All Good Porn is Degrading

Author	Post
NYC_DOM Deactivated User NYC 64 Posts 4/03	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 5:19PM All of the stuff that is HOT now that Max hardcore and Rocco are basically the creators of -- A2M, Double Anal, Choke Fucking, along with white girls gettting huge black cocks, is popular for one and ONLY one reason: because all of it is nasty and inherently degrading. I dare anyone to tell me there is ANY other reason for a girl to do multiple anals and then the ass to mouth merry go round than because it is so degrading and humiliating. I dont say this in a critical way, just as a matter of fact. I would LOVE to see much kinkier and rougher stuff than anyone currently markets in the states. A look at the names of movies, e.g., "cum sucking whore" "white trash whore" and how girls are described on boxcovers "this stupid cunt", ect, confirms my statement. I just wish it were universally recognized and accepted that all good pron is designed to be degrading! Id like to see a scene that begins with the director saying to the porn slut" "you're gonna be working with 3 guys today, all with huge cocks. They are going to Triple penetrate you and sodomize your asshole until its raw and sore while doing multiple ass to mouth trips back and forth. I have told them to treat you like a "sperm burping pig whore gutter slut." Tell the adudience at home what you think of that Ms. ______? (insert porn sluts name) Now that would be a GOOD fucking start to a scene! [Link]
MLyons Senior Member 1617 Posts 8/02	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 5:36PM NYC_DOM, Welcome to the forum. I certainly don't despute that there's a LOT of porn out there that IS degrading, and that like it or not, that aspect holds appeal to some people. However, the idea that the more extreme acts are INHERENTLY degrading I have serious issues with. Finally, the notion that ALL GOOD porn is degrading is just flat out silliness to my way of thinking. :) To tell you the truth, this subject and similar subjects have been bandied around so much here recently that I'm not sure there's much more productive to be said. A serious exploration of this topic requires a clear definition of "degredation" that everyone agrees with. You're not going to find that with this crew--and therefore discussion of this kind will inevitably turn into more of a philisophical debate over meaning than it will a discussion of good porn. :) And if that's what you're after, watch out! You're stepping into the lions den (Not LyonsDen though... that's something different...). Mike L. Edited by - MLyons on 4/1/2003 5:50:01 PM [Link]
Sir Noel Plum Senior Studmuffin 1001 Posts 2/03	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 5:56PM I actually don't think those acts are inherently degrading but I do still agree with a lot of what you say. I agree with MLyons regarding his warnings and I have no stomach to get involved with some esoteric or semantic argument over these terms. What I would suggest though, is that humiliation and degradation are very much like porn itself in that they are in the eye of the beholder (that beholder certainly has gotten a lot of things in this eye over the years). Sir Noel Edited by - Sir Noel Plum on 4/1/2003 6:00:16 PM [Link]
DenverDon Benevolent Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 6:09PM NYC_DOM, Welcome to the forum. To say "wish it were universally recognized and accepted that all good pron is designed to be degrading" is okay if it's just your opinion. There is a segment of porn viewers that look for that attitude, and there are those studios that cater to it as well. But to say all porn that is HOT has to fall into that category is stretching it a bit. It's a genre of porn, and there are those that like it. BTW, do you write box covers for JM Productions? DenverDon [Link]
skronker Notable Legendary Icon Scopophiliac 9780 Posts 9/02	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 6:33PM NYC_DOM wrote: Id like to see a scene that begins with the director saying to the porn slut" "you're gonna be working with 3 guys today, all with huge cocks. They are going to Triple penetrate you and sodomize your asshole until its raw and sore while doing multiple ass to mouth trips back and forth. I have told them to treat you like a "sperm burping pig whore gutter slut." Tell the adudience at home what you think of that Ms. ______? (insert porn sluts name) Now that would be a GOOD fucking start to a scene! Click to expand Seems like we already have movies that are really close to this. I agree that a LOT of what I would call "good porn" (as in, nasty enough to get the viewer really tweaked; not "couples" porn, and not Randy West, and not even a lot of straight fucking themed movies) can be read as "degrading." Are the performers themselves feeling degraded? It may be that they really enjoy the acts, get into it as a form of roleplay or, at the very least, consider it a job more desirable than working the register at 7-Eleven or hauling trash for the sanitation department. They may even feel proud, because the $1,000 they got for polishing off five stranger's flesh tools in a serial ATM with another girl they met for the first time an hour ago is gonna pay grandma's hip replacement bill, or cover their kid sister's tuition. But, I yeah, in general, a lot of the "pioneering" edge of porn probably looks degrading to most people. Yet, in my experience, which is scarcely the Marquis DeSade's, or even David Lee Roth's (or even Bill Clinton's), I find that what goes on behind closed doors (unless you're an exhibitionist) is anybody''s ballgag. This subjectivity makes your argument tough to resolve. Edited by - skronker on 4/1/2003 6:33:52 PM [Link]

