Special Feature: Art and hypercapitalism

Monday 5 October 2020, 8.00pm HKT

ONCE in a blue moon, I get to witness how thinking too much causes problems.

Exhibit refused: “Fountain” by Marcel Duchamp (signing as R. Mutt), 1917. Photograph by Alfred Stieglitz. (via Wikipedia)

How do artists cope with living in a society of plutocratic hypercapitalism?

What I mean by that is, once you realise you have no power over anything whatsoever and you are meant to be ‘controlled’ by corporations for maximised gains, you tend to lose the will to live and the motivation to pursue larger-than-life concepts. Or maybe you pursue art exactly because of that to escape it (at least in your mind).

For me, it’s the opposite. The art I would do would be for entertainment. Ironically, that in itself is precisely what makes it all go to shit in its current state. Even if I go the route of simple thinking and enjoy a simple life, I’m still a victim of systems that work against me. I still have to draw for cheap money. I still have to whore myself out so I don’t starve. I don’t know, but I feel like I had lost a purpose to do anything, really.

I realise that learning and doing art is one of those few things that can actually help me feel more like a human being. I just don’t know how to form a good mindset for that.Art Dickmouth

In short, you’re also interested in how to be a bum, right?

It isn’t hypercapitalism. Not even capitalism. It’s just the nature of society everywhere since the beginning of time.

Don’t “cope” — ADJUST. If you (as you put it) can pursue art to escape this “hypercapitalism” and “whore yourself out,” then you are already adjusting — why ask about “coping”?

There is literally NO POINT to knowing or asking about how others ‘cope.’ You need only know two things:—

  1. What are the commonest things you are having to cope with?
  2. Why are they still common things you have to cope with when you know their effects on you?

If I chucked you into the wilderness with no laws and no bills to pay, you still have to do the stuff you dislike in order to survive — fetching water, hunting, foraging, farming, raising livestock, build a shack, make tools and clothes, and so on.

Gee, I don’t know, maybe it’s because pretty much everything we see around us that’s not a stump or a natural rock formation was made possible by small businesses and bigger corporations. Your art materials and mobile phone are made by companies, if you’ve noticed.

If you don’t want to work, go act crazy or cripple yourself so you can be a part of that universal income apparatus called WELFARE like many people do.

  • If anything, capitalism is overall better for you. Maybe you have to ‘whore’ out your art or yourself to make ends meet, but at least that’s related to your interest and, hopefully, be recognised for it.

Most companies have a gross profit margin of 10% to 15%. This means 85% to 90% of the money they make goes into employee payroll, rent, technological research, insurance, and then taxes. Ultimately that “10–15%” money is used for the creation of a product or service (in your case, art) that people would want to pay for because it provides a ‘benefit’ to them. How can that arrangement possibly offend you? LMAO.

  • Contention:— “Plutocratic” was there for a reason.

You gave none. You presumed the rest of us would know what you mean by your fancy term “plutocratic hypercapitalism,” which, by the way, makes no sense in economics or political science.

What has plutocracy got to do with anything? The wealthy has always influenced and controlled the government. With companies, it has to be plutocratic because there’s no other feasible way. Plutocracy is also relative — I’m ‘wealthy’ relative to my employees, but I’m scarcely wealthy in objective terms. So what’s your point?

Ever heard of wage-cutting and looking for cheaper labour? Plutocracy and hypercapitalism my foot.

Art is no different. If you’re not in the top 5%, you have to meet bigger and bigger expectations while getting the same or sometimes a lesser amount of money.

It’s self-evident from looking at the quality of art 15 or 20 years ago and compare it to now. You have to be like a million times better now than before, but you get generally the same or less money because of inflation and so on. It’s pathetic but that’s “capitaluserism” for you.


You talk of “losing the will to live” due to having “no control over anything whatsoever” and “meant to be controlled” by mega-corporations or plutocratic hypercapitalism — and I’m asking why you see it that way. Losing the will to live is a pretty extreme reaction to a form of ECONOMICS for someone claiming no control yet have the control to escape the system by pursuing something EXPENSIVE like art and whoring it out.

I’m curious as to what are you not telling us because you’re using the meaningless words “plutocratic” and “hypercapitalism” — one of the classic fascist/communist agitprop ploys to play people off against each other. You’re using “art” as a launchpad for running the ploy of the few vs. the many.

Hypercapitalism is politicalspeak for “unregulated capitalism” — political euphemism for “imperialism” to disguise it under the cloak of economics. It was the capitalism of the 19th century. It ended after the First World War. We don’t have that anymore due to the fact that we have uniform trade treaties between countries and national laws regulating employment conditions, wages, consumer rights and so on.

Plutocracy is the wealthy influencing or controlling the government. There is nothing strange or new about this because this has been going on for centuries. I’ve already explained plutocracy in companies in the 12th paragraph above.

Capitalism — or whatever you like to call it — is a traditional pattern of nature since the New Stone Age. It is not an actual ‘system.’ Economics treats things in terms of systems behaviour to analyse the variables and predict trajectories.

Art is just expression, no more and no less. Even if aliens exist and land on Earth, they will do more business with us than art. Selling art is selling this ‘expression,’ and it’s kind of weird desu too, I grant you that.

At first, even The Naked Listener thought it was a megacorp conspiracy hating on art. I’m afraid it’s worse than that:—

  • Art itself is not only for money but for loving it.

This is literally everywhere in every field. That’s just how society is going to continue on until the population implodes or there’s a shortage of workers for every conceivable job.

Oh, wait, by then everything will be automated and robots will do everything for the 100,000 or so human beings that still survive then — just like all those barely populated planets in Star Wars or Star Trek.


I said that you get the same amount of money for doing art today while the required quality had to be a lot better than before. This is tantamount to saying less money obtainable for the same quality given because of inflation and other economic factors.

Is THAT a healthy industry for you?

Theoretically, I could get unbelievably good like da Vinci or Michelangelo and be well off — but that’s not what 99% of artists got in any century.

Some people think (and automatically brand) anyone a “commie” for desiring some degree of equality and equity. But seeing flaws in a system doesn’t make a person a “commie” any more than wilful blindness makes one a “fascist.”

The citizens of the former USSR all knew the Soviet economy was shit, crumbling and unequal even with no inkling how life was in the imperialist West. “Commie” much?

Japan is the perfect “communist” society, but you’ll get your face bashed in from calling anyone there a “commie” because they’re out-and-out capitalists.

  • If anything, capitalism helps make artists rich and opens up possibilities to more people in art.

The bunch who wants “equality” plus the group that brands others as “commie” or “fascist” are people who hang around with (and hang onto) kiddie ideas. They don’t have enough experience of the real world, no matter what their age.

