^ The number of homosexuals could also vary due to cultural environments and lifespan , when it is safe to be gay in the light of day there are more of them, when they're killed or ostracized there are less, better to say you can see less of them. Also today the number of inhabitants is higher than ever so of course there are a lot more gays than ever If we add the media then we multiply the number of them we can see in our life and that also increases the perceived number of homosexuals in our society.
Agreed.....because the 'anyone' you speak of, often seem to have a hard time separating fact from fantasy. Which is clear with some posts in this thread, as well as other IR topics on this board. To me it's always a tell about many porn 'fans' than pornstars.
It has been contended, and I think largely accepted, that skeletal fashion models in fact do not appeal to the average man as the "idea body type" of a woman. And that's perfectly predictable when you realize that women's fashion is not marketed to men. Obviously it is marketed toward women, and they drive those standards, not the average man. It's also operated by a much higher share of women and gay men. This isn't a mere stereotype. It's abundantly clear. I'm not saying there are no straight men who could be so-called captains of industry within fashion that also markets toward women, but compared with other industries of luxury goods, women have much greater control in their own fashion industry. The idea that it's straight men who are obsessed with anorexic women is pure fantastical myth. Some men do like leaner women, but on average, the women's fashion industry "ideal" female form exhibited by their top models is about as far removed from the ideal female bodies you would find in lad mags as the plus sized women who are supposedly representing a "defiant" movement against chauvinistically driven "fat shaming" of women. They're not rebelling against male gatekeepers. They're rebelling against the standards established by women and gay men. Forget the material fashion itself, and just look at the media side of fashion. 95% of fashion magazines are bought by women. I think the truth is women actually feel more comfortable looking at gaunt, anorexic models because they typically lack ample bosoms or booties. They can feel confident buying (excuse my ignorance if these are poor examples) Elle or Glamour or what have you, because if their boyfriends or husbands were to bother noticing the cover girls of these, they're not going to be gazing with lustful envy over skeletons. But that seems to be one of the most amusing fake outrages that crops up over and over. Just giving you my honest typical male perspective, I think the average woman would look better in the clothes put on display by those human coat hangers that dominate fashion magazines. But now I'm guilty of perpetuating "body shaming" by disparaging thin women, which is really no better than fat shaming.
Our biological impulse is sometimes accentuated by culture, but almost never driven by it. It's the other way around. The impulse is there naturally, and depending on what unique environmental circumstances by arise, can be affected in some small measure by culture. But speaking of the Greek and Mongol empires, remember how much conquest and enslavement occurred. Those were quite unique and defiant of natural order, even inhumane. Half the populations of Greek, Roman, and perhaps Mongol empires were comprised of slaves. Philosophers of those eras would even posit that slavery was the "natural state" for much, if not most, of humanity. I think it's quite safe to consider them exceptions and not the rule. If you want to engage in a never ending debate about nature v nurture, we could just start another thread. But I'm still sticking with sexual impulse being almost exclusively biological. That doesn't mean I'd ever claim that culture has no impact on broadly guiding where we look. But just take the example of a young white female who was raised in a bigoted household. You could say her environment was especially hostile toward people of color, particularly men, and her parents never shied from openly threatening to disown any daughter who was caught up in an interracial relationship. But if Becky is hot in the pants for a black man, no amount of environmental influence is going to change that. It's the same acceptance we, at least most of us who consider ourselves progressive or at least tolerant, for gays. Lord knows there's been enormous, untold environmental discouragement or outright hostility toward homosexuality in this Puritanical descended culture, which has only in recent years been tempered in an official capacity, but still strongly resists universal acceptance of orientations that deviate from the norm. But has that oppressive environmental influence had any impact on diminishing the presence of homosexual orientation? Only in public. I also doubt that growing tolerance for homosexuality, from official national recognition of gays rights to marriage, to the Pope himself publicly urging for tolerance, is going to result in more people actually being gay. That's not something any authority or government or culture can control. Unless they figured a way to fuck around with DNA or something. Population control conspiracies surely abound. I will say it is an interesting coincidence that the estimated percentage of the population which is gay is also about the same as the percentage I would speculate to be of those who are not attracted to a particular race. And I don't see any reason why we can't simply tolerate both.
Do we really have any empirical evidence that homosexuality was more common in any era or culture anyway? On statistically significant scales? Yes we know it was more commonly accepted in Greek culture for example, and that freedom surely must have had an impact on rates of homosexual activity, but not rates of homosexual presence, i.e. per capita. What I mean is, a culture that is more tolerant may have more public documents of homosexual relations, but we don't necessarily know if, per 100 people, there were actually more gays. Isn't it estimated 2% of the population is gay? I doubt there was a significantly higher percentage back in any era. And if there was, "significant" could be just 1% more. But of course a culture that is more accepting of homo/bisexuality will appear to have more gay people. But the Mongols, as was typical of any other dominant empire, were notorious for conquering tribes and kingdoms, killing off most of the men and taking the women to breed new servants and soldiers. It was estimated the Khan dynasty killed off 10% of the world's population. Were there proportionally more gay-oriented people, say per 100, than the modern averages? Did you come across such information? Or was this asserted based on cultural attitudes?
