Cum shot
The use of money shot to denote the ejaculation scene in pornographic films is attributed to producers paying the male actors extra for it.
[17] Aside from other sexual activity that may have occurred prior to performing a facial, the risks incurred by the giving and receiving partner are drastically different.
[18] Since potentially infected semen could come into contact with broken skin or sensitive mucous membranes (e.g., eyes, lips, mouth), there is a risk of contracting an infectious disease.
Options for prevention of semen allergy include avoiding exposure to seminal fluid by use of condoms and attempting desensitization.
[21] One critic of "cum shot" scenes in heterosexual pornography was the US porn star–turned–writer, director and producer Candida Royalle.
She produced pornography films aimed at women and their partners that avoid the "misogynous predictability" and depiction of sex in "...as grotesque and graphic [a way] as possible."
"[13][23] She goes on to say "Logically, if sex is natural and wholesome and semen is as healthy as sweat, there is no reason to interpret ejaculation as a hostile gesture.
"[13][23] Sexologist Peter Sándor Gardos argues that his research suggests that "... the men who get most turned on by watching cum shots are the ones who have positive attitudes toward women" (at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex in 1992).
[24] Later, at the World Pornography Conference in 1998, he reported a similar conclusion, namely that "no pornographic image is interpretable outside of its historical and social context.
[18] In her essay "Visualizing Safe Sex: When Pedagogy and Pornography Collide", Patton reached the conclusion that critics have devoted too little space to discovering the meaning that viewers attach to specific acts such as cum shots.
