Porn/erotica/smut

Posted this poll in the Lounge, it was mostly without flames there. We had a mostly civil discussion. Time for the GD poll! :scared:















Oh, BTW, completely G-Rated (for visual) and PG-Rated (for language) humor on the differences between some men and some women on this issue. DIAL UP WARNING: Don't bother, 3 minute flash movie.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5430343841227974645

PS: I am a male who thinks porn is normal and healthy, for what that is worth.

It's about human sexuality, which is the most natural thing in the world.

Have you ever read the posts here at DU from the porn-haters?

They have bought the whole "sex is filthy" meme so totally that they had to find other justifications for it when they abandoned mainstream religion.

You seem to have bought a "porn is sex" meme. To much of the anti porn crowd it is not about sex, it is about dysfunctional sex - about violence and objectification. They distinguish between "porn" and "erotica". And hopefully most people answering this poll are conflating porn and erotica. Otherwise, as a group we seem to have an "anything goes" mentality. Does this include child porn then? Pornography is only pornography when it promotes "sex without love".

So you cannot slime out of this one that way.

And damn but you have some huge cahones to say that anybody else's sexuality is dysfunctional. I know a lot of people for whom "rough" porn is very, very tame compared to how they really make love, and I don't consider those people to be dysfunctional at all.

Of course, you mentally ill fundies consider anybody who does not share your Ward and June Cleaver world view to be dysfunctional...

everyone is totally happy and decent and kind and honest ...
Pardon my cojones.
I did not say that the way anybody "makes love" is dysfunctional. I said that "sex without love" is dysfunctional.
You have some cojones yourself to call me mentally ill. Doubtless there are many in the anti-porn crowd, especially on the right, who are in the "nothing goes" camp, who do not approve of any sex at all. Cojonically, I also consider that to be dysfunctional, but not as bad as the other extreme.

but maybe that's "not as bad" (your words, not mine) as consenting adults screwing each for reasons other than "love".

(Caveat: I'm happily married. I think that the best, most transcendent sex in the world is the prolonged tantric psychic merging of souls which can come about through the union of two people who deeply love and understand each other. But that doesn't mean that I never enjoyed the lusty, lower-chakra sex that I had with other women, back in my single days... -I also don't think "lust" and "love" are mutually exclusive- and it certainly doesn't mean that I think *my* current preferred way of having sex is the only "right", or "functional", way to do it.)

has a twisted view of sex and birth control. Sociologist and priest (and "smut" author) Andrew Greeley claims that priests do not have a higher rate of child molestation or infidelity than Protestant ministers or teachers or postal workers, etc. But that the media has hyped those stories.

Perhaps I am misusing the word "dysfunctional", and it is one of "those" (overused) words. Certainly I never said there is only "one" right way to have sex, but I would put "dysfunctional" in the same class as smoking a pack of cigarettes. Not good for your health, but not going to kill you either. However, if it becomes a habit, then it is even less healthy.

Also, the Priest who is a pedophile is not living up to what he says he believes whereas the heartbreaking Casanova is. I would claim that the pedophile priest would be a worse person if he followed the philisophy of the Casanova and that the Casanova would be a better person if he followed the philosophy of the priest. Yes I do think that Ward Cleaver is a better role model than Hugh Hefner. I must admit, though, there really is alot of good reading in Playboy. I shoulda sold them. I might still be in business.

He's going to end up getting his ass kicked for dressing like that.



I'm not gonna buy what Father Andrew Greeley is peddling re; pedophile priests, sorry. He's hardly a disinterested party. If anything, it's been conclusively demonstrated that, unlike your normal, creepy, trenchcoat-n'-van pedophiles, Priests have the wealthiest organization on the planet at their disposal to cover up their crimes, move 'em around, buy off their victims, etc. etc. etc. I would turn your argument around, and say if postal workers were molesting kids like Priests have been shown to, and the post office was displaying a rampant, egregious pattern of covering up their crimes, townspeople with pitchforks and torches would be surrounding post offices across the land, demanding that they get the fuck out of their towns.

But on this, like on so many things, "the church" gets an extra-special free pass and dispensation.

Also, if two adults consent to have sex, even though they aren't in necessarily love, and both get mutual enjoyment out of the act (which sums up a great deal of my casanova-like behavior in younger days), how is that "heartbreaking"?

WHAT?

:eyes:

"consenting"
and
"adults".

If I had ten bucks for every person who reflexively tried to bring in non-consent or non-adults to back their shit up in these threads, I could retire.

which I feel should be stated rather than assumed, then the argument switches to "where" to draw the line. Which is a different argument than the position that there should be no lines.
Unless your position is that there should be no lines for adults. Are crush videos rules out then because the rodents do not consent?

This has been stated time, and time, and time again. Yet people reflexively bring up "what about kids" just like they can't seem to help but conflate "rape" and "porn" with the kind of glee the administration uses to conflate "iraq" and "9-11".

As far as the rest, if you're talking about videos of people smashing insects or rodents, if such a thing exists, it's certainly doubtful that you'll find it on the shelves of the local smut hut, and I don't really consider that erotica--- so I'm not sure how the hell it's relevant to the discussion. (Are Field and Stream or Hunting, Fishing and Outdoors Magazine "porn"?) But let's simplify, here: When you are talking about commercially available adult material, you are talking about adult humans engaged in consensual behavior intended for the viewing pleasure of other consenting adults. That's what the thread is about. And yeah, generally, I think that sort of thing is no one's business except the people involved- certainly not the government's.

Yet if the government has NO business then why wouldn't crush videos and snuff films also be made commercially available? You also seem to be making an argument for eliminating all government regulation. Thus, we can talk about consenting adults manufacturing methamphetamines for the ingesting pleasure of other consenting adults. Where does MYOB end? Conservatives have a double standard in that they want the bedroom regulated but industry left alone. Isn't there a double standard if progressives want industry regulated but porn left alone. Hey, porn is an industry. So, excuse me, if I as a sociologist and philosopher, think that industry is producing a product which is neither healthy nor edifying. An MYOB argument does not change my mind about the quality of its product.

a health issue- NOT a law enforcement one.

Again, you must not be able to justify your arguments within the paramaters of the subject matter- what is commercially available- because you can't seem to stop yourself from bringing up other shit, like crush and snuff videos, to back up your point.

Allow me to address:

"snuff" videos, if I understand it, are centered around a crime- the crime of killing someone. I find it hard to believe that constitutes a situation of 'consent'. I think you're talking about a straw man, and certainly one that's not relevant to the discussion. Personally, some of the images that have come back from Abu Ghraib are the closest thing to "Snuff" material that I've ever seen- and sick shit, too.

As for "crush" videos- again, I really don't have any fucking idea what you're talking about, except that it's legal, in many instances, right or wrong, to kill animals. It's not legal to fuck them and sell the videotapes, at least not in this country, and before you start jumping up and down and hollering, I completely agree with that. Animals can't consent and are not relevant to the discussion, any more than talk of humans marrying box turtles is relevant to discussions of gay marriage. (Although it's interesting, from a philosophical standpoint, to think that Dick Cheney could shoot a bird or a deer on film and no one would bat an eye, but if he tried to fuck one... well, you get the idea)

As far as consenting adults- actually, no, I don't really think it's the government's place to tell consenting adults what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, or bloodstreams either, for that matter. If you drive under the influence, neglect your kids, rob a bank, then you're a criminal and should be treated as such. As far as meth, I will be the first to attest to the damage I've seen it do to people. Like drunk driving- I have personally witnessed the devastation. But the best educational answer to meth abuse is meth users themselves. We blow $40 Billion a Year on a "drug war" (aimed, I might add, primarily at pot smokers) which, in case you haven't noticed, isn't working. And it's precisely those communities where the DEA has been successful in keeping things like marijuana out that folks have been turning en masse to things like meth and sniffing paint, both obtained from legal sources or ingredients. Those are facts.

Philosophically, I'm pretty socially libertarian. The realist in me understands that the best strategy for the "drug war" would be to legalize and tax marijuana, and adopt a 'harm reduction' strategy for harder drugs, like the Netherlands. $40 Billion a year could fund both treatment on demand and some real, honest education about things like meth (as opposed to the lies they ladle on kids about pot, which cause them to never believe anyone in authority on these subjects, ever)

And no, I don't think we should be locking people up for 10, 20 years for what they choose to put in their OWN bodies, period. So I think MYOB arguments are perfectly fucking reasonable for most things consenting adults choose to do in the privacy of their own homes.

Presumably in alot of smut, the sex is fake, although it is not advertised as such. Thus a snuff film could be made where the snuffing is fake, although it is not advertised as such. Same for child porn. It could be fake - done with electronic imaging. So why not mind our own business on that? Imagine the wondrous things we can do with our technology, and you know there's a market for it.

I believe the discussion was about porn, so I was talking about things that are available, AFAIK, although maybe not at my corner shop. Then too, when things are commercially available their advertising ends up being viewed by alot of people who would rather not see it nor have their kids see it.

Same with the lies that the government tells about pot. Typically nobody lies like an advertiser ("Thanks Payday Loans" because paying 3000% interest was just the help I needed for my financial troubles).

