|Posted - Aug 14 2008 : 11:29AM|
Just seen the scene, and I was wondering if Cody knew it would be so rough or not?
She looked more than abit uncomfortable in the scene :P
|Posted - Aug 14 2008 : 12:24PM|
I agree, looked a bit rough :S
|Posted - Aug 14 2008 : 9:33PM|
I'm not sure if she knew if it was going to be that rough or not, but regardless, I can't help but think that this video (and others like it) are bad for the porn industry. I watch a lot of porn, and even I was disturbed by it. Can you imagine what somebody who doesn't watch porn would think if they saw this? When the anti-porn crusaders lobby their politicians to pass laws against porn, this is just the kind of video they're going to show as an example of what's out there. It doesn't matter if Cody liked being treated like trash or not, what really matters is how this video is perceived by those who decide whether or not we have the right to view pornographic material.
|The Fly Is Open|
Where in the hell is my grilled cheese?
|Posted - Aug 14 2008 : 11:31PM|
Are you talking about [mod edit: link removed. no tube sites] If so, I'd concur that it was particularly brutal.
Edited by - killbillvol69 on 12/29/2011 10:42:41 AM
|Posted - Aug 15 2008 : 12:59AM|
Thats the one i believe
|Posted - Aug 15 2008 : 11:57AM|
I had wanted to see this movie in its entirety, but it was never released, and I think the company that produced it went out of business after releasing only a few other titles. To my knowledge, the scene with Cody Lane is the only scene from the movie that has been released, other than the Tia Tanaka scene which I think I might have seen somewhere. But I'm not sure about that. Anyway, it would be nice if the entire movie, including the BTS which I read was supposed to be good footage, could still be released.
As for the roughness of the scene, Cody is no stranger to rough scenes. The scene she did in Down the Hatch #19 was just as rough, although she was only with one guy in that scene. Also, her scene in Gangbang Auditions #20 wasn't exactly softcore either. She is obviously a girl who enjoys this kind of sex. I liked the scene, but I would still like to see the whole movie.
While the anti-porn crusaders are lobbying against porn, it kinda makes me wonder what all the people who produce, watch, and defend porn are doing, other than being bullied into thinking that we're wrong.
Thanks for the mammaries.
|Posted - Aug 15 2008 : 2:08PM|
That scene, while a bit disturbing, made me notice Cody....
|Posted - Aug 15 2008 : 2:43PM|
Excuse me if i'm being a bit slow but who can enjoy sex where one gets thrown into the wall, banging her head against it and so on ?
Maybe she does, but imo it doesnt look like it
|Posted - Aug 15 2008 : 3:18PM|
This scene, and this film, have been discussed quite a bit already here at ADT. In fact, my very first ADT post was about this very scene (and in that thread, if you continue reading, this scene and the Tia Tanaka scene are discussed in more detail - as well as a really annoying troll who was eventually banned because he/she wouldn't let anyone talk about anal sex). I believed then (4 months ago) as I believe now that Cody Lane was not enjoying herself in that scene.
The fact of the matter is, porn stars just aren't very good actresses. We all know that. We only have to watch one feature to have all the proof that we need. If porn stars can't display terror (or happiness, or fear, or sadness, or anger...) believably in a feature, why are some of us so willing to believe that they can do so in a gonzo? If you look at the thread I linked to above, other than one poster who only ever posted here at ADT to say that Cody's scene wasn't too rough, only one person held that belief. Everyone else was convinced that it was one of the roughest things they had ever seen, and didn't enjoy watching it. They all also agreed that she did not seem to have enjoyed herself, nor was she "okay" with what was going on.
The only time someone gave an argument that she did enjoy herself, they cited the fact that at one point in the scene, "her actions did not match her words". What that poster is referring to is at one point, after about twenty minutes of the most brutal slapping, hitting, being thrown across the room that you've ever seen in a porn movie, after being fucked unbelievably hard in all three holes by men that are choking her and literally punching her as hard as they can, she screams out, in a bout of defiance, "come on! Is that the best you can do!" Before she returns to crying and shouting at them to stop for the next ten minutes, as she had been doing for the twenty minutes before that.
To me, rather than proof that she was "acting" throughout the whole scene, this to me seemed like proof that she was being tortured, and was using the last bit of her strength to resist her torturers.
My language is, of course, a bit on the dramatic side. But I meant it when I said "It was seriously the most disturbing thing I've ever seen in a mainstream porn by a mile." This scene is far more brutal than Cody's scenes in Gangbang Auditions 20 or Down the Hatch 19. The GB20 scene was heavy. The DTH19 scene was rough. This scene was out of control.
One poster even wrote:
"DAMN u were right! I LOVE rough sex! I'm the kind of guy who likes the old meatholes, pissmops, and ghetto gaggers. THAT scene was even too rough for ME! I mean, damn! They could have killed her! In meatholes and other sites, they choke just hard enough to make it a lil hard to breathe, but in that scene u guys mentioned, her face turned red!!! I didn't like going that far or seeing people go that far."
And my feelings were only reinforced when I then watched Tia Tanaka's scene. The same sort of thing happened, and again, the only time I'd ever seen such convincing terror in a pornstar's eyes was in watching the Cody Lane scene in the same movie. It is claimed that her scene is the reason Tia hardly works anymore, if at all. Just checking her myspace right now, she's book up with feature dancing, promotional gigs, photoshoots and club hostings. In her scene, the tears were flowing even more than in Cody's scene.