futureofporn Member 658 Posts 1/03	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 6:47PM Well, if you are really into degrading porn then yes, to you "all good porn is degrading" or more like "all degrading porn is good" I think that is a huge appeal to men, treating women like whores. It is a feeling of power. Power that most people will never attain...being able to hold a girl down and say "god, you are such a fucking slut whore, im going to make you drink my piss, blah blah blah" and say that without getting slapped. Ashley Blue is a great example of knowing what guys like. She says things like "yeah, pull my hair when you want me to suck your cock" "yeah jam your cock down my throat" and so on. I love ashley blue, and when done well, degrading porn is just the ticket. [Link]
NYC_DOM Deactivated User NYC 64 Posts 4/03	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 7:32PM While some things are clearly subjective, e.g., how one feels about implants or a woman's looks, the purpose of A2M, double anals, slapping, spitting, ect in porn is not open to debate -- its SOLE purpose is to demean and degrade. While I do think almost all good PORN, as oppossed to all good sex, is INTENDED to be degrading (whether or not it is in fact degrading is a different question), I do not, however, agree that all degrading porn is good. In fact, most of it SUCKS. But the previous poster had it right when s/he stated "Power that most people will never attain...being able to hold a girl down and say 'god, you are such a fucking slut whore, im going to make you drink my piss, blah blah blah' and say that without getting slapped." In my personal life, that is precisly what I LOVE most, and I admit it is ALL about power. Its quite a rush to get a hot looking girl to do REALLY vile and deparved things. If youve never tried, I highly suggest violently anally sodomizong some whore's ass while she is rear cuffed with her head in the toilet and then blowing scum in her mouth and making her clean the filth off your cock after the rough anal that, coincidentally was NOT preceeded by an enema. After being such a good little sperm guzzling ass whore cunt, she deserves both a present and a drink, and thats where the "Im going to piss down your throat and on your face you filthy little whore cunt" mantra comes in. While what I like to do almost certainly wouldnt fly from a legality standpoint in porn, there are some shooters and companies that come close to it and who have comprehended the fact that a VERY LARGE segment of the porn consuming public want to see girls get sexually degraded. As for the girl, if she doesnt FEEL degraded at thye end of the scene, then the scene must have sucked. (make note that many kinky and submissive sluts LOVE to FEEL degraded so for them its NOT necessarily a bad thing). Laslty, a great scene is usally one that is highly evokative and at some point makes me, a Dominat self professed sadist think "Gosh I almost feel sorry for that poor little piglet." Hence, I dig Rocco's stuff since hes the only bastard who can consistently pull that off. I just wish he shot alot more American girls since the Eastern Europeans will do almost anything since for them its no big deal! Enough said. [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 7:47PM NYC_DOM wrote: While some things are clearly subjective, e.g., how one feels about implants or a woman's looks, the purpose of A2M, double anals, slapping, spitting, ect in porn is not open to debate -- its SOLE purpose is to demean and degrade. Click to expand "Not open to debate"? Well then, this saves me the trouble to give you arguments that state the opposite, does it. So then, what to do now? Let's see if the next topic is interesting to debate. This one certainly isn't. Edited: "Enough said" indeed. Edited by - Walter Burns on 4/1/2003 7:48:00 PM [Link]
Su2sexi Member The Mother of all balls 106 Posts 3/03	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 7:58PM NYC I only have one question, and that would be... would you get off on it so much if the tables were turned and your boys were getting "pussy whipped" and being degraded by the women in the movie, by ramming dildos in their asses etc.... Just curious or is it just the women you want to degrade. [Link]
