egafd.com

Quite right, James. I came to similar conclusions a while back. The kind of cack that is being produced nowadays is nothing to do with punters (and little to do with sex). As you point out, it's just new producer types, amateurs and hobbyists, tossing themselves (and each other) off in an orgy of self indulgence. They get together and, with earnest enthusiasm, talk about the shoot they did last week with urban sex sensation - Cheryl Chav, and what an intensely 'hot' scene it was - with a scrawny, sweaty, scarecrow-haired, Cheryl being roggered raggy by four chortling geezers (two of them baseball capped 'doggers') in the back of a rusty 15 year old transit van in a lay-by on the A12. They think all this is wonderful and they enthusiastically slap each other on the back, before moving on to animatedly discuss the best techniques for filming double de-caf? internal cream pies with a bukkake cinnamon dusting. These people live in a porno bubble - an alternate porno-centric reality, a world of cream pies, model releases, ATM?s, gappers, and bizarre nausea inducing camera angles. Divorced from the reality of the mainstream world, they talk of little else. It?s quite depressing, and you sit there thinking ?Oh,for Christ sake, dudes ? get a freakin? life, will ya'! This is all bollocks!?

Sure, in my day we used to meet up and discuss shooting (and selling) movies. We?d discuss which top models we would like to shoot (and shag) and which models the punters would like to see. But that only took half an hour or so, and as we were normal well adjusted geezers, with normal interests (like money, wonga and dough), we would then talk about the Porsches and Ferraris we were going to buy when our new movie venture made us rich. We?d talk of Sunseeker yachts and palatial villas in Spain (anything seemed possible back then). Porn was just a means to an end, not an end in itself. We never got wrapped up in it or stewed in it. Jeez. We always saw our punters as ordinary Joes (like us) who either wanted to see their top shelf dream girl or a girl next-door type in action (this was before ?girls next door? became chav birds). But as you say, James, now adult movies just seem to be made for the sake of the producers and a relatively few trainspotters and sad boys who go on forums like this to ask porn star and producer ?Dickwad Dave? about the hot triple ATM, cream pie scene, he did with Cheryl Chav in ?Dickwad Dave?s Big Day Out?.

Regarding pissing on models ? I must admit I?ve not come across this - apart from in some of those pervy old German movies. But then again, I tend to avoid contemporary porno ? particularly Brit porno. But I was just thinking. When a proportion of punters get bored with pissing on models, and another portion turn off in disgust, will producers think ? ?Ah, the punters must want us to ?push the boundaries? and maybe ?post the envelope?. I know, never mind pissing - we?ll POO on the models next! Yes, it will be well ?hot? ? steaming, in fact. Hey, I can see it now. We?ll be the toast of the bgafd! We?ll be hailed as the ?edgiest? producers in Brit-porn! We?ll take Cannes by storm! Our fans will go doo-laly! WHEHEY!... Shit, we deserve a slap on the back for an idea like that (chortle, chortle?).


Officer Dibble

IMHO this is one of the better threads for a long time. Everyone has his/her opinions, and there are valid point on either side of the divide.

But, for what it's worth, I tend to agree with Alex. Funnily enough, in many previous threads, quite a few forumites have written to say how much they enjoyed watching Wendy being pissed on. Aga Uncovered portrays energetically abusive lezdom stuff. Think of some of the DP material that Alicia has done stateside. Alexis's Bangbros scenes are also boundary-line abusive stuff. But in all of them, some people get a turn on, and no doubt many don't.

But to equate any of this with real life is meaningless. Porn is all about fantasy. Many people still enjoy Vivid-like stuff of immaculately built west coast blonde-types being seduced by implausbly handsome studs before the condom-heavy copulation. Fantasy. Others want to see (the special) Lay J take both Mandingo and Jack Napier on, in what has to be a biologically uncomfortable encounter, to say the least. Fantasy. The difference? You don't like either end of the porn spectrum, don't buy, don't watch.