I don't believe for a single second that the director of Teen Line: The Blue Room just happens to be the best director in the history of porn, and was the first and only director to get such convincing performances out of his cast.
I do believe that these women were abused far beyond what they were expecting, and were not okay with the scene as it was taking place.
I can't imagine how much more could be gleaned from the BTS (if it ever even existed), but I don't think I'm willing to believe that it paints a different picture. Though if it did, I'd be much more inclined to believe that there is where the acting took place.
Why did they allow themselves to be put in this position? I don't know. If you're really not convinced by my arguments, and you really do think it was just your normal everyday average scene, with the girls pretending that it was rougher than it really was, maybe you could send Tia a myspace message right now and ask her. She might (or might not) even answer you honestly. As for Cody, she's retired, but if you really want to know, you could probably track her down by getting a message to various porn people on this board that you really need to ask her about a particular scene, and you promise you won't bother her other than that.
Finally, to address a couple of things said by realtip:
What the people who produce, watch, and defend porn should be doing is making sure this type of movie, or any situation that is conducive to this type of movie being made, never occurs again.
Without self-policing, it's bound to come from the outside. In this case, it's not a matter of porn being considered right or wrong. It's about people being misled about what was going to happen to them on set. That's dishonesty, that's cruel, and it has no place in pornography, just as it has no place anywhere else in this world.
[edit: problem with the quote function]
Edited by - killbillvol69 on 8/15/2008 3:21:24 PM
|Posted - Aug 15 2008 : 9:06PM|
I guess I was mistaken. The whole movie is available somewhere. I would still like to see the BTS though.
You might be surprised at some of things people enjoy sexually. Believe it or not, there are a whole lot of people who get off on being choked, whipped, handcuffed, slapped, etc. Although there are some people who clearly can't understand how people can have these fetishes, there's nothing wrong with it as long as it's all consensual.
I'm not convinced that the way a person looks is a solid indicator of whether or not they're enjoying something, since looks of pleasure and pain are often indistinguishable, especially during sex. I find it to be a better idea to go by what a person actually says instead. It's been my experience that women will generally not have a problem telling you if they don't like something sexually. And since at no time during that scene did she ever say that she didn't like it, I find no reason to think otherwise.
I think it's safe to say that the majority of porn girls are not personally "enjoying" themselves during their performances. We can see this by how often they refer to the sex they have as "work," as well as by the rarity of female orgasms in porn. However, I just see no reason why a girl who doesn't enjoy rough sex would perform in several rough sex scenes. To the contrary, doing so only convinces people that she does enjoy it, especially if she never says she doesn't.
I agree that it was a rough scene. That's what it was supposed to be. I just don't agree that she had a problem with it. It is clear that some of the viewers who watched the scene have a problem with it, and therefore project those same feelings onto the actress. But other people deciding to speak for the actress is not the same as her speaking for herself.
So other people "agreed" on what another person really likes or doesn't like sexually? I have a problem with that. If we get enough people to agree that porn girls really don't like getting fucked in the ass, and are not really OK with it, then we might be able to put a stop to anal sex in porn, regardless of how many of the girls say they like it.
The movie was produced over two years ago, according to an announcement for the release of the movie back in 2006. It is common that most porn girls no longer perform in porn after two years. The majority stop performing long before then. Plus, Tia did several other scenes after this movie. So it doesn't seem that her performance in this movie had much to do with any decision she may have had to no longer perform.
Money? Personal choice? The desire to do something that they enjoy?
That makes no sense. That's not defending porn at all. That's just agreeing with the warped view that rough sex/porn is somehow evil or abnormal, and those who enjoy it are just deviants for liking this stuff. In other words, pornographers should never step out of the box to do anything that might possibly offend somebody. Such advice will make for some really boring and lame material. To the contrary, pornographers need to be more secure in their freedom to produce whatever content they choose to produce, regardless of how fringe or extreme of a niche it is, as long as it's consensual and, therefore, legal. Just like mainstream entertainment contains various genres that appeal to everyone's taste, so should porn.
And it's speculation to assume that is what happened. Has anyone involved with the movie actually claimed to be mininformed or misled? If not, the problem lies not with the people who made the movie, but with the people who don't like it, and can simply choose not to watch it.
Shake for me girl... I wanna be your backdoorman !
|Posted - Aug 15 2008 : 10:49PM|
Looks like many of the films put out in the 70's by Avon and the like.[of course with much better production values] Vanessa Del Rio made a very convincing raped woman.
|Posted - Aug 16 2008 : 5:12PM|
Is the Tia Tanaka scene posted anywhere?
|Posted - Aug 16 2008 : 5:43PM|
[mod edit: link removed. no tube sites. Many of our members earn their living by making or selling porn. They don't need you to give it away for free.]
The most of the "screams" seems covered with rock music, so you cant hear that but i mean...
Shoving her head into the toilet ? Thats too brutal for me
Edited by - killbillvol69 on 1/2/2012 12:44:19 AM
|The Fly Is Open|
Where in the hell is my grilled cheese?
|Posted - Aug 16 2008 : 10:37PM|
The distress that Cody and Tia express in these scenes is of such a convincing quality that I find it highly unlikely that their reactions are mere acting. Depictions of rough sex involving consenting and willing participants is perfectly fine in my book. Cody and Tia do not appear to be consenting and willing participants in their scenes. In my opinion, just because a performer gets paid for this kind of scene, or because she has done "rough" scenes in the past, doesn't make a scene that clearly crosses into abusive territory right or ethical.
|Posted - Aug 17 2008 : 1:28AM|
It's not as if there was anything in it. Plenty of movies have swirlie scenes.
