egafd.com

they could always give a thumbs up to the camera!

2 recent Rocco vids, Poland and Montreal, as good as they get no violence, up there with the best. What does this prove?

I think attitudes are changing we are in this months 19 magazine and I think with a favorable detailed story of one of my shoots so women are deffinetly getting more in tune with pornography. There will always be nutters who object to everything but I believe we should as a company appeal to the masses not the minority. Also money means fff-all to me, Ben I am sure will tell you I would rather have a Sony credit card to buy loads of new camera shit, anyone who has been on one of our productions will tell you we use the latest of equipment, thats how TV(broadcast) use our stuff so much.
But there has to be censorship even if it self enforced otherwise the stuff that makes Amsterdam so famous will flood our market and those who strugle to understand right from wrong will have an excuse to degrade.
Come on now, most of this perversion stuff is for blokes who can't shag a bird proper. Ask some of the girls on the forum what they want in bed. I bet its treated nice, shagged wrotten and left with respect.
I like most guys on this forum I am an ordinary bloke, I am fortunet enough to shag real horny women. I don't need an apple in my mouth or set on fire to get an erection. Look at some of our old stuff with Remmington filming housewives, amatuer models, they all enjoyed themselfs.
Thats how it should be.

Phil McC

Dear Mr McC, I don't think you know what the fuck you are talking about. You represent and push one of the kinkiest porn stars (Violet Storm) who has done those videos from Amsterdam I think you were talking about(www.hightide-video.com).

I suspect we all support some censorship. Would you want videos of National Front thugs torturing people, or of paedophiles raping children? Probably not, and I suspect even Denmark and Holland have some sort of censorship to prevent this kind of thing. It's all a matter of degree.

On the whole I think the BBFC guidelines are a major improvement on what went before, and if they stop me watching Rocco or Max Hardcore involved in sadistic acts I can't say I am too bothered. Basically they allow any legal sexual activity to be shown. No doubt with the passage of time there will be a relaxation of the R18 no-mail-order/sex shop-only rule, which is the real problem at the moment.

Also, I would favour a self-certification scheme because the present guidelines, in so far as they describe visual content, are admirably clear, and I can't see any point in having to submit videos for the BBFC's approval. Acceptable verbal content might be harder to define, though provided it relates to acts that are in themselves legal, I see no problem.

Callipygea wrote:
>
> I suspect we all support some censorship. Would you want
> videos of National Front thugs torturing people, or of
> paedophiles raping children? Probably not, and I suspect
> even Denmark and Holland have some sort of censorship to
> prevent this kind of thing. It's all a matter of degree.
>

These are all criminal acts. Perpetrators should be prosecuted under relevant legislation.
I am not in favour of censoring adult videos featuring consenting adults performing, which is what we are talking about.

> On the whole I think the BBFC guidelines are a major
> improvement on what went before, and if they stop me watching
> Rocco or Max Hardcore involved in sadistic acts I can't say I
> am too bothered.

So what you are saying is that if you are not interested they can cut it. I think you are being a little blase about your civil liberties. If I was to cut stuff you are interested in, would you be so complacent?

> Basically they allow any legal sexual
> activity to be shown.

No, they don't. Many of the acts on the BBFC's proscribed list are perfectly legal for consenting adults. They are also unable to censor with regard to artistic depictions of violence within a porn film, e.g Zazel.

> No doubt with the passage of time
> there will be a relaxation of the R18 no-mail-order/sex
> shop-only rule, which is the real problem at the moment.
>

Sure, let's get it done sooner rather than later. Not least because of the appalling monopoly situation.

> Also, I would favour a self-certification scheme because the
> present guidelines, in so far as they describe visual
> content, are admirably clear, and I can't see any point in
> having to submit videos for the BBFC's approval. Acceptable
> verbal content might be harder to define, though provided it
> relates to acts that are in themselves legal, I see no problem.

I agree with the first part of that. It should indeed be down to Mr McCavity and chums to decide what they wish to put into their videos. Of course if his girl Violet wants to go off and do some naughty stuff, that should be up to her. She's an independent woman, right? It shouldn't be down to some censor to "save her from herself."

BTW I am fed up with the constant repetition of the theme that if people have different tastes or interest, even if they are slightly more outre than one's own, that they should be the target for condemnation or slated as inadequate. Many people in the mainstream would say that anyone who watches porn at all is inadequate!

I think we should be delighted to be living in a country that is slowly becoming more tolerant of sexual material, though not necessarily on other subjects if events in Northern England are anything to go by.

I don't think anyone is calling for censorship. If girls (who are consenting adults) are willing to allow themselves to be slapped, spat on, and basically abused, then so be it. I must say, I don't personally like it and I don't find it the remotest bit erotic. But I do like freedom of speech. So, even though I don't like Rocco's recent work - or the work of a lot of similar styled American producers - I certainly wouldn't advocate banning it. I would just hope that no one would purchase it.

