You are really good at avoiding my core point. Let us not forget that IAFD started the race conversation, not me, when you posted a virtue-signaling blog post about how you've been considering this decision for a long time, but only just now bothered to act on it, when it became politically relevant. I'm not doubting your honesty, but that's not very impressive, is it? Yes, I commend your bravery as an organization to contemplate these complex issues internally and then take a stand and preach about the failings the industry when society has pressured you to do so.
The sad part is that I actually agree with your decision on the IR tag, but I just cannot stomach the moral high-ground bullshit I'm seeing from you when you have no qualms about listing dog and kiddie porn in your database. Who the hell are you to tell these people that they're wrong?
I can see that we will get nowhere with each other. Maybe Jeff would like to sound off on this issue? I'd like to hear what another member of the brain trust thinks about all of this.
Edited by - evilpineapples on 6/25/2020 10:47:33 PM
You keep forgetting that I cannot speak for Jeff or rest of IAFD, or even explain why some things exist in the database and some things don't. What I can do is point out the inconsistencies of your red herrings and strawmen arguments (apples to apples) in trying to present a false dilemma that we are supposed to face because you didn't like the virtue signaling.
I can only give you my opinion on how I see things and note that my opinions actually bear greater weight to how IAFD operates than anybody else that posted in this thread besides Jeff.
Well, let's bring it back to that Twitter thread you linked earlier. If a black woman can be attracted to a white man, and this is considered okay by most of society, why can she not be attracted to only white men? Why does it only become a racial thing at that time?
What if she was attracted to all men except for white men? Would that also be a racial thing?
What if she was only attracted to black men?
The real issue is that the man in this scenario is white. Nobody gives a fuck if a black woman is only into black men. It only becomes a problem when the men are white.
We don't document scenes by fetish like C4S. Like you can't do a search and find a particular fetish scene unless it's in the title or description (if we have a description).
I'm also not a fan of fetishising age, weight, disabilities or other physical characteristics.
Well I'm not surprised IAFD came to the decision they did if this is the kind of thinking that goes on over there. Who'd have thought a porn related site would so virulently engage in kinkshaming.
the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession ).
...
If a woman is not attracted to black men, she is a racist. Got it. Maybe we should start introducing those "hypnosis" compilation videos in sex ed classes to force white women to be attracted to black men, kinda like the feminization hypnosis videos that are popular in the trans and CD community. If we make them watch enough black men having sex, maybe they'll finally be attracted to them!
Look, you can't force equality of outcome in a society. It always ends horribly. You can only foster equality of opportunity and put your faith in people to find their ideal role in the society and perform it in a way that makes them happy.
Edited by - evilpineapples on 6/25/2020 11:38:35 PM
Stating that a white woman is racist if she doesn't find black men attractive is almost the same thing as saying that she is obligated to fuck them (or at least to make herself available to fuck them). After all, if she shuts herself off to black men, then she must not find them attractive, and therefore must be a racist. Right?
People cannot control what does and does not sexually arouse them. There is so much complexity that programs those things into a person's mind throughout their life that it's almost painful to try and wrap your head around it. (Apologies to psychologists who enjoy that sort of thing. You're a special breed if you extract any joy from micro-analyzing a person's mind to that extent.)
You cannot force people to change that. Never mind the fact that you're facing a lifetime of deeply ingrained mental programming. Equality of outcome is simply not possible in any population sample or social system.
Edited by - evilpineapples on 6/25/2020 11:47:08 PM
At a certain point, sexual preferences are just that. An attraction to a certain skin color or racial features is no more harmful than an attraction to feet or big asses. Is it discriminatory? Clearly, yes, but is it racist? I would say that it is not.
Since we're so focused on definitions...
rac·ism /ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
...
I do not think that a sexual attraction (or lack of attraction) to dark skin is a prejudice against a person on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group. You're not denying them anything in life except the privilege of fucking you, which is not a right.