I'm interested to know what the "appearance" of a consenting and willing participant is supposed to be. Without knowing what one looks like, how are we supposed to point out who is and who isn't one?
|Posted - Aug 17 2008 : 1:59PM|
There is nothing sexy or entertaining about slapping a girls face until it swells or choking her until she just about passes out. Regardless of what Cody said it's obvious she wasn't enjoying that shit and you can see she wants to cry.
|Posted - Aug 17 2008 : 2:36PM|
I wish I could find the Tia scene to see how that scene was.
A lot of people are playing down the acting skills of the porn stars as if that should be taken into account. I have little doubt that Cody and really anybody can convincingly act afraid when they are just a tiny bit afraid. You just play everything up to the max. Nobody will ever accuse a pro-wrestler of being a fantastic actor. Most of them can't act to save their lives but they can do a good job of looking hurt after getting hit with a chair, a good job of looking happy any time they are given some tin decorated leather, fear when a seven foot five hundred pound man comes charging them. You just work with what you're given.
Don't tell me none of you ever learned to turn on the waterworks for Mom and Dad when big brother shoved you.
|Posted - Aug 17 2008 : 7:41PM|
Actually, I laughed my ears off. :D Come on, what sane woman would signup for such a treatment ?
I'll assume that she didn't know they were going to be that rough.
Edited by - P0ser on 8/17/2008 7:45:43 PM
|Posted - Aug 17 2008 : 9:07PM|
From what I've seen, the way she looks in this scene is not much different from the way she looks in all of her scenes, even the ones that are not rough and include no anal. That doesn't mean she doesn't enjoy sex. People just have different ways of expressing themselves sexually.
So any woman who enjoys rough sex is not sane? That cuts out a substantial portion of the female population.
|Posted - Aug 17 2008 : 9:10PM|
wow that scene is fucked up. Cody Lane always looked like a chipmunk to me.
|Posted - Aug 17 2008 : 11:25PM|
wow that scene is fucked up. Cody Lane always looked like a chipmunk to me.
|not ruff enuff 4 me|
|Posted - Aug 18 2008 : 11:53AM|
wow everyone.some harsh critics here!!! maybe vivid video is in your future!?!?!?!?
i liked/loved the scene! again,as always,,the girls can get up and walk out @ anytime.they got a fat check afterward for an hour or two of thier time.and i don't think the police were called because the girls believed they were raped.
porn is porn.we should all know this by now.there are sweet/lovemaking scenes,,,and there are hardcore/rough scenes.in my bedroom there are nights of lovemaking,,and nights of nasty fucking with my lady! there is role playing in porn,,and in my bedroom.
i believe the girls were informed of the degree of intensity beforehand,as always in the scenes they are about to do.i believe the girls know the reps. of the men who are directing/"acting" with.it's hardcore porn,,,that's all!!!!
i respect everyone's opinion,but some of your writings are a little too harsh.have any of ya ever been told what most women talk about when out with each other? or what they fantasize about when masturbating or getting fucked? it's normally pretty fucked up shit.they are more perverted than most men from what some chicks have told me and my female conterparts. so,,just because the chicks are REALLY PRETTY,and act innocent in PORNO,don't be fooled.99% of the time,,they are doing the jobs they have been PAID to do.(which is 100 times more than i make yearly,,,and @ only an hour or two a day).
sorry,i feel no pitty for anybody in this bussiness.male or female.maybe they should work with iron/steel for 10 hours a day like me,and then i can talk to them about how my day went,,or how my body feels!
Shake for me girl... I wanna be your backdoorman !
|Posted - Aug 18 2008 : 12:45PM|
^ Believe none of what you hear and very little of what you see !!
under THEIR avatar
|Posted - Aug 18 2008 : 12:47PM|
40 or so second in was all I needed of that crap...
Are there Slim Jims in heaven? THERE MOST CERTAINLY ARE!!!!
|Posted - Aug 18 2008 : 1:21PM|
- don't forget the dreams. My girl has had some f'd up perverted dreams (story of O style shit) that apparently turned her on immensely.
Edited by - machoman RS on 8/18/2008 1:23:45 PM
|Posted - Aug 18 2008 : 7:07PM|
You already know the answer to that question. My point is that she didn't looked comfortable.
Edited by - P0ser on 8/18/2008 7:08:54 PM
Thanks for the mammaries.
|Posted - Aug 19 2008 : 8:50AM|
For a real acting job in a "Rough/rape" scene look for Elisabeth Shue in "Leaving Las Vegas". Now that was abuse. Even though I knew that was 100% acting I couldn't watch that whole scene. As for Cody's scene, well lets just say I was able to watch it all the way thru.