However, the point I was making is that it makes the whole porno industry look bad. It is not feelgood materiel. It is not fun, and it is certainly not glamourous. It feeds the bigotry and prejudice of The Daily mail, the Telegraph, The News of the World and The Guardian. Every bible thumping nutcase, not to mention all the hand wringing, poncy middleclass journalists on Radio 4 and throughout the mainstream media. That is why all the producers on the forum have been so outspoken against it. How could we go on "Kilroy" and defend porn if they showed the studio audience a clip of "Rocco's Greatest Excesses"? We'd be verbally, if not literally, lynched!

Grebo.

thanx for making an excellent post pasta (excellent because i agree with every word and so don't have to bother my self!).

just to reiterate the first and most important point you make: we should be constrained by the law and only the law. censorship itself, should be against the law, as an infringement right to freedom of expression!

consent between adults should the benchmark for what is permissible. acts that are nonconsensual should be legislated against, if they aren't already.

pasta wrote:
>
> Callipygea wrote:
> >
> > I suspect we all support some censorship. Would you want
> > videos of National Front thugs torturing people, or of
> > paedophiles raping children? Probably not, and I suspect
> > even Denmark and Holland have some sort of censorship to
> > prevent this kind of thing. It's all a matter of degree.
> >
>
> These are all criminal acts. Perpetrators should be
> prosecuted under relevant legislation.
> I am not in favour of censoring adult videos featuring
> consenting adults performing, which is what we are talking
> about.

I agree they are criminal acts, and I do not object to them being censored, unless a case can be made for artistic merit, and that would depend upon context.

> > On the whole I think the BBFC guidelines are a major
> > improvement on what went before, and if they stop me watching
> > Rocco or Max Hardcore involved in sadistic acts I can't say I
> > am too bothered.
>
> So what you are saying is that if you are not interested they
> can cut it. I think you are being a little blase about your
> civil liberties. If I was to cut stuff you are interested in,
> would you be so complacent?
>
> > Basically they allow any legal sexual
> > activity to be shown.

> No, they don't. Many of the acts on the BBFC's proscribed
> list are perfectly legal for consenting adults. They are also
> unable to censor with regard to artistic depictions of
> violence within a porn film, e.g Zazel.

>What for example? I agree they tend to err on the side of playing it safe, but their concern is to allow what is clearly legal, and proscribe what is not. They ban Max HC because they think his stuff could be judged illegal, in that it depicts, alegedly, non-consensual acts. I don't support their banning anything legal, so what I am or am not interested in has nothing to do with it.

Generally speaking I support the main thrust of your arguments; my original point was that there are some things, almost certainly illegal, that I am happy to see banned/censored

Grebo wrote:
>
> I don't think anyone is calling for censorship.

Well, actually this started off with a couple of folks saying they were glad this movie has been cut, and also one or two were pretty blase about it too, they certainly were not opposed to it.

> If girls (who
> are consenting adults) are willing to allow themselves to be
> slapped, spat on, and basically abused, then so be it. I must
> say, I don't personally like it and I don't find it the
> remotest bit erotic. But I do like freedom of speech. So,
> even though I don't like Rocco's recent work - or the work of
> a lot of similar styled American producers - I certainly
> wouldn't advocate banning it. I would just hope that no one
> would purchase it.

That's the kind of free-thinking I like to hear. I don't necessarily agree with your preferences, but that's not the point - each to their own. BUT...
I find it intriguing that there appears to be a double standard about this - if girls are dominated by guys in a rough scene, it's abuse. If guys are dominated by girls, it's called SM or Frank Bough's Happy Hour...


>
> However, the point I was making is that it makes the whole
> porno industry look bad. It is not feelgood materiel. It is
> not fun, and it is certainly not glamourous. It feeds the
> bigotry and prejudice of The Daily mail, the Telegraph, The
> News of the World and The Guardian. Every bible thumping
> nutcase, not to mention all the hand wringing, poncy
> middleclass journalists on Radio 4 and throughout the
> mainstream media. That is why all the producers on the forum
> have been so outspoken against it. How could we go on
> "Kilroy" and defend porn if they showed the studio audience a
> clip of "Rocco's Greatest Excesses"? We'd be verbally, if not
> literally, lynched!
>
> Grebo.

I don't agree - I think that if you showed a clip of a Ben Dover or Phil McCavity movie a lot of the people you mention would still have a heart attack.

I also don't see why you are worried about having to defend what you do with regard to Rocco or anyone like him. Any reasonable people would be able to see the difference and right now it seems like the reasonable folk are making the decisons that matter. Fortunately, you only have to defend your product to the BBFC and any judge who may take any interest - tabloid TV is irrelevant

It's funny you feel this way, because I don't think that many in mainstream films feel that some of these recent controversial arthouse movies (eg Baise-Moi) have this detrimental effect on the wider mainstream movie scene.