The bunch that disses the equalityfags operate on the idea of “Life is unfair” or “There is no equality in life” — and they are closet dumbarses because they didn’t learn to know the final part of those phrases, which is “… but we can improve things.” This bunch is precisely the people who have no control over anything whatsoever because they are victims of systems that found it easy to work against them. So they don’t see the need to improve anything (or themselves) because “hey, that’s life” and the system treats them for what they are — like dust.

At least the equalityfags (the less extreme versions) still aren’t too victimised and still have a modicum of control to have a crack at making improvements.

Meanwhile the equalityfags insist having equality, often at once with a hard reset to society, and they are equally brain-damaged. They operate on the idea of “We are all born equal” — not learning to know the phrase end with the words, “but we lead different, separate lives.” We spill the same blood in the same mud, but some spill earlier or spill more than others. So it’s “Oklahoma, or Bust!” with them because they don’t have the self-control to stick around long enough for the improvement effort to work its way through the inertia of the system. So they create various schemes to shoehorn ‘equality’ into things — at the expense of fairness. In the process, they become like the unfairfags above.

Just get good at the art you do. This allows you to have a fighting chance of making a living off it. You’re entirely free to do or not do. Nothing in the world stops you from getting good at it, though lots of circumstances in life can make it hard or even impossible for you to do so.

You cannot in good faith complain that you have to “slave away” at a company job or whoring yourself in art. Either you want to sell your skills, or you’re a lazy bum. You can even freelance. There’s really little or nothing to complain about.

  • The ‘flaws’ in art or the art world that some ‘artists’ bitch about are simply because of competition.

What am I suggesting with that? That we have an artist “battle royale” so we can cull and thin out the competition?

  • You are COMPETING in and with a GLOBAL market in art. That’s how it is. It’s the same in other fields.

The situation you’re facing is competition. The difference is you’re calling it by a made-up label that has no validity in economics and no meaningful definition in political science. Then you rabbit on about the system victimises you but with opportunities for your whoring-out because the system is run by the select few, which altogether has no bearing on the form of art you do in a system that doesn’t mandate you to do an approved artform. What are you not telling us?

That competition comes from more and more people getting into the art domain. Those increased numbers of people stem from both ballooning population levels and general upward development of societies everywhere.

People get better in their knowledge or skills in art. More and more information are freely available online. People are no longer tied to their parents’ or grandparents’ line of work, unlike the generations before us.

Andy Warhol was competing against barely a dozen other artists of his calibre and style, but was already eclipsed by some 500 others in his niche by the time he died. Henri Cartier-Bresson was unique in genre and aesthetics in his time, but tens of thousands were doing the HCB thing by the ’70s and ’80s when camera and film prices went down to mass-affordability levels. Imagine Warhol and Cartier-Bresson having to compete against today’s deluge of just those on digital with even a little bit of art or photographic training. The bar goes up for literally everybody.

So it’s bizarre what you’re complaining about. It’s a simple trade, and people want to make good deals.

  • If art is your passion in life, then you’ll be happy to make a living off it. Indeed, you’re lucky to be able to whore yourself out for art because lots of artists don’t even get that chance because of the economics of numbers.

It isn’t like you’re an illegal immigrant sweatshop painter selling master copies to a scammer. The underdeveloped countries have laws regulating contracts, employment and wages, so never mind the developed countries. Even in the underdeveloped countries, you can still survive on freelancing, hard and horrible as that may be.


Blaming crapitalism (indeed, soshitcialism too) for everything betrays your paper-thin experience of the real world.

For 90+ years the Cumshotmunists and Suckcockcialists had been some of the most important players and market-makers in the stock exchanges and commodity markets worldwide, and I know it’s true because I’m a financial security printer. The USSR invented the petrodollar in the 1970s. The Chinese have been big forex traders since the 1960s through Hong Kong, Singapore and London. Try trading against these dyed-in-the-wool capitalists and see what happens.

Like I said, you get the same money today but required to do better art.

  • There is no such thing as ‘better’ in art. That argument is based on a false premise.

True. It’s not “self-evident” (at all) as I claimed earlier that art today is a million times better than it was 15 or 20 years ago. Really — because I don’t actually see that happening either.

What in fact I do see is shitty and shittier artists pass the bill, simply because they’re put on a time factor.

Depending on what you do, there are literally TENS OF THOUSANDS of forms of art, ranging from ultraconservative classicism to bleeding-edge hyper-abstractionism.


Since we’re on the subject of Capitalism vs. Communism, let’s talk about art in the USSR.

Did you know Pope Julius II forced Michelangelo to work on the Sistine Chapel? Did you know why?

Yes, I do. Jules forced Mikey to work on the thing, not because of art, but because of politics and blackmail over Mikey’s homosexuality. Despite that, Mikey was paid handsomely for the work.

Let’s start with the most notable art style to come from the Soviets — Socialist Realism (1932–88).

Socialist Realism is exactly what it sounds like — realism that depicts and promotes communist/socialist ideas and IDEALS.

Then you have Russian Futurism (1910s–20s), which was another artform that rejected traditions and history in favour of the glorification of science, speed, machinery and other man-made things.

The main thing wrong with these forms of art was that both were inspired mostly by a brutalistic government based on authoritarian dictatorship. One was capitalist and imperialist, and the other socialist and monopolist.

An artist COULD paint or sculpt what he wanted, but SHOWING a painting of McDonald’s most likely would get him shot by the KGB. That’s one reason easy enough to understand.

Another reason is that the inspiration source actively EVADED a facet of everyday reality — one that happens to be an irresistible subject matter in art — Love and Desire expressed in the forms of sexuality and sexualisation. So you just follow the memo and avoid as well.

Both represent simultaneous situations of self-limiting your artistic range (“a victim of systems that work against me”) and doing your art to what’s required or payable (“whoring” yourself out) just to have a reasonably normal life. The price is your art and mind quickly resemble a rusted-up cnut. Neither of the situations have anything to do with capitalism. It has everything to do with who’s making policy and who’s your competition to be at the top of the game inside the box.

It was laughably dubbed “only recently discovered” by the art press that Stalin owned dozens of HOMOSEXUAL artworks. Yet in his Stalinist Russia, it was illegal and punishable by gulag labour for being gay and for doing or having art of a homosexual complexion. Ironically enough, it was Stalin who installed the anti-homosexual law.

If you don’t like your arse being poked, then you must be a communist. Right?

You might find having your arse poked is considerably more profitable than doing art, all told.

Here what The Naked Listener has learned from observing and listening to artist friends and their acquaintances over the years:—

  • Many artists have “artist’s block” for years on end because they couldn’t handle the constant shifting of focus on the artistic continents of form, function and aesthetics. So they frazzle at interruptions and disturbances when working. They convince themselves that they need or have a “membrane” enveloping them during their creative process to stay on course on their artistic petroleum tanker for discharging their artistic load at the right artistic oil refinery port.