>>But just take the example of a young white female who was raised in a bigoted household. You could say her environment was especially hostile toward people of color, particularly men, and her parents never shied from openly threatening to disown any daughter who was caught up in an interracial relationship. But if Becky is hot in the pants for a black man, no amount of environmental influence is going to change that. << All these years I thought the pastor's son was rebelling against authority; it must have been a biological impulse to park his motorcycle on the church lawn. I think most people have experienced the allure of the forbidden and the thrill of breaking the rules.
I think there are biological urges that express themselves through rebellious behavior. Why else is it so common across cultures? Isn't it raging hormones that largely contribute to rebellious behavior? It doesn't matter what the environment. It wouldn't matter if it's a very strict or liberal environment, youth still act out. Some environments are more conducive to managing this, and some only make things worse (like the example I gave about bigoted family). But in the end, biology is a huge factor. Where things get a bit nebulous is in thinking that genetics can predict everything. I don't believe anyone thinks this is a realistic avenue of scientific inquiry, but by the same token, increasingly we read reports about "breakthroughs" in science where researchers believe they can pinpoint specific behavior to specific genes, e.g. "the cheating gene." It was some years ago I read about that. They actually believed they had it or could have it pinpointed. Is there some sequence that can be relied on to predict where a pastor's son will park his chopper? If there is some way, I don't believe we'll ever see it. There's too many variables. I'd even dare say it's impossible. If we ever get close to that level of precision, there will be a new universe discovered changing everything, akin to the multiverse theory.
I've seen this specific claim about the changeability of what men find attractive brought up a few times recently - it seems a popular one with "fat positive" feminists in particular. I'd like to know where the idea that "skeletal fashion models" are currently the ideally attractive body type actually comes from, and what evidence there is to support it? The models I see posing in lads' mags don't generally back that up, and they're being hired to look sexy out of their clothes, not sell a frock to other women. Some of the girls featured on that British institution Page 3 of the Sun have more meat on their bones than Marilyn Monroe ever did: Popular Page 3 girl Lucy: That's not to say that beauty ideals don't change over time, but I don't actually think that there's been much of a change within my lifetime. A pin-up from the 50s/60s would still be considered attractive today, and vice versa.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Mar 27 2016 : 8:14PM
^ I think we all know the difference between mainstream media, where the actresses and models are all strictly enforced to keep their weight down, and the more recent trend in porn to a wider range of body types. Even in porn we see the shift going back towards less curvy women today and in the mainstream you'll see lots of bros going off on women with realistic body types being branded as 'fat.' We've seen that here often enough on this very forum as well. One need only to view the mainstream reaction of brohorror to Sasha Grey's bush in Entourage to see how much standards of beauty are socially determined. Centuries ago in Japan a white smile use to be considered unattractive so the courtly women would paint their teeth black, so even as 'natural' a thing as a beatiful white smile is not held to be the same across time and cultures. But this is all OT, if people want to continue to endless chicken/egg debate about nature vs. nuture let's create a new thread. Honestly I think people have their minds made up on this issue and then look for 'facts' to back it up. Actually that's probably true of 90 percent of what people believe on any subject.
^ I've heard about the foot binding thing in China, essentially how fucked up feet was regarded as "attractive" on account of the social implications. Never heard about that black teeth thing in Japan though. It must have been some kind of class signifying thing too? Like "this woman has no limit to her supply of sugar whatsoever"?