Has Cody done any BDSM scenes?
|Posted - Aug 23 2008 : 5:50PM|
I don't really enjoy this sort of porn, something where a girl is being overpowered but not slapped or beaten is okay. However I realise that some people do, including the girls who perform in these scenes. The girls should be talked through the scene beforehand so they know what they're in for because if they walk out during a scene no matter how rough it is they can get a bad reputation and a ruined career. Maybe they should have someone there to look after them if things start to get out of hand. When I look for porn I, and this is probably the same for most men, look for female performers. The girls are the reason I watch porn not the men and to think of them being put through something like that doesn't turn me on it pisses me off. With a few exceptions, men don't get websites the girls are the main attraction although I do appreciate the guys effort but porn is a womens game. Female performers get more than men and they should be treated decently not just because of the entertainment they provide but because of human decency. The guys who take advantage of girls like this shouldn't be allowed in porn.
|Posted - Aug 23 2008 : 7:18PM|
Well, if you look at some of the guys in Teen Line and also Gangbang Auditions, they are the same. So, she has a rapport with them. She would probably only trust these guys to do it.
|Posted - Aug 24 2008 : 6:05AM|
Ok. i cannot but agree with the general feeling that something has gone wrong in this scene and the other discussed with tia tanaka in it. I have seen segments of both, and after reading the posts here am not the most cool with what is contained in them, or even most of what has been said, on both sides of the issue.
One guy (vasio) says-- "Well, if you look at some of the guys in Teen Line and also Gangbang Auditions, they are the same. So, she has a rapport with them. She would probably only trust these guys to do it." --
Another (not ruff enuff 4me) writes --
And my favorite (macko69)--
i can only agree with darkplaces' and killbill69's remarks on this as well as the other relevant forums. When i did see these scenes... a while ago now... i eventually just closed the player... it was not arousing, and i wondered if all was well. these posts reinforce my feelings then that all was not well, that THIS IS NOT COOL... and i have been watching rough porn since the slaphappy days. What is at issue here is THE SAFETY OF THOSE WHO ARE BASICALLY JUST CHILDREN in an industry run by filthy men. And these two scenes are not the only ones that are suspect, as we all know. It is our fault as viewers for encouraging this behavior, and the fault of producers and directors for not ensuring that the rights of these girls are protected.
As for the guys who remined us all that the average stay in porn for these girls is only two years anyways, lets ask ourselves why that actually is...
damb right you should be shut down if you cant keep those who are unable or unwilling to help themselves from harm. Both Tia and Cody seem like genuinly sweet girls. Although to be sure Cody had a voice and attitude that scream: shove a cock in my throat, and Tia looks like she could and needs to be fuck eight ways from sunday, to let them be taken advantage of and then shrug it off as their own decision, or "just porn" males me sick to be addicted to this shit.
this is ridiculous, and its making me feel uncomfortable watching rough porn at all.
If a child is being abused, whether they choose to be or not, it the duty of every MAN to put an end to it.
As for self-policing the porn industry, good luck. But you'd better do something before you loose the entirety of your concientious audience. I think there should be an independent, industry responsible firm hired for the protection of actresses and producers. The bill can be footed by both. maybe, just like the tuna people before you, you can put a seal of aprooval on your product: No inoccents were hurt in the making of this fiim. They do it for organic produce, they do it for Starbucks coffee-sleeves. Lets do it for these beautiful girls we all know and love.
|Posted - Aug 24 2008 : 6:27AM|
as a note-- when i speak of children being hurt i refer to unacceptable violence, both physical and psychological, both consenting and non-volitional. And it's true that a labor rights enforcement firm could possible curtail the developing "avant gard" of porn... but then again if there is not a third, disinterested party present to determine the situation, how can we ensure safety and profesionalism?
|Posted - Aug 25 2008 : 11:52PM|
It's odd that you singled my post out as your "favorite" as I, like you, was very much disgusted by the video. If you have proof the Cody (and Tia) didn't enjoy the scenes, I'd like to see it. I'm not in the position to judge whether or not they did or didn't like it, but if you are, let's see your proof. My point is that even if they did enjoy the scene (I don't think they did, but there are some women that like brutal intensity with their sex, believe it or not), it's still not good for the industry as a whole.
|Posted - Aug 25 2008 : 11:58PM|
Also, you should really cool it with the "children" rhetoric. We watch adults having sex - consenting adults.
An entire generation of men spoiled by a few kinky pornstars. You know who you are!!
|Posted - Aug 26 2008 : 4:45AM|
Grow up man. Drawing points like that will only get this thread shut down. Then where will Cody Lane and all her perverted fans have to go?
|Posted - Aug 26 2008 : 8:09PM|
yes i know you thought the scene was disturbing, however, by deflecting the issue onto the safety of the industry your point is no better that that of those who would like to suggest that this is an isolated issue. We all know it is not just these two secenes. Just as we all should know that the issue here the safety of workers and their rights thereas. The safety of the industry is surely secondary. Your point about protecting porn is my favorite beacause it seems to be so poignant and coherent, yet misses what is important altogether.
the issue is not whether or not these girls liked it or not, or whether they were or were not expecting it. This is impossinble to determine outside the orginal context. The fact of the matter is that these question should never be an issue. We all should know, without a doubt, that everything is OK. Everyone involved should have the understanding that this is an industry, and that just as in every other industry the workers have certain rights which protect them from abuse. To have to sit back after the fact and speculate on exactly whether or not Cody was raped on film... i dunno. THis whole discussion itself should never have to coome up.
As for 'consenting adults' and such rhetoric: when was the last time you met an 18 year old girl? I'm only 27 and they girls i encouter are all sweet, innocent (or maybe just naive), and absolutely unable to defend themselves from a single potent male influence, let alone a room full of them and their dicks and fists. All this lawer's talk of consenting adults doesn't even sound natural, let alone relevant to the discussion. The point is that these girls, who here are in a real way unable to defend themselves physically, psycologcally, or emotionally from abuse are as defensless impotent as children. Very many of these 'consenting adults' are no more grown up than are any highschool kids.
