egafd.com

The Bear up a tree wrote:

"you may not know it but opinions like yours are actually very misogynistic. because at the very core of your argument is the assumption that woman are helpless victims. you struggle with the notion of a woman enjoying acts that repulse you. it doesn't match your rose tinted view of how a woman should conduct herself. you and others like you project your vision of what a woman should be on to woman. i've no doubt your intentions are good but when they actively ignore the key participant and her desires in can only be seen as oppression. consensual acts between adults are a matter for those concerned and NOBODY else. denying people their right to express their sexuality as they see fit if nothing more than fascism and makes a mockery of the concept of freedom."

What a load of rubbish.

There's nothing misogynistic or do gooder about trying to keep consensual SEX and consensual VIOLENCE apart. In fact, keeping them apart would help the porn industry in its fight against the do gooders and those who automatically link sex and violence - and have done so even before Mary Whitehouse was around.

Pornography is not just about sex. Pornography can also be the depiction of violence or humiliation alone. Those who wish to kill off all sexual pornography deliberately link the two as they know they will be to take along with them those who would ignore consensual sexual porn but would want to see violence in a sexual context banned. All The Bear and those like him do is to strengthen the link in the minds of the majority.

Pushing the boundaries and accepting there are people out there who enjoy taking part in and watching such acts is one thing, but the depiction of violence against women, or men for that matter, in a sexual context is a minority interest and just adds fuel to the fires being stoked up by the readers of the Daily Wail, Daily Depress and others of their ilk.

There was BDSM long before the internet and so called "extreme porn". There was also plenty of sexual crime, we just tended to sweep it under the carpet or not report it because of the shame factor.

You have to remember that with the internet the world has shrunk. So you generally hear about lots of sexual crime due to the whole nations news networks being accessible, 50 years ago you didn't hear about them, they were still there though.

I have to agree with the Tarantino point the stuff he does in his films is far more graphic than a bit of spitting or slapping, Hostel is an absolutley vile piece of film but people watch it and no one really bothers about it. You add two people having sex though and some how it all changes.

People have to stop seeing female performers as victims. They are independent, intelligent people with the right to choose how they use their bodies.

I think Harmony Hex said it right when she said that ( and I am paraphrasing) she likes certain things in the bedroom. Why should there be a problem with her doing those things on film. The problem comes when people do things they are not comfortable with for money.

Mysteryman wrote:

> The Bear up a tree wrote:
>
> "you may not know it but opinions like yours are actually very
> misogynistic. because at the very core of your argument is the
> assumption that woman are helpless victims. you struggle with
> the notion of a woman enjoying acts that repulse you. it
> doesn't match your rose tinted view of how a woman should
> conduct herself. you and others like you project your vision of
> what a woman should be on to woman. i've no doubt your
> intentions are good but when they actively ignore the key
> participant and her desires in can only be seen as oppression.
> consensual acts between adults are a matter for those concerned
> and NOBODY else. denying people their right to express their
> sexuality as they see fit if nothing more than fascism and
> makes a mockery of the concept of freedom."
>
> What a load of rubbish.
>
> There's nothing misogynistic or do gooder about trying to keep
> consensual SEX and consensual VIOLENCE apart. In fact, keeping
> them apart would help the porn industry in its fight against
> the do gooders and those who automatically link sex and
> violence - and have done so even before Mary Whitehouse was
> around.
>
> Pornography is not just about sex. Pornography can also be the
> depiction of violence or humiliation alone. Those who wish to
> kill off all sexual pornography deliberately link the two as
> they know they will be to take along with them those who would
> ignore consensual sexual porn but would want to see violence in
> a sexual context banned. All The Bear and those like him do is
> to strengthen the link in the minds of the majority.
>
> Pushing the boundaries and accepting there are people out there
> who enjoy taking part in and watching such acts is one thing,
> but the depiction of violence against women, or men for that
> matter, in a sexual context is a minority interest and just
> adds fuel to the fires being stoked up by the readers of the
> Daily Wail, Daily Depress and others of their ilk.



"I have in my hand a piece of paper"

How on earth you can link my post with Neville Chamberlain's 1938 trip to Munich beggars belief.

I think we've been here several times before Rob D and while I understand where you are coming from you have to understand the participants of this kind of material. They do it because they consent to it and this is what they really want to do. otherwise if they didnt the cops would be round there fasters than you can say "rape" to kick some pornographers arse and bash his head into the wall.

It will never hapen because I know some of the girls who adore this type of sex and cannot stomach the dull tamer stuff.

Thats all there is to it really.

My catchphrase is: "We do this so that you dont have to"

As for not understanding how people can view this kind of thing then its probbaly down to defective wiring in us humans that sometimes things that seem so wrong seem to appeal more to us to see even if we cant or wont do it.

I can see people getting shot up and killed everyday on the internet. Some bloke with a raging hard on pulling a girls hair and calling her names while banging her ten to the dozen is far easier to watch in comparison.

Then again my tastes in porn are a lot simpler ...Well I happen to think Evil Angel ar eone of my favorite labels producing porn...Even better that Im credited for shooting one of their scenes.

The Bear in his wisdom has now decided I am a terrorist. Not a lot I can say to that!

When I referred to the aquiessence of either party not making it right, I was of course referring to the sad sods equating it with porn. Porn is sex and by definition suitable only for adult viewing so I repeat my earlier rhetorical question - what had violence got to do with porn?

If adults want to abuse each other, then that is their perogative - just don't call it porn.

Mysteryman wrote:

> How on earth you can link my post with Neville Chamberlain's
> 1938 trip to Munich beggars belief.

really? you can't be trying very hard

appeasement. you are an appeaser.

did that help?

what you are suggesting is that people ignore and subdue their true feeling for the sake of a quiet life. keep your head down and everything will be fine.

or you just don't care about people's genuine right to express themselves how the wish. which suggests you're are something entirely different.

which is it?

i wasn't comparing you to a terrorist. i was comparing your opinion to an irrational post one would find on thesun forums.

one eyed jack wrote:

> I think we've been here several times before Rob D and while I
> understand where you are coming from you have to understand the
> participants of this kind of material. They do it because they
> consent to it and this is what they really want to do.
> otherwise if they didnt the cops would be round there fasters
> than you can say "rape" to kick some pornographers arse and
> bash his head into the wall.
>
> It will never hapen because I know some of the girls who adore
> this type of sex and cannot stomach the dull tamer stuff.

that's no good, terry. you can't allow the girls to have an opinion on what they do and don't do. they're are there purely for our entertainment and as such they will act out OUR fantasies, not theirs. christ, next thing they'll be able to vote.

If it doesn`t appeal to you there`s a little X in the corner. Who`s to say where the line is in rough sex? And its a slow chipping away process. No rough sex, then no name calling , then nothing other than boring vanilla missionary fucking.

At the end of the day yer entitled to not like it , hell I can`t stand the geriatric sex, but you can`t enforce your opinion onto everyone