I never said that the Prison Industrial Complex was the answer for anything, but it seems to me that addressing drugs as a health issue still steps away from a pure MYOB position. Whatever I advocate or disparage, I am not suggesting some sort of jack-booted zero tolerance gestapo or censors or gulags. Just public flogging and sale of the videotapes :evilgrin: (jeez, didya see the freeper thread where they wanted stocks and public executions with increasing levels of violence. I do not claim to speak for them. Only to say that I have found many decent people in Free Methodist and Nazarene Churches.)

And you have bought into the "one true and right way of sex"(tm), and are perfectly happy imposing your views onto other consenting adults.

And if we don't agree with YOU, then we must like child porn -- STRAWMAN!

There is no distinction between porn and erotica except as I mentioned in the title of this post.

Pornography is only pornography when it promotes "sex without love".

Is sex without love inherently bad? What about "erotica"? I doubt if the performers in the movies you approve of are in love themselves. Wouldn't that make ALL of it bad?

Porn (regardless of plot, character development, etc) -- is porn. It is sport fucking.

There is no "sport fu$%ing" in the pictures I have. They are semi-nudes. Of course, I think that would make both Andrea Dworkin and Charles Dobson have a fit.

Well, if you say that "anything goes" then how is child porn a straw man?

It is not about technique in the "one true, right way of sex" it is about attitude, and people learn their attitudes from the stories they hear. So the distinction I am making is between stories that encourage love and stories that don't. Therefore, the feelings of the performers are not at all relevant.

Am I trying to impose that on other consenting adults? Well, I would like to live in a world where it is possible to graduate from junior high. I also feel, that pornography, like every other industry in our society does not operate for the public good - it operates for private profit. Society does not get alot of satisfaction from the invisible hand.

:rofl:

You know, I disagree with you on a whole laundry list of issues, but you do get props for that line.

Actually that wasn't my vote.

I'm a female and I believe that as long as its not hurting anyone (against their will ;) ) it's perfectly healthy and normal.

-chef-

:toast:

Robb is a dingbat or about porn being healthy. :evilgrin: Or both...

As long as the woman is not being forced or coerced (or worse, hidden camera), it's not a snuff film, and she's of legal age, what's the problem? Yes, there is some stuff out there that I feel is pretty sick, but whatever floats your boat. Deliberately harming someone, like in a snuff film, is where I draw the line. And kiddie pr0n, well, that's just sick. From what I understand, there are responsible people in the pr0n industry as well as irresponsible people, just like anywhere else. Banning or putting limits on pr0n is only going to drive the responsible ones out of the business.

BUT - there is some very unhealthy stuff out there too...

drugs, alcohol... some are good, some are very bad...

in moderation, s'okay. :)

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as "too much" when it comes to seeing naked people! Wish we lived in a clothing-free/optional society... sigh ...

If it's causing trouble in their relationship, then it's a problem.

Nobody else's business, and I never said it was.

Naked people is not porn.
Naked people photographed for other's sexual enjoyment is porn.

:hi:

We are all adults as long as kids are not involved, I see no problem with it.

based on the sex of the responder, not on the type of porn...

Edited to add: If you mean about the "violence against women" part, I put that because most of the serious arguments against porn seem to involve a variation of this...

:evilgrin:

Since I think enjoying sex is normal and healthy, I can't make a blanket statement saying that I object to all porn. Over the years I've increasingly seen some that I've actually enjoyed quite a bit, a few that I've found very offensive as a female and a few that were more denegrating to men then to women.

There's so much variety out there now with that's geared towards different sexual fantasies and not just hetrosexual males. What I may be comfortable watching as a hetrosexual female another may not be and might even find it offensive.

Some of it is shit. Not necessarily 'unhealthy', just worthless. Doesn't mean I think it should be suppressed, it's just I'm not into this 'it's all wonderful and healthy' thing. It's a consumer product, and like any other, it has the good, the bad, and the vile.

Support for freedom of expression doesn't mean you have to like everything, nor does it mean you have to prove that all expression is 'good' and 'healthy' - if that were the true, the case for free expression would be a lot weaker.

Lehrer's opening to this one (spoken): I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it. Unfortunately the civil liberties types who are fighting this issue have to fight it owing to the nature of the laws as a matter of freedom of speech and stifling of free expression and so on but we know what's really involved: dirty books are fun. That's all there is to it. But you can't get up in a court and say that I suppose. It's simply a matter of freedom of pleasure, a right which is not guaranteed by the Constitution unfortunately. Anyway, since people seem to be marching for their causes these days I have here a march for mine. It's called...

Smut!
Give me smut and nothing but!
A dirty novel I can't shut,
If it's uncut,
and unsubt- le.

I've never quibbled
If it was ribald,
I would devour where others merely nibbled.
As the judge remarked the day that he
acquitted my Aunt Hortense,
"To be smut
It must be ut-
Terly without redeeming social importance."

Por-
Nographic pictures I adore.
Indecent magazines galore,
I like them more
If they're hard core.

(Bring on the obscene movies, murals, postcards, neckties,
samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos, anything!
More, more, I'm still not satisfied!)

Stories of tortures
Used by debauchers,
Lurid, licentious, and vile,
Make me smile.
Novels that pander
To my taste for candor
Give me a pleasure sublime.
(Let's face it, I love slime.)

All books can be indecent books
Though recent books are bolder,
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in
the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed,
Everything is lewd.
(I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of Oz, there's a dirty old man!)

I thrill
To any book like Fanny Hill,
And I suppose I always will,
If it is swill
And really fil
thy.

Who needs a hobby like tennis or philately?
I've got a hobby: rereading Lady Chatterley.
But now they're trying to take it all
away from us unless
We take a stand, and hand in hand
we fight for freedom of the press.
In other words,

Smut! (I love it)
Ah, the adventures of a slut.
Oh, I'm a market they can't glut,
I don't know what
Compares with smut.

Hip hip hooray!
Let's hear it for the Supreme Court!
Don't let them take it away!

On edit: removed the midi link -- it sucks. Added his opening talk instead. :)

As long as the participants are doing it voluntarily and it doesn't depict violent rape or other violence directed at women (or men for that matter).

A healthy society recognizes that prostitution and pornography, satisfying the sex drive if you will, are not perversions and should be made legal and regulated for the protection of the participants.

if Republikans are not involved. The idea of them breeding is disgusting and immoral!

It's an interesting debate, and one, I find, that is often framed in a way that overlooks a rather obvious point: there are vast differences between sexual liberation and sexual exploitation. Yet a common talking point in porn's defense is that it's somehow "liberating" for people to literally sell their sexuality, often for very degrading acts that they wouldn't participate in if they weren't being paid.

The biggest money making porn is not "soft" porn for "her," or for "couples;" it's the typical stuff that portrays women as salivating animals who lust for endowed men to sodomize them and to ejaculate in their mouths and faces. Now, whatever weird psychology people want to express or "act out" or "work through" sexually is their own business, and is something that, to a large extent, we all experience with our partners.

However, taking the fleshy substance, if you will, of sexual expression, and "framing" it within a capitalist pop culture medium - which by it's nature effectively flourishes through a monkey-see-monkey-do mentality - seems to significantly downplay the personal aspects and instead promotes a "sport sex" mindset where emotional bonds and love are unconsciously dismissed as passe' and boring. I think that young people, who quickly move onto adulthood, find that message reinforced at every turn in our Consumer Culture, and I think that ethic of greed and superficiality, the seeming preferrence for it, has come about through corporate "values," which are a determing factor in our "pornographized" culture.

I'm not saying that I think porn is just bad, or that it shouldn't exist. Nothing is that simple. I tend to see it - especially in its current, derogatory, gross out "reality" tv form - as an offshoot of largely unaddressed, misunderstood social roles ...so it's likely just an odd way of the ridiculous "battle of the sexes" playing itself out.

:toast:

Interesting analysis...

"a society get's the porn it deserves".

But I do have to take exception at a few points:

The biggest money making porn is not "soft" porn for "her," or for "couples;"

The two biggest companies in the business Vivid and Private, cater to the couples market. Now "expliotation" is subjective, and I'm sure that there are DU'ers who would find their fare disgusting, but the fact is that the big money maker right now is tamer, couples fare.

. Now, whatever weird psychology people want to express or "act out" or "work through" sexually is their own business, and is something that, to a large extent, we all experience with our partners.


Why is that people think we can watch action-adventure movies without becoming killers, play video games without "acting out", but as soon as two people take their clothes off, whatever they see happen on the screen will be so compelling that they will go out and immediatly emulate it.

People watch porn to see things they don't want to/can't do in their own lives. Porn is larger that life sex. People don't watch Nascar and then try to drive 180mph on their favorite patch of interstate.

I'm not saying that there is not nasty porn out there. I don't want to watch nasty Hollywood movies either, but I don't judge all of Hollywood by the latest blood and gore slasher flick.

