egafd.com

RobD wrote:

> I'm sure this has been said before but I really feel that there
> is a danger with the increasing use of simulate violence
> against women in porn films.
>
> If you go on the evil angel website and have a look at the
> previews I'm sad to say that most of them feature slapping,
> spitting and something that i feel is beyond the pale, choking.
> I know we all get off on different things but I really don't
> understand how anyone can get off on seeing women being
> physiclly harmed, simulated or not.

well, i and other have tried to explain why people get off on this even terry has given you first hand accounts what more do you want? so that's that part dealt with.


>
> I really think that the more this becomes mainstream in porn,
> the more likely younger guys who are watching porn for the
> first time will think this is a normal, acceptable thing to do.

you are, like many before are projecting your own fears on to the shoulders of others in order to give your argument more weight. there is absolutely no way you can tell if what you suggest is true or could become true. it seems you are giving this issue far too much consideration considering just how little "extreme" porn is produced.

and at the core of your augment above is this word: acceptable to who? who are judges here? you?

if a "young guy" decides that a bit a rough sex is what he wants and proceeds to give his girlfriend a taste of it, what if maybe that girl freaks out and slaps the cheeky little fuck in the chops and lets him know in no uncertain terms that he's on very thin ice? or do you like many others subscribe to the notion that the female would be too meek and afraid to say anything? - i'd genuinely like an answer to that.


> Don't get me wrong, I am the first to stand up for freedom of
> expression

yeah, you're really gonna have to sell that one a bit more, cos from where i'm sitting...

> and believe the the UK has had some of the most
> archaic laws regarding allowing adults to view people having
> sex,


no argument there.


>but at some point those in the industry and the fans who
> support it have to take a step back and say "This is wrong".

well, well, well, here we are, rob. at the very crux of it.

"this is wrong " wow! that's quite a statement, rob. because that's what it is, rob, a statement of fact. not just your opinion, rob, but an unequivocal assertion. still going to argue that you have open mind about this?

so, why is it wrong, rob? what evidence do you have to justify that assertion? facts and figures, rob. facts and figures.


>
> The reason why I love the Omar and Cathy Barry series is that
> its men and women having hot sex and enjoying each other, no
> unpleasant humiliation, no bullying or physical harm, just
> professionals having great sex with a big smile on their face,

and what if i posted a message on here about how this kind of porn sickens me and that it's production should be stopped for the sake of society or other grandiose selfless claims?

> and surely that is the biggest turn of all?

i assume you meant turn on? well, yes, i certainly enjoy their work and good luck to them



>
> I'd love to know what the people in the industry, especially
> the girls, think about this?


yeah, probably not gonna happen. being accused of being a deviant, sick or just abnormal because of your natural desires doesn't do a lot for a girls confidence. and if they did post, randyandy would just call them liars. it's a lose/lose situation, rob.

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


you're right, my bad. i actually meant chauvinistic... or was it sexist? one of them, anyway...

hey bear, if you go over and read my posts properly, rather than just quoting from select parts then you will find the answers to all of your questions there.

You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to lay down the law or declare what is acceptable or unacceptable for everyone here, I'm not, I'm just expressing my opinion, I don't expect everyone here to agree with it, nor do I, unlike yourself, get terribly upset and agitated when people don't agree with me, otherwise it wouldn't be a debate would it?

In terms of evidence, I don't need to give you any evidence to back up my opinions, but in answer to how we judge what is acceptable or not, it is up to all of us to reach a consensus and translate that into laws etc. You still haven't answered any of the questions asked about what you regard as unacceptable, by your logic if you find something unacceptable or wrong does that mean you are a lording it up over everyone like you claim I'm doing?

Like I said, do you agree with the legalisation of all drugs, guns, and the various other examples of restrictions of free speech in our society? If you agree with just one of them then your argument has no meaning.

Your selective edit suggests you agree with my other points so I won't waste much time.

I do have an idea how insulting it is dismiss someone's opinion but find it somewhat ironic that you find it perfectly acceptable to insult me by dismissing mine.

I am neither a PIG or a chauvinist however if thinking women should be treated nicely instead of how you believe they should be treated so that you can get your rocks off makes me this then I am happy to join the line, especially when you getting your rocks off is damaging any chance of what I'd like to see happen which is the industry being recognized and accepted as real commercial enterprise.

