I know it's a long ways a way and will require some serious patience, but Kink.com is opening up a new site Publicdisgrace.com on October 1st (right now the site is more of a domain-holder than a real preview of what's coming). Given Kink's fantastic production quality and great results, I'm pretty excited. Until then, you can watch their pretty dang hot trailer for the site free, or buy the entire test scene: http://kinkondemand.com/kod/shootp?shootId=5751 Hope that helps!
^ Wow! That *is* an amazing trailer. I sure would've enjoyed knowing what passers-by were thinking. And I wonder what I would do if I happened upon one of the scenes depicted here. Stop, stare and enjoy? Walk by and hope my mind can recall every little detail captured in the fleeting moment? Hmmm?
At the risk of sounding like a prude, public sex is not cool. I don't care what consenting adults do in private, but people shouldn't have to be exposed to this when they're in the public domain. Believe it or not, there are people that don't want to see other people having sex, and there's a reasonable expectation that they won't be seeing it when they go for a walk in their community because we have laws that prohibit that sort of behavior. And there's the risk that young children may see it as well. If you were the father of a young child, would you want your child's first exposure to sex to be a couple of people banging each other in public while somebody catches it all on camera? I realize that this is a sex forum, and many here are super-liberal when it comes to sexual morality, but I think this kind of thing is tacky and shouldn't be supported. When consenting adults are behind closed doors, they should be free to do whatever they want. The can shit on each other's faces or put their genitals in a George Foreman Grill, for all I'm concerned. But when your sexual proclivities start involving unwilling participants, that's really selfish and it shouldn't be tolerated.
Edited by - princess donna on 10/1/2008 7:53:05 PM
[Link]
sugar liquor and gasoline Deactivated User
96 Posts 9/08
Posted - Oct 1 2008 : 5:18PM
I dislike in America that violence is ok but sex is not. I'd rather have my kids see sex than violence. Yes! Sex on the street. Sex is consentual. Sex is something they can do themselves someday. Meanwhile, the new Batman movie is PG13 and has everybody killing everybody. How many kids saw that? Have you seen the teenage pregnancy rate in our country? It's awful. I don't think those numbers are going to be hurt any by a few people on one day.
You got it backwards. First of all, violence is not ok in America or anywhere else. Movie violence doesn't count because parents have the ability to decide what movies a child does or doesn't see. And also, movie violence isn't real (I really shouldn't have to say this, but since you can't seem to make that differentiation, perhaps my explanation is in order) And sex is ok, in America and everywhere else. It's just not OK when you thrust sex upon those who don't wish to see it.How about neither? That's a viable option too, you know.The trailer showed a woman being fisted on the street. Let's say, for example, that you had a 9 year old daughter. Would you want to have your daughter see a woman being fisted right out in the open? Even if it were just plain old dick-in-pussy sex, do you want your 9 year old daughter to see people having sex in public? If your answer is "yes", please don't have children. And if you already do, please give custody to a responsible adult until you grow a brain.Please do explain how allowing children to view others having sex out in the open will lower the teenage pregnancy rate in this country.
While I think you make some valid points, I think it's a bit of a stretch to believe that "public porn" scenes are anything other than staged events meant to provide the illusion of shock value. I'm sure some isn't but the vast majority, just like porn itself, is no more real than Batman's violence.
I'd like to believe that, but maybe Princess Donna can clarify? I'm guessing that she won't respond, because either way she loses. If she admits it's a fake (i.e. it's a closed set and the "pedestrians" walking by are just actors), the video will lose much of it's shock value. If it's really shot in public, she risks getting cited for "public lewdness" or whatever the appropriate infraction is named. I believe the authorities arrested Melissa Midwest for the same sort of thing. The authorities didn't have to witness it person to make an arrest. The evidence provided by the pictures on her website were enough.