Lets face it children handle abuse all the time... most, however, dont speak out or do anything about it until they are grown up.
The reality is that there needs to be some sort of oversight in porn. It wouldn't have to be intrusive, or an inmpedence to production. Maybe hire retired performers or associated industry people to ensure safety. I could see someone like Mark Davis or the like on set keeping it cool.(hehe or maybe someone a little less famous-- he just popped into my head) I'm sure they're all broke after retirment anyways. But to simply let it hang in the air as to whether or not a girl is being abused seems riduculous. And it is unaccepteble.
We should know when watching these things that the 'consenting adults' involved are ok and feel safe. Porn is entertainment and should not be allowed to devolve into voyuristic reality-sadism.
I've read some here say that porn is art, and that any control or supervision of acceptable practices will kill the creation of new and exciting forms. The fact of the matter is that porn is an industry, and like all industries it is excpected to non-exploitive and honest in its dealings. This applies to workers as well as producers ect.
|Posted - Aug 26 2008 : 9:02PM|
The reason that it comes up at all is not because of anything or anyone in the actual production. The reason it comes up is because there are people watching the film who are unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy; people who insist on making insulting comparisons between grown adult women and children; people who believe that adult pornographers and performers are not responsible or capable enough to supervise themselves; and people who apparently cannot grasp the fact that people who perform in pornographic movies are acting. If not for the people I have just described, this would not be an issue, and pornography wouldn't keep having to defend itself against people who claim to be for it.
|Posted - Aug 26 2008 : 10:55PM|
Let's assume for a moment that Cody and Tia were expecting and they liked it. If that were the case, there's no point in protecting them. If there are other women out there that are being roughed up on set, against their will and expectation (and I'm not denying that it happens from time to time), those women would need protecting. But we weren't discussing the others - we were discussing Cody and Tia, and I was concerned about how their scene in this video would be perceived by the non-porn viewing public - in particular, lawmakers. It's an appropriate concern, I think.
Here is where I disagree. I think you are generalizing too much. I work with many young women ages 18-30. Some of them are sweet and innocent. But many more are capable adults, able to make big decisions on their own. Your opinion that they are all sweet and innocent and need protection from the bad men in the world of porn is archaic and sexist.
True. But as I said before, we aren't discussing children - we are discussing adults. Let's not insult them by referring to them as "children".
OSHA for porn! (j/k) But Mark Davis certainly wouldn't be my first choice. Peter North seems like he would be a pretty good choice, though. I've never seen him do anything to a woman that looked abusive (except for many a near drowning, which is something the girls probably expect from him!). But from what I've read, he's sitting on piles of cash, so I don't think he'd need a gig like this. Maybe some retired women? But whatever the case, I don't think an on-set monitor is a workable solution to keeping porn from getting too rough. And it's my opinion that some porn has become too rough, at least for my tastes. I don't like to see women getting gagged by cocks until they're nearly puking and their eyes are watering. I don't like to see women being gaped and having their genitals and faces spit on. Hell, I don't even like to watch a girl taking it ass-to-mouth! But I realize that my views are mine, and I shouldn't impose my tastes on others who don't share it.
Perhaps instead of on-set monitors, they could set up certains standards of disclosure for the talent working in the industry. Standardized contracts with full and specific disclosure about any and all acts that they are expected to perform and will be performed on them. And should anyone violate the contract by doing something outside of the contract, the producers would be civily liable and subject to criminal prosecution. I realize that this would open up a whole new can of worms, and also involve lawyers (ugh!), but I really can't think of any good solutions. Nor can I definitively say if it's a big enough problem to warrant even trying to find a solution.
|Posted - Aug 27 2008 : 4:51AM|
...or values and explicit rules for conduct?
Edited by - Loraine on 8/27/2008 4:52:14 AM
|Posted - Aug 27 2008 : 1:43PM|
I instinctivly picked Mark because he is rough as hell (sometimes) but still seems to manage to be cool with the girls. A wussy proctor would be bad for the scene.
I dont mean to insult anyone, but really while these girls are certainly able to decide whether or not they want to do something, there are not practically able to defend themselves or exert influence if taken advantage of. THis is the nature of young girls. Maybe i am generalizing, but when the issue is general protection generalizations are acceptable.
As for a disclosure contract, this seems like a good idea, but could in a real way eliminate the creativity of spontaneous acts. All of a sudden youd have girls who would normally be ok with something, but since it was not in the disclosure will either not do it or make a stink afterwards. And lets just say there were disclosure statments and the like-- THis only protects after the fact. In reality these unacceptable elements would not be precluded, and instead would only be discouraged by consequences which may or may not be enforced or even enforceable. I mean, how do you, outside of the actual situation, determine if a line is being crossed? What would the disclosure look like: "we will rough you up, but not too bad." How is this even determinable?