I've not wasted much time reading the other posts because as I said to Rob this kind of debate is pissing in the wind but it is abundantly clear you've no idea what the post is about, either that or you're just an idiot looking to dump up your posts to seek attention.

So with that said and to close please note when I want a comment from an arse I'll fart, there is no need for you to type anything, I find people like you rather tiresome and as such won't bother replying to you again.

Maybe I've missed it but nobody has told me what "normal" is. One person's normal is another person's extreme or dullness. Or is "normal" what RobD says it is and we have to abide by it?

I second that andy, some good points there, I think we should leave it at that and move on to something less likely to get these people all worked up.

...in a way, though, he's got a point.
The silence from those few women who do visit here [or those
allowed to do so by their male masters [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/grin.gif[/img]] is deafening.

RobD wrote:

> I second that andy, some good points there, I think we should
> leave it at that and move on to something less likely to get
> these people all worked up.

wow! you really do walk in to these things don't you rob?

yes, rob, you have no problem with people doing what they like, you're a very liberal and open minded individual and have nothing but respect for a persons individual rights.

mask slipped for a second there didn't it, rob?

Rob,

Bear up a tree, yYou may feel you have to be patronising, viewing the world from your lofty heights but don't query my qualifications to understand the concept of law.

I'm sorry that you haven't the intellect to understand the concept contained in my previous post - I can't be bothered trying to explain in words of one syllable, but even if I did, given the intellect of the average bear, I'd be wasting my time.

At least you understand what a troll is and, as you used the word, so will I - you are a classic troll and I just won't feed you any more so go find your honey elsewhere.

RobD wrote:

> hey bear, if you go over and read my posts properly, rather
> than just quoting from select parts then you will find the
> answers to all of your questions there.

no. that's just not true.

>
> You seem to be under the impression that I am trying to lay
> down the law or declare what is acceptable or unacceptable for
> everyone here, I'm not,

you wrote:

but at some point those in the industry and the fans who support it have to take a step back and say "This is wrong".

you can continue to pretend you didn't write that rob, but it's there for everyone to see.



>I'm just expressing my opinion, I don't
> expect everyone here to agree with it,

neither do i, but i have a right to question/criticize other opinions if i choose, as do you. that's what we're doing right, now.

nor do I, unlike
> yourself, get terribly upset and agitated when people don't
> agree with me, otherwise it wouldn't be a debate would it?

i get very angry at the very suggestion of anything impeding my personal freedom and liberties, which is what is at the core of this "debate." and believe it or not my anger is directed at your opinion not you, it just spills out sometimes.

>
> In terms of evidence, I don't need to give you any evidence to
> back up my opinions,

well, yeah you do, if you want your opinion to be taken seriously

> but in answer to how we judge what is
> acceptable or not, it is up to all of us to reach a consensus
> and translate that into laws etc.

a consensus cannot be achieved when one party is utterly against the others preferred choice of activity. i respect your right to watch and do whatever you see fit, rob, within the boundaries of the law, yet my activities are subject to oppression because as you stated:

"but I really don't understand how anyone can get off on seeing women being physiclly harmed, simulated or not."

and just as an aside, it's not about people being humiliated or harmed, it's about the relinquishing of control, submission and trust. these things are way more complicated than you seem to think.

>You still haven't answered
> any of the questions asked about what you regard as
> unacceptable,


it doesn't matter what i find unacceptable. why should my beliefs be enforced on others? but i will answer: anything either party objects to. if both parties consent then they should be allowed to do whatever the fuck they like. and as adults if they want to film it and then show somebody else that's entirely their prerogative.



>by your logic if you find something unacceptable
> or wrong does that mean you are a lording it up over everyone
> like you claim I'm doing?

it's not about what you think, rob, it's about what you'd do. would you actively stop people from producing/buying extreme porn or support others who would, if it were possible?

>
> Like I said, do you agree with the legalisation of all drugs,
> guns, and the various other examples of restrictions of free
> speech in our society? If you agree with just one of them then
> your argument has no meaning.


in your mind, maybe. if you want to discuss any of the above please start a separate thread.

all of your examples above have a direct impact on society. we are discussing personal freedom of expression that can only be viewed by other consenting adults in the privacy of their own home. any problems you have with that are down to distribution, display or availability. all of which have nothing to do with the production of extreme pornography. just pre-empting you argument there.