[Link]
sugar liquor and gasoline Deactivated User
96 Posts 9/08
Posted - Oct 1 2008 : 7:55PM
Movie violence does count because more often than not parents aren't around or don't care. Movie violence looks real to a kid, and it's more imitated by kids. I don't see a bunch of four year olds going out and having sex. Sex is natural. It is a physical function. Violence is not. Sex is not O.K. in America. Have you watched porn ever? There's this goverment thing that was passed in 1996 that sayz all sex filmed must be boring. Nobody forces anyone to watch anything. It is called closing your eyes. Fisting is awesome! It is a form of love between a fist and a woman. You should try it sometime. Insults get you nowhere and make a shitty argument for a prude. By watching sex, kids don't have any wrong ideas about how sex happens. When I was a kid--I got a book: it told me nothing. I don't think the condom on a banana is doing it for anybody either. If you're old enough to have/want sex, you're old enough to know about it and know about the risks. Show some VD videos too. Show a screaming baby for 8 hours straight. My point about sex in America is that in Europe sex is much more out in the open and the underage pregnancy rates are much lower. When something is made taboo, everybody wants it. Ask anyone who lived during the prohibition era.
Well that's a bit like asking porn performers to come on here and talk about the smell of set. It would kind of kill the "illusion" of hotness that so many fans want to believe. When people realize it's just a job the fantasy element goes away. Regardless, I know from many FTV Girls videos that they are masturbating in public but there are typically "lookouts" around to ensure nobody gets a free peepshow. It's not completely spontaneous or you'd have people risking arrest left and right just for the masturbatory enjoyment of the porn consuming market. You can usually even tell it's a relatively "non traffic but public" area but just watching how often the same scenery shows up in the shoots. Rob at FTV uses the same resort and park in literally dozens of his shoots. Public? Yes, in that they are outdoors. Wide open for any schoolkid to see the gal riding a dildo mounted on the steps? Nope, not a chance Rob and his models (who are mostly porn stars who frequent these boards) will take on a day to day basis. I've seen some footage where someone pulled an "oops" and got past the lookouts, or when someone just gawks from a distance but I doubt they are anything more than just scenery. Or, if real, obviously not too offended at what they are watching.
[Link]
sugar liquor and gasoline Deactivated User
96 Posts 9/08
Posted - Oct 1 2008 : 8:03PM
[Mod edit: there's no need to quote the post directly above yours. Just use the "up arrow". You know, this guy --> ^ ] It's a job they want to do, which--despite the smell--makes for some fine entertainment. Edited by - killbillvol69 on 10/1/2008 10:16:36 PM
So much flawed logic, I almost don't know where to begin!My parents were always around and they cared. I'm a parent too, and I give my child the same attention. This was the case for nearly all of my friends and family. Sure, there are some shitty parents out there that neglect their children and don't care, but they're in the minority.Neither do I. But then again, I haven't been to your house.Is that you, George Michael? By the way, that's a meaningless platitude. Is sex natural for a 4 year old?You're right, it's not O.K., it's GRRRRRREAT! (Tony the Tiger)No, I haven't. Am I missing out on something?I read a lot of government "things" but I don't ever recall reading something that said "all sex filmed must be boring". Care to cite your source?Which brings me back to one of my original questions to you: If you had a 9 year old daughter, would you be cool if she saw a woman getting fisted right out in the open? Remember, what is seen cannot be unseen.I'll have to take your word on this.Now this is comic genius! When I read this, I pictured Michael Bolton singing, "When a fiiiist loves a woooman!" Jeez, I hate that song!Maybe we should incorporate fisting into the sex education curriculum?That's because books don't talk to you. You have to read it.And how does this relate to your argument that public sex in front of little children is ok?One of the cardinal rules in logic: correlation does not equal causation. There are too many differences between European culture and American culture for you to just blindly assume that because Europeans are more open about sex (which itself is a dubious premise), they have lower teen pregnancy rates.Incorrect. Let's take two big taboos in American culture as an example: homosexuality and incest. Has gay sex and mother/father fucking run rampant in our country as a result? The answer is "no".
[Link]
sugar liquor and gasoline Deactivated User
96 Posts 9/08
Posted - Oct 1 2008 : 9:16PM
macko 69 is a spammer, scammer, or a cop. Either way, someone burn this fucker. I got better shit to do. Edited by - sugar liquor and gasoline on 10/1/2008 9:22:10 PM
I saw a scene with Lichelle Marie geting banged on a catwalk over top a pretty big and busy highway. While it was hot, it was totally ridiculous. Is it really worth going to jail for. Everything you make from the scene would go back to court cost.
What about violent sex then? The scenes that were posted here pretty much depict that. If you think it's okay for kids to witness these acts in public than there must be something wrong with you. I don't think movie violence is good for kids either but seeing something like this at a young age probably does more harm to you than that (hell it might even give some grown-ups who are not used this kind of thing brain damage lol).