It is my feeling that sadistic non-acceptable acts directed toward young girls should be prevented before they happen, not adressed in court a few years later. I mean, how well has the EPA been able to curb pollution by industry? Not very well. In fact Exxon still has not been forced to pay reparations for its big spill so long ago, and the official money count now owed is about 5% of the original sum. If there were active monitors on these tankers, at these industry sites, then these catastophic clamaities could be prevented. And monitary reparations , while nice and exteremely usefull, do nothing to eiminate the psychological ditress of abuse, or in the Exxon case the actual damage to thousands of miles of one of the most plentiful ocean in the world.
and finally: its not about porn being to rough. i dont really care what people like, and in fact i like allot of rough stuff; however, as a consumer in this industry i want to know for sure that while i'm getting my jollies people arent being actually hurt. I dont want to rape girls; it is no better to pay someone to do it for me. we all must admit that there is a very real difference between girls who are into what is happening, and those that are not. When i basically facefuck my girlfriend she comes out exhilerated and happy-- if i did this to a girl against her will it could scar her for life.
it seems a live monitor would be the only way to make sure every thing is cool-- just one look at the girl would be enough.
|Posted - Aug 27 2008 : 2:36PM|
As to "realtip"-- your pop psychology, doctor phillish interpretation of everything is almost amusing. That is if its implications were not so obviously unacceptable, and its premises so invalid. Acting, not acting, who can tell... you can? I dont think anyone can tell really, and my point is that the question of whether or not its good acting or something else should not have to be asked by either you or me-- we should know. Since we do not, the question has arisen.
btw are you pornography itself? is anyone? who is this person called pornography who needs to defend him/herself? We are talking of a large institution which similar to major coorporations are basically unable to be held accountable, only particular people can be censured; the beast lives on. And this particular beast needs to be prohibited from doing wrong.
If anyone is porn, it is the people watching it, it is us who determine what is made and how, by our demands and preferences. If we as consunmers are not the appropriate people to ensure safety of preformers, then who is? If we are not the acceptable poeple to ask these questions, who will? the staight world? they would tell you that anal sex is imoral.
producers/directors just give us what we want-- they are in it for money. If we as consumers illustrate our lack of tolerance for such behavior then it would likely stop. Its bigots like you, who think you have it all figured out, that give the goahead to those who want to cross the line, who want to go just a little farther than anyone before soas to capture the progresive audience. While i agree we are not dealing with 9mm here, or anything like this, the principle is the same: there shouldbe someone present withy legal authority to ensure that a young girl isn't brought into a some backroom somewhere and abused. And lets just say that they were abused-- who are you to say that it was just acting? Lets say they were not-- same question.
i maintain my position that the question shouldnot have come up. furthermore i maintain my beleif that if anyone has the right to ask these questions it is us as consumers, since we provide the impetus behind what and what not is made. Those who are making money are for the most part simply doing that, with basically no other consideration. I dont think i should have to worry about whether i am directly involved in a system which deliberatly hurts people. Whether this happens often, or infrequently the point is that it should not be allowed. I have been into porn since 'round 1996, and every once and a while i feel distinctively uncomfortable with a particular scene. traditionally i have brushed these feellings off with the hope that everything was OK, but when i ran accross this site searching for the name of a black pornstar i had forgotten (courtney devine), and saw the thread about Teen Line, i felt that at this point i must say something, escpecially given the fact that i saw that industry people were active in this community.
yes indeed this question is not brought up by anyone in production-- if they make money its cool with them, actresses and producers/directors alike; there is no impetus for them to make a big stink whaen their paycheck, or even their ability to work, is on the line. Industry professiojals would likely like to brush this off as an isolated incident. The only people in a position to objectively determine the ethics here are those who stand to make no money. I dont say that i am "for porn;" i am porn.
And if you really, really think that 18-19 year old girls are "grown women," perhaps you need to do a little studying in the realm of actual psychology, which states unequivicolly that the ability to preform abstract reasoning, and to be able to effectively institute an objective free action does not usually form untill after the teenage years. Maybe you should look up some of these i use words, because i dont think you understand what you are saying.
no other major industry has been left to regulate itself, what make porn so special?
|Posted - Aug 27 2008 : 7:23PM|
That's probably because I don't take this stuff as seriously as you do. That's what happens when you know that not everything you see in the movies is real.
You have obviously missed the point of being a good actor. The objective of any good performer is to convince the audience that what we are watching is real even though it isn't, and that the performer really is whatever character she is portraying herself to be. Having said that, I saw nothing in this movie that made me believe that the girls were not fine with the action in the movie. So I still don't get what you're complaining about. When actresses in mainstream movies are attacked, raped, and beaten on film, we never question whether or not they were really acting. But as some as a porn actress openly consents (on film) to getting some rough treatment for her own possible enjoyment, there is always somebody who gets his panties in a bunch over it. You ask, How do I know she's acting? Because besides having sex, that's also her job.
If it has done wrong. You have not established that it has.
As every performer is an adult, they are capable of ensuring their own safety. They don't need nannies.
How is that any different from your opinion that certain rough acts should be prohibited. Your assertions aren't any more tolerant.
I agree that I am all for porn that pushes the envelope and crosses certain lines to make the genre more interesting and extreme. But that doesn't define me as a bigot. A person is a bigot if he argues that certain consensual sexual acts should be prohibited just because it makes you uncomfortable to watch.
There are legal authorities to ensure that doesn't happen. They're called the police.
My first question would be, How does one act abused? Usually, there is some act of resistance, whether physically or verbally. Unless we're looking at two different movies, that didn't happen.
Then I suggest you no longer buy gasoline, jewelry, imported clothing or shoes, alcohol, cigarettes, firearms, etc., since these are all products which may possibly have the potential to cause greater harm to more people than consensual sexual acts performed on film.
I'm sure the people who made the movie were well aware that the movie was not for everyone, neither was it obviously intended to be, and that it would possibly offend some people. I personally think there there should more people making porn willing to do that. Mainstream movies do it all time.