Let's not limit to the most famous, all the cultures back then lived on slaves the Carthaginians had slaves , the Egyptians had slaves,the Barbarians had slaved the Chinese pre-Mongols had slaves , only those with means could have slaves certainly not the common citizens , and no it wasn't a natural state even back then , for example those holding a citizenship could not be brought into slavery , the Romans could only be temporarily for debts but even this possibility has been removed within the Empire but they could be enslaved by their enemies and they were, Emperor Caracalla limited slavery a lot in AD 210 (if I remember well) all free men within the empire had been made Roman Citizens overnight , thus none of them could be enslaved any longer. actually there are some scholars who think this was one major cause for the acceleration of Roman decline because a the diminishing number of slaves due to death and given freedom deprived the Empire of cheap labor forces and forced it to pay free men , but this is another matter Edited by - LCF on 3/28/2016 3:04:31 AM
We don't have any reliable number I was talking about those visible , those free to be whatever they want in the light of day. The Khans weren't a dynasty it was a title meaning Chief or King or Emperor (Great Khan = Khan of Khans) it could be inherited but still it wasn't a family name
[Link]
Mojo Deactivated User
1223 Posts 9/03
Posted - Mar 28 2016 : 8:48AM
I'm quite happy to say that I neither understand nor like PC, but I'll be bloody happy to get rid of the gangsta' rape routines and the use of racist words. Why can't they just do IR that's erotic, without resorting to down at heel stereotypes and gutter language? Edited by - Mojo on 3/28/2016 8:49:36 AM
^ Because some people aren't into that. Some people like their porn, in a phrase, more "rough, rugged and raw". The erotic sites will absolutely continue to exist, especially considering how popular the best ones are right now. The question being asked is whether there's room in the "mainstream" market for both. And, as has already been said, that's ignoring the fact that IR wasn't ever entirely about that in the first place. If you couldn't find IR that didn't play on ghetto stereotypes, the truth is that you weren't really looking for it. Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 3/29/2016 1:14:33 AM
I will say this--given a choice between political correctness and bigot speech, I would choose political correctness. I watch porn to get myself off, not listen to people calling each other the word that rhymes with "bigger" or the term that rhymes with "bright pitch." Fucking on camera should be about having a fucking good time--not perpetuating fucking hatred. ___________________________
"There he goes talking about that Hypnosis thing again."
Sure, etymologically you're right. I'm referring to Temujin aka Genghis Khan's dynasty. There's said to be a ridiculously disproportionate share of the world population that actually shares his genes too. Also, not to be confused with the Mongols, there was another great empire that came later and swept India: the Mughals. They descended from said dynasty.
^^ No one here is interested in propagating hatred, aside from those who have made personal and hateful attacks on others in this very thread. But people who are actually tolerant of free speech in art/entertainment don't seem to be attacking anyone, but instead are the ones being attacked. Also, as a reminder, no one at all in this overlong debate has even said they demand exclusively degrading / low class portrayals of anyone. The case being made is merely to tolerate a range of attitudes and dispositions. We can hardly claim to be a tolerant culture when the mere suggestion of a particular character in a particular porn being of a deviant background causes outrage and personal attacks on actual people in the real world. How is that tolerant?
What is your understanding of the motivation Caracalla had for limiting slavery? Call me cynical, but it's got to reflect some kind of political end. I'll look more into that. From my layman's understanding of slavery throughout world history, the only time when a state/empire's leader issued a decree to abolish slavery (before European states did) was in China, during the reign of some emperor just before the common era. I think it was a short-lived abolition though, as the practice continued after he died. "In the year 9 C.E, the Emperor Wang Mang usurped the Chinese throne and instituted a series of sweeping reforms, including the abolition of slavery and radical land reform. Slavery was reinstated in 12 C.E. before his assassination in 23 C.E." Granted, that info is from Wiki and some people here say you can't rely on that because reasons.
[Link]
Mojo Deactivated User
1223 Posts 9/03
Posted - Mar 29 2016 : 5:39AM
You like IR porn where they keep saying the "n" word and others like it? You like portraying black guys as rapists out for some "white booty"? Pathetic.Yes.
The real reasons haven't been satisfactory explained yet , there were those who thought he was just crazy , those who thought he wanted more taxes , those who thought he was influenced by philosopher about the so called ius gentis (Right of Peoples) all of them could be reasonable explanations but the Edict has been maintained by the following Emperors and couldn't be otherwise once given citizenship it could be revoked for extreme crimes only. Anyway he didn't abolish Slavery , those who were slaves stayed slaves ,he made Citizens all free men and women throughout the Empire and that meant nobody could be enslaved within the Empire. New prisoners could though. Rome paid a great deal for such law by that time the army was made with volunteers who were under contract most of them were free men who wanted Roman Citizenship for them and their families after Caracalla made them Citizen they had problem with new volunteers and had to use Barbarians in the Army at one point even commanding officers and they gave them lands to settle with their families , two centuries later Rome fell , the other Half of the Empire endured another thousand years although much less extended As for the Chinese Emperor he was an usurper , not much related with the established powers , he possibly wanted a free army to back him. Caracalla was legit Edited by - LCF on 3/29/2016 9:25:15 AM Edited by - LCF on 3/29/2016 9:29:15 AM
Except that I've said multiple times in this thread that I don't like it. I do think it has every right to exist, and I have every right not to watch it.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Mar 30 2016 : 1:49AM
Interesting conversation LCF and Melvyn but it is really OT. Maybe we can create another thread to discuss it. I'd like to bring up the revolutionaries in favour of black emancipation and even feminism, both French (Condorcet), English (Samuel Jonson) and even Americans like Thomas Paine.
^ Agreed this would be my last reply on the subject, I'm not as familiar with black emancipation as I am in Roman history , they weren't racist in the way we mean it today . Ancient slavery generally wasn't racial (with the exception of Sparta maybe , though the Helots were whites) most of the slaves in Rome were Europeans Barbarians ,they very much preferred a civilized dark skinned African