Most people know they can't do what they see in "action" movies, or be a NASCAR redneck driving five hundred miles in a circle, but pornography, and the complicated secrecy of traditional shame/guilt-based approach to sex and sexual roles, leaves many people at a loss in knowing how to deal with this stuff very well. People are what they see on the boob tube, which is exactly why so many will deny that fact to be true.

As I said, it's very complex, many variables and nuances, and there will always be those who vehemently defend porn without examining the underlying issues, or framing them to fit their endorsement of porn. What I've been addressing,or, trying to, anyway, is the broader social aspects behind men and women's attitudes in relation to these very personal matters, and the inevitable influence the corporate commodity has over the media we routinely use while denying the indoctrinating effects of such entertainment.

Wow. Must go do what TV tells me.

This whole porn/acting out complex is mostly a myth. Yeah, sometimes people learn from porn, it may give them ideas for new positions, etc.

But they underlying theme here is that porn will turn you into a sex monster. There's no evidence to back that up, and the whole idea that people can't tell fantasy from reality where sex is involved is a myth.

Yes, people, in a very real sense, are the media they consume.

This is actually the very crux of the whole "tinfoil" conspiracy theory quagmire of our culture: people believe ansd value as they do because it's reinforced all around them by people who, just like them, consciously and unconsciously take all of their cues from the media that is all around them, sort of like man-made weather, an atmosphere of bullshit that instructs people to ignore what otherwise would be obvious.

Within that process is why so many people can't face the truth about their country.

It has no ability to even HELP make you a monster.

Most monsters, in my experience, were the products of religion and commerce.

Commerce might be a necessary evil, but we need to do away with religion completely.

http://www.counterpunch.org/hartley02022005.html

February 2, 2005

Thus I Refute Chyng Sun

Feminists for Porn

By NINA HARTLEY

It was with a growing sense of outrage that I read Prof.Chyng Sun's report of her visit this past January to the Adult Entertainment Expo in Las Vegas. I couldn't help wondering it the author had done any prior research whatsoever into the active, twenty-year debate among women over the impact of pornography on their individual lives and their status as a gender. There's nothing new in her indignation, nothing fresh in her insights and nothing unfamiliar in her arguments. As a sex-worker and sex-worker advocate for over two decades, I've heard and read it all before.

The professor appears wholly unfamiliar with the work of accomplished, feminist women who reject her fundamental contentions about porn and sex-work. If she bothered to consider the writings of Nadine Strossen, Carol Queen, Pat Califia, Susie Bright, Wendy McElroy, Sallie Tisdale, Linda Williams, Annie Sprinkle, myself and others, her homework wasn't reflected in what she showed me. Clearly, testimony that failed to corroborate her pre-conceived notions of what porn is "really" about, or what it "really" means didn't register on her radar screen.

I am an R.N., a third-generation feminist and a First-Amendment activist as well as a porn performer with the longest continuous career in the history of the industry. I'm easy to find. In fact, I was in one place for four hours each day on the floor at AEE. She certainly found my husband, writer-director I.S. Levine, (whose videos and magazines appear under the name Ernest Greene). At her request, he granted her a two-hour, on-camera interview in good faith, hoping but not expecting to receive an open-minded hearing. Why did Professor Sun not speak to me? Could it be because she knew that my very existence argues against her core assertions? Where was the honest, fearless intellectual curiousity that is hallmark of the pioneering academic researcher?

<snip> More at link.

Thought I'd let you know before the defensive 'you're a censor and a prude' squad jumps down your throat.

I am an old lady and quite frankly don't care if you're interested in porn or not. Like most things I believe it is personal and each to their own. But saying that, I really don't "get" the attraction. I would rather spend my time with a live person in my own bed!

I don't desire to look at it, and I'm really not upset if someone chose to do so.

juvenile, distasteful and insulting; HOWEVER, if we truly want a free country then we have to live with the juvenile, distasteful and insulting.

If we are talking about child porn then I think it being illegal is of course appropriate.

category, certainly not child porn.

As for distasteful and insulting, I find the human body (both male and female) neither ugly nor evil; quite to the contrary. The human body is beautiful and good; therefore it should be seen; it is the clothes that cover it up that are evil.

First, thanks for the compliment on my prior post.

Second, I don't infer the meaning of "distasteful and insulting" as equated with "ugly," or "evil." The ultimate sexual organ is the mind, so regarding the body, the outter manifestations and subsequent behavior and physical actions stemming from either hard-wired, primal impulse, or environmental conditioning ("copycatting" porn-style sex as it manifests in various influential ways throughout the pop culture} and determining the "beauty" of the physical self, or how and what people express through that, well, it's all very subjective.

When I see a young woman willingly debasing herself in porn, or in any other numerous, more "acceptable" forms of cultural titilation, I react on two levels: there's something exciting and arousing about seeing that young woman ..however, is it genuine, or, and much more likely, is it yet another example of a typically non-critical automatism and cultural affectation? My other reaction then is to see it along the lines of the spine of "reality TV," which is the public's desire to see "losers," to see suffering and humiliation. Given the climate in this country, the whole thing smacks too much of people in the Roman empire watching Christians being fed to lions as "entertainment."

On one side of it, from the average male point of view, thusly effected by exposure to pornography, there is something darkly seductive about the young woman who truly desires sexual objectification and submissive "porn sex," even if for deeply seated reasons, she needs to rely on euphemistic language to call it by a more palatable, self-serving name: for example, being degraded is somehow "empowering."

However, that earnest desire would seem to be a minority, with the majority of young women who choose to participate in porn, or porn-style sex, only doing so as a result of a Consumer Culture that has "taught" and instructed her values through a sense of cultural familiarity, coupled with the expected low self esteem of most "TV babies," and peer coercion i.e. "cool" girls aspire to be "one of the guys."

All of these issues boil down to mass communication breakdown at a time when people are "communicating" more than ever before, but apparently have little to say, or the intelligence to sort out shit from shinola. This applies to everything in America right now. Another gigantic aspect to all of this is how America's "friendly fascism" has come about in the first place: many people refuse to accept that their consciousness is as susceptible to mass media's power of suggestion as it is. So they prefer to believe that they make up their own minds on many issues, when all they're really doing is selecting an existential option from a cultural menu, trying it on for size...which is all fine and well, as it's what we humans have to do. The problem is, just how far the pendulum has swung into the twilight of unreality...that is, the bullshitters have forgetton that it's bullshit, and are treating their bullshit as if it's irrefutable.

I like the sight of the human body, and like to see as much of it as often as possible. I REALLY want to live in a nudist/clothing optional society...

Body good, clothing evil...

This sounds like a value judgement. What is "debasing"? There are men and women who like "golden showers." Some might find that debasing, but what if a couple finds it arousing? Is anyone harmed? And what if someone is payed to depict a golden shower for the pleasure of those who cannot find a partner who will engage in it? Again, is anyone harmed?

There are all kinds of fetishes out there, most of which totally baffle me, but if it's voluntary and no one is harmed, who's to argue with arousal?

Debase - to make lower in value, dignity.

In other words, one could suggest that there is no dignity in, to use your example, being urinated on, or in urinating on someone. Just as there will be those who will argue just the opposite. And to take it to a more disturning level, where does "dignity" fit in with the woman who loathes being urinated upon, but does so for money, money she accepts from people who see her as livestock, and are only "friendly" to her because she's "willing" to allow for her debasement at their hands?

Sex work can be (I'm not saying it always is) a choice like any other. There is no shame in making money off your body. At least not the way I see it.

On the other hand, think about the viewer. Is it the viewer's appetites that are being manipulated for monetary gain?

I don't think many girls say "I want to be a porn star when I grow up!" Although there may be some, I likewise suspect that not many parents or family members or friends are usually pleased or enthusiastic over their daughter's/sister's/friends, etc involvement with such a choice. Realistically, all you can do is make generalizations, as everyone does, ..or, "judgements," as you put it. I'm not in favor of censoring porn at all, just offering a different perspective. I also suspect that many twenty-somethings who are very supportive of the whole sexual exploitation-as-"liberation"-girls-gone-wild thing will completely change their tune after they have a daughter of their own.

However, I've exhausted my views on this issue.

I know several women who wanted to be porn actress all through their teen years. And you know what? About half of them did it.

And I have a daughter. If she wanted to be a porn actress, I'd simply want to make sure she got a good contract, and worked only for studios who do all their testing through AIM.

consists of a man being urinated upon. Hard to see how that is debasing to the woman in the movie.

I'm talking about how that body is used, sometimes abused, and presented in what little porn I have seen.

I think the nude body is a work of art and have no problem when it is displayed as a work of art. I just don't think most "porn" falls into the category of art.

porn!:evilgrin:

Seriously, the human body is wonderful to look at because it is erotic, not because it is "art".

that there is Christian porn. Someone actually makes (or used to) Christian "martial aid" porn movies. No kidding. The woman I used to work for told me about them, although I've never seen one. They are supposed to be viewed by newly married couples. She and her family used to be followers of the Bakers and, believe it or not, they believed the bible was not literally true and believed in evolution.