And if you think that they are not grown women, perhaps you need to do a little studying into the law. At the age of 18, a person is legally an adult able to make his own choices. Once at the age of 18, your own parents aren't even required to take care of you anymore. Yet, you argue that people who are legal adults need to be supervised as if they are children. Anyone who is an adult knows that isn't the way the real world works. Once a man is 18, he can decide to join the armed forces and be sent to fight in overseas combat. Sure, he may die, become seriously injured, or otherwise regret it later, but it is a choice he makes as an adult. Likewise, when a woman is 18, she may decide to enter adult entertainment if she so chooses with the understanding that, as she is an adult, no one is going to babysit her. As fas as psychology is concerned, there are plenty of people in their 30's and 40's who haven't learned how to reason and function as mature adults. That doesn't change the fact that they are still adults, expected by society to behave as such.
Now that you mention it, I am having trouble reading what you write. But vocabulary isn't the reason.
|Posted - Aug 27 2008 : 10:10PM|
i suppose you are an good example of someone who never learned to reason well. does it make sense to wait until something actually horrible happens?
as for the film "not being for everyone"...i would definitly agree.
as for the "i saw no resistance": are you not familiar with pimp-hoe dynammics, or any other example of psychological domination to the point where resistance is impossible. i dont just mean physical intimidation, but also profesional, social ect.
as for the issue of biggotness: a bigot is someone who tries to influence what others think without actually having any idea what is going on.
I dont care about sexual acts, rough or not, and i dont even particularly love Cody's performances, but the point here is not the particular sexual act, or any other for that matter, it is the situations these girls are put into that is my concern-- psychological violence is one of the most evil things on Earth; it is dark, sick, and has no place in legal reality.
your resort to legal mumbo-jumbo about legal age ect is the last bastion of a weak argument. for one thing workers of all ages have the right to protection at work, my point about these girls being basically children is almost on the side, as if the protection of such could ever be inconsequential.
if you wanna "push the envelope" or whatever, when do you stop? This is about the right girl for the right scene; noone should feel as if they are being taken advantage of.
your "he who smelt it delt it" principle, that which is behind your comment:
"The reason that it comes up at all is not because of anything or anyone in the actual production. The reason it comes up is because there are people watching the film who are unable to distinguish between reality and fantasy; people who insist on making insulting comparisons between grown adult women and children; people who believe that adult pornographers and performers are not responsible or capable enough to supervise themselves; and people who apparently cannot grasp the fact that people who perform in pornographic movies are acting. If not for the people I have just described, this would not be an issue, and pornography wouldn't keep having to defend itself against people who claim to be for it."
which in reality says that there is no problem until someone points ot out, is about the stupidest thing i've ever read.
and what is most funny is your repetition of the same thing throughout this entire thread, that they are just acting. and i restate my point :who knows? THere there should be some assurance of profesionalism.
its her job? like no boss has ever taken advantage of an employee? i kniow mine expects me to work unpaid overtime while receiving an hourly wage, i resisted with the help of state labor laws.
i dont see what the big deal is with the mere suggestion that something needs to be done-- a monitor or somesuch would be no more intrusive or costly than a grip.
From the looks of things your are the only one on this thread who thinks she was just a good actor. And this is a group of perverts through and through, who have seen alot of shit and can tell a pornstar acting, a pornstar who's eyes are watering and red, and a pornstar about to actually cry. if you would rather push the envelope and be "fresh" than prevent pretty young girls from actual emotional distress then i really dont know what to say.
but please, please dont comment again that it was just acting: we all know thats your position.
|Posted - Aug 27 2008 : 11:35PM|
I tried to get offended and really worked up about the injustice of this clip, but I simply couldn't.
She cooperated with positioning throughout the entire scene. She helped them take her clothes off by untying her shirt herself and had time to tuck her hair behind her ears several times before being "forced" to suck dick.
Cody Lane strikes me as one of those girls who is 100% about the money and therefore will do a lot of things other girls won't do and not blink twice. Has anyone seen her first anal? She was like "whatever. just do it. i get paid more for it."
I've seen scenes with girls who are REALLY in over their heads. In very apparent pain, trying to hold back tears, their legs involuntary trembling with each stroke. Those are the scenes that upset me.
|Posted - Aug 28 2008 : 12:27AM|
I agree with Savoy. I didn't watch the whole clip. I watched about the first ten minutes and then skipped around a bit.
If people want to talk about the way it appears, fine. I doubt very much if you were watching a real rape that the victim would appear to be cooperating as much as Cody appears to cooperate in this scene.
|Posted - Aug 28 2008 : 2:47AM|
I also agree with Savy. There are girls that feel pain and try not to show - you see smile but that doesn't mean the girl enjoy the scene.
About this Cody scene for me most of rough(if not all) are scripted and most of the scene is acting not real stuff. That's my opinion of course.
I don't say she doesn't feel pain - my point is that she doesn't seem to feel more pain than other girls. The penetration wasn't so rough - there are scenes(yes from mainstream porn) with more hard penetration. Well she scream - but this is movie - just the other girls on the other scene smiles instead - that doesn't change the way they feel.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world
|Posted - Aug 28 2008 : 3:36AM|
Didn't this already come up a few weeks ago?
