a appeal against simulated violence

[RobD]

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.

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. Don't get me wrong, I am the first to stand up for freedom of expression and believe the the UK has had some of the most archaic laws regarding allowing adults to view people having sex, 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".

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 surely that is the biggest turn of all?

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

[Mysteryman]

Exactly - and anything that depicts such acts is only helping the anti-porn brigade ever watchful for "reasons" to ban even the most gentle and "normal" sexual encounters for the enjoyment of the performers and viewers.

[joe king]

'I am the first to stand up for freedom of expression and believe the the UK has had some of the most archaic laws regarding allowing adults to view people having sex, 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"'


That sounds to me a bit mixed up. You are for freedom of expression but for only things you think should be expressed.
So, are you for censoring things you don't think should be expressed?

[randyandy]

RobD wrote:

I am sorry you put:
>
> I'd love to know what the people in the industry, especially
> the girls, think about this?

However as an outsider looking in can I still say I completely agree with you and the point Mysteryman also makes.

The industry keeps moaning about people being against it but while it continues to give these people the tools to oppose it then it deserves what it gets.

Unfortunately Joe's point is the more accepted view from the industry. The "You are for freedom of expression but for only things you think should be expressed" is very dangerous, especially when you consider the justifiable outrage when things, like those you mention, happen at shoots without the models consent.

If Joe wrote The thug was only expressing himself on a thread about a model who had been attacked there would, I'd imagine, be considerable anger.

Why that anger exists in 'real life' but doesn't, for some, exist in 'fantasy world' is beyond me.

[thealtruist]

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. The women that participate in these sort of scenes know what they are getting into and have agreed to do it. Porn is fantasy. It's there to let you forget about reality and indulge in something you can't do in real life or would even want to. It's all about dominance. It's not violence. Violence and dominance are two different things. It's a fetish. I think that you are underestimating people. It's not fair to say that if younger people see it they'll start thinking it's the norm. Do younger people think that gorgeous eighteen year olds will have sex with you if you walk up and grope them? Do they think that you can pick any woman up off of the street and she will go back to your house and shag you when she isn't a prostitute? No, they don't. They know it's fantasy. And what about the women that is in these relationships? You're forgetting that women are independent and have a brain. If you start spitting in a woman's mouth or slapping her during sex you'll know that she doesn't like it. Not all women will stay in a domineering relationship. We are not one of Pavlov's dogs. You're falling into the same trap that all advocates of censorship fall into - If you see it, you'll do it. In all the years that film and video has been around there has never been any conclusive evidence to prove it. Places like Germany and Amsterdam, even America, have had this sort of porn for years and there's never been any recorded stories, or rumours for that matter, that the porn that you're talking about has seriously affected anybody. It hasn't. People know the difference between reality and fantasy. Fact and fiction.

[RobD]

I guess I'm with John Stuart Mill on freedom of action, you should be free to participate in any activity that is not harmful to others, I personally think that simulated violent porn is harmful, but that non violent porn is not, although I'm sure many would argue about the definitions of violent, porn harmful etc.

I also have another concern, where does it end, at what point do the people arguing for simulated violence believe that there should be a line drawn? I guess what I'm saying is, is there ANY actions you believe would be unacceptable in a porn film?

[jj]

I personally find the sort of spitting/slapping caper pushed
primarily by Anabolic in recent years repellent, pathetic- and
much more importantly, unerotic.
The short answer is- don't buy it. These guys presumably know
their market, and in that I find a more general [and depressing]
observation about violence and attitudes to women in US society
at large. There seems to be much less of this sort of material
over in Europe [although of course it's freely available outside
the mainstream].

Your Mill comment has a caveat, though; where is the role for
consensuality? On that reading of permissiveness he would have
supported the prosecution of that bunch of sadomasochistic guys
a while back who, in the privacy of one of their own homes, chose
to inflict serious pain on each other. Not my cup of tea, but
whatever floats their colelctive boat. The judge saw it differently,
however, and sentenced them to jail- IMO a truly shocking occurrence
in a nation that places such store on notional freedom of expression
and privacy. A sensible view is that it was rightly no-one's
business but their own.

And a legal point- actresses are protected by the same laws as the
rest of us- if NON-simulated violence occurs in a film then the
perpetrators are subject to the same penalties as everyone else.
It's the simulation that is key- otherwise we wouldn't be blessed
with such delights as the films of Mr. Tarantino. Now THERE's a case
for censorship [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/grin.gif[/img] - for cynically peddling witless, juvenile,
exploitative wish-fulfilment violent trash that rots what few brain-cells
its viewers may have originally possessed. It's the attempt to make
violence SEXY that I find so corrosive in this sort of crap [img]http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/smileys/puke.gif[/img]
Whatever specious self-justification he comes out with, splicing in a
few arch hommages and some classic pop doesn't make it art.

[The Bear up a tree]

and what are you going to say when a model replies to your question and tells you she loves rough sex and being slapped and spat on? are you going to dismiss her opinion because it conflicts with your own? claim she's sick or a deviant? ignore the very opinion that you sought in the first place?

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.

if you are referring to acts of non-consent then there are laws that will be enforceable as they would be in any other situation. just because an assault takes place during the act of sex doesn't make it any less of a crime. if you choose to confuse consent and non-consent in your argument and any examples then you are being obtuse and have no intention of seeking a balanced view.

[marcusallen]

What's violence got to do with porn?
Sure, you are always going to find a segmnent of society who will agree with just about anything, but this site is devoted to sex/porn and I maintain that "extremes" have no place in either lovely activity.
The aquiesence of either party does not make it agreeable - or even normal - so I suggest that the extremists go find another outlet for their perversions and NOT hide under the cover of sex.

[The Bear up a tree]

marcusallen wrote:


> The aquiesence of either party does not make it agreeable - or
> even normal

yeah, what's personal freedom and civilised reasoning got to with it. bloody do gooders. get back to china you terrorists.