They don’t have a membrane. They have a WALL.

A membrane is permeable. A membrane allows all sorts of things to pass in and out IN A REGULATED WAY AND RATE as it happens with a real biological membrane.

The wall some artists have around them blocks the incoming as well as the outgoing. It is as though the incoming would CORRUPT the inside and the outgoing is more valuable than the outside deserves. In the end, the outside wins because the inside has no effective frame of reference for evaluating its own qualitative and quantitative contributory value.

This is what happens when artists spin on a meaningless axis that has no navigability in art (such as plutocratic hypercapitalism) and wonder why their art doesn’t have the commercial potential or artistic recognition they believe it deserves. All the while they slowly burn out from their diminishing outwhoring instead of just sell out completely by doing the art that ‘sells’ to a reasonably predictable clientele. They should have stuck to something more generic (say, just “politics”) and do “political” or “politicised” art. You just can’t do art about something hypercapitalistic like “exchange-traded emerging-market commodities future options index funds.”

Poke your own arse. Nobody wants to go in dry.


How do artists cope with living in a society of plutocratic hypercapitalism? Imagine being cucked by capitalism and still defending it.

They just … live … in society.

I’m curious to know the ideal society that you’re measuring capitalism against. Would you rather live in the Europe of the Middle Ages? Ancient Egypt? Maoist China? Hyperinflationary Latin America? Fundie Islamic Syriaqistan?

Those artists just live and run with the system they’re living in, whether it’s capitaLUSERism or SHITcialism, never mind ‘hyper-’ or ‘plutocratic’ — that’s how.

Some successfully ‘game’ the system and make what they want within the limitations of the system (“flying rink”). For most, the choice is either burn out or sell out. Those who didn’t burn out choose to sell out. The decision generally isn’t a hard one. Most people have pressing financial obligations like child support, alimony, medical, rent, utilities, food and shit.

Even cavemen had to get up every day and forage for food. Everyone has to do something they dislike in order to survive. Some poor sod has to clean the drains and filters at the sewage plant just so that prissy tots like us can flush our goddamned toilets. That’s life. That’s society.

Is it anything like being so stupid that you don’t realise the problems that come with the proposed alternatives to capitalism are always worse than the problems you’re trying to fix?

It’s literally effing this, isn’t it?

It never fails — ignorant house tyrants and spoilt brats who haven’t seen or won’t see the problems within their alternatives are the ones who always complain.

It’s one thing to criticise capitalism, but it’s quite another to think capitalism as a whole is ‘evil’ or useless. It’s pure wilful insincerity. This isn’t a movie storyline in which anything had to be pure evil or pure good just to fit into 120 minutes of screentime. Unless you have a better replacement in mind that works, stop bloody bitching. Please don’t brand others as “a commie/fascist.” That’s defamatory and can get you sued.

  • Protip:— Learn to make yourself non-ignorant.

Stay up late one night or two AWAY from your Internet shota porn or videogame. Read up and learn about what’s happening in—

  • countries with a system that “isn’t capitalism” — like Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam, North Korea, the states of the former USSR, etc
  • countries that are capitalist — like China, ‘socialist’ Scandinavia, ‘socialist’ France; the “welfare states” of UK, Germany, Italy, Greece; or the “fundamentalist Islamic states” of Algeria, Egypt, Emirates, Indonesia, Lebanon, Morocco, etc
  • the ideal communist society of Japan, which isn’t communist (at all)

Then you might find a more well-rounded perspective for your ‘art’ and ‘worldview.’

  • Capitalism is a PATTERN or a SYSTEM. It’s not a person. It cannot commit evil, though its existence can be harsh or not harsh depending on how it’s structured. PEOPLE commit evil, which in a way makes ANY system worse.

Why must society be like this?

Why must there be a ‘boss’ who takes part of what you produce just by being a boss?

Why must profits be prioritised over people?

Why must most of the wealth produced goes to the 1%, leaving crumbs to the rest of us?

They ‘must’ be like that because they exist only in your mind.

That’s because you’ve bought into the hostile agitprop rubbish calculated to pit people against each other. Or maybe you’re the one propagating it.

If you sincerely think society is like that, you’re just being blinded by how things are to imagine anything different.

There’s no arguing about the facts. Most of the wealth really do go to the so-called 1%. Many really are left with the crumbs. But society as a whole really isn’t entirely like that. Neither has it always been like that. Nor must it be like that. The picture overall isn’t a good one, but it’s not down the drain either. The reality is that societies everywhere are STRATIFIED — some places are worse than others, and some levels of the population are worse off than the rest.

The problem isn’t that there are winners and losers because of capitalism or socialism. To anyone who has reasonably been around the world — and surfing the Internet doesn’t count — it’s just two things:—

  1. Winners are the result of a competitive society or economy — whether capitalist, socialist, feudal, barter, slave, etc.
  2. Lusers are the result of letting cnuts make policy.

Do you sincerely imagine in the history of mankind that there was ever a society with little or no problems?

If it were really that easy to formulate a better society, we would’ve HAD that society a long time ago. Nobody would be asking awkward questions about art and crapitalism or shitcialism.

If it’s that easy, go ahead and tell me. I’ll lay down my strapons guns right now and admit I’m too brainlet to understand.

Yes, I feel you, brothers and sisters. I do’t think it’s unfair the 1% gets to have everything and abuse us our pouting daughters their power.

This is especially because I got the short end of the stick and live in a “First World” third-world country like Hong Kong — and the Second World country (China) ruling us is also the economic 1%.

  • Freedom to exchange value is what society relies upon to give others value and stability. How it’s done is the question, not whether capitalism, socialism, democracy, plutocracy, meritocracy and whatever-cracy is the problem.

The only thing you CAN do in whatever system you’re living in is give your best in your own way. Teach others, and understand good luck also plays a biggish factor in life. Hard work, fatigue, momentary depression and loss of youth can also get something in return if you make some small sacrifices. That’s how reality is. And that’s why people say life isn’t easy. It doesn’t have to be HARD, but it couldn’t be easy. Learn to be grateful for the small things and be thankful for small joys.

  • Contention:— But what if you realise you have no power over anything and you’re meant to be ‘controlled’ by corporations for maximised gains?

Why are people so shite at understanding capitalism? Capitalism is literally the opposite of what you described. It’s just an economic PATTERN (not even a system) that at any point allows you to present something useful to the world and get rewarded for the work YOU made.

The point is that the wealthy only profited from the work done by others under them by using METHODS or PROCESSES to depress value to help obtain their economic gain. There is no meritocracy whatsoever in capitalism. Only those with capital become wealthier through investing for a return.