Just ask Larry Flynt!

is not the "bad" porn that the few here try to characterize as mainstream. Yeah, it has all the familiar porn moments (I.E. the facial), but you won't find women being verbally debased, handled rough, in pain, slapped around, etc. The women (if shown eager for sex), are in control and shown enjoying the experience.

I was taking a jab at the time Flynt "found religion" and tried to blend the usual substance of his rag with religious iconography.

Hustler is an ongoing 30 year long practical joke on fundies and the oh-so-crunchy "feminists" who enable them.

told me a story (I kid you not) about a couple who went to find out why they (she) was not getting pregnant... turns out they were going about it wrong... do not know how true this story was, but my friend swore it was... guess they needed your video...:rofl:

A couple of Doc Daneeka's early private practice patients were having trouble getting pregnant, despite trying every night. After the Doc explained the proper method to the husband, he came back the next day and punched him. I assume he preferred the erroneous method.

I'm not saying your friend's story isn't true because a similar story appeared in a book, I'm just mentioning it because it's a pretty hilarious bit of a very good book. On the contrary, I think this sort of thing probably happens all the time. Consider the religious right's fight against sex education and emphasis on abstinence. Would you be surprised if some inexperienced newlyweds went about it all wrong?

instinctual to me at the time, but I guess some people have bad instincts lol...

I kid YOU not - my cousin had a neighbor, married 15 years and with 2 kids, who said she and her husband had never seen each other naked and seemed quite put off by the idea. Dirty stuff, ya know?

Adoption?

Lights out?

it was lights out and pajamas and nightgown.

"Oh God, I'm coming!"

It subverts the 'official' concept of Christianity in the U.S.

I remember back in the seventies and eighties when centerfolds used to talk about how they were a church-going Christian, etc. etc. and they posed nude because the body was made by God. There used to be more 'liberal' portrayals of Christianity in the media. In the eighties, the backlash started and people forgot that ever happened.

They don't do that anymore - gotta keep those Christians in line!!

It's okay only when the people in it are consenting adults. And as far as I'm concerned, a 19-year old Hollywood Boulevard street kid is not a consenting adult. These kids are vulnerable, then they are sucked up, chewed up and spit out by this industry.

So I do think that there should be some extra hoops to go through for kids under 21 to get into porn, if not an outright ban. And the industry needs to do much more to help break the cycle of prostitution and drugs a lot of the young "stars" are trapped in.

I'm not anti-porn per se, but it is an extremely exploitative industry.

PS - I preferred the porn in the 70s, when the people still looked like people, and most were well over 25. Now they are all plastic and 18-19 years old. Kids that age don't know sexy from a hole in the wall.

"legal age" should be the same for all things legal, whether 18 or 21, whether alcohol/draft/drugs/sex/marriage/porn/contracts/whatever... the standards should be the same age throughout the country.

If you are too young to properly handle "X", then you are too young to properly handle "Y". If you are "mature" enough to handle "A", then you are mature enough to handle "B". We all have to leave the nest and make our own way in the world at SOME point...

Being young and on the street, they are desperate for an easy way out, and see porn as the way. They're often too young or drug-addled to realize how a past in porn might affect their future. It's not just the age. I think the fact that this industry preys on kids who they know to be desperate, naive and not of sound mind (drugs) calls their ethics into question.

And yes, age limits should all be the same. As far as I'm concerned, the age limit to be in porn, get a beer or cigarettes, or serve in the military should be 21. Very few 18 year olds are adults yet.

And there needs to be some way to filter out the kids on drugs and get them help. In the same way that you can't sell a gun to a person with mental health issues, you should not be able to hire a street kid on drugs to do porn - they need to be in treatment.

That being said, I have no problem with a grown, sober adult making a choice to have a career in porn. If their head is on straight and they take precautions, it can be lucrative and bring pleasure to its viewers. Erotica has been around longer than any of us, and some of it's actually pretty good.


As for me, it's not the hair I like in the 70s stuff, it's just that people looked more natural. Also, film is more attractive than video - skin tones look better. Taboo, Insatiable, etc. they actually felt like sexy movies rather than just a cheap, XXX-rated version of "Girls Gone Wild". I hate contemporary porn.

These aren't just jaded strippers and street urchins, they're high school and college aged girls who attend party's where there will be group sex and blow job competitions. The whole "broken home, abused, on drugs, living in the street" thing doesn't really apply to the extent it used to. There are thousands of young women who eagerly strive to "make it" in pornland every year, many are very average, "normal" girls from cozy suburbs who are taking their cue from the popularity of porn, and the idea of acting out a "slut" affectation is synonymous with "liberation" and "empowerment." ...Which it can be subjectively, just as anyone who wants to can suppose that the earth is flat, and really believe in that, so for them, it's "true." As with everything in America now, very topsyturvy and transitional.

But I know from personal experience that a lot of them are. I was friends with several of them in the early 90's.

But yes, there is a whole new pool of "talent" out there for porn peddlers to choose from. They may not be drugged-out street urchins, but I still believe that their age compromises their ability to really comprehend what a gig in porn might do to their future prospects.

Like I said, I'm not against it, but if the government is going to impose waiting periods, etc. on things like abortion, why not a quick talk with a counselor before doing a porn shoot if you are under the age of 21?

See my other post where I mention Adult Industry Medicine.

http://aim-med.org/
And the history of Dr. Sharon Michell is worth a read in itself. She went out made a difference in the lives of sex workers. A place to go, and if they choose, opportunities for life after porn.

BTW Mongo, I was reading a study that said that "Sex-shops" were an under used resource as far as information for sexual health. That the employee's and owners of these places get asked a lot of questions, and have the opportunity to educate those who come up for toys, movies's, protection, safe sex-- whatever. It was a nation-wide study. I was impressed by the concept, because no matter how much we disagree on pornagraphy or the porn industry, sexual health of Americans and sex workers are important to me.

And yeah, it's true. People tell me things that they won't talk to their spouse about. It's a weird position to be in. I just try to give people as much information as I can, although I often defer to Daisy when health issues are brought up.

I like to think that I've helped a lot of people, and I know I have, but there is a limited amount of support I can provide them as their sex store clerk, especially when the issue is more relationship issues and/or a partner not being able to communicate their wants/needs to a partner. The how-to..., why do I...., and is this weird... questions are much easier to answer.

I also get hit up for a threesome by a married couple every few months. I very, VERY politely turn them down.

We got into this business to sell toys. A straight toy store would not work in this town, but we are the only venue besides Spencer's Gifts for a vibrator within 30 miles. So, the video is more a means to an end than anything.

We do try to keep our image on the higher end of the scale, even if we are two-bit venue with run down fixtures, etc.

Oh and Sharon Mitchell rocks!

These aren't just jaded strippers and street urchins, they're high school and college aged girls who attend party's where there will be group sex and blow job competitions.

I'm assuming that you are saying that this activity would be filmed and wind up for sale? Doesn't happen without all participants signing model releases, having their ID's checked and photocopied, etc.

And it never happens when the participants are under 18.

Shane's world does go to college campus's and make movies. But as I said above, they do have several legal considerations that they have to comply. And the performers are informed, know exactly what the deal is and are paid for their work.

I'm offering a sample of routine behavior and cultural expectation of "average" people within a certain demographic - nothing at all to do with what is "filmed" and distributed. You've heard the old saw about the rundown girls who are more or less forced into porn, right, well, I'm saying that doesn't hold up so much anymore, that it's young women who, in my estimation, because porn has been an indoctrinating cultural influence, are quite enthusiastic about signing that contract.

Models are busting down the doors to get in. Hundreds of women every week go to the casting agencies seeking work.

Maybe that's the case at Vivid or the other big names. There are still a lot of these seedy outfits that do prey on street kids because they will work for cheap, esp. gay porn outfits.


"Models" - that's a good one.

:rofl:

who pressure other people into work, and take their money. Hell, half of the stippers on this town have some deadbeat boyfriend that sponges off them.

That doesn't make the boyfriend part of the adult entertainment industry.

When you move in with a woman who is a stripper, and she supports you, you are a "pimp".

When you move in with a woman who is an accountant, and she supports you, you are a rock-n-roll drummer...

I directed a bit of gay male porn in the 90s (I'm a woman) and the men I met felt very good about what they were doing. In the gay community, there is really no stigma attached to being in porn. Many men from small rural communities break down and cry when they meet the porn stars that helped them come out by showing them that gay men exist.

money. It is the way of the world. How many of us are REALLY happy with our jobs? Not most people I have known in life. Do people working in factories, or cubes in an office, or at hard physical labor really like their jobs? I suspect not. Most of do what we do to earn money. We have made choices given our talents and abilities about what to do, and most are probably less than happy with their jobs. Why should getting paid to show (or use) your body be different? It is a choice, after all...

that $1000 for a days work is a fortune.

A few years later, she might feel its' a pittance compared to what she's lost.


And it really is a pittance, given the amount of money porn generates for those who make it. Jenna Jameson is one of the rare cases of a person with her head on straight who has "made it" but even she only has a McMansion in Phoenix. She ought to have a palace in Malibu for the amount of money she's generated for the industry.

jocks are GROSSLY overpaid. That is also life, and was my CHOICE. With freedom of choice, comes the freedom to make poor choices...

with so much compassion for young people.

