Just perhaps...................

[webmong]

*I have just read The Chairman post and am currently trying to find the 'delete reply' button*

[Pianaman]

It's not the same. I'm into some aspects of the fetish scene myself and everything is carefully controlled - pain and pleasure can go together of course, they are both legitimate aspects of our sexualities. You should be aware if you know anything about the scene that many of the women that participate see BDSM as an erotic art and as a means of self expression. In fact I believe the erotic arts are far more advanced in the fetish scene than they are in mainstream porn precisely because many of the participants are people with real artistic vision and women play a far bigger role in controlling the industry than in the mainstream porn market.

The problem with these depictions of sex as a form of violence is not reducible to any one act - there's nothing wrong per se with anal, or double anal even, or pain, or "rough" sexplay within a consensual context. It's not the content I object to, it's the context, particularly the attitudes that are being expressed when a girl is treated just like a piece of meat to be spat on and abused and put through the meat grinder.

This is not acting by the way in the sense that one acts in a movie - such things can be faked to an extent but in these movies the action is all happening, the sex is real, the anal gapes are real assholes, not props (lol). That is what porn attempts to depict - real sex, not faked as in soft porn or plain erotic acting. So real violent sex is real violent sex - if someone bleeds from their ass it's real blood, if they choke its really happening.

Sure, the actresses are "consenting", in most cases at least to the extent that they are doing it for the money, though in some cases I think to use the term "consent" may be a bit of a stretch (read Karina's thread below for example at how this can be taken advantage of). But the whole sordid act is characterised from start to finish with contempt for women and a seeming desire to humiliate and degrade. Anyone who really loves women cannot fail to be sickened by the attitudes being expressed here. The fact is sex could be so much more than this - porn could be so much more than this pathetic spectacle - I really doubt that the people who make this stuff have much of a clue at all about real sexual intimacy, what they produce seems more an attempt to hide from such intimacy than to face it. They seem afraid of themselves. Totally the opposite of much of the fetish scene where sensuality is much more highly regarded (that doesn't mean you don't also get some shite, abusive stuff there too).

[marcusallen]

Tanya Hide is the great Trevor Watson - a long time mate, an artist and a great guy. and can tell you that any inplied form of "abuse" in his films, is just that -implied, acted and fun for all.

I'm totally fed up with these arguments about the finer points of "What is or isn't"

Let evryone be dictated to by their own conscience and forget the publicity.

Anyway, I'm only sober enough to post/respond because The CVhairman is seriously poorly and I have nothing better to do anfd I've drunk myself sober!!!!

Now I'm going to drink myself drunk again.

[Officer Dibble]

Yeah, good point Tomsk. "Job's a crap 'un" as we say round here. But the funny thing is that whenever I get together with 'the insiders' this is usually the main topic of conversation, and quite often the consensus amongst these movers and shakers is precisely what you are saying. But then I step back and the next thing I know they have just shot a new film, featuring birds that no one is really interested in, and featuring the prolonged and tiresome anal that they?d earlier agreed was a load of tosh!

I think they've just got their wheel stuck in a rut, peddling ever faster to keep up, so fast in fact that they've stopped looking where they are going. They just need to keep churning 'product' out, they have bills to pay. It don't matter if it's good or bad, a scene or program is worth so little now that they can't afford stop and get things into perspective. And no matter how naff or unappealing the scene is, someone (unfortunately) will give them a few measly quid for it - which is just prolonging their misery and our misery.

Personally, nowadays, if I'm not excited, inspired, or confident in who or what I am shooting, then I'm just not interested in shooting. I won't just do it for the sake of it. I can only enthuse and sell to customers if I'm 100% happy and confident about the program. I have to like it myself.

Officer Dibble

[Officer Dibble]

Ah, well JP, those kind of movies were made in the days when you had to be an artist to shoot a movie. Filmmaking was so expensive that the type of folks who had no concept of art and eroticism couldn't afford to have a go. Then camcorders came along and suddenly Joe Bloggs, the Binman from next door, got the idea he was the new Andrew Blake -only he wasn't. Culturally he was a galaxy apart. However, he could turn a cheap movie out. Now, the 'fat Controllers' at the head of video distributors and adult TV stations loved this. They weren?t interested in quality, just quality, and pretty soon the artists found themselves out of favour. They had to debase their product to match Binman Bloggs (now ?producer? Bloggs) cheapo price. This meant hiring birds that couldn?t handle a script (so no decent dialogue) and birds who's extensive and erotically alluring wardrobe consisted of a white pair of Tesco knickers. (So no stockings.) Sadly, not all artists were upset by this turn of events and some even embraced the new order with a will, smashing their tripods, waving their camcorders round, shooting birds with no make-up on, and denouncing all that had gone before - rather like Mao?s Cultural Revolution. And in common with The Cultural Revolution there are those who are only now beginning to acknowledge that they made a horrible mistake.

Officer Dibbs