  • Contention:— Society itself fosters problems. The solution is to give economic and political power to those who work and not to the few who don’t.

That’s easier said than done in ANY system. There’s a lot of leftist/socialist theories on how to go about it — and also a lot of infighting among their theorists and supporters.

Human cost of capitalism

Above: The figures are politicised and not altogether accurate.

  • Contention:— The real problem is overpopulation.

Yet no one is touching that with a million-foot bargepole. The rich is ultimately just as much a victim as the unrich of a “dynamic, progressive, ever-changing global economy.”

Depending on what statistics we use (or believe in), the planet has around 7 billion people, and we should have enough food and other resources to sustain another 1.2 to 2.2 billion people on this planet over the next 100 years. Yet most of those resources get wasted, so about 20 million people starve to death every year.

  • The problem isn’t overpopulation. The problem is how resources are distributed. Our distribution systems are still pre-mediæval in structure.

The problem isn’t how they’re distributed under capitalism. The problem exists in socialism and any other “-ism” we cared to name.

  • Contention:— Please, for heaven’s sakes, I just went to poverty.com and looked through the tabs. Literally ALL of them say sweeping improvements have been made recently.

The reality is that there isn’t even enough resources for everyone right now to live a reasonably comfy non-American-type Western lifestyle without stripping the planet bare in under 100 years. So either we go do that (and ruin the planet and A LOT of people are just going to have to go without), or a bunch of people are going to get killed off. That’s the galling choice.


The “commies” (who are not necessarily actual communists) are bloody hilarious in a disgusting kind of way:—

  1. So everything bad is capitalism.
  2. So espouse communism.
  3. Doesn’t realise that under the communists, he’d be complaining again about not making money from his art or Patreon because of competition from other artists who are better than him at doing the officially approved form of art.
  4. Feels obligated to feel a loss of will to live due to being victimised by his own lack of earning power.
  5. Compelled to remain with his art and whore out for it because of being a victim of systems that work against him, instead of selling/whoring out by getting a better-paying job.

Stop pretending the form of government is the problem.

The real problem is being too lazy to get a job or make money off your work.

No, the actual real problem is that many artists around the world are simply no bloody good and don’t do enough of the art that’s wanted by people who are willing to pay.

No, the true actual real reason is that many artists are shit and are envious of the small numbers of artists who CAN do the type of art to high enough quality that could persuade people and companies to pay for it.

  • Contention:— But you have no power over anything and you’re meant to be ‘controlled’ by corporations.

Tell us in what universe do you live in where anyone has any control over anything beyond themselves?

Oh, that’s right — you live AT HOME under the protective umbrella of mum and dad. So you don’t have any real worries.

Piss off, bruv. You didn’t see brooding emo wankers like Michelangelo complaining about being a wage slave to the Church in the past. They just got on with their art, even in the face of blackmail about their homo-lesbi-furry-sexless sexuality.

Unlike in communism, you have literally no obligation in capitalism to work under another person, though it would be srsly stoopid for you to not work in any system.

Capitalism doesn’t punish the mindless sheep for having no original ideas. It just doesn’t get to have any effect in the system. If you have no mind and no originality, don’t expect to live beyond the level of the mindless and the unoriginal. You are what you are.

Capitalism doesn’t punish. It’s a free highway. If your car is fit to drive on it, great. If not, then you’ll be overtaken by all the other cars. You’re free to drive off the cliff if you want, but we appreciate you not making a bloody mess in the process.

Bruv, even with original ideas, without capital there’s no way to execute them. Without some pre-existing capital, you are absolutely obligated to either work and save, or starve.

If you want control over your own life, do two things:—

  1. Regulate yourself and devise a plan.
  2. Educate yourself on how you’re being manipulated.

If you don’t have self-discipline, then you’ll be a slave to your subconscious, your moods, your appetites, etc. You know this already because you’re the artist because those things are the stuff of art. I should be asking you about it, not the other way around.

Tech and social media companies are great at manipulating people who lack self-discipline. Limit your consumption of them if your self-control is on the low side.

You’re disadvantaged by the ‘system’ if you’re weak-willed to begin with, but less so if you’re self-disciplined.

It is the same with art:—

  1. You are in art, an economic sector that’s more at the mercy of market forces due to it being needed less directly and less regularly by society for economic well-being. Art enriches us all in a qualitative way, but does jack quantitatively.
  2. Art is more able to enrich the 1% in money terms simply because the 1% has the wherewithal to soak up the output of artists. Since there is still a limit to the soak-up, only a small proportion of artists gets to capitalise on their art in any meaningfully material way.


The same could be said about all things in existence. It’s just an impossibly large chain of events.

If you’re already blessed (or cursed) with self-awareness or ‘knowledge’ to the point you can see flaws in every aspect of life and can’t look past them, there isn’t much that can change the situation.

Consider finding happiness in your own situation. One day you’ll wish things were as easy as they are now, even if they don’t seem very easy right now.

Consider how insignificant everything is. Draw happiness from the specks of interests in anything that appears fun or interesting in this vast emptiness of life and the universe.

It’s not all that complicated, actually.

I got serious about photography and the graphic arts in my early teens. I decided at the outset that I wouldn’t do it to get rich or famous. I reckoned I couldn’t anyway. Just do it for myself. Do things I like, not for getting attention from friends or family. I just kept doing it in my own way, improved to the point it made sense to go to photography school, and then worked for 10 years as a professional photographer.

If you had actual talent, your problems and questions would all be different (but probably just as whiny and whingeing).

Just shut up and draw.

Thinking too much causes problems, bruv.


Below is how differently “artist” comes over in different language societies.

© The Naked Listener’s Weblog, 05 Oct 2020. (B18087)

All images via allchans unless otherwise indicated.

xxxx words

L’article crée le 03 juillet 2018 sur 05:01h.

Born after your old movies

Tuesday 22 September 2020, 8.00pm HKT

WHY do we pretend old movies are good? Indeed, why even watch movies that were made before you were born?

Because they are?

Please, watch Vertigo (1958) then come back with your renewed opinion.

How bad do you like bad to get?

Jane Russell as Rio McDonald in ‘The Outlaw’ (1941/43/46).

Universally acclaimed masterpieces of all time:—

1927 — Metropolis
1927 — Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans

1931 — City Lights
1931 — M
1933 — King Kong
1936 — Modern Times

1940 — The Great Dictator
1941 — Citizen Kane
1942 — Casablanca
1946 — It’s a Wonderful Life
1948 — Ladri di biciclette (Bicycle Thieves)

1950 — All About Eve
1950 — Sunset Blvd.
1954 — La strada (The Road)
1954 — Rear Window
1954 — Shichinin no Samurai (Seven Samurai)
1955 — The Night of the Hunter
1958 — Vertigo

1963 — 8½ (Otto e mezzo)
1968 — 2001: A Space Odyssey

1974 — The Godfather Part II
1975 — Jaws
1976 — Network
1976 — Taxi Driver
1977 — Star Wars IV: A New Hope

1980 — Raging Bull
1988 — Nuovo Cinema Paradiso

Most of the movies from the the ’30s and ’40s, mister.

