a appeal against simulated violence

[one eyed jack]

Hey Rob D...Let them continue producing extreme stuff. The more of that stuff out there the more likely many will tire of it and seek milder stuff.

Is there not a resurgence in 80's and 90's porn at the moment? probably the older blokes who were in their early years back then.

Today there is porn for all tastes and moods. Some may find enjoyment from a gentle solo girl vid and depending on their moods may want things a bit stronger.

I htink you'll find that the extreme high octane stuff probably accounts for 5% or less of the releases that are coming out in the US.

I only know of a handful of names that might be producing that stuff here

[one eyed jack]

As for the evil angel website depicting those acts....Trailers always tend to look more energetic than the final product because it has a limited time of 2 minutes to show whats in it, the slaps, bangs and screamings add sensation to it to influence you that this is the film you ar elooking for if you want something high energy.

Ive never found anything produced by Evil Angel to be questionable. Probably because I know the people I watch (disturbing thought I know).

Besides its not about accepting those things on tv. I have no issue with racism, swearing etc on tv if its put in an intelligent context that warrants it.

Theres no hiding the porn aspect from kids now as long as Tube sites and torrents are available.

Kids are being brought up in a generation where they can get music , movies and porn for free and you know what? They are sharing this stuff.

It might as well be available on CBeebies for how available it is already.

"..Coming up after Pepa Pig. Stay tuned for Extreme Anal Whores on Heat...Only on Nick Jr 2"

[jj]

joe king wrote:
> Do you think John Stagliano should be put into prison?

Oh, God, yes.
For crimes against lighting and steady camera-work, at least [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/grin.gif[/img]

[Floydoid]

Rob I totally agree with your original post in this thread. I've said it several times before on this forum - whatever happened to treating the girls with absolute respect? I too think there is too much aggression in 'normal' porn... if I wanted to see girls getting mistreated (consensually that is) I'd invest in some decent BDSM porn.

[thealtruist]

There's something that everybody's forgetting about. You talk about women being treated badly in porn because of the violence (which I don't think is violent). This thread seems to be focused on women being treated like this by men. That women are victims. But what about this "violent" porn that's directed by women? Belladonna is notorious for making extreme fetish films including spitting and slapping. More and more women are now going behind the camera and directing stuff that's just as strong, if not more so, than what any man could direct. Let's face facts. The majority of women who appear in this sort of porn do so because they want to and enjoy it. The women are not victims. A lot of people find this hard to believe but women aren't stupid. They have a brain, are independent and have a mind of their own. The insinuation that women are victims and are incapable of making their own decisions, let alone have sexual desires of the more stronger variety, is offensive, insulting and sexist. It's ironic that a lot of people who are out to "protect" women from being victims of men make them the victims with their attitudes, thoughts and opinions of women.

[RobD]

I strongly resent the implication that because you might raise some objections towards this sort of porn it automatically makes you a Victorian era misogynist. The point of my debate was this type of materials effect the way in people view not only women but sex in general, the more mainstream it becomes the more people will think of it as "normal". If anyone can point to a post in which I have said I don't think women should be allowed to particapate in consensual activities I would like to see it, there's a big difference between porn and the private acts of consenting adults.

I would feel exactly the same way about violent gay porn with men involved, at some point we have to say what we find unacceptable and not be afraid of being labelled, I assume altruist that you do not support the legalisation of all drugs, guns being legal and hardcore pornography on the BBC at 4pm on CBeebies? Does that make you mary whitehouse?

[thealtruist]

You make a good point, RobD, but I never said you were misogynistic. However, I do apologise profusely for any offence I may have caused. This thread is a healthy debate about porn. It is not a place for insults and offences. I'm very sorry. The truth is I don't agree with your view and feel that you are being unkind to the general public. We are not stupid enough to think that this is normal. We know that porn is ridiculous and OTT. It plays to ones fantasy. As I said in a previous post we are not one of Pavlov's dogs. Do you have a problem with BDSM videos? The films that you are talking about are for a specialist market. They are a fetish. They are not in every single porno you watch. In Britain scenes of slapping and spitting are removed at the insistence of the BBFC so many young people are introduced to porn with the watered down version. Most porn that does the round is the MPAA or BBFC approved versions. If an R18 film gets through uncut then it doesn't feature spitting and slapping or any other aggressive behaviour. In America and Australia they are subjected to, roughly, the same guidelines as the UK. Films that feature the extreme behaviour that you so talk about are only available through the distributors website. Evil Angel and others specialise in that sort of fetish. And that's all it is. A fetish. Unfortunately, you've done what all people who are against something do - making absurd examples for comparison. Of course I don't think drugs should be legalised or guns readily available. Nor do I think that hard core pornography should be shown at four o'clock. These are harmful. I don't believe porn is. The bottom line is if you don't like it, and that's your right (a right that should never be taken off of you. I will stand up for your rights) then don't watch it. Buy it from a reputable sex shop with BBFC approved certificates. But a lot of people do enjoy it. Like I said it's a fetish. Let people indulge in their fetish/fantasy. It doesn't mean that they want to take that fantasy or fetish into the bedroom. They know it's best kept in the head. Let them watch it if they choose to. Society is not going to break down. Relationships are not going to turn ugly. They're just fantasies. We're all allowed to have them. Fantasies are places where you can go and no one gets hurt. As for the performers they aren't getting hurt. They've happily agreed to do it and are doing so so we can indulge in these fantasies.