So what would you say accounts for the difference in rates?Macko69 wrote: Incorrect. Let's take two big taboos in American culture as an example: homosexuality and incest. Has gay sex and mother/father fucking run rampant in our country as a result? The answer is "no".
Click to expand
Considering the "taboo" nature of such things, how do you know they aren't far more common than is generally known (or spoken of)? And I don't really agree that homosexuality is that big of a taboo anymore. Nevertheless, I think I can safely assure you that there are FAR more closeted gays and bis than you seem to think there are. I guess we can agree that incest is still as taboo as ever. But like I said, when something is as taboo as incest is, people aren't exactly going to willingly advertise that they do it on the evening news, are they? Edited by - randomprecision on 10/2/2008 8:42:22 PM
^I think what Prophit was saying is that if you accept that seeing violence is bad for kids (which the other poster was assuming), then seeing violence and sex together can't possibly be any better for kids, and maybe even worse. Or at least that's what I understood the point to be. Prophit is of course welcome to come and explain the meaning of their post here.
[Link]
sugar liquor and gasoline Deactivated User
96 Posts 9/08
Posted - Oct 2 2008 : 9:10PM
IMHO Violence is bad for kids because it is not natural to kill. It is however, natural to fuck. We have a pituitary gland. As to the post about violent sex being even worse...I think it has to do with what your definition of what violent sex is.Is slapping violence? Is fisting violence? Is choking violence? Some women would say they like it and have requested it especially beforehand. If it weren't censentual--why would they be doing it? Stockholm syndrome? Should we all go around putting guys in jail who beat their wives because their wives like it? But none of this makes any difference. This guy did not come here to debate. This guy came to bait, insult, and then laugh about us all running around like chickens with our heads cut off.
^Which "guy' are you referring to? Me, Prophit, or Macko69 (who you already expressed your disapproval of)? Accuracy is important. It's not good to insult the wrong person by accident.
[Link]
sugar liquor and gasoline Deactivated User
96 Posts 9/08
Posted - Oct 2 2008 : 9:33PM
If your answer is "yes", please don't have children. And if you already do, please give custody to a responsible adult until you grow a brain. this is where mack insulted me....I never said anything insulting to her.
[Link]
sugar liquor and gasoline Deactivated User
96 Posts 9/08
Posted - Oct 2 2008 : 9:37PM
^This is aimed at everybody. I am assuming that prophet is the same as this mack guy.
^I think you misunderstood my post. I was only asking you to be clear who you were referring to. Whether it was me, Prophit, or Macko69. Because if the wrong person thinks you're addressing them, they could be insulted, thinking that you're telling them not to do something that they didn't do, or telling them, like in this case, that they're here to bait and insult, when really you were referring to someone else. So, while I think I know now, I'll ask again, just to be sure. Who were you referring to in your third-last post when you said "this guy"? {edit: I had to change "second" to "third" since you added a post. And I'm not sure that Prophit is the same person as Macko69.] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 10/2/2008 9:40:46 PM
[Link]
sugar liquor and gasoline Deactivated User
96 Posts 9/08
Posted - Oct 2 2008 : 9:40PM
the person insulting, baiting and laughing would be mack. Edited by - sugar liquor and gasoline on 10/2/2008 9:44:14 PM
^"Prophit" has been here for well over a year. "The Prophet" came in a few days ago, made a few stupid posts (I noticed that even you made a comment about them in the "Next deactivated member" thread), and then got banned. I'm not sure "Prophit" can be blamed for "The Prophet" having such a close username. The same way that it wasn't Bob's fault someone came in and chose the name "B0b". Because they weren't a gag poster, after it was pointed out that the names were too close, the newer of the two members got a new username to avoid confusion. But all of this still irks me, because I still don't know whether you were referring to me or not when you said "This guy did not come here to debate. This guy came to bait, insult, and then laugh about us all running around like chickens with our heads cut off." And if not me, and assuming "Prophit" and "Macko69" are not the same person (and I'm pretty sure they're not), then who is it that you think is here to bait, insult, etc? [edit: typo] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 10/2/2008 9:55:10 PM
[Link]
sugar liquor and gasoline Deactivated User
96 Posts 9/08
Posted - Oct 2 2008 : 10:05PM