Let me add a few more (just a few) to the universal list:—

8½ / Otto e mezzo (1963)
12 Angry Men (1957)
49th Parallel (1941)
633 Squadron (1964)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

A Bridge Too Far (1977)
Alice in Wonderland (1951)
Alien (1979)
All About Eve (1950)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
Apocalypse Now (1976)

Back to the Future (1985)
Barry Lyndon (1975)
Ben-Hur (1959)
Blade Runner (1982)
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

Casablanca (1942)
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)
C’era una volta il West (Once Upon a Time in the West) (1968)
Charge of the Light Brigade (1938)
Citizen Kane (1941)
City Lights (1931)
Cleopatra (1963)
Coma (1978)
La mépris (Contempt) (1963)
Cool Hand Luke (1967)

Dark Star (1974)
Das Boot (1981)
Deathwish (1974)
Der Untergang (2004)
Dirty Harry (1971)
Doctor Zhivago (1965)
Dog Day Afternoon (1975)
Dr Strangelove (1964)
Dune (1984)

Easy Rider (1967)
Enter the Dragon (1971)

Fantasia (1940)
Far From the Madding Crowd (1915, 1967)
Farenheit 451 (1966)
Fargo (1996)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)

Gone with the Wind (1939)

Hulk (2003)

Il buono, il brutto, il cattivo (The Good, The Bad and the Ugly) (1966)
Intolerance (1916)
It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)

Jaws (1975)
Jesus Christ Superstar (1973)

King Kong (1933)

La dolce vita (1960)
La passion de Jeanne d’Arc (1928)
La règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game) (1939)
La strada (The Road) (1954)
Ladri di biciclette (Bicycle Thieves) (1948)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Life of Brian (1979)
Logan’s Run (1976)

M (1931)
Man with a Movie Camera (1929)
Memento (2000)
Metropolis (1927)
Modern Times (1936)
Mr Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
Mulholland Drive (2001)

Network (1976)
No Blade of Grass (1970)
North by Northwest (1959)
Nosferatu (1922)
Nuovo Cinema Paradiso (1988)

One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)
One Million Years BC (1966)

Patton (1970)
Peeping Tom (1960)
Per qualche dollaro in piú (For a Few Dollars More) (1965)
Planet of the Apes (1968)
Platoon (1986)
Predator (1987)
Pulp Fiction (1994)

Quadrophenia (1979)

Raging Bull (1980)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Ran (1985)
Rashōmon (1950)
Rear Window (1954)
Reservoir Dogs (1992)
Rollerball (1974)
Rosemary’s Baby (1968)

Satyricon (1969)
Seven Days in May (1964)
Shaft (1971)
Shichinin no Samurai (1954)
Silent Running (1972)
Singin’ in the Rain (1952)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Solaris (1972, USSR original)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
Soylent Green (1973)
Spartacus (1950)
Stalag 17 (1953)
Stalker (1979, USSR original)
Star Wars IV: A New Hope (1977)
Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927)
Sunset Blvd. (1950)

Taxi Driver (1976)
Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
The African Queen (1951)
The Andromeda Strain (1971)
The Big Sleep (1946)
The Boy Friend (1971)
The Current War (2019)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
The Dawn Patrol (1930 and 1937 versions)
The Exorcist (1973)
The Face of Dr Fu Manchu (1965)
The Forbidden Planet (1955)
The French Connection (1971)
The Full Monty (1997)
The Godfather (1972)
The Godfather Part II (1974)
The Great Dictator (1940)
The Great Escape (1963)
The Guns of Navarone (1961)
The Hunger (1983)
The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
The Matrix (1999)
The Night of the Hunter (1955)
The Night of the Iguana (1964)
The Omega Man (1971)
The Prisoner of Zenda (1937)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
The Sound of Music (1965)
The Sting (1973)
The Sun in a Net / Slnko v sieti (1963)
The Ten Commandments (1956)
The Terminator (1984)
The Thing (1982)
The Time Machine (1960)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
The Year of Living Dangerously (1982)
Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (1944)
THX 1138 (1971) — Huxley and Orwell meet French New Wave!
Tokyo Story (1953)
Toy Story (1994)

Vertigo (1954)

Wall-E (2008)
Waterloo (1973)
Westworld (1973)
Wild Strawberries (1957)
Woodstock (1970)

Zardoz (1974)
Zulu (1964)

家春秋 / Family, Spring, Autumn (1953–54)

Get Carter (1971) starring Michael Cain, and Sitting Target (1972) starring Oliver Reed — two notable modern movies aimed at giving an authentic feel of modern British life in the ’70s, despite both being ordinary crime action movies and not masterpieces cinematically.

Barry Lyndon (1975), directed by Stanley Kubrick

In the period piece Barry Lyndon (1975), Kubrick famously shot candlelit indoor scenes with a NASA ƒ/1.1 satellite lens to replicate how the naked eye sees things.

Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) has got to be one of the greatest musicals of the 20th century. The look on young people’s faces watching it TODAY is just priceless.

“This was made in 1973?! I swear I’m watching something that’s made this year or something.”Ex-colleague’s teenage daughter on watching Jesus Christ Superstar the first time in 2017

Far From the Madding Crowd (1967) makes you feel you’re someone living in the 1840s watching a contemporary movie also set in 1840s. The earlier version from 1915 isn’t too shabby either.

What about Titanic? The Shawshank Redemption? Lord of the Rings? Pulp Fiction? Mulholland Drive? Not implying any of these flicks are old.

These are all great films.

The point to appreciate is this isn’t a steeplechase of which movies are better or worse than others. It is this:–

  • If it’s the old aesthetic that turns you off, then maybe you shouldn’t be sperging your opinions all over the place. Stick to your own capeshit. You are the cancer of cinema. You are why yee-yee-ass flicks are made each year.

I’m not going to deny Vertigo is shit. Horrible audio. Horrible visuals. Probably original for its time but not now. Terrible acting. Weird awkward cuts. But the storyline is great, which is why many still continue to watch it. Then again, you’re watching it on YouTube, where even The Age of Ultracondom Ultron comes off shit.

I mentioned Vertigo because it was the first thing that came to mind — it is what’s usually presented to any pleb as an example of a pre-’70s movie that’s interesting and looks modern. In fact, Vertigo is consistently the No. 1 or No. 2 best film of all time in all polls.

