Brit vs. US porn - why are they nastier?

[pagangod_uk]

Karina's insightful comments really hit the nail on the head regarding the more pervasive aspects of the 'rougher' end of the gonzo spectrum.

Ms. Currie has brought up something in her experiences with Extreme that need a little closer examination as to the nature of their (and other companies like them) product and the type of end-user who enjoys it.

I really don't want to be thought of as being self-rightous/moralistic/pompous in some of the addtional points that I'm about to make here, though I suspect that will be the inevitable perception...

If we put aside the fiscal reasons behind the production of 'rough' porn, the question I want ask, and to a certain extent it is a rhetorical one, is what sort of so-called 'normal' gratifcation can be derived from some of the imagery seen in the films that Karina Currie has described and the work of others such as Max Hardcore etc?

What does it say (psychologically) about the mindset of the viewer who actually 'gets off' on this particular type of content?

Also, what does it say about mainstream adult entertainment, when the stakes in the porn market are increasingly upped in the 'rough'/'extreme' genres, and the demand for this 'niche' product becomes even greater?

Is it about supply and demand - do the punters actually want this?

Or is it being packaged and sold to us as the next, enticing flavour in the ever-evolving world of porn?

Are some of us too entrenched in our personal prefrences for 'vanilla' porn?

Maybe, or is the 'rough' stuff taking porn out of the area of the erotic and into the world of the freakshow?

Points to ponder I'd say - because I for one don't have any solid answers, maybe just a few theories...

Peace,

PG.

[Willie D]

Karina, first, thanks for the reply. I checked out a few of your scenes (not the one you mentioned, unfortunately). and I find you quite strokeworthy, so for an American porn consumer, literacy is just a great bonus. Thank you.
[img]http://www.xxxporntalk.com/ubbthreads/i ... banana.gif[/img]

I don't want to start being an apologist for US porn, Extreme as you knew it went out of business, and Extreme 2.0 is now fighting a federal obscenity complaint (Rob Black and Lizze Borden). As to whether your scenes were patently incestuous of paedophelic...I can't answer that. I don't know the vibe on the set at the time. Jim Powers, yeah he is a world-class degenerate, but he often has his tongue firmly in cheek. Not to diminish your experience, but that is my take some some of his work.

As to the history of our porn exploring many odd subjects, bear in mind we are still emerging from a long sexual morosis brought on by those folks you sent over on the Mayflower !wink!

US porn in the 1970s/early 80s followed one of two tracks: the "I want to be mainstream" track (witness the US porn musical "Alice in Wonderland"), or the excessively nasty movies such as the Jamie Gillis rape movies, The Avon Pictures films, the Kay Parker Taboo series, or any number of other. I argue that both of these extremes in the opposite direction are a direct result of a cultural awakening which did not hit our shores until we were mired in the Viet Nam War. The debate still continues in the U.S.: was Traci Lords de facto legal given her maturity clever for her age, or was she just another underage performer with fantastic tits who fooled a lot of people? We can't answer this question, we're too busy finding out where our sexual proclivities lie.

Some of your landed brethren like Jim Slip will just dismiss me as an American apologist asshole and say all American porn is disgusting and an affront to the world. But I'm sorry, we're not the ones from Color Climax who invented the simulated underage movie with Tove Jensen, we're not the Nord Video folks who sell the mother/daughter incest line of videos. We're not the studios of Amsterdam who dabble in what we Americans would legally consider pedophilia.

If only more of the American whores could kiss the porn Blarney Stone.

[eroticartist]

American films are more violent towards women because of the dichotomy of male sexual desire and the sex hostile fundamentalist christian religion . Veiwers of pornography want to see women punished and humiliated because of the shame of their sexual fantasies conflicts with the teachings of the church. !shocked!
Mike Freeman

[Frobskottle]

In my opinion there are some lines to be drawn in the "extreme" porn debate. It seems to me that the porn people describe as "extreme" tends to fall into one of two broad categories:

1. Porn which sets out (consciously or unconsciously) to illustrate and perpetuate the idea that women are basically just meat, items to be used and abused by men for their pleasure in a systematic way without any regard whatsoever for their happiness or even, in fringe cases, their consent. Porn doesn't so much fall into this box because of the actual acts performed on screen, but rather it's the attitude of the male performers and producers that counts, and the way they market the product. I would say for instance that if you take Max Hardcore's stuff, it is clear that the entire premise is that the women are seen as useless whores, virtually enslaed to Max, to be treated with utter contempt. I'm not talking here about how Max actually treats his female performers off screen, but how he portrays his relationship with them. It's a marketing tool of course, his USP you might say. In my view, it's designed to appeal directly to the woman-hating segment of the porn audience, smething that's common to a lot of porn in this first category.

