, in this day, of seeing a woman who takes dick on hundreds of videos. We want to see her sister. Or her best friend. Or her makeup artist get in front of the screen. Jenna is accessible, and when's the last time you've seen a guy go up to the accessible girl at the bar? We go after the blonde bombshell. Not because she's more attractive, but because that's what is socially acceptable.*

*What men find attractive is purely based off their past experiences and how we've seen women up until that point, ladies. The drunks go up to the porn star, the truthful approach the librarians.

And in the all-nude world of the internet, the easily-obtainable are the accessible girls at the bar. In a man's mind, while we want the Jennas (we do), we crave the shy prudes. Yet, porn sites don't give us shy girls.** They give us porn.

**There are "audition" sites that have the girls play the role of the girl who doesn't want to be there, but 99.9% of these are fake. Fact is, if you're getting fucked on camera for money, you're not the shy girl. Not to mention the only reason these girls are in this, ahem, position, is because they can't actually act. You need to suspend disbelief harder than following a Franklin & Bash storyline to get off on these kind of websites.

Hollywood movies are the exception. They are not porn.*** They are real life to most of us, and the actresses within these movies are as familiar to us as the girls we oggled in high school. Our only knowledge of them is not carnal; we've only known them as clothed, serious women.

***Unless you have a movie like "Brown Bunny", which had perennial C-listers Chloe Sevigny and Vincent Gallo performing oral sex. But this was more porn than art, which ruined it, really.

The ultimate "get" is seeing that A-lister like Stone showing us the goods. We've built a relationship with her, albeit a far-away, non-personal relationship that we all feel with actors that we've seen. It's what good thespians do; get us to think we know them even though we've never come within 1000 miles of them. That's the essence of the fan/celebrity obsession: we think we know them.

That is why amateur pornography is King of Porn Mountain on the web, These are girls not that we know, but who we could know. It's way more fascinating than seeing a paid professional rub her professionally paid tits on our computer screens. It's voyeurism, which is one of the oldest fetishes known to mankind.

And this is why Scarlett Johansson's nude pictures are so disappointing. It seems to be her, there's no reason not to believe we are seeing this celebrity in the flesh. But the pictures are scarce. The angles are not ideal. We've seen famous people's naked bodies before. The fact that they are nude isn't enough anymore. We want full frontal. We want clear shots. We want confirmation that this is her and the pictures were taken in her penthouse and not Photoshopped from Penthouse.

It's the evolution of the modern man's sexually deviant mind. We've damn near seen it all, man. The tits and ass of an unattainable women is not nearly enough. Give us proof. Not only admittance, but humility.

Because, at this point, we are so sexually numb that nude photos simply will not do. The stimulus comes from the unwanting of the subject in question. It's not right, but it's not wrong. It's just the way it is.

It's only going to get worse, you know.