SEARGANT SHARP Member 216 Posts 8/02	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 8:11PM Well I imagine that not many people including myself goes to church on a regular basis so most of the debate is kind of moot. As the saying goes eat drink and be merry for tomorrow you die. [Link]
Cyberchicken Member 900 Posts 4/02	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 9:36PM Everyone draws the line at a different place. If it involves bruising, or anything potentially dangerous (choking), or sex with someone untested, well those are a big no no in my book. But yeah, some cute girl getting gang banged by 10 guys, then taking their cum in her face or swallowing their loads isn't exactly "empowering", no matter how many pro sex feminist try to spin it that way. CC [Link]
Su2sexi Member The Mother of all balls 106 Posts 3/03	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 10:07PM I agree CC, everyone has their own tastes and certain no no in the individual choices. Some like it rougher than others, but the dangerous stuff is my end of the rope. [Link]
tricia_devereaux Evil Angel DVD Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 11:26PM Nah, I'll let this one go. It's too easy. [Link]
Mythsong Member 306 Posts 8/02	Posted - Apr 1 2003 : 11:43PM My personal opinion: The subject of this thread is an oxymoron. Anything that's degrading I dislike and I consider to be bad, not good. Degradation is a big turn-off for me. Having said that, I do enjoy seeing some of the "racier" acts. You can obviously conclude from that that I don't find such acts, in and of themselves, to be degrading. It's all about how it's acted and/or filmed. BTW: This has a very deja vu feel to it. Didn't we have an almost identical thread (which got a bit out of hand) come up a couple of months ago? [Link]
skronker Notable Legendary Icon Scopophiliac 9780 Posts 9/02	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 1:11AM Deja vu all over again. [Link]

Speelie Senior Member Fort Collins, CO 1191 Posts 5/01	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 3:02AM I'll say it, since several others have resisted the urge. NYC-DOM, just what the heck are you getting at? I love Nacho's movies, as many here know, and I don't consider them very degrading at all, except in a few rare cases when the actress(es) wanted to be degraded. I also love TT Boy's Orgy World movies, and most of Christoph Clark's movies. I consider these titles to be excellent quality porn, and they have little or no degradation in them. I suppose your question is asked to stimulate some debate, and there's nothing wrong with that, but my part of the debate is to state that I don't understand your premise. [Link]
NYC_DOM Deactivated User NYC 64 Posts 4/03	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 11:48AM The premise is VERY simple. There is NO conceivable reason to fuck a woman's ass, shove your cock in her mouth and then back in her asshole other than to degrade her by making her do something dirty, unclean and filthy. By degrading, I mean "to debase," in a way that the very act itself lowers the woman's worth or value. Lets be honest here -- when you see a girl doing mutilple anals, getting drowned in sperm or riding the good ole ass to mouth merry go round, is there a man who doesnt think to himself "what a fucking filthy slut?" And if the girl digs it, its even more degrading because her values and esteem have been so impaired that she has come to like being used as a cum rag or sperm receptacle. And yes, I ONLY like to see cunts degraded. As for Msw. Deveraux, if this topic is just "too easy", in all due respect, I request you edify us (or me) with your knowledge and explain the purpose of A2M and titles like White Trash Whore other than to debase or lower the female performers. Note, I have NO PROBLEM with porn intentionally being degrading -- I just wish everyone would stop pretending the Emperor is clothed when he so obvioulsy is NOT! [Link]
Janitor Retired Porno movies, sexy videos, xxx. Adult DVD Talk at your service. 6409 Posts 11/99	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 11:58AM BTW, do you write box covers for JM Productions? Click to expand my thoughts exactly... [Link]
Ramsey Senior Member Trina Michaels fan 10332 Posts 10/02	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 12:07PM I personally love the boxcovers from JM Productions. Those guys are very creative and I personally don't mind porn being degrading, it makes it more interesting to watch in a way. [Link]
P-Knuckle Member 309 Posts 11/01	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 12:21PM So how do you really feel NYC_DOM? Don't hold back; just tell us what we don't know. You seem to know it all; you are so right! Wow, and to think I never knew anything about porn before you posted here and told us how to feel. Please use spell check; also, before you diss Tricia, maybe you should note who she is. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF EVIL ANGEL? Do your homework. [Link]