That quantum leap from choking and gagging to child abuse and bestiality is meaningless. The comment about rape preceding porn is so true. And most of the most notorious rapists didn't watch Red Light videos before going out to commit violence against women.

I recall watching Alicia being abused by a whole gaggle of starlets in one of the AGA vids. Baseball bats, spitting, choking, near-fisting etc. The visuals didn't do that much for me, but the eroticism of submission was, sorry to say, a turn-on. And yes, some of the Rocco/Nacho/Kelly Stafford scenes were boundary-line, but somehow got a rise out of me and no doubt many other punters. We CHOSE to watch this, for whatever reason. And funnily enough, my utter condemnation of rape was in no way diminished by watching stuff like this.

One final thing. Please don't let's get all sanctimonious about wanting to protect the honour and dignity of adult, intelligent (largely) porn performers who agree to do such scenes at a price. They don't need our protection. For sure kids and animals do. Big difference.

Incoherent input on my part? Perhaps. But it's ADULT entertainment. Snuff, kiddie porn, bestiality have nothing to do with entertainmen. Fantasy-play involving ADULT performers? That's a different matter.

'Nuff said.

>>Sex is a pleasurable act . . . even the watching of it . . . whereas violence >>is totally at odds with that concept.

I'm sorry but there are plenty of people, including women, who enjoy rough sex.

>>I don't think violence in sex is too far removed from paedophilia

That's as silly as the right-wing christians who say porn isn't too far removed from paedophilia.

>>but then again, perhaps Alex has his own justification for that . . ?

No, as I've already explained, there is an enormous and fundamental difference between two adults engaging in sex and an adult abusing a child.

Think you've hit the nail on the head there Darkow. There's a fundamental difference between sex fantasies and real life. The idea of prudes casting judgement on sex fantasies because it's not their idea of a good time is silly.

And coming from people who actually watch porn in the first place it's even more surprising. They enjoy watching women being treated as sex objects but if the sex is slightly rougher than floats their boat then it's offensive? Where's the logic in that?

>>in reply to your post Alex i feel your rather missing the point, porn was >>originally made for our voyeuristic and exhibitionist natures, to be able >>to see inside the bedroom of the couple next door banging each other >>silly. not so we could explore the inner psychopath

LOL! Good point Karina.

I think you're talking about sex fantasies as tho they're real life tho. Surely it's possible for a woman who enjoys rough sex to ask her partner to "Treat me rough" and then after sex they have a warm loving relationship? Does enjoying rough sex automatically mean you're some abused, battered wife/girlfriend? There's an awful lot of men who enjoy rough sex from dominatrix's - are all of them battered husbands?

I'm sure there are some psychopaths who can't tell the difference between sex fantasies and real life but most people can.

>>why not? what are you scared of? in my opinion most abusive porn is >>made by men who have sometime or other felt inferior to woman. be it >>their mothers or past lovers. i know lets put them back in their places by >>abusing them on film.

Good point. We could talk about the motivation behind it and there probably are some dodgy motivations but bottom line these women arn't being forced to appear on the films. It's fantasy.

Speaking for myself, I'm interested in women being aggressive rather than men being aggressive and in Fem-dom where the women are being "abusive" and "nasty" I never get any sense that "This woman is a vicious, hate-filled being in real life". She's just playing a role to fulfill a fantasy. When they turn the video camera off she probably has a laugh with the guy she's just been knocking seven bells out of.

Have you or any of your friends ever dressed up in thigh boots and smacked a guy? Were you doing it out of "hatred for the male sex"? or "a deep psychopathic desire to humiliate men"? Or were you just having a laugh for a film?

I'm sure there's some dodgy blokes in the rough sex scene and personally it doesn't float my boat so i never watch it but I can understand that it's a common fantasy.

>>in essence we don't need men we just want them and lets be honest, >>this scares the shit out of most of you.

