The Internet Porn Massage vs. The Real Bodywork Session

I enjoy porn. I have always found it a fun addition to usual intimate contact and self-pleasuring.  I am a visual kind of guy, so it’s images - both still and moving - that get me going rather than written stories. 

The attitude of most gay men to porn is healthy in many respects, I feel. The act of enjoying porn does not carry a sense of transgressiveness or taboo-breaking that you might find in certain parts of society. Neither do you tend to find much condemnation and aversion. All good things. 

In terms of Sacred Intimate work, problems arise when clients want porn and reality to mirror one another in a session. We have all seen the videos: hot masseur welcomes (often supposedly straight) client into his studio; massage quickly progresses to significant butt and genital play; client has significant sex play with the masseur; both have an orgasm. 

First, let me say that having or enjoying this fantasy is not where my discomfort lies. It can certainly be fun to watch. And, if a client came to me and expressed his desire to reenact this scenario, I would be fine with that. In this form, it is a clearly articulated wish - parameters can be discussed and the experience can be created so that the client can get the most out of his fantasy being realized. 

However in an unspoken and undefined form, I really feel there are several things amiss. Early on in my practice I realized that men are very slow to recognize subtle forms of abuse. In physical encounters, abuse could be defined as receiving any type of touch that you have not specifically agreed to or been asked about.  This calls into serious question the practice of many bodyworkers (specific type of bodywork and/or licensing seem to be irrelevant here) simply to assume that every man wants a hand job or to have his butthole played with and that an erection automatically equals asking for a hand job.

Yes, being masturbated in a comfortable environment with no need of reciprocity can be hot and fun, but I now view this scenario without specific permission as abuse - abuse whose effects can ripple through the physical encounters (both intimate and non-) of each client. 

I strive to short-circuit all aspects of this subtle abuse right from the start. At the beginning of certain types of sessions, I tell clients that a release will be perfectly fine. Then, at the point in the session where I would provide the release, I ask if this is what he wants, regardless of the visual cue of an erection or not. What this two-step process does is:

1. dispels the “will he, won’t he” tension that might otherwise exist in his mind right during the whole session

2. does not assume anything about the man’s desires of the moment regardless of physical reactions

3. provides another layer of safety, permission and ease for the man to have an orgasm.

After doing this for ten years, I can tell you that about fifty percent of men, erection or not, will say that simply having their cock and balls massaged without an orgasm will be just fine. This reaffirms my belief in how I approach this subject and truly empowers the man on the table to make his own decisions about his experience. It is an effective, direct and ease way to introduce men to the concept of erotic choice, something that is sorely lacking in our culture. 

There is also another part of the “don’t ask, just stroke” scenario that is problematic - the role of the masseur. Aside from perpetuating the notion that subtle forms of abuse are routine and irrelevant, a masseur’s unasked sexual involvement with a client  skews the intention and purpose of a session. I do not believe it is possible to pursue one’s own sexual fulfillment AND hold a client’s best interests at the same time. I simply do not think that men’s brains are wired to function simultaneously on these two levels. Therefore, for some period of time, the session becomes all about the masseur, or at the very least NOT about the client. Since one of the primary jobs of the Sacred Intimate is to connect the client more fully with his own body and perhaps even his own divine nature, this removing of attention from the client’s needs in favor of the masseur’s needs seems irresponsible. There are very few things I consider “absolute boundaries” in Sacred Intimate work; this is one of them. Please understand that I am NOT saying that we must not get turned on by our clients at all costs or anything of the sort - this would be repressive and counterproductive. On the contrary, I think it’s great for a client to see that we embody our physicality proudly and powerfully. However, I think we also need to be supremely mindful that we are in the position of being teachers of erotic embodiment and that there are responsible ways and means of expressing this embodiment toward our clients. 

The bottom line: leave the unspoken aspects of the massage fantasy on the dvd or the internet. Rather, embrace the concept of erotic choice deeply so that both client and Sacred Intimate can both flower fully in their roles.