NYC_DOM Deactivated User NYC 64 Posts 4/03	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 1:13PM 1. I dont have time to spell check. 2. No one is telling anyone else how to feel. Im just stating the obvious and wondering why its such a big issue to admit. What agendas or notions are people trying to protect? 3. I know who Trisha is and I did NOT dis her. I simply posed a question for her, which she can respond to if she chooses. Take care. Mike [Link]
P-Knuckle Member 309 Posts 11/01	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 1:29PM I actually like Max Hardcore, etc. But you are not posing a question; you are making a statement that you have said is irrefutable. So why answer it? You already have your mind made up that the only good porn is degrading. Hey, I think the only good porn is shot POV style. People have different tastes obviously; I am just curious what spurned you to spout your tastes here; it feels like you want people to disagree with your 'rah rah' stick a girls head in a toilet attitude. I don't disagree with it; I actually like extreme hardcore. But as stated previously; you are making a moot point. Its like coming into a forum for Porsches' and telling us that they are fast. Yes, a lot of porn is degrading. Next topic.... [Link]
Speelie Senior Member Fort Collins, CO 1191 Posts 5/01	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 1:30PM NYC-DOM, I think the problem is that you are advancing two different theories at the same time. You titled this thread "All Good Porn is Degrading" but now you are defending the degrading aspects of A2M. The jump in between, that porn has to have A2M to be "good" simply doesn't exist. If you state, "I don't like porn that doesn't have A2M, and I consider that A2M to be degrading, and I like that," then I'll be in agreement that you know what you like. But meanwhile, I have found plenty of porn that I think is good that doesn't have A2M (along with other porn that I think is good that does have it), and I imagine that other ADT visitors feel the same way. So let's narrow this down, are we talking about "all porn" or "all porn with A2M?" [Link]
skronker Notable Legendary Icon Scopophiliac 9780 Posts 9/02	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 1:41PM Oh, this is going to be one of those "fun" threads. BUt, actually, I've said everything I'm going to say. It's more fun to sit back and watch the fireworks, so to speak. [Link]
Sir Noel Plum Senior Studmuffin 1001 Posts 2/03	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 2:53PM Speelie, I think the problem is that you are advancing two different theories at the same time. You titled this thread "All Good Porn is Degrading" but now you are defending the degrading aspects of A2M. The jump in between, that porn has to have A2M to be "good" simply doesn't exist. Click to expand Just to add to what you say. Another major inconsistency is to assume that just because these acts can be used in a degrading context that it makes the acts themselves necessarily and unavoidably degrading. A2M in the form of a production line merry-go-round may satisfy nyc_dom's criteria; in another context, it can (to me) demonstrate a wantonness and sexual abandon of a woman who is confident in her sexual abilities. I very much believe that most of these acts can be interpreted and enacted in totally opposite ways. For example here are two typical porn scenarios: 1) A girl is licking the guys asshole (happens occasionally). 2) The guy is licking the girls asshole (happens a lot). We are generally expected, I think, to see the first act as a degrading or at least submissive act on the girls part. When we view the second act, how many viewers would express the same emotions or view it in the same way? How many would say 'look at Rocco, he's so submissive licking that girls ass' The fact is the two acts are generally portrayed very differently. When the girl does the licking she is asked/told to do it and it is portrayed as a subservient act (usually). When the guy does the licking it is usually on his own command and we are led to believe it is for his edification - we are occasionally told the girl is in fact naughty for allowing him to do this. I'm generalising here I know, so don't bother quoting this title or that, the general point holds true: the act of licking an asshole is neither degrading, humiliating, empowering, dominant, submissive it is the context that makes it one thing or another and the same is true of all these other acts. Now, I do concede that I find a lot of porn scenes slightly degrading/humiliating but that is okay, porn is about fantasy. However, as many have stated, to suggest that all good porn is degrading is akin to saying all good novels are crime and all good films are westerns or all good politics is right wing. Just one more VERY important point I've just noticed and that I disagree with totally. NYC_DOM wrote: By degrading, I mean "to debase," in a way that the very act itself lowers the woman's worth or value. Click to expand No,no,no,no and no; even by your own standards no. As someone who admits he appreciates a woman who is prepared to do such things how can you possibly say this lowers a womans value or worth? Would you prefer to date women who won't do any of these things you like - presumably so, as in your eyes a woman who won't indulge your sexual peccadillos is worth more to you! I can tell you if I see a girl do these things my eyes start glazing over both for the acts themselves and for the attitude to sex that they represent. Yours, Sir Noel Edited by - Sir Noel Plum on 4/2/2003 2:56:11 PM [Link]