Bravo.

to benefit McDonalds investors?

Try going straight in this age, with the internet and all, if someone out there has nude pictures or videos of you....

If you're really in favor of free expression, you'll also fight the stigma and potential for blackmail or blacklisting that these people face if they try to get out of 'the life'...

years back. She had performed with a porn star who was HIV positive and had to be tested during the porn-industry's hiatus. When asked if it scared her enough to quit making porn, she said "no" because she had stuff to pay for -- like her cell phone.

That's really mature thinking there.

has lower HIV rates than the general population.

I'm saying a few weeks back they had a scare and a 20 year old woman was part of it. She went through the whole testing scenario and it didn't even bother her.

Her priority is to make money to pay for a cell phone. I find that very sad.

It's the way people don't read a thread (or a thread within a thread) but feel compelled to reply anyway.

I don't mean to pick on you, mongo, but this is the 3rd time this has happened to me in less that 24 hours.

She had performed with a porn star who was HIV positive and had to be tested during the porn-industry's hiatus. When asked if it scared her enough to quit making porn

Are you saying that your post somehow did not imply that getting HIV is somehow more of a concern for adult performers? That HIV was a risk in making porn?

I was simply pointing out that she was less likely to contract HIV from a porn shoot than in relations outside the performer community. So the fact that it didn't worry her is not suprising. You also didn't state whether she had relations with the infected performer -- which she probably didn't. Everyone gets tested on a regular basis, and when there is a scare (and there have been a few), the whole industry shuts down, and EVERYONE gets an extra test.

I figured you'd know about the porn stars who did test positive for HIV and after that they did a temporary hiatus. This young woman HAD slept with one of the stars and so was more likely to have contracted the virus.

But my main point is, I think a society where a young woman would trade sex for a cell phone is pretty sickening.

when I see women every day trading sex for their next meth fix.

Now, there's a real problem I would like to see addressed.

I know of people trading their blood plasma for beer money, too.

But it is nice to know that you allow other women the freedom to make their own adult choices. :sarcasm:

That would have been so much better for her.

Women call the shots with what they will and won't do in the industry. Some women performers only do girl-girl, some will not do anal, etc.

The women are also paid much more than the men performers for the work.

But I wouldn't mind if the age to perform was raised to 21. We don't let 18yo's drink in this country.
Porn is a hard business and most newcommers have no idea what performing is like before they enter the industry. Adult Industry Medicine (where the performers go for their pre-work STD testing), shows newcommers a video that causes about half to leave the business before they ever start.

Porn is not for everyone. It takes a certain personality to be sucessful in the business.

18-19 year olds are very rarely mature enough to decide on selling their bodies for money ....

As the saying generally goes, 'I don't know exactly how to describe where 'erotica' (as in, 'good', healthy display of sexuality) crosses the line and turns into 'porn' (as in, 'bad' unhealthy sexual displays), but I know it when I see it'....

Though I do personally have my own definition: 'Porn' = Where the depiction of sexuality involves a power differential that leads to the depiction of coercian/degradation/duress/harm to one of the people involved.

At that point, for me personally, erotica remains perfectly fine, whereas 'porn' is a form of 'hate-speech'.

As I see it, lumping it all together under one blanket term is part of the problem...


-B

BTW: Welcome to D.U.!:toast:

between porn vs erotica? The government?

The whole porn vs erotica debate boils down to -- I like erotica, what you like is dirty porn.

Smut is totally in the eye of the beholder. There is no line that can be drawn.

but other than that, I agree.

Edited: Child porn, being illegal for a reason...

and although a few like to throw in Child porn as part of the "porn industry", it is small groups of criminals making profit from the record of a crime.

So I don't even think of the filming of crimes against children or animals as part of the discussion of "porn" in general.

Someone upthread mentioned "snuff films". There has never been a prosecution for a "snuff film", as none have ever been found to actually exist.

At least according to one expert.

Erotica leaves something to the imagination. Porn gives the imagination a helping, uh, hand.

Not all porn is necessarily healthy, but looking at it is normal, especially for men. Seeing a porno flick when I was about 18 certainly answered some of the questions about sex that my mother wouldn't answer, so I guess it can have educational value, too.

It might have screwed me up if it made me think people really should dress like that, or that mutton chops or commodore beards are normal (much less "sexy") on a man.

There is female-centered erotica out there. Directed by, produced by and for women gay/bi and hetero. There is also porn/erotica that I'd never in a million years watch or endorse. I think the industry as a whole has changed over the last 30 years. Tristan Taromino, Jenna Jamison and Nina Hartley are current examples of women in the business who are making erotica that is geared toward women of all different orientations and sensibilities.

The only thing that I would like to add -- if people wanted to see porn evolve into a product that was more women-friendly, couples-oriented and just plain sex-positive, they should seek to LEGALIZE IT.

Most people don't know that porn exists in a grey area where it is neither legal or illegal. If it were legal, I think better directorial talent would flock to it.

porn, as long as it's consenting adults participating in it. I do, however, have a major issue with child pornography, animal pornography and snuff films. If there is anything that inflicts pain, mentally or physically on someone who is not a willing and comprehending adult in the event, I think it is indecent and perverted. But basic sex, either hetero- or homosexual, is fine, as well as whatever those two (or more) consenting adults want to do with or to each other.

The motivations and impulses behind the choice, within the consent, that's the stuff you need to examine because it's within that area you'll find the cultural prescription and inclination being played out - just like "politics," really. Nothing is ever what it is on the surface alone.

No law enforcement agency in the US has ever been able to come up with a single "snuff" film. It's a myth.

I swear, the fact that this needs to be repeated in this day and age tires me.

Don't you think we'd all want somebody to love?

Some of us are just unloveable.

You've hit upon a crucial dilemma: how does our society approach "love," or "falling in love?" In my time, I've known two very bright, normal girls who were both very upfront about not wanting real love, and actually preferred "artificial," going-through-the-motions "love." Neither had any history of dramatic heartbreak or loss, they were both simply products of their culture's values. It's that fundamental perversion of consciousness that allows for unsavory values to form a stronghold within the collective consciousness.

Except I would prefer real love to a picture.

It also boils down to personality. Even I have fathomed that out.

Some of it is gritty, violent, and objectionable, and that's not cool.

But your run of the mill porn featuring consensual sex between a sorority girl and the pizza delivery guy is just silliness.

I have a really clinical view of the human body and it's functionality - I'm a health care professional. I need a brain and a good personality to turn me on. A nude body is just a shell, and other people screwing is something I have no need to see. Just not into it.

Are you referring to the consumption of sexually explicit materials, or the act of working in this type of industry?

I think sex work is as valid a choice as any--as long as it's a choice and not a coercive or abusive relationship between the employer and the worker, or a situation that arises from the desperation of the worker who believes he or she has no other choice but this work. Sex work gets no respect in our society, and I think that stems from some very basic moral judgments that nearly everyone makes about it: no "nice" person would choose sex work. Why not? Because it's exploitative by its very nature? How so? If I choose this work and I am well paid for it and I enjoy it, how am I being exploited?

I think many things of a non-sexual nature can be classified as "pornography." Just watch Fox News if you don't believe me. But I digress.

It also leads you to explore the idea of who exactly is being exploited in a pornographic situation. The participant or the viewer? Both? Neither? You could argue that the viewer's appetite for sexually explicit material is what's being exploited for monetary gain. But that's business--taking morality out of the equation, as any good businessperson would do.

If you wanted to look at it in purely commercial and ojective terms, potentially, it's a win-win-win situation: the worker gets paid, the viewer gets his/her porn, and the producer/business owner/whoever takes a cut.

I hope I'm opening up a can of something here :evilgrin:

http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/Dingbat

Edited to add:

Currently, needs support:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=4874143

have gotten into the "sex workers", which is ok by me. The poll was about the materials...

;)

It is our catharsis, and catharsises can only help things.

Tell me, if you had a 15-year-old son, would you rather him looking and enjoying porn, or would you rather him having sex, even if it were protected?

I would prefer my kid to be either hetero or homo - sexual.
Not a paper or videosexual.

To me, sex is a private thing. Not to be acted out
in public.

Just my opinion. I wouldn't want to see porn banned or anything.
I just won't have anything to do with anyone who seems to "need"
it. And I have ALWAYS reserved the right to dump anyone who
has a problem with that.

Sex should be done in whatever way makes you feel good, and to me self-love is just as sexual as a twosome.

I'm a Secular Humanist Hedonist, what can I say?

Some porn is okay....otehrs is degrading and disgusting.

Of course it's all a matter of taste which is which.

With that condition, I'm fairly supportive of anything, at least from the standpoint of the law. I favor minimal governmental interference as a rule.

I must say though, that I have been genuinely disturbed by the sheer naivete of some guys with whom I've been involved, who derived bizarre expectations of real women from what they see in porn.

It's another example of why it is so critically important for parents to teach their children early on that media fantasy is not necessarily reflective of reality. My parents never had to restrict my viewing of TV and movies when I was growing up, because they worked so actively with me to establish that principle.