Hang on Karina, if all us men are scared and want to get our revenge and see women treated roughly why is Lady Sonia the biggest site by far in the UK? A site where she treats men like shit? Why is the Fem-dom scene by far the biggest and most popular money-spinner scene in the UK?

>>one thing i agree with is each to their own as long as it's consensual, >>legal, and doesn't involve brutalising a person just to get one up on >>them in some sort of emotional power struggle.

I hear ya. Respect due! )

It?s the direct result of a creeping cultural imperialism. British folk seeming not to have their own vision of how porn should move forward, tend to adopt the more extreme practices prevalent in the US. For porn?s many critics, footage of women getting slapped about is a godsend. Confirming that smut does for misogyny what ?Der Strumer? did for anti-Semitism. Even liberal minded folk like myself find it difficult to defend footage of petite blondes filmed tear stained and choking as some muscle bound idiot forces dick flesh into her mouth until she pukes.

Porn seems to make no reference to sex anymore, it?s become a postmodern freak show.

Alex wrote:

>
> And coming from people who actually watch porn in the first
> place it's even more surprising. They enjoy watching women
> being treated as sex objects but if the sex is slightly rougher
> than floats their boat then it's offensive? Where's the logic
> in that?

You're missing the point. Sex and violence are two different things.

What has choking, punching slapping and spitting on people to do with sex?

There's a difference between treating a woman as a sex-object, as opposed to treating her as a punch-bag . . .

>>Sex and violence are two different things.

It's a bit subtler than that tho. Can't you see any difference between a woman being slapped while she's having sex with her partner and a complete stranger beating her up in the street?

Or do you consider both cases to be exactly the same "violence"?

>> What has choking, punching slapping and spitting on people to do with >>sex?

That's like saying "What have stockings and suspenders to do with sex?" For some people choking, slapping and spitting have a great deal to do with sex.

I don't see anything wrong in it. If the girls are happy with it then fine. Just slap them extra hard and they make have second thoughts about going back to it.

Sorry, Bruce, are you honestly saying that "porn's many critics" would shut up just because the only adult stuff made was of nice looking girls and blokes fucking? There are only so many ways to shoot a penis driving in and out of a woman's pussy, or asshole for that matter.

The turn on is the context. The Ben Dover actress who says she's been looking forward to cheating on her husband with Pascal, Bob and the Earl himself. The OEJ performer who gives him a blow job in a phone booth on the side of a busy road. The girl who urges other girls to abuse her and spit on her face as she accomodates the hugest plastic dongs you ever saw. The "housewife" who tells her stud to spank her ass as he rogers her doggy-style in front of her cuckolded "husband". The white surbuban wife who urges four humongously hung black guys to fuck every hole, and then some. The black chick who screams as a white dick "gapes" her asshole. And so on, and so forth.

Which one of these would be acceptable to porn's many critics? Which one of these, given the choice, would you buy, or pay to watch on the internet?

For many people, the sight of a porn performer gagging on some idiot stud's dick as he chokes her to the point of puking is a turn off. Er, but to some, it's a turn on. The former does not have to watch it. The latter spends hard-earned money watching it and wanking himself (or even HERSELF) silly. Fantasy, my dear chap, fantasy.

Concentrate your energy on condemning under-age girls being used in ANY sexual context. Post comments about the utter unacceptability of bestiality, when you come across it. Block out sites that portray actresses acting out "gang-rape" scenes.

But don't try to tell anyone that he/she is any way sicker cos they get off on the choking, gagging, spanking, slapping, non-consensual "fantasy" play.

It's not non-consensual when ADULT, INDEPENDENT-MINDED, PROFESSIONAL performers choose to do it. And it ain't nobody's business, if some people get off on that.

Next time you accidentally come across "footage of petite blondes filmed tear stained and choking as some muscle bound idiot forces dick flesh into her mouth until she pukes.", quickly close the web page or stop the DVD, Bruce, and be grateful you have the CHOICE to "move on" to what floats your boat.

Hopefully, this little contribution will generate a little more than sanctimonious abuse....