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.
Discrimination directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group is _____________ ???
It's not discrimination directed against a person on the basis of their membership in a racial or ethnic group. It's discrimination directed against a person on the basis of the fact that they either possess or lack a phenotypic bodily feature that arouses you. It has everything to do with you and nothing to do with them.
... probably true, because black men do not all look alike, they do not all sound alike, they do not all smell alike, nor do they think alike... I could go on.
Think of it this way - such a blanket statement says, in effect, that she doesn't see individuals, and if she doesn't see individuals then what is she seeing?
I'm talking about dark skin. Literal "black" men. (Technically they're brown, though.)
[Link]
booted bandit Deactivated User
44 Posts 6/20
Posted - Jun 26 2020 : 1:44AM
if you don't find someone attractive based on their skin colour alone, you're a racist (e.g. if you'd normally find a person attractive features-wise etc. but are deterred because their skin). attraction doesn't mean obligation to fuck though...
not sure if I'm waffling here, but personally, I don't find exclusively dating a certain race problematic in the main (there can certain reasons for this - religion, relative safety, community), but claiming that you don't find other races / a certain race attractive is too blank a statement to not be discriminatory. there are universal standards of beauty/attractiveness and those exist in every race. me saying I only like black women so I don't think someone like Emily Willis is attractive because of her skin colour is ridiculous.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jun 26 2020 : 3:16AM
The Traci Lords films and the infamous bestiality film Animal Farm are also listed on IMDB.
These film databases are important for historical reasons and are the first step in academic research as well so they serve other purposes and any commercially released film should be listed.
I agree with a wide meaning of IR , in both account not just the male
In Japan they do not have an Interracial tag on the movies they have 黒人(pronounce Koku-jin which means "Black People" or "Black Person" being 黒=black and 人= people , for Whise they use exactly the same procedure 白人 (Haku-jin) "White People or Person" 白=White and 人 People or Person , those aren't different from their own 日本人(Nihon-jin) Japanese People or person 日本= Japan and the usual 人 People or person , also 邦人 (ho-jin) Countryman.
It's no racist ,It's merely descriptive unless of course you want to give it a different meaning in context
actually the vast majority of men and women don't want to have sex with other persons for many reasons. Because they are ugly, fat, deformed, bisexual, poor etc. Is it discrimination? Of course it is. Are those kind of discriminations better than a person that don't want to have sex with a person of a certain skin color? Of course not. But I still think that a person has the absolute right to decide who he or she wants to have sex with and he or she should not be criticized for that.
I think that racism is a big problem and has caused a lot of horrible things in the history. Still, I don't think that the idea that a person (including you) has to have sex with someone who he or she dislike for whatever reason is part of the solution.
we're actually talking exactly of the matter of the thread, that is discrimination. Because the implication that it's wrong that a person wants or doesn't want to have sex with a person based on their skin color, is that to not be called a discriminating person one should necessarily have sex with person one dislikes. And to show the absurdity of this, it basically means that a rapist could call "discrimination" because the woman he raped didn't wanted to have sex with him.
It seems certain people have just decided that everything is racist and no amount of logic will sway them. Seems a waste of time and effort to keep engaging them.
The subject of the removal of the IR tag, exactly. DUE TO DISCRIMINATION. So that's exactly the point of the thread. What you're doing is: you're seen that I have logical arguments, and since you don't know how to reply to them, you say that (in a conversation where the other persons are talking of the same thing) I'm derailing the conversation. Nice try.
Why it should be a false dilemma? Racism is a problem exactly when it tramples on rights and freedom of other people. But If a person doesn't want to have sex with anybody for whatever reason, even if the reason is racism, he's still not trampling on someone else's rights. Because it's not like people have the right to have sex with you. And that's a super important distinction. Do you remember the case of August Ames?