skronker Notable Legendary Icon Scopophiliac 9780 Posts 9/02	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 3:56PM Sir Noel -- I could not have said it better myself. I wholeheartedly concur! --Skronker, Somewhere wishing he could be licking a girl's ass (where is Julie Night when you really need her?) Edited by - skronker on 4/2/2003 3:58:08 PM [Link]
MLyons Senior Member 1617 Posts 8/02	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 4:11PM Sir Noel's post is excellent, and represents my viewpoint better than anything I could have written myself. Skronk... now WHERE is that Julie Night when you need her!? <-------------- OOOOHHPPP---she's right HERE!!! Mike L. Edited by - MLyons on 4/2/2003 4:11:18 PM [Link]
skronker Notable Legendary Icon Scopophiliac 9780 Posts 9/02	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 4:26PM BASTARD! Well, I guess I can't complain. <<<================== Edited by - skronker on 4/2/2003 4:27:35 PM Edited by - skronker on 4/2/2003 4:28:22 PM [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 6:24PM Well, this thread still seems to be alive (I really have no idea why, well, in fact I do), so I guess I can do a simple copy and paste operation myself. I have written something about degradation a couple of weeks ago in this thread. It basically says the same thing as Sir Noel, except in a slightly different way. Sir Noel can probably say that I have yet again used "rather arcane vernacular" that certainly "seems to have caused more misunderstandings than it solves", as was demonstrated in that thread. BTW, it is good to know that the following quote only refers to the second part, while that post was originally structured as a 4 part post. Walter Burns wrote long ago, before he reinvented himself: Part 2. The concept of degradation is by no means a straight forward concept and this forms the main reason why I have stayed out of this discussion untill now. Some months ago, there was a monster thread in RAME devoted to this subject and I was smart enough to stay out of that mess. I stayed out of that discussion because the concept of degradation in the context of filmic representation is a problematic one, both on epistemological grounds and on ontological grounds. Let's first look at the epistemological ground. How can we know what degradation is, how can we study it? Their is quite a big problem in this regard, because degradation is often defined in discussions as an emperical verifiable condition. This is a big mistake, that often is responsible for the fact that most discussions concerning degradation end in childish shouting matches between different camps, as was illustrated by the thread in RAME. Degradation is not a "natural phenomenom", which can be measured according to some "objective" and/or "unversal" laws. On the contrary, degradation is a "cultural construction", that can only be defined by what I call "qualitative interpretatitve operations". Degradation can only be understood through a process of "making meaning" of the world, and the different ways different (groups of) people "make meaning" of the world, will always be a subject of debate. That debate is political in nature and therefor is ideally suited for making political comments. But what about ontological comments. What kind of arguments related to some kind of "truth" can be made to defend a certain politcal interpretation of the concept of degradation in relation to another politcal interpretation? Where can we draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable representations, without falling in the trap of making merely political comments, and not ontological ones? I don't have an answer for this problem, and it only gets worse when we consider the ontological problem of the concept of degradation in relation to filmic representation. I do know 1 thing: drawing a line between acceptable and unacceptable representations is a hazardous task that always leads to the dangers and problems connected to any kind of censorship: where to draw the line and how to defend that line in relation to opposing views? The ontological problem of the concept of degradation gets more complex in the context of filmic representation. That is because we, as viewers, don't get confronted with degradation at all, but with a representation of something that some will define as degradation. I am not splitting hairs here, this is a very crucial distinction. We don't see degradation on the screen, we only see a representation