Some people find any and all oral sex to be degrading. The Christian Taliban considers all homosexual sex to be degrading.

In the end, you're left trying to define obscenity, which cannot be defined in legal terms.

and I'm not referring to "oral sex" or "homosexual sex", as you suggested in your post. Not even close.

No matter how you define it, porn IS often degrading, and WHEN it's degrading, it's usually degrading towards women. Anyone who says otherwise is simply trying to sell an agenda.

Take, for example, something that many parties would find "degrading." Say a BDSM scene with what appears to be forced sex. Now this might seem "degrading" to some - but what about the role players, who like to role play rape scenes? That might not be your cup of tea, and would be degrading for yourself, but not the one who does the role play.

MOST porn is degrading to women, but not ALL.

Start your own poll, if you want...

Speaking of wording, when you say MOST but not ALL, what are we talking about here? 80%? 90? Playboys but not Hustlers? Get more specific; I won't mind...

I also take issue with women full of silicone and airbrushed to perfection becoming the standard for beauty. I have the same issues with the fashion industry for that matter, but the fashion industry doesn't pretend to rape young girls like maxhardcore does.

The subject doesn't interest me enough right now to start my own poll though, sorry.

What I do find worth discussion is how porn can inhibit intimacy:

http://mentalhelp.net/psyhelp/chap10/chap10r.htm

This lusting for women's body parts by men causes many problems for both men and women: (1) men feel compelled to look at women but see them as only highly erotic sexual parts, not real whole persons. (2) Men believe they must "turn on" women in order to feel like "a man;" thus, women wield enormous power over men. (3) Likewise, men feel that attracting beautiful women, as if they were great trophies, proves their sexual powers and personal worth. (4) Once men are trained to crave sexual gratification and, at the same time, taught to avoid softness, emotionality, and intimacy, men may sexualize their relationships as a way of avoiding the dangers of a deeper involvement, such as emotional domination by women, commitment to women, and love. Recognizing and rejecting the "centerfold syndrome" is necessary before we, as men, can mature, like ourselves, become a compassionate caretaker, and become close friends with women. Brooks (1995) says men can consciously suppress their voyeurism and sexual thoughts (as they do towards a daughter), learn to love women for their abilities and personal traits, and enjoy the nurturing of others as much as women do. But as long as males are exclusively obsessed with the sexual build of any attractive woman that comes along, we have a serious social problem.

Peace

And I don't like what he does, at all. I used to work for an indie chain of video stores, and we convinced the owners to specifically stop carrying his stuff. Bad energy.

But the worst examples are not indicative of the majority of what's out there.

I also take issue with the idea that male intimate relationships with women need to be 'desexualized' before we immature men can manage to make emotional connections or commitments. (If you asked her, my wife would say the same thing) I'm sorry, but that's just ridiculous psychobabble balderdash-- and it's like these 'studies' which claim that the minute men are 'exposed' to porn, we suddenly become incapable of seeing women- in any situation, be they the manager of our bank, our Senator, our dry cleaner, or the cop that just pulled us over- in ANY context other than a sexual one.

Um, some of us ARE multi-faceted beings, thankyouverymuch, and we are more than capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time.

What the author claims is that one should de-objectify if they wish to have true lasting intimacy with a partner, most mature men understand the difference, no?

As for Maxhardcore, you can tell me how extreme he is - but his sales are among the top/fastest growing within the porn industry so he's not quite as "extreme" as you claim he is.

of the majority of what's out there. And from what I've seen, he's just about the worst of the worst. That's what I meant by the 'extreme end of the spectrum'. His popularity certainly wasn't impressive enough to make the owners of my old company go to the wall when we demanded that they stop carrying him.

Anyway, as for making noise about men 'desexualizing' their intimate relationships with women, I refer you to the quote you posted (bold added):



Somewhere there must be a mill or a think tank where these people come up with this stuff, and it must pay pretty well, because there are reams and reams of this kind of gibberish strewn across the semantic landscape. Where to begin? The idea that sexual attraction or desire (or even the dreaded "lust") and love or respect are mutually exclusive? The idea that men are somehow "trained" to "crave sexual gratification" like a dog is trained to salivate at the ringing of a bell?.. (Yes, it was those years of training at Patriarchy summer camp that convinced me that I should get aroused by looking at a picture of a naked woman, surpressing my natural instinct to tell her to cover up and then ask her about her hobbies.) ...And of course, liberally sprinkling it with nebulous terms like "objectification" and "centerfold syndrome" which no doubt sound good to the choir he is invariably preaching to, but don't actually MEAN anything. (Presumably, because I looked at nudie magazines as an adolescent, now I'm only attracted to women with staples in their navels) ... That's funny, I've managed to have good female friends, female co-workers, and more female relatives than you can shake a stick at, I love them for their abilities and personal traits, I'm perfectly capable of enjoying the nurturing of others... and -most importantly- I'm a mature, multi-faceted human being whose sexuality is but one component of many... all that, magically, without renouncing evil smut or getting de-programmed of all these evil "centerfold syndromes" which looking at pictures of naked women over the course of my life has supposedly mojo'd into my brain.

Actually, if asked, I would say a far larger "serious social problem" is the Neo-Puritanism some folks have, even when they dress it up in fancy language. But that's just me.

Once men are trained to crave sexual gratification and, at the same time, taught to avoid softness, emotionality, and intimacy, men may sexualize their relationships as a way of avoiding the dangers of a deeper involvement, such as emotional domination by women, commitment to women, and love. Recognizing and rejecting the "centerfold syndrome" is necessary before we, as men, can mature, like ourselves, become a compassionate caretaker, and become close friends with women.

It's fine with me if my partner likes my "tits," etc. but he should consider the fact that they come attached to a person - dig?

Actually, if asked, I would say a far larger "serious social problem" is the Neo-Puritanism some folks have, even when they dress it up in fancy language. But that's just me.

I don't think we have to choose between treating people has human beings and sex exclusively for pro-creation.

I'd rather read a saucy novel than contribute to the porn industry - But that's just me. ;)

Peace out.

as you put it, "tits"- with no human being attached to them.

Pretty weird, indeed.

I just dont concur with the notion that porn, smut, erotica, what-have-you, 'programs' men to be attracted to body parts as opposed to people. You could probably make a similar argument that vibrators and other similar sundry sex toys for women 'program' women to be attracted to D Cells, or that they 'objectify' and reduce men to a humming lump of plastic. Talk about your parts with no body attached to 'em!

And as I noted elsewhere in the thread, the 'programming' effects porn is supposed to have on men certainly haven't made themselves apparent in my own preferences. Pamela Anderson, for instance, is the epitome of everything that I find not sexy.

---But that's just me. :) Peace.

As for the weird body parts thing, lets just say uhm, it happens. ;)

:hi:

who feel threatened by vibrators too.

They are IDIOTS!

in San Francisco-- so don't tell me those things aren't dangerous! ;)

just proves that you really know nothing about the industry, and only care to parrot the propaganda you read from authoritarian leftists -- or the religious right.

Max hasn't made any movies for at least 6 months, and has been on the decline. There are certainly new players in the "raunch" porn style, but it in itself is a small genre of what is out there.

I would like to see where you got your statistics from. The top companies - Vivid, Wicked, Adam & Eve produce more couple friendly fare.

After you complained that the poor violent porn peddler was shut down for obscenity remember?

From City Pages:
http://citypages.com/databank/19/893/article4117.asp

From painful sex to foul-mouthed revenge fantasies, a meaner brand of pornography takes the back door to commercial success.

...

The fact that gonzo rentals have largely eclipsed the slick "couples porn" of major companies like Vivid and VCA is no small coup in the booming video world.

Also you may note that many of those who carry "Adam and Eve" also carry Max HC.

http://www.google.com.ar/search?hl=en&rls=RNWE%2CRNWE%3A2004-45%2CRNWE%3Aen&q=max+hardcore+and+adam+and+eve

Also, what issues do you have with Max Hardcore Mongo?

As for couple friendly fare, I don't really think most porn is couple friendly. I think about the greater consequences, like the porn star who admitted to being too tired to have sex with her husband or the one who's drugged so he/she can do their jobs day in day out. ;)

is over eight years old.

The content of his videos hasn't changed - unless I'm unaware of an epiphany on his part?

was a flash in the pan and an abberration.

Like I said, his stuff was glaringly different enough, and more obnoxious, than the majority of smut that at least MY old place of work used to carry-- enough so that we put our foot down and said "we don't want you to buy any more of this guy's crap".

in the pan. I found many articles on his "stuff" but most were a sales pitch from a porn peddlers website.

on the internet too -- but that doesn't mean Humphrey Bogart is the biggest star in Hollywood today.

But I don't want to suggest that "raunch" porn has gone away. It hasn't. There are several companies making it, and they do have their place in the market - as does movies of men being feminized, beaten, having their privates tied up and tortured, etc. by women.

It's the characterization of this type of porn as "typical" or "mainstream" or what most Americans are consuming that is the issue.

porn you call "couple friendly." Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I'm certain it's much more difficult to find the penis in knots thing you mention than MHC or uhm Casablanca.