  • There’s no magical year when movies just started getting better.

Movies simply got better over time. A good movie is more than the sum of its audiovisual, acting and storyline. There is no ‘cutoff’ year — to view good vs. bad movies in that way is just injecting red herrings. You’d be missing out a lot to look at things that way.

For instance, one scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) was just one step away from being a Monty Python skit. Yet the multinational power struggle in the scene’s subdued dialogue was pretty top of the line and realistic. You could argue that Star Wars IV: A New Hope (1977) was better, but then again, you’re comparing two completely different things.

There is more than one set of people who parade sold films as better, just as there are sets of people who react that NEW films are better.

How will your favourite films of today be considered tomorrow?

Your mum’s honeymoon sextape was pretty good. But I srsly doubt you’d want to watch it for more than two seconds at how you were conceived while your father looked on with glee at your mum being rammed senseless by the hotel chamberlain in dirty underwear.


Of course, some honestly cannot understand the appeal of old movies. They ‘get it’ with the ones made after a certain year, but totally perplexed over anything before that. They think any ‘old’ movie is dull as f**k generally, and anything older than 20 years is garbage.

Twenty years isn’t old. The 9/11 attacks were already 19 years ago, and people speak of it as though it happened only yesterday. The World Wide Web dates from 1992, or 28 years ago. The first iPhone was launched 13 years ago in 2007, the same year the last major economic meltdown happened. The Internet has around 980 million sites and a third of them are less than a year old. Most people using the Internet aren’t even 20 years old yet.

What the hell are these people on about? Tell me a better decade for movies than the ’40s, ’50s, ’60s and ’70s.

To be brutally honest, it’s not like

  • The Forbidden Planet (1955)
  • Ben-Hur (1958)
  • The Andromeda Strain (1971)
  • Enter The Dragon (1971)
  • Dirty Harry (1971)
  • Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

were any harder to ‘get it’ than

  • Star Wars IV (1977)
  • Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
  • Blade Runner (1982)
  • Godzilla (1997)
  • Mulholland Drive (2001)
  • Inception (2010)
  • Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)

I’m not saying you’ve got to maintain some sort of patrician image by watching boring old movies, bruv. The truth is, most movies from whatever era are bad and boring.

Watch Metropolis (1927) and you can easily see it’s better than practically any movie from any decade. That’s when you realise (or should realise) it isn’t ‘old’ movies that are bad — it’s just bad movies are bad.

So now you’re slowly learning. Protip: Piss off.


Several years ago, I was helping my ex-neighbour move out. His then 26-year-old son had a bunch of movie posters on his bedroom wall.

  • “I think movies today are rubbish,” he quipped.

When was the last time he watched a recent movie?

  • “Oh, like from 10 or 11 years ago.”

It transpired the guy just stopped watching everything after turning 13. Not even TV shows. His favourite movies were The Matrix (1999), Titanic (1997), and Crouching Tiger Hidden Condom Dragon (2000).

What about music and books? Artwork?

  • Though some early ’70s music to him are good, his favourite bands are all from the ’90s, 2000s and 2010s.
  • He said he only ever read books post-Mr Goodbar (by Judith Rossner, 1975). Though he understood that books have been around for thousands of years, to him anything before Mr Goodbar isn’t “modern art.”
  • He didn’t care for art made before 1990, the year he was born.

I was floored by this.

Here we have was a grown man in his mid-20s whose entire ‘cultural’ universe revolved around an intensely narrow timeframe:—

  1. MOVIES — 13 years from 1990 to 2003 (when he stopped watching at age 13)
  2. TV — nil, but let’s say 1 year
  3. READS50 years (1975–present)
  4. MUSIC — 30 years (1990–2010s)
  5. ART — 30 years (1990–2010s)

So this 26 year old’s cultural window had an arithmetic mean (average) of (13+1+50+30+30) ÷ 5 = 24.8 years. For comparison purposes, his geometric mean is 14.24 years (being ⁵√(13×1×50×30×30) = ⁵√585,000 = 14.24).

Not to seem too immodest, I have deeply favourite stuff that spans —

  1. MOVIES, including documentaries — 125+ years (1890s–present)
  2. TV — minimum 66 years from 1950
  3. READS — 1,200 years, best estimate
  4. MUSIC — at least 120 years
  5. ART — easily 4,000 years

My media window arithmetically averages 1,102.2 years. My geometric mean is 343.06 years. My window is 24 times the weight of his. And I’m very normal and ‘unedgy’ in my tastes and timespans for my generation. Honestly, I’m genuinely slightly scared to think about ‘quality’ as a variable between him and me.

Is there a MIDPOINT between our two extreme cultural exposures?

Life is obviously more than numbers, but let’s run the numbers just for the lulz:—

  • His raw total is 124 years, and mine, 5,511 years, so the arithmetic average midpoint should be 2,817½ years — or I’m 1.9 times over the midpoint and he’s 22.7 times under. But this is inaccurate and unrealistic.
  • A more realistic midpoint is geometric 826.66 years (being 124 + 5511 then square root). This means I’m 6⅔ times past the midpoint, and he has 6⅔ times further to go.

In other words, he has to add 165 years’ worth of material to each of his five categories to reach the midpoint. In short, he won’t reach his midpoint this lifetime at his current rate because he will be increasingly out of date from his timespan of 1990–2003 with every passing year. I guess it’s not “Oklahoma, or Bust!”

  • Protip:— The “breakpoint” is the minimum required competency. It is not fixed but shifts and floats relative other people present.

Example:— A room has 10 people, and four have 25 years’ experience each and six have 15 years each. The whole room’s arithmetic average experience is (25+15) ÷ 2 = 20 years — that’s the midpoint. What’s the minimum required competency to join them? The geometric mean tells you it’s 9 years 9 months (being ⁴√(4×25×6×15) = ⁴√9000 = 9.74). That is your breakpoint for entering that room.

That brings back my memories of a Hong Kong TV producer who didn’t know who Judy Garland was (the actress in The Wizard of Oz, 1939). Holy mackerel.

“Don’t you think there were good music and reads from the ’60s and before?” I asked him.

I reminded him that, yeah, ordinary people in the ’70s still read Homer’s Odyssey for pleasure and interest. His only conception of “Odyssey” was the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, which he detested because the movie was nothing like the novel. At least he read the book, I’ll give him that much.

People like him are, frankly speaking, autistic in the clinical and meme senses. They don’t seem to have any internal resource to understand the first point about movies vs. books — or anything else.

Movies are not merely a film version of the book, or vice versa. It’s just impossible to pack in all the details and nuances of Frank Herbert’s novel Dune (1965) into a 140-minute movie (1984) with a two-decade-long separation between the two in receptivity.