I don't think she is over her head in this clip but she's clearly not enjoying herself. More importantly it is shitty porn poorly marketed (check out the cover of the DVD, which gives no hint that it will be rough).
|Posted - Aug 28 2008 : 4:18AM|
Then I suppose you are a good example of someone who is overly paranoid, since you seem to anticipate the probablity of danger in situations where such possibilities are limited. There are already safeguards within the industry to ensure against nonconsensual acts. But if you're really so concerned about preventing horrible occurrences, then why not insist on the use of condoms across the board, or insist that BDSM and femdom also be prohibited? It seems reasonable that these issues would have more priority in your specific agenda to prevent danger in porn.
So you're saying that the reason the girls didn't resist is because they were intimidated from doing so? Are you sure you just don't want to think that they were intimidated? What about the likely fact that the girls didn't resist because they didn't want to; that they felt no desire to resist? I know it's a crazy idea for you to accept that girls would do hardcore rough scenes willingly rather than forcefully. But you should know that it really does happen quite often.
You mean like someone who repeatedly compares consensual sex scenes to "rape" without having any evidence besides your personal discomfort? I wonder who would do that.
No one has ever denied that. I have adequate protection at my job. What I don't need is someone looking over my shoulder and treating me like a child because they don't think I'm capable of taking care of myself at work. I don't think porn performers need that either.
It's also an insult to them. When most people become adults, they don't appreciate still being compared to children. Making such comments only shows a very condescending attitude.
I would say that's the decision of the people involved. As long as everything is legal, and everyone involved is fine with what's happening, then there's nothing wrong with pushing the limits as far as those involved are willing to take them.
Let's see: There's already the performers, the director, the cameraman, the lighting person, the make-up person, the PA, and whoever else is there watching the scene being made. If already having a dozen people on set isn't enough, then I don't see what difference adding one more person is going to make.
I've never been one to jump on the bandwagon for the sake of fitting in with the crowd. I'm not going to say something is wrong when it isn't just because it's the popular consensus.
First, you need to prove that there was any actual emotional distress. Then you might have a leg to stand on.
|Posted - Aug 28 2008 : 1:58PM|
jesus christ realtip. i have said over and over again that it is obviously impossible to prove ditress or not outside of the original context. THis is my whole point. it cannot be proven after the fact... thus the need for real-time protection. And the point of an independent proctor is that his/her pay would not be linked to a successful scene, and thus he/she would be disinterested and objective.
and as for the rest: i know cody didn't seem to be the most distressed pornstar i've ever seen, but i was, perhaps inappropriatly, steering this thread slightly away from the Teen Line issue to the issue of performer protection and industry safeguards in general. How many time have you seen i girl actually about to cry in a scene? for me one time is one too many, and i've scene allot of this.
|Posted - Aug 28 2008 : 2:12PM|
BTW- realtip-- go watch some euro-porn of today-- say Young Throats or the like, and tell me if these girls, not all of them but some, look like adults, or appears to be in no emotional distress.
if i am insulting anyone i would only be those who know that they are children but dont want to admit it. an adult would recognize thaht some of these girls are in fact imature and need protection. to say that they are all mature and able to effectively deal with abuse is ludicrous.
why dont you prove to me that there was no emotional distress?
if you were to try, and i dont know how you would besides throgh circular arguments that repeat again and again that it is acting, i think you would see how stupid it is to ask me to prove the opposite.
as for being paranoid: we all must admit that at some point in the history of modern porn such unacceptable things have happend. i take this as for granted. to say noone has ever been taken advantage of or put in emotional distress seems fairly naive. Once something has happened it should be adressed, i mean, do you think that after Jason Lee was shot on set durring The Crow the industry didn't hire a gun checker to make sure it would never happen again?
gimmie a break. why on Earth do you insist that the burden of proof is on those who claim inappropriatness. your case is just as difficult.
we both have no ground to stand on and thus the need for definite knowledge and assurance before this type of debate arises.
|Posted - Aug 28 2008 : 2:26PM|
sorry guys-- i know i should not post three in a row
realtip as for your comment:
"I've never been one to jump on the bandwagon for the sake of fitting in with the crowd. I'm not going to say something is wrong when it isn't just because it's the popular consensus."
and the previous comment:
"Then I suggest you no longer buy gasoline, jewelry, imported clothing or shoes, alcohol, cigarettes, firearms, etc., since these are all products which may possibly have the potential to cause greater harm to more people than consensual sexual acts performed on film."
seem to illustrate your ignorance of even your own veiws. just because everyone else has no buisness ethics, porn should not as well?
and the difference between cigs ect and porn is that the risk of these others is taken by the consumers. As for big oil i have nothing but contempt. but the point here is that some of these directors are obviously deliberatly hurting and distressing actresses just for the effect-- the deliberate abuse of people for the sake of satiating those like you who actually want to see such fine works of "good acting."
|Posted - Aug 29 2008 : 12:52AM|
I have seen YoungThroats. It's a good site that that has some great content. Yes, the girls look young. But they're supposed to look young, thus the name and niche of the site. But young and underage are not the same thing. And No, I've noticed nothing that would cause concerns over performer distress.
You consider them "children." The rest of the world does not.
If they lack the maturity to handle working in the industry, then perhaps that's a sign that they should choose a different profession. The same standard would apply to anyone working in any other profession.
It's not at all obvious since you have yourself acknowledged that there is no evidence for such an allegation.
|Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post.|
|URL of this thread|
|Link to this specific post with HTML|
|Link to this spcific post with Forum Code|