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Jun 26 2020 : 8:37AM
What exactly do you disagree about, that they should be on IMDB? They are but you think an actual porn film database shouldn't have them so it is actually inferior to IMDB? Strange to hold IAFD to a higher standard than IMDB.
Who cares if the Color Climax CP is listed in a database, you just linked to a Wikipedia article on them, do you think Wikipedia shouldn't have that entry on the loops and magazines as well? Should IMDB also not have an entry of the Dark Side of Porn documentary series from Channel 4 that discussed the Color Climax films? Or several of their loops as well?
So it is okay for Wikipedia, IMDB and Channel 4 to have the info on the material but not IAFD?
You seem to be drawing some very arbitrary lines.
You also seem unaware that many of those films that had scenes with Lords have been edited to remove her scene and released on DVD, for example the excellent Mitchell Brothers film The Grafenberg Spot. To demand that IAFD remove films commercially and legally available for purchase is bizarre to say the least.
People have a right to choose who they sleep with, but that does not mean they have a right to be free from criticism of how they made or express their choices. Propping up what happened to August as a slippery slope argument is just further derailment of this thread and still does not make me want to reinstate the IR tag.
Those films can stay in the database with the information about Traci Lords' appearances removed. A note can be added that the original release of the film contains illegal content, and if the film was re-edited later on, that a version exists without that content.
To your other points, I don't think that a detailed filmography of this material should be available from any sources, including IMDb, Wikipedia, etc. Obviously, Traci Lords is a person of note, so it makes sense for an encyclopedia (like Wikipedia) to have an entry on her, but that is very different from providing detailed information about her work in the adult industry when she was still a minor.
IAFD is not an encyclopedia. There are no biographical entries on these people. It is a database with the express purpose of providing detailed scene-by-scene information about adult films. I believe and maintain that providing such information about the appearances of a minor is inappropriate on such a platform.
I am not saying that IAFD, or any of the staff who volunteer there, endorse that content, but I am saying that they are negligent to host information that could help interested parties to find it.
So we should also remove her autobiography from circulation, or perhaps do a recall?
And what do we do with Vampire in Brooklyn, The Expendables, and The Crow? Or, if you don't care about death and only the sexual exploitation of minors, Apt Pupil and Pretty Baby?
I find it fascinating that IAFD isn't removing the titles, but people are acting like they are. It is also fascinating how most (not all) of the people who want to keep the IR label, have tried to make poor explanations as to why it shouldn't be expanded to include all scenes that would fall under the definitions of IR and stay as only black cast member with white cast members.
You quoted in the previous page Demi Sutra criticizing people who didn't harm absolutely anybody with their choices and calling them racists as she was right. That's not anymore solving racism's problems, because there's absolutely no problem connected to two persons who are attracted to other person for their color skin, they simply love each other. That's witch hunt.I don't think there will be any argument, as good or logic it could be, that could change your mind. But still, criticizing people for their personal choices when those personal choices don't harm or trample on the rights of anybody is just wrong. August Ames was accused of homophobia because she didn't want to have sex with a bisexual guy. I don't know if her reasons (fear of hiv basically, if I remember correctly) were right or wrong. But she had every right to say no. She wasn't like, refusing to sell bread to a gay person. She was deciding for her body. And we know how it ended. Do you think that kink-shaming persons for their choice (choices that again, don't harm anybody, any right or any freedom) calling them racists will be something that will help, even in a minimal way to solve the problem of racism? I don't think so.
For university researchers and social study it's going to be hell with any related info over something worth studying getting removed from even the notion of it. Let say some scholar wants to study the changing of habits and culture in the last century or so , good look.
What's next Negationism? There will be no proof of any discriimination whatsoever, all removed , it would be impossible to make a difference between now and then
People are not kinks or objects to be fetishised. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
People have a right to choose who they sleep with, but that does not mean they have a right to be free from criticism of how they made or express their choices. Propping up what happened to August as a slippery slope argument is just further derailment of this thread and still does not make me want to reinstate the IR tag.