I absobloodylutely adore a lot of the music from the ’50s, ’60s and ’70s. Movies are different from music though. Movies often rely on technical aspects and these get better over time with technology. Music can be deliberately recorded in Lo-Fi these days. Movies can also be deliberately done in ‘old style’ like in black and white. But there are lots of people who think music relies on technical aspects too — all true indeed.

It’s hard to miss the disturbing line of thinking in today’s younger set.

“All old films are just rubbish. Doesn’t matter if the photography was good. Doesn’t matter if the acting was good. Doesn’t matter if the story is good. Old films are shit for just being old. I only watch movies that are less than five years old, preferably in 3D.”

Well, we can describe such a person in three words. Alone. Naked. Ghey.

And outdated — it is an outdated technique to make the point you’re up to date.

Want to know the secret to movies?

People remember only the good — the ones that stood the test of time, not the dross that gets forgotten. Lots of old movies are forgotten movies, just like many old blue movies (‘porn’ to you young ones) are forgotten.

  • Movies that stood the test of time are because they’re influential in some way.

Some people just cannot tolerate THAT — that what was good in the past must necessarily be outdated and bad now. Their attitude is that a lot of the older stuff has been revisited and done better in modern times according to their timeframe. I can accept that up to a point when they point to some Hollywood blockbuster (capeshit specifically) in a pathetic attempt to make a point. Yet it’s hard to miss that these people rarely ever watched a movie older than a few years.

“I do genuinely like some old movies. Generally nothing past the mid-’80s though.”

How was elementary school for you then? Maybe if you stop being hyperbolic and stop strawmanning, I might take you seriously. I just thought you were chopped lameduck liver.

  • Some take the attitude that movies older than 20 years are rubbish. Some even think movies older than 24 months are rubbish.

Why do they BOTH pretend to be an idiot?

If you’ve never watched silent movies from the 1920s, then you’re a complete le/la prolo (pleb) and Le Philistin. If you’ve never watched anything new from the last 10 or 20 years, then you’re a paranoid shut-in and Le Troglodyte.

This video is in fact the greatest motion picture that most Millennials wouldn’t effing understand:—


The world’s oldest motion visual (1888). Groundbreaking for its time, to be sure. My grandmother was just six years old then. The world then was still lit by fire and gas. Yes, folks, The Naked Listener lives in the 21st century but had grandparents he lived with born in late Victorian times. My grandparents taught me how to use the TV remote, not the other way around.

A film made in 1968 is ‘old’? The ’70s and ’80s? Yeah, it’s been downhill since then, right? Trim take; bad modulation.


IMDB: Arrival of a train (1895/96)

I like this one. It’s 125 years old. It’s interesting how most of the people in the shot didn’t seem to mind getting filmed. Actually, they had no idea they were being filmed. The device (le cinematographe) didn’t resemble a normal photo camera in those days.

  • Protip:— Old movies can be amazing. They can also be complete shite. New movies can be amazing but can be complete shite too. Watch anything and everything you can, and you’ll find the hidden gems.

I watch movies old and new of all countries because of their stories. Older movies were more focused on storylines and were good at this. There are notable exceptions where the visuals were important, such as Kubrick’s movies tend to be (especially Barry Lyndon, 1975) yet even those ‘visual’ movies still have a deeper meaning and tell a better story than many modern crap-like capeshit could.

People who say shite like “Movies older than N years are garbage” are retards and belong to the ADHD Generation because they can’t understand these types of things and end up looking like directionless idiots. Time to ask them, why do you pretend new movies are good? Are they legit retarded or just baiting?

The first 20 years of filmmaking were really interesting. Filmmakers primarily used stage techniques then, but you can see glimmers of what movies will have become. You can see the evolution happening almost in real time when you watch the full range of movies.

Silent movies are only RELATIVELY harder to relate to for most people now, but even the blind could see the physicality of the actors is so much more pronounced. You can really see how much a person could say just with their eyes, even from silent action stars like Buster Keaton (1895–1966). Modern films are missing a great deal of this.

Old movies are good for the most part. It’s just the three-hour-long ‘art’ films that blow.

(via Wikimedia)

Just a reminder that Le règle du jeu (The Rules of the Game), released in 1939, is better than possibly any film this 21st century. By the way, the director Jean Renoir was son of the painter Auguste Renoir. Nope, you don’t need to know French to understand the film’s storyline.

Why even watch movies that were made before you were born?

Shallow, self-absorbed Millennials are easy to spot — sorry, any generation, really. They just cannot appreciate anything that isn’t set in their own timeframe.

I appreciate movies older and younger than I am all the time. That’s because I’m not ethnocentric and arrogant. I understand there was a time before me and a time after me, and there are other societies besides mine.

Over the years, I have come to realise there is some truth to this idea:—

  • For most people, the cutoff point for ‘getting it’ with any movie is around the time you were born. Anything made prior to that would probably look and feel somewhat ‘dated’ and many of their references don’t come across so readily.

There are exceptions to this, of course. A person born 10 years after Star Wars IV (1977) and watched it just two or three times as a kid will come to understand the 10-year difference in references contained in that movie. Look at the 501st UK Garrison Star Wars Costuming Club and its charity work — the majority of its members are born well after 1977 and got into this Star Wars thing roughly in mid-adult years.

Lots of Millennials do enjoy old and older movies. I’m saying, for most people, movies made before you were born are a little harder to relate to — especially if old movies have been practically absent as a ‘cultural’ fixture during your formative years.

It’s like jerking off to Playboy magazines or something. They were great, but we do have online porn now so it’s hard to go back. Maybe that’s a bad analogy, but you get what I mean.

Below is Body Candy (1980), one of the best porn movies ever made that also made it into mainstream cinema.

© The Naked Listener’s Weblog, 22 Sept 2020. (B16167)

All images via allchans unless indicated otherwise.

L’article original écrit le 23 mai 2016.

Stripping for fun and influence

Tuesday 30 March 2010, 12.00pm HKT

This one’s for the ladies. Enjoy.

* * *


How his brain works

Don’t overlook the “tease” in striptease. Guys enjoy being sexually teased. A lot of women don’t enjoy sexual teasing, and thus “don’t get it.”  Trust me on this, sexual teasing is a very good thing for a guy – especially if you follow up by fully satisfying him.

You want to almost show something, then show it and quickly cover it, and then  repeat before permanently removing each item of clothing. You also want to give limited looks at a newly uncovered body part at first, working  up to a better and better view.

Another part of the tease is that he doesn’t get to touch you. You can touch him, but he can’t touch you.