Warning:from Adult video news, not at all work friendly contains explicit sexual conduct, yada yada
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Charts&Secondary_Navigation=Top_75_DVD_Sales

Max Hardcore doesn't even make the list.

Now, you can't judge a porno by it's title, most of the time they go for an over the top title, when the sex contained within is more of the standard fare.

I'm not familiar with all of the titles in the list of course, but in the top 10 I'm pretty sure only #2 and #10 would qualify as raunch porn. #3 is just plain weird, and I don't have a review for #9 in front of me but that is John Stagliano's line (he produces now), so I doubt if it is that bad.

145. Max Faktor 15 Max Hardcore/Exquisite Multimedia

http://www.adultvideonews.com/charts/rent0106.html

Considering the fact that many claim not to associate/carry his "stuff" I'd say he's doing quite well.

I'm impressed. Do you think I should carry it?

Where do YOU draw the line?

I can't watch every one -- it would be impossible.

And also our video model is "discount porn" that is, we buy movies as manufacturers drop them off their catalog, and some of the cheaper producers. So I order a box of 50 from a producer and take what I get.

Now, I do scan or watch a movie in each line for any new company that I bring in.

Outside the BDSM genre, which I really only order from a couple of companies that I know their product, here are some of the things that will make a movie unacceptable for my shelves

scat (never seen a title with this come through the store)

Blood (only seen 1 title in the store)

Choking during sex (red light, JM prod). Although I must say that in the few of these that I have seen, the woman appears to enjoy it.

implied or actual (simulated) non-consentual or overt coerced sex in a wall-to-wall release. If the movie has a plot, then it is probably OK.

Overt and over the top degredation -- calling someone a slut is OK, a women's head in the toilet is not. (Max Hardcore)

Obvious and continued distress. A woman momentarily gagging, but then smiling a minute later (usually without an edit cut) is OK, a woman in tears by the end of a scene and continued degredation is not.

Sex with simulated violence (Extreme Assoc)

You'll notice that I did not have sex with minors on the list. That is a given, and isn't something I even have access to through the adult distribution channels. Same with sex with animals, although there are a couple of companies that imply that on the box cover.

The other thing that didn't make the list is ATM (look it up), which I find personally disgusting, but it is one of those things that people want to watch that they won't do at home. Porn is sport fucking - one of the big reasons people watch it is because they do get to see things they don't do at home.

The other thing about this list is that it is subjective. What gets said and what happens in a scene is not as important as the woman's reactions and body language as things progress. Rough sex is Ok, even momentary pain, but I have to get the feeling that overall the woman is enjoying herself.

And yes, I do pull entire lines of product because of one scene in a 4 hr wall-to-wall release.

But I can't help but notice the slippery slope in the dialogue above. Are you likely to get films with mens heads in the toilet? How bout with men choking or being strangled? Or, men with tears in their eyes by the end of a scene?

Also non-concentual sex is rape, are you saying that if a porn movie has a rape plot you carry it? And if so, do you carry plots with men raping other men?

I didn't want to contribute to keeping that porn thread alive, but I did want to answer your questions.

Actually rape scenes are much more common in classic porn from the 70's/early 80's than they are today.

And yes, some of these films are pretty famous, and I do get them in when I order boxes of classics. But the thing is, rape is depicted in hollywood movies too. Should stores not carry Looking for Mr. Goodbar, or Clockwork Orange? Do these films have no value because they have a rape scene?

So, yeah, if say Autobiography of a Flea comes in, it goes on the shelves (I wish it would, I've never seen it). But in it's day, it was an important film.

As far as gay porn -- I don't watch much of it. But I'm sure that there are movies with a plot that have rape scenes. I've certainly seen gay movies with a prison theme.

As far as men being degraded etc., that really only happens in BDSM Fem Dom porn. That's another genre I don't watch much, but judging by the boxcover's it gets pretty extreme. Perhaps more extreme than the Male Dom porn.

I don't accept the whole porn causes violence argument at all. Anyone who has it in themselves to rape is going to do it regardless of what movie they watched. And really, in the newer movies that come in, a rape scene is more uncommon. The other thing is that when there is some sort of violence in these movies, it is usually done in such a way as to be so obviosly fake that it is almost comical --- compared to the stark reality that gets presented in Hollywood films. Hollywood films are much more violent then any porn.

Actually rape scenes are much more common in classic porn from the 70's/early 80's than they are today.

Glad there is a downward trend.

And yes, some of these films are pretty famous, and I do get them in when I order boxes of classics. But the thing is, rape is depicted in hollywood movies too. Should stores not carry Looking for Mr. Goodbar, or Clockwork Orange? Do these films have no value because they have a rape scene?

I don't think you can compare a movie with a sex flick in terms of rape scenes/violence. For example in the burning bed Farrah Fawcett was raped/beaten by her husband. It was not an erotic scene, nor was it intended to be. Porn is intended to arouse people in a sexual manner and by inserting rape in that context it implies that rape is just a form of sex.

Would it be fair to call this erotica?



Of course not because the context is very different.

As far as gay porn -- I don't watch much of it. But I'm sure that there are movies with a plot that have rape scenes. I've certainly seen gay movies with a prison theme.

Actually, I'm not so sure about that. I would venture to guess that movies with men being raped are quite rare, if they exist at all - regardless of genre.

As far as men being degraded etc., that really only happens in BDSM Fem Dom porn. That's another genre I don't watch much, but judging by the boxcover's it gets pretty extreme. Perhaps more extreme than the Male Dom porn.

Well one can find a snuff film if they look hard enough I imagine? That doesn't make it on par with the porn that anyone can order from the convenience of their own home on a daily basis - right?

I don't accept the whole porn causes violence argument at all. Anyone who has it in themselves to rape is going to do it regardless of what movie they watched. And really, in the newer movies that come in, a rape scene is more uncommon. The other thing is that when there is some sort of violence in these movies, it is usually done in such a way as to be so obviosly fake that it is almost comical --- compared to the stark reality that gets presented in Hollywood films. Hollywood films are much more violent then any porn.

I've said before, I don't think Porn CAUSES violence, however much of today's commonly found down-loadable/tv available porn it is one piece of the societal puzzle that contributes toward violence against/the objectification of women.

There has never been a prosecution for it, and their has never been a snuff film confiscated by the police.

However check this out:

http://www.google.com.ar/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=RNWE,RNWE:2004-45,RNWE:en&q=snuff+films+prosecution

And this: "DA pursues 'snuff film' murder motive"

http://www.timesherald.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11986535&BRD=1672&PAG=461&dept_id=33380&rfi=6

Snopes comes to your defense a bit but it does not fully address the "fake murder/rape" genre which are also called "snuff films" by many.

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/madmen/snuff.htm

Also known as "white heat" films and "the real thing," the snuff film myth lives on like Bigfoot, despite the fact that no law enforcement agency in America has publicly admitted to ever locating one. Alan Sears, former executive director of the Attorney General's commission on pornography during 1985-86, agrees with the more than two dozen law enforcement agencies I interviewed. "Our experience was that we could not find any such thing as a commercially produced snuff film," says Sears. "Our commission was all-inclusive and exhaustive. If snuff films were available, we'd have found them."

This sentiment is echoed by Ken Lanning, a cult expert at the FBI training academy at Quantico, Virginia. "I've not found one single documented case of a snuff film anywhere in the world. I've been searching for 20 years, talked to hundreds of people. There's plenty of once-removed sightings, but I've never found a credible personality who personally saw one."

And if you want to include "fake murders" -- then half of the Hollywood films produced in a year are "snuff films"

It's called context.

Also, you did see the article where a person was prosecuted for murdering a woman in a snuff film right?

DA pursues 'snuff film' murder motive

COURTHOUSE - Montgomery County prosecutors continue to pursue a possible motive of a "snuff film gone" awry in the stabbing death of Canadian sex model Natel King.
County District Attorney Bruce L. Castor Jr., who is prosecuting the murder case against Lower Providence photographer Anthony J. Frederick, Wednesday said the prosecution does not have to prove motive at the time of the trial.


However, he said, he is moving forward under two possible motives as to why Frederick would allegedly stab King to death following a photo shoot at his Conshohocken studio last February.
One of the motives is that Frederick simply did not want to pay King, as he had refused to pay one other model in the past, and feared King would make trouble for him, according to Castor.
"The second motive, and what I think is more likely given the ferocity of the attack and the circumstances, is that this was suppose to be a snuff film or a film involving simulated violence during sex that escalated to actual violence," said Castor. "But whether that is a theory with which I will go at trial, I can't say at this time."
Supporting this theory, according to Castor, is an unsigned generic contract found in Frederick's possessions. That contract, which refers to snuff photographs or videos, indicates that the person signing it gives permission for the photographs or videos to be used as part of a private collection that would not be disseminated beyond members of a private club, said Castor.

Contract that refers to "snuff photographs" -- WTF? This insane prosecutor is using the term SNUFF when the contract must refer to BDSM. Do you really think anyone would sign a contract that says, "hey I'm going to kill you and take pictures, is that OK with you?"