2. Porn where "extreme" sexual acts such as face-fucking take place in a context which is unambiguously consensual. There are countless example of these, but Isabel Ice's harder stuff would be one example, as might Kelly Stafford's or Poppy Morgan's.

To sum up, I think it's about the context, not the act itself. Which makes sense, doesn't it - I mean, even "vanilla" sex is extreme if you don't consent to it.

I admit there are grey areas between the two categories, and most of these relate to porn which is promoted in an overtly woman-hating way, but whose actual content is very clearly consensual. I can think of two good examples. The first is Jim Powers' American Bukkake series. If you read the box cover, it's full of talk about "dumb whores" getting what they deserve and other stuff which is intrinsically quite vile. But actually play the dvd, and there isn't much woman-hating in the scenes. The guys approach the girls, to cum on them, almost wth reverence. The second example might be Angel Long's gang bang stuff (or anyone else's). The marketing very much plays up to gang bang fantasies, where consent is surely a very vague concept. But in the actual scenes you just have Angel loving it as she takes on eight black guys with obvious enjoyment and aplomb.

Where you stand on either of these forms of pornography is, I suppose, up to you. I think there would be a general consensus that the stuff in category (1) is pretty objectionable, leaving fans of that genre as a fairly isolated minority. Which in reality is what they are. A lot of people on here complain about category 2, as well - for example when someone posted an Isobel Ice facefucking mpeg, there followed a lengthy debate not dissimilar to this one, about the morals of "extreme" porn. But I think category 2 is really a matter of personal taste. I think it's perfectly legitimate to get off on "extreme" sex performed by people who are into it, in a context where it is quite clear that nobody is subjugated to anyone else. I am prepared to admit that I like face-fucking, and I quite like bukkake too (give it a go, Isobel!). But I only like them when they are genuinely consensual and portrayed as such. I object much more to the marketing of things like Gangland and American Bukkake, with its emphasis on rape fantasy and woman-hating, than I do to the content itself.

Enough from me, anyway!

[strictlybroadband]

I think you're on to something Mike. In the US South especially, the churches and government are pushing the "abstain till marriage" line and many girls go along with it... meaning that American guys find it harder than their European counterparts to get laid easily. Hence frustration and the desire to see women forced to submit and admit they're sluts.

[jimslip]

The worrying thing to me is that every phsycopath, always seems to hear voices telling him that "All women are whores, sluts, etc etc yawn yawn" as a justification for then going out and murdering them.

This logic seems very close to American extreme porn that seems to do everything except murder the girls. I'm sure if these mysoginist, scumbags could, legally and for a buck, murder the girls as well.................they'd do it!

Unfortunately this crap assumes all porn consumers are potential rapists and sadists. I happen to think there's a huge market of guys who happen, not, to enjoy seeing women treated badly.

[lucas]

I quite agree.....makes you realise that placing restrictions within reason can be a good thing. Especially when some producers try to make a name for themselves by pushing boundaries in an unpleasant direction. As for the female stars who claim they like it rough...well there are degrees of rough and they are unlikely to complain when its sprung on them in a scene. Who also might never get work again if they complain. There are those out there who say well you don't have to buy, you don't have to watch......some people need saving from themselves.

[Jonone]

What about possible psychological harm ? There seems to be some incidence of jobs being described as one thing and turning into something quite different. A kind of deceit by ommission, so what has actually been agreed could, in some cases, be a grey area.

[Ikhan]

i think many of these women want to be extreme now also... if they want to get ahead or stand out from what is a very over crowded market now in the states, they are going to have to do stuff that is different.