of degradation. This opens the door for a completely different and equally complex and hazardous discussion than the one regarding the concept of degradation itself: the discussion between the kind of relationships that can exist between image - referent - meaning. The most common form of this discussion, is the discussion about "realism", about the relationship between the pro filmic events and the representation of these events. I don't claim to have the final answer in this discussion, but I do know a thing or two about this (that leads me to a radical different point of view than the one held by DB). Just as degradation, "realism" is not a "natural phenomenom", which can be measured according to some "objective" and/or "unversal" laws. "Realism" is a carefully constructed textual quality, that answers to specific poetical norms, which may differ greatly from culture to culture and which are heavily influenced by ever evolving contextual factors of an aesthetic, technological, economical and social nature. As a textual construction, "realism" has less to do with the way the "real" world is depicted, as with the way a "truthful" depiction of the world is defined within the viewing context. This is nothing more but a complex way of saying that a representation of degradation, however "realistic", doesn't necessarily mean that "real" degradation took place. In other words, the degradation in any type of porn, doesn't have to be or involve any "real" degradation, but it probably is in fact "acted out" degradation. That, in my books, makes all the difference in the world. There is no way that I am calling this type of "acted out" degradation harmful or sick. I may not care for it, and I probably won't, but who am I to say that this kind of "role playing" is not acceptable? That would be questioning somebody else's sexuality. I know better than that to do such a thing. As YogaGrrl and others have stated, as long as their is mutual consent between two adults, I don't have a problem with it. Click to expand This being said, again, leaves me to make two other comments, one directed at Sir Noel, the other at NYC_DOM. Sir Noel Plum wrote: Now, I do concede that I find a lot of porn scenes slightly degrading/humiliating but that is okay, porn is about fantasy. Click to expand If porn is about fantasy is very debatable. I am not saying it is not so, I am only saying it is debatable. Just read this forum and see how many times "fantasy" is used in discussions. That sure is a lot. But then consider how many times an opposite concept turns up in many different forms: "real" or "authentic", or believable or verisimiltude, or vraisemblance, ... In short, "realism" also seems very popular to explain what porn is or should be all about. Hence my question (totally off topic in this thread and therefor rhetoric): Is porn about the "reality" of "fantasy", or about the "fantasy" of "reality"? And then NYC-DOM NYC_DOM wrote: By degrading, I mean "to debase," in a way that the very act itself lowers the woman's worth or value. Click to expand I am still trying to figure out if this statement is merely ridiculous, or also insulting. Somehow I have "interpreted" it by way of a "qualitative interpretative operation", as being more degrading to women than most of the porn I have seen. And I have seen a lot of porn. I have been called "the 5000 porn movie guy" for a reason. I believe DB would call this statement a symptom of the Madonna/whore complex. I know I certainly am. [Link]
Sir Noel Plum Senior Studmuffin 1001 Posts 2/03	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 6:47PM Walter. I haven't read your self-quote yet (I will in a minute) but I wanted to clarify my point that you brought up. I was not concerned with whether the acts themselves are wholly real, partly real or totally simulated. In a way watching this present Iraq conflict, which is wholly real, would just as much fit the bill as fantasy in the eyes of many viewers. By fantasy I am referring to viewing and committing acts vicariously (sometimes) that you may fantasise about but would choose not to do in real life, perhaps even if a golden opportunity arose. The point to all this was to suggest that just because you get off on seeing women degraded does not mean you would do that yourself, even perhaps faced with a woman asking for it. I am minded of the Rambo films and the numbers of viewers who pictured themselves as John Rambo taking on hundreds of adversaries: in reality most of these Rambo fans would no doubt struggle to pull the trigger on another human being let alone hundreds of them. I am particularly interested in your comment Walter because I am one of those who favours realism to my fantasy. I do not want to know a pack of bullshit before a scene I want to hear the truth even if that is 'I'm here for the money and not the love of the job'. Sir Noel. [Link]