* * *

The setup

Doing the striptease some place other than the  bedroom can give an added thrill — if you can manage it. You want very  good lighting so he can fully appreciate the body he so enjoys (forget about how you feel about your own body – he thinks your naked body is hot).

An overhead light plus one or two side light sources is best. Place a  chair for him in a way you can easily move all the way around him. Put a second chair (or better a stool) nearby — this is for your own use.

You don’t want him naked; you want him dressed so that you can  easily access his more sexual parts. Nothing but a pair of boxers would  be a good choice. Some music is a good idea — moving to a strong beat  may help you feel more at ease, and silence other than his heavy breathing may be hard to deal with.

When it’s time, give him the  rules (see below) and send him off to get undressed per your directions, then return and sit in the chair. When you send him away, be dressed normally, giving no hint of what’s to come. Give him more than  enough time to get to his spot. Then while still in your regular clothes, go into the room and turn on the music and the lights. Make a fuss  about getting the lights just right – you’re building anticipation  here. Give him a quick kiss and tell him the show will start shortly.  Then go to another room and get dressed (below).

* * *

The Rules

He must stay in the chair, with his hands at his sides unless  directed to do otherwise by you. He can turn his head, but his back must stay against the back of the chair. He is not allowed to touch you unless you tell him to, and he is not allowed to talk. Modify these as you see fit, based on what you know about him and yourself. For example, you might want to tie his hands at his sides, or allow him to whistle or cheer.

* * *

What to wear

Again, think tease. You want layers, and you want  to give hints with fabric that is very clingy, sheer or has openings. Black and red are good colours, as is pure white. Mix and match dark outer garments and white undies, for example.

For outer clothes, a  skirt is a must. Short works, but longer with a zipper or buttons give you more to work with. The top also works well if it has buttons or a zipper.

Bra: See-through or lace on the top part is fine, but the  nipples should be concealed so you can tease him. Front hook is easier to work with and gives some good tease opportunities.

Panties: You do  not want a thong. Make him wait for a clear look at your rear. Panties with a see-through back (lace or mesh) are good. Stockings (but not pantyhose) are great because of the way you can move your legs and  expose your rear and crotch when you remove them.

Shoes with a good deal of heal are a big plus.

Jewellery can be a big help — anything that moves and catches the light is nice. Try a necklace that  disappears down your top, a body chain around your waist, and/or an ankle bracelet. Jewellery is the only thing you should still have on when you’re done stripping.

Finally, don’t forget some perfume — something  bold — and more than a hint!

* * *

Doing it

The self-conscious factor: Try to forget about how silly you feel. He is not thinking this. He is thinking how hot you  are, and how great it is that you are doing this for him. If dancing makes you feel silly, then don’t — you can undress and move around in a way that will drive him wild without dancing.

* * *

Start up close

Enter the room, and circle the chair slowly, giving him a good look at you. As you pass behind him lean over and  whisper in his ear, telling him you are going to strip for him, or  something else to get him going. Stop in front of him, and bend over so  he can peek down your shirt. Straddle one of his legs and lower yourself onto it, then briefly rub your crotch against his leg.

* * *

The moves

Move continually, mostly in front of him, but occasionally going behind him. Use the empty chair/stool — put a leg up on it. Sit on it and slowly part your legs. Bend over and put your hands on it. Stand behind it and spread your legs. Be creative. As you move, give him a view of you from all sides: of you standing, bending and so on. Move up close from time to time; give him a good look or touch him. In particular, make contact between parts of his body and your breasts,  rear and crotch. Touch his penis occasionally through whatever he is wearing — but only in a limited way and for a short period of time.

* * *

Getting naked

This should take a good while. Don’t just remove something — play  with it. One button at a time, half an inch at a time. Slide clothing aside for a moment to give a quick peek. Unfasten (or partly unfasten) an item, then move around before you finish taking it off. Understand that he likes seeing your hands on the parts of you that he wants to touch, so stroking, squeezing and rubbing your breasts and crotch is a good idea. Do this through clothing, under clothing, and unclothed. You can accentuate these things by making a face that says “that feels  good.”

* * *

Remember, tease, tease, tease

Fully unbutton your shirt, then turn your back on him before you remove it. Turn back to him, but with the shirt held over your bra. Turn and bend over, slip your panties down to show your rear, then pull them back up before you face him again. When your panties finally come off, keep your legs together at first, denying him what he is now crazy to see.

When your breasts are naked, go and shake  them in his face — just out of reach. Kneel and place his leg between your breasts. Place your foot up on his chair between his legs, and  gently rub him with your foot. When you are down to just panties give  his leg a good ride, or take his hand and rub the back side of it against your crotch. Be aware that he can see your Holy of Holies from the back  side if you bend over — make use of this. You don’t have to stay on your feet — you can kneel, crawl, lay on the floor, and even roll around a bit.

* * *

The talk

You can add to his pleasure by what you say. Tell or ask him about your body — tweak your nipples to make them erect and say, “Do you  like it when my nipples are hard?” Slip your hand in your panties and report to him that you are getting wet. Ask him which breasts he wants to see uncovered first, or if he is ready for some item of clothing to come off. Don’t feel compelled to follow what he says.

* * *

The Grand Finale

If you are up for it, finish your performance by letting him watch you enjoy a self-induced orgasm. You can use his body or do it  yourself. Drive him over the top by putting a chair in front of him, sit down, your feet on his knees, spread wide, and masturbate. Bonus point for self-penetration. If masturbating to orgasm is not something  you want to do, you can play ‘at it’ a bit and then get him to help you  finish up.

* * *

Finishing him off

How you follow up is up to you and what you think he will like. He will be extremely aroused when you get done, so don’t expect him to last long — even if he usually does. Give him an orgasm there in the chair, or on the floor, or take him to  bed.

(Email from R.J.U., 30 March 2010)

* * *

Please don’t even think about why I get emails like this!

English Legal History

Making English Legal History easy and enjoyable to digest.

Diary of a Psychokiller

take a trip with me to the darkside

Lipsync Lawyer

Stop bitching and know your law differently

Daring Fireball

Hearing ordinary lives talk

An English Man In SF

a diary of life as an immigrant

MB Forde

Ghosts, Legends, Folklore and Writing

Motorcycling in Hong Kong

On two wheels in Asia's World City


Making her way back to Neverland one day at a time...

The Naked Listener's Weblog

Hearing ordinary lives talk

Basti in China


Making Maps: DIY Cartography

Resources and Ideas for Making Maps

Pointless Diagrams

A new, meaningless diagram drawn daily, just 'cause.

The London Column

Reports from the life of a city, from 1951 to now, compiled by David Secombe

Vintagerock's Weblog.

Just another WordPress.com weblog

Shirley Chuk

Chuk Yin-yuk 祝燕玉 of Hong Kong

%d bloggers like this: