egafd.com

Is it me or do other Forumites find the labelling of women in videos unnecessary or even offensive? A recent posting linked to videos of Pheonix (sic) and the site proudly boasted "See more UK sluts".

A video of Georgette Neale and Hayley Russell ended with both girls saying (and prompted) "To see more sluts like us, check out the next Anabolic World Tour".

Perhaps I am being over-sensitive - what do Wendy, Faye et al think of being labelled sluts, tarts, slags, slappers and hos? After all it is them that are being labelled. What about their boyfriends/husbands? What does, for example, does Wendy's husband think of her being labelled a slut?

Your views, please and a belated Merry Christmas to one and all.

Never liked the usage of these words in porn myself which is why you'll never see a title coming out of One Eyed Jack Productions/ STM distribution with any of those words in it. I understand some companies and individuals feel the need to aggressively market their product to grab certain customers by the throat but I for one would feel uncomfortable for it.

Kind of takes the edge off a stiffy for me.

I agree totally.. do the models themselves have any say in what they are referred to when promoting dvds websites etc?... ultimately i reckon the models should have the final say in which terms/sobriquets are used to describe/denigrate them.
However.......
In the more gentler times of the 1980s to the mid 90s (gentler i said not neccesarily better) Every girlie mag (Escort razzle parade etc)spread had some blurb purpotedly written by the model stating what she'd been up to sexually or what she would like to have done to ( or over-ooh matron) the pics.. Now i'm not a knowledgable man when it comes to girlie mags production but i could make an educated guess that the models didn't actually write the accompanying blurb that went with the pictorials... surely that is similar in terms of misreprentation of the models actual lifestyles?
Its a pretty redundant point but it surely shows that porn even in its softcore form has consistently misrepresented the models lifestyles and preferences for the benefit of fantasy of the readers and users of the material.
Now i'll belt up im beginning to sound like andrea dworkin
Happy Xmas all
xx

Yes, especially on the Facial Abuse site - discussed on the other forum. But we are not talking Americans we are talking Brits. My specific point about these perjorative terms is that they were talking about English and Scottish girls.

I don't like these descriptions of girls working in the porn industry either.

When it comes down to it, these girls are just "doing their job". I've not had the fortune to meet any of these girls but I'm damn sure that in their private lives they are just "ordinary, decent" girls and far from the slags and tarts that some websites and videos describe them as.

As OEJ says, it's probably just "marketing" by these outfits to grab the buyers attention but still not very nice for these girls to be called this.

Myson

But we have all said that we don't like it - it's mysogynistic in the extreme - so who are they being marketed to? Who buys a video called Sluts 'R' Us or something similar?

I think Officer Dibble has been down this path before and claimed as I agree with him on this case, people who know fuck all about the business assume this is one of those things that they think customers like, as if customers like porn because they want to see women being debased.

Essentially, your average man is a simple creature: he likes to see pretty girls having sex. The abusive stuff does set us back as an industry, especially when we have fought hard for legal and reputable recognition over the years. Its simply just a case of the few spoiling it for the rest but I have to defend it insofar, that porn is trying to cater to everybody. All I can advise is, if it ain't your cup of tea. Don't buy into it.

Stacey Owen Fan pointed out the blurbs written that went with models photosets in magazines, I remember those same said magazines back a few years ago (maybe 5-10 years back) had disclaimers on the front inside page that depictions and descriptions of models did not reflect the personality of the model per se. This was in fine print under the magazines credentials...I know, I know, I should be just looking at the pictures but hey...

Just a very painful marketing ploy to try and pass off mysogynistic acts as arousing.I'm not surprised some have fallen to these depths to pass off their substandard produce given their competing in a market with over 3 decades of porn flicks available for consumption

Too say the market is over saturated would be the understatement of the millenium

You can call a porn flick what you like but in the end ACTIONS speak louder than words

The only thing that the degrading acts do is give more ammuntion to the anti-porn brigade

cheers
B....OZ