tricia_devereaux Evil Angel DVD Patience is a virtue, but who wants to be virtuous? 4283 Posts 4/00	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 9:32PM NYC- You may know who I am, but you definitely don't know how to spell my name. Anyway, I posted pretty much all my feelings about "degrading" porn in the thread that Walter links to. I have a feeling that if I get too involved in this thread, it'll get closed pretty darn soon... Tricia Devereaux Evil Angel DVD [Link]
Walter Burns Legendary Quoter IAFD, supporters of beastiality. Just say no. 7564 Posts 11/02	Posted - Apr 2 2003 : 11:24PM tricia_devereaux wrote: I have a feeling that if I get too involved in this thread, it'll get closed pretty darn soon... Click to expand I have this feeling about 90% of the threads I want to contribute to. [Link]
NYC_DOM Deactivated User NYC 64 Posts 4/03	Posted - Apr 3 2003 : 9:12AM To clarify, my basic premise is this -- the porn "I" consider good, relatively speaking at least (and which ALOT of others apparently do also based on sales) is inherently degrading. Is ANYONE going to try to argue with a straight face that Max Hardcore's stuff is not conscioulsy intended to be degrading and demeaning? What about Rocco's more extreme stuff? The idea that A2M can be viewed as some sign of wantoness may be true, but it is also, if youre going to be honest with yourself, an act that is meant to show that the girl is a filthy pig. Its also an act that if done frequently is sure to result in some sort of medical problems. I find it funny and sad when men wont admit the plain fact that much porn, and just about all worthwhile porn, is meant to degrade women. You think not? How would you feel if your little sister, or your daughter, was getting a speculem shoved in her cunt while Max Hardcore fucked her ass, or if Rocco was making her clean his cock with her mouth as he was rectally ramming some random euro slut, or if she was the main attraction in a White Trash Whore video? If the answer is, shes a grown up and can make her own decisions, I say your totally full of shit! If you wouldnt want your sister or daughetr doing it, then ask yourself why? The answer is, because being a porn slut is degrading. The prosecution rests! [Link]
Sir Noel Plum Senior Studmuffin 1001 Posts 2/03	Posted - Apr 3 2003 : 10:55AM NYC I would like to quote the very first post I made on this forum: My girlfriend has done A2M with me, maybe a hundred times: she has ONCE mentioned a bad taste and has never had a stomach bug in the 6 years I have been with her! I contend that she never will have an infection from it even if we do it another 1000 times ( although if and when she gets pregnant I would avoid it at that time whilst her immunity is lowered). Click to expand You said: The idea that A2M can be viewed as some sign of wantoness may be true, but it is also, if youre going to be honest with yourself, an act that is meant to show that the girl is a filthy pig. Click to expand In a Max film I'd agree with you but I think that you are generalising far too much. I don't view all girls who do this on-screen as filthy pigs any more than I'd hold that to be true of my girlfriend. Its also an act that if done frequently is sure to result in some sort of medical problems. Click to expand I believe the exact opposite is true and you are much more likely to succumb to something the first few times or if the act is done infrequently. If you go to India and live like the locals you will get sick; if you visit there every year you may well get sick every year; if you set up home there you may get sick at the start but your system will learn to cope. Sir Noel [Link]
MLyons Senior Member 1617 Posts 8/02	Posted - Apr 3 2003 : 10:58AM MOD NOTE: I have to admit that I left this thread open partly because of the run-a-way train can't-look-away aspect of it. I also admit to having very strong opinions in antithesis to NYC_DOM's "premise", but like others I have refrained from posting them out of fear of having to reprimand myself. ;-) You have no idea how hard this has been, and I'd be willing to bet that I'm not the only one. I'm going to close it now for two reasons: 1.) The topic has run it's course, and probably had run it's course long before NYC_DOM started this thread. Since NYC-DOM has expressed his view and is clearly not interested in a dialogue, it seems pointless to continue this any longer. 2.) I know this is evaluative, but to a certain degree, that's my job. Like Walter, I find NYC_DOM's comments far more degrading to the performers than most of the porn he speaks of. There may be a legitimate line of discussion hidden somewhere in his comments, but the last thing we want to do here is contribute to any bad feelings that these performers might already have about what they do for a living. Although healthy discussion and disagreement is welcome, the ADT forum is meant to be a supportive and friendly community, not a free-for-all debate forum. Topics like this are counterproductive to that environment. If you feel the need to "prosecute" the "unenlightened" about this, you'll have to do it somwhere else. Mike L. Edited by - MLyons on 4/3/2003 11:11:52 AM [Link]