^ I've been off and on adultdvdtalk for years. Before this I was cammysutra and a whole mess of belch182's. Never saw anyone called The Prophit but I'll take your word for it. From my experience as being a moderator, I figured the Prophit and the Prrophet were the same person because these type of people are very unimaginative. Forgive me for my laziness. I should've checked like a good boy blah blah blah etc. etc. I was not talking about you as someone who comes in to bait, insult, and laugh later. So far you've been pretty cool to me...not sure if that's your thing or if you do that elsewhere but you were not in my mind as I wrote that. I think mack was the one here to bait, insult, laugh and leave. Capiche? Edited by - sugar liquor and gasoline on 10/2/2008 10:06:09 PM
^Yeah I'd say so. Names that are puns, or turn a phrase into something to do with sex, or incorporate one's name into something sexy, those are the cheesiest. You know, like mine. I'd change it, but it's already there, so... [edit: typo] Edited by - killbillvol69 on 10/2/2008 10:23:57 PM
Wrong. I did come here to debate. Then I read your response:Maybe I misunderstood, but did you think it's OK for a child to witness people fucking and fisting right out in public? If you meant that neither violence nor sex was acceptable to be witnessed by a child, then I apologize, and I agree. But if you think it's OK for a child to witness in-person fucking and fisting, well, that's just abhorrent. My ex is a child psychologist, so I've heard from her how damaging it can be to expose a young child to explicit sex. And I believe that parents who purposely exposes a child to explicit sex should have their children taken away because it's psychological abuse. Sex is beautiful, and I believe that that's an important lesson to pass on to a child, when they're ready. And it's important to teach children that having sex comes with responsibility. Responsibility for knowing how to set appropriate boundaries as to what is and isn't acceptable. Seeing people fucking right out in the open is a shitty way for a kid to learn about sex because it doesn't teach children responsible behavior. And it also takes away the parent's right to determine when the child is ready for this kind of exposure. Covering a child's eyes isn't enough, because as I said before, what is seen cannot be unseen. My whole beef with all of this public sex crap is that it's selfish to expose people to something that has a strong probability of offending, just to get your thrills. Keep it private where people who don't want to see it won't be exposed to it. That's all.I don't have the answer, and neither does Sugar. To say that a society's openness about sex has a definite inverse relationship with teen pregnancy is an oversimplification of a very complex issue. And it's not even accurate. Take China and India, for example. I think most people would agree that China and India are quite a bit more conservative about sex than the U.S. However, their teen birth rates in those countries are extremely low. And finally, I am not Prophit and I have absolutely no relationship with publicdisgrace.com.
[Link]
sugar liquor and gasoline Deactivated User
96 Posts 9/08
Posted - Oct 3 2008 : 1:49AM
I don't debate people who insult people because they don't have the same belief system I do. That was a quick way to lose. You should get banned. Edited by - sugar liquor and gasoline on 10/3/2008 2:06:30 AM
says the guy who also said:And, by the way, there are some belief systems that are so reprehensible and potentially dangerous, that they should not be given any recognition whatsoever. To believe that it's acceptable for a young child to view people fisting and fucking in public is one such belief. Traditionally, when a society finds that a member or members hold such beliefs, those members are banned. So perhaps if anyone should be shown the door, it should be you. Edited by - macko69 on 10/3/2008 2:54:47 AM
^Neither of you ("Macko69" and "Sugar Liquor and Gasoline") decides who gets banned and who doesn't, so drop it. Both of you. If you can't have a discussion/argument/whatever then don't have one; but don't tell the rest of us about how you can't have one. Just don't post anything.
Yes, something like that. All I'm saying is seeing sex in public is not natural as that one guy apperently tried to imply. And if it's extreme acts like those kink.com people display than it is even worse and no one should be subjected to this unwillingly. And no I'm not Macko69 just because I share the same opinion. :)In a way, yes. I still remember how I had felt when I saw the first porn mag at a young age. Was a bit revolting (I learned to love it soon after that though). Maybe I was too sensitive but that's the way it should be at that age and I can only imagine what it might do to a child who's never seen anything sexual to see people tied up and fucking in the street.
[Link]
sugar liquor and gasoline Deactivated User
96 Posts 9/08
Posted - Oct 3 2008 : 11:03AM
Tell it to the Romans. Meanwhile, I think you just hate sex. Edited by - sugar liquor and gasoline on 10/3/2008 11:03:38 AM
Hazel Heart Interview
Posted - Sep 1 2008 : 2:54AM
)