As far as context, then we'd better ban the movie Basic Instinct, etc. since they mix sexual arousal and violence.

And yes I read the article. All anyone has without a confession is a "possible" motive.

"snuff film". EVER. There have been videos of people committing rape/murder, though, made for their own amusement. The serial killers Leonard Lake and Charles Ng were two such, who kept extensive photographic records of their victims.

However, this is NOT what we mean when we talk of a "snuff film" as they were never made for commercial distribution.

PERIOD.

No matter how much you want to saddle the porn industry with this, it doesn't exist, and was made up largely as a bludgeon against porn.

Argue with lies if you want to... Republicans do this every day.

Unless you know of another name? Also, I don't believe I used the word "commercial."

And "Silence of The Lambs" counts if you accept fakes...

And "House of 1000 Corpses"...

And more others than you could name in which a woman is raped and then killed. And these are not porn.

"Snuff" films are used by fundamentalists and the "feminists" who are in bed with them to indict all pornography. It is "See, look! They even KILL people to make this stuff!" It is an argument you pull out when you are losing on the facts of the issue.

But it is a complete lie and a complete fabrication, and those who use it are damned liars.

Silence of The Lambs did not set out arouse one sexually while showing the commission a murder. As I said above it's called "context."

"Snuff" films are used by fundamentalists and the "feminists" who are in bed with them to indict all pornography. It is "See, look! They even KILL people to make this stuff!" It is an argument you pull out when you are losing on the facts of the issue.

Actually, I'm not losing an argument, as I'm not having one. I'm engaging in discussion that apparently makes you uncomfortable?

I'm off to do better things this evening. I'll check back later. :hi:

We were out having fun earlier in the day; Dog expo. Bought too many things for our spoiled dog.

When you return; I didn't think you were making this argument, I was telling you where I believe the argument comes from... So, the original intent of the makers is what is significant to you? How do you know that intent? Also, has it occurred to you that some people might make such a film to SHOCK rather than to arouse? And does that change you assessment of a film? Assume we are talking the same film. For example, what if "Hannibal" really was made with the intent to arouse rather than shock? Realistically portrayed cannibalism in that one...

however - I am still troubled by the fact that women are used as the sole avenue to achieve said shock, KWIM? I know that's not the case with gay porn. ;) But, since were on the subject, perhaps you can tell me if the gay porn industry is likely to provide the same "shock/violence" elements? Or, is it considered too much of a turn off to harm/kill men for shock value?

Dog expo? That sound fun, lucky dog! I've got two dogs/two cats and a new uninvited mouse. Given my cat situation I expect he'll be clearing out of here soon. :hi:

We have three old cat hunters here...

Well, gay porn is certainly full of S&M elements, and rape themes (often involving men in uniform) are common. Like straight porn, rape and death scenes are nonexistent. I've seen a mid-80s "striaght" film where the two main characters have to fuck to the death in a ritual for domination of the kingdom... The woman (played by Barbara Dare) wins, but instead of a dead King, he simply fades out of existence to avoid the troublesome dead body. Actually, "straight" porn is far less likely to have rape elements in it than gay porn. The only era I know of when rape themes were at all common in "straight" films was the early 70s through about 1978, when a common plot was "woman hitchhiker gets raped and then plots her revenge". Most "straight" porn is about women who are AVAILABLE and WELCOMING of sex. Guys get into that. Now, I can only speak to American and British porn. Foreign porn may be different.

And I put "straight" in quotes as I know hardly any such films without same-sex contact between the women, and that is hardly "striaght". Sadly sexual contact between the males is rare in such films, and when that occurs they are called "bisexual" features.

I'd be interested to hear from you the titles of some commercial porn with rape and simulated death since the 70s? I have the resources to track them down and examine their content and report back.

I wasn't aware that gay porn had rape themes a-plenty. Disturbing that some feel victimization is sexy.

I think you raise a good point about most mainstream porn actually being "gay/lesbian" yet it's not considered as such. I too have wondered why it's not typical to show men engaged in sexual acts with one another, while showing women "involved" is such a common element in "regular" run of the mill porn?

A related story: A friend of my husbands sent an email aghast at the idea of gay marriage (around election time.) Knowing he was a regular cable tv porn viewer I asked what his thoughts were on the "morality" of girl on girl action in the porn he watched. :evilgrin: Ahh, never heard back on that one.

Anyhow regarding the titles of Movies, you may want to pose that question to mongo as he rejects films with various themes? I really don't want to seek out titles and I have no idea where to find said titles.

An aside: I found out through our conversation that Canada defines material as legally "obscene/illegal" if it contains sexual violence, is degrading or dehumanizing, or involves sexual portrayals of children - virtual or otherwise. I know you disagree, but that's where I'm at personally.

Peace ~ I'm out.

In non-sexual realms violence if often quite acceptable if freely entered into; Football, Hockey, Fencing, Wrestling, Surgery, etc. All are violent, but no victims because all consent. So too in S&M sex play. All consent ahead of time and there is no victim at all.

And I know of no porn films where there is not consent. Mongo will not carry Max Hardcore, but I assure you everybody who does a film with him knew exactly what sort of film it was and was well paid for it. None of that is rape.

Now, there was one film made, I think by Vivid, called I believe "Rough Sex 1" where one actress who was in the film said that she was treated much more roughly than she had any idea of in advance, and her complaints caused the film to be pulled from distribution and the series to be cancelled. Now, if nonconsensual sexual violence really were marketable, that film should have been a gold mine, and they would have kept selling it... But nobody wants even the suspicion of anything approximating rape in the making of adult films. That is just not in anybody's interests.

Canada's laws are so strict that the Lesbian sex magazine "On Our Backs" could not be mailed to subscribers there. This was during the magazine's first incarnation in the 80s and early 90s when Susie Bright edited it. When I was in Halifax NS doing a project in 1989, I bought a Penthouse Forum magazine in Halifax, and an identical one in the States... It was really educational to compare them. Some stories were pulled. Anything that involved spanking, for example would be replaced. One story got pulled that I could not see the reason at all, till I realized that it said "he pinned me to the bed" about a fucking scene, and that was obviously enough of a suggestion of violence! The ads in the back were extensively bowdlerized. If the ad said; Call 1-900-SPANK-ME to talk to the Mistress of your dreams, and there was a picture of a woman in leather with a riding crop, that whole ad was likely just a white box in the Canadian version!

REAL sexual violence is perpetrated by people with ill intent against unwilling victims, and I think we have to be able to distinguish this from acts that might be outwardly identical but are between willing partners.

However MaxHC was accused of rape by an "actress" who worked with him. Others have said they would never work with him again b/c they felt violated. The actress eventually dropped the charges (probably wanted to work again, and didn't want to be subjected to a trail?) I am certain there are actresses who feel violated and never report it?

Now, there was one film made, I think by Vivid, called I believe "Rough Sex 1" where one actress who was in the film said that she was treated much more roughly than she had any idea of in advance, and her complaints caused the film to be pulled from distribution and the series to be cancelled. Now, if nonconsensual sexual violence really were marketable, that film should have been a gold mine, and they would have kept selling it... But nobody wants even the suspicion of anything approximating rape in the making of adult films. That is just not in anybody's interests.

I agree that it's not in anyones interest, but as Mongo stated - he rejects films where the actress appears scared/crying fairly regularily. Someone is making these films.

Thanks for the discussion, it has been interesting - at least for me. :P

With the gay porn, some people feel being the VICTIM is the sexy part. Not PC, I know, but fantasies rarely are.

As for same sex partners, I imagine the equal balance of physical power changes the dynamics a bit?

Physical power plays very little in S&M.

I know a 5'2" 130# professional dominatrix who has Chicago Bears football players as clients.

than the Chicago Bears being aggressive toward her KWIM? A role reversal is likely not as "appealing."

:hi:

in San Francisco a couple years back. My wife saw it- she said it was entertaining for maybe 10 minutes, then it was like watching someone make balloon animals for an hour.

I didn't see it, but I'd catch it with some girl friends if it comes around again. ;)

my Wife's words.

I'd probably bore after about 5 mns as well. Then again, after a few drinks I think my friends and I may have a good laugh? Oh well, I'll never know - unless there is a video of sorts ? ;)

Ask, and ye shall receive:

http://www.puppetryofthepenis.com/

page down to "live at the forum- yours to own on DVD".

Thanks! :hi:

I brought some of his much older movies in on VHS once, but they are not as nasty as his (more) current fare.

But the article is misleading -- it talks about one specific company, then about "gonzo".

Gonzo porn is a genre where you have just wall-to-wall sex without any type of plot, but someone (usually the cameraman) is giving a running narration. If you look at the people who made the genre, Stagliono, Ed Powers, Ben Dover -- it is not raunch porn. They are not abusing the women, or degrading them. Ben Dover and Ed Powers are especially positive towards the women in their films. So, the article makes it seem like raunch porn is huge, but then goes on to compare apples to oranges.

I'm not familiar with the who's who. All I know is the guy is disturbing - sells like "mad," and has no problem finding distribution.