Philosophy of the Facial

[Gorgias]

Philosophy of the Facial:

what is the meaning of the "facial cumshot?"​

The following is an overview of the prevailing views on the meaning of the "facial cumshot," specifically: the time-line theory, and the degradation theory. Both of these accounts are however somewhat lacking, and so, two other theories: that the facial is related to identity and to substance, will be discussed.

Let us begin by introducing and defining the topic. Simply put, a "facial cumshot," is when one person ejaculates on another's face. This concept has been popularized by the pornographers, where it is a sub-class of the "money shot." A search in Google, reveals more than one-million links where this term appears. We can therefore conclude that facials are of rather some interest to many persons. While most Western adults are aware of what a facial is, interestingly, outside of the West (excepting Japan), prostitutes who service the local nationals are not familiar with facials; whereas, prostitutes in non-Western countries who service Western-expatriates are quite familiar with the idea. Oral sex appears on Ancient Greek vases, and indeed must be older than history or even humanity itself, however, the facial only gained popularity in pornography about twenty years ago; and there is only a tiny amount of material available which seriously considers the deeper meaning of the facial, despite it's having become a mainstream concept, particularly following the episode of Sex and the City in which the question is asked,

"Do you let your husband ejaculate on your face?"

Time-line Theory

Let us begin with the weaker, and shallower, of the two theories which states: the facial marks the end of a sexual encounter, which in pornography would otherwise be devoid of chronology.

The C-Shot is proof positive of a male climax which (literally) consummates every sexual act in every sexual scene. The C-Shot, then, is the 'end-game' of pornography.

This theory however really only has validity when the facial is considered within the category of pornography.


Degradation Theory

The theory that a facial is degrading is a popular interpretation:

There's something demeaning about it. I don't know what. That's just my take.

In the case of fetishes, it is very much the case that: no one knows who has not been there. Just as only latex fetishists can understand the special attraction of latex, and only pedophiles are not abhorred by the idea of sexual intimacy with a child, so too with the facial, to understand it's meaning, we should consider what the actual fetishists say:

I try for the eye cause I feel that is the most degrading....

A couple of times I did it in an effort to be...hmmm. Shall we say not nice?

This theory is highly associated with feminist critique. The theory runs that, a woman is degraded and humiliated, even suppliant, when the man ejaculates on her. This seems sound, and substances other than semen which are used in a similar manner would tend to confirm this view. Obviously, it can not be disputed that there is some element of truth in this analysis. However, firstly, neither the person ejaculating need be a man, nor the person being ejaculated on need be a woman:

Cumming is when female ejaculate leaves your urethra and sprays your partner all over the face. Haha.

Prior to August of 1995, no video store in the province of Ontario was allowed to rent or sell any XXX movie containing scenes involving facial ejaculation--that is to say, of a male ejaculating on a woman's face. This was considered by the Ontario Film Review Board to be morally degrading to women (according to 'community standards'). The story in homosexual pornography was a little different, however. Quite often, gay customers would inform me that the movies they had watched prior to August of 1995 contained scenes of men ejaculating on the faces of other men. Yet these scenes were often not censored.

And secondly, not every one sees being facialized as degrading:

Boyfriend does it sometimes. I like it because its a turn on for him. Not degrading at all for me.

So, although there is undoubtedly a strong element of domination, degradation and humiliation involved in the facial, there is likely a deeper meaning.

(Possession
Since the time when this article was originally written, it has come to my attention that a further meaning of the facial is possession. The facial has a meaning similar to a dog marking territory. Some readers of this essay have mentioned to the effect, if I cum on her face, no other man will want to even kiss her, thus she becomes mine.)

Identity

This quote asks a further question:

I think the facial thing in porn probably just started for the same reason you almost never see a guy not pull out...it's a visual of the climax.Yeah, but why the face? I mean tits, ass, belly, wherever is just as good a visual as the face.

Indeed, there is some special reason... why the face?

"Face" is defined in the dictionary as "...the front part of the head...," eyes, nose and so on, but another part of the primary definition is: "...the face as a means of identification: <would know that face anywhere>...." The face is a very special thing in the human experience.

Something about a person's face - the domain of their eyes, their "essence" - remains the most intimate and personal aspect of them.

It's because your face is the thing you use most to interact with your lover. You talk out of your face. You kiss with your face. Your eyes are in your face. You... well, you get the idea. It's the seat of your personality (well, hopefully, at least). Your body is pressed into the service of your personality, so to have someone come on your face, is like them pressing your personality into the service of their body.

But unlike a scene of a male ejaculating on an innocuous part of the female anatomy, the face differs because it represents identity....

Perhaps this still relates to the degradation theory: when humiliation is personal, it is so much more intimate, than when carried out against the "faceless."


Substance

There is a further issue however that no literature directly discusses, it is that of substance. Semen is neither solid nor is it void, in fact, it is not really a pourable liquid either. It is thick and sticky and formless. In the section of Being and Nothingness titled "Existential Psychoanalysis," Sartre discussed that these honey-like substances have a great importance for the what it is of being and also nothingness. Melting is a dissolution of a being, and also, as though from some primordial soup, the gooey or slimy is from which being forms. The genitive power of semen is of course quite literal. As per the facial, and especially in the sub-class: bukkake: the facialized person is "transformed" from a human being with definite form, into something gross and without definite identity. It is as thought, from before to after, the face has melted, not only is this the climax or end in a total ontological sense of a change of being, but also, this destruction of form and identity is an ultimate humiliation.

"Of bodies chang'd to various forms, I sing...." -Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book 1

"We alter faces...." -Koran, The Women 4.47

Bibliography ​

The Koran
Numerous forum threads (paste quotes into Google for reference)
Ovid, Metamorphoses
Sartre, Being and Nothingness

 

[Gagh]

If I was either dead, or severely retarded, I'd probably find all this interesting. In the meantime, I'll make myself happy by simply making a needless off-topic post, as usual.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

MO NAKED HOES!

 

[Gagh]

SPAMMY SPAM SPAM SPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPAMAMAMAMAMAMARAMALICIOUS!

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

I shall work steadfastly to end all anti-facial legislation on the books, anywhere in the world.

THIS IS FOR YOU, FURTHER!!!!