[The Bear up a tree]

Mysteryman wrote:


> You presumably feel you, and everyone else, has the right to
> express themselves as they see fit.

yep. within the law. you do understand the concept of laws?


> So, by your lights, if I
> see you driving a Rolls and I think that you are both too rich
> and are ruining the environment by driving it, I should have
> the right to express my beliefs and demonstrate them however I
> see fit - including attacking the vehicle, or you.

no, that would be against the law. understand?


>
> Or is that a stretch too far for you? Where do you draw the
> line?

i don't have to draw a line, it's already there.


>
> Presumably you would say that, in the case above, you were not
> a consenting party.

what the hell are you talking about???

>But that is the whole point. When does an
> individuals freedom cross the line of another's consent?

again, try and rephrase that into a workable sentence.


>
> Everyone has different limits and they may change depending on
> a variety of factors.

and?



>
> A girl may be happy to be slapped or spat on. She may be happy
> to be peed on, but the male may wish to pee in her mouth, which
> she does not want. Whose "freedom" comes first? Who has the
> greater right?

jesus! i can't believe i'm actually having to explain this to you when it's so blatantly obvious.

if you want to piss in someone's mouth and they don't want you to then you don't fucking do it. you do not have the right to enforce your will on another.

you simply cannot get your head around female consent can you?

>
> A man may be happy to take part in "humiliation" in, perhaps, a
> CFNM scene. Then one of the girls wants to try ball busting.
> He doesn't. but he's outnumbered, is under pressure to submit -
> whose rights come first?

his, you fool.


> Both have the freedom to express
> their limits and - in your world - both have the right to do
> what they want.

bullshit. i'm sorry but you're becoming quite tiresome, now.

>
> Anyway, back to my point. If the promulgation and distribution
> of sexual material involving single person, couples,
> threesomes, even orgies - including penetration, cum shots,
> even water sports - in fact anything that wouldn't be
> considered violent - is to survive the barrage of condemnation,
> the restrictions and attempts to totally ban with which
> governments, religious leaders and pressure groups continually
> attempt to kill off the industry, such material needs to be
> de-linked from violence.

good luck to you and you appeasing. and if you think that you can save your sorry ass by sacrificing
"extreme" porn in the hope that these "governments, religious leaders and pressure groups" will stop then your na?vety is borderline retarded. they want to ban pornography FULL STOP and they will take whatever victory they get and will not stop at your definition of "acceptable" pornography

>
> Now if you don't understand that, or why it needs to be so, you
> are perhaps lacking in intellect,


i understand completely, you're just wrong.


> or it may be that you don't
> understand why the majority find violence in a submissive
> situation distasteful

i do understand, but why should i care?

>and are therefore swayed by those who,
> for their own ends, wish to link all pornography with
> violence

then they are weak minded and i have no time for them.


> or perhaps you are just amusing yourself by posting
> comments to stir up a hornets nest.


translation = i don't like what you say, therefore you're a troll. classic.

[The Bear up a tree]

randyandy wrote:

>
> With regards to the models I sincerely doubt many will reply.
> To go against could have a consequence on work received and it
> could also be argued that any that do in support are doing so
> to keep the ?'s rolling in.

wow, a true chauvinistic post. as far as you're concerned women are just pretty thing that should sit in the corner look pretty and be adored by men.

you even state that if any girl did waste their time arguing with you then the only reason would be because they're are liars and just want to get more work. seriously, if i were a woman i'd call you a pig. do you have ANY idea how insulting it is dismiss someone's opinion like that?

unbelievable.

[The Bear up a tree]

RobD wrote:

> I never said a woman has no right to perform these acts, the
> original post was about these types of films becoming
> increasingly mainstream, if two consenting adults wish to
> engage in these kind of acts thats their business, this is a
> debate about pornography, not what people do behind closed
> doors.

right so dozens of posts in you decide to "clarify" your original position, thus making this an entirely different discussion.

>
but that doesn't make you a fascist, nor does
> myself not liking violent porn a fascist.

no, but stopping other people from making/watching it does.

>
> This will be the last time I reply to a post of yours if you
> are unable to reply with civility and respect by the way, as I
> and every other poster here has done.

i thought i'd been quite restrained, actually.