Mr. Lucas Part II

This is just an extension of last week's assignment. I saw G-reg's blog, which spurred thoughts that did not occur to me at the time I read Mr. Lucas' article.

In previous lectures, we learned that men doing gay pornography are not always gay. Moreover, as a sort of recompense, they are paid a salary significantly higher than men in hetero porn. Because these are mainly straight men, they are not aroused by other men, and are thus administered drugs like Viagara in order to obtain, and maintain, an erection, with the hopes that the ensuing friction will be enough to lead to an orgasm-accompanied ejaculation (or at least an ejaculation, because a cum-less cum shot is bad for business).

What I would like to know is how can gay pornography be deemed as the main tool for learning when a large portion of actors are straight? These actors are feigning enjoyment. Their erections are counterfeit, and an ejaculation does not presume an orgasm. Mr. Lucas did not indicate whether or not his actors were gay, yet one only assumes that they enjoy the sex – that is the point of pornography. However, this is still a business transaction: men provide the action, Lucas (or any producer, for that matter) provides the money.  So I am wondering how one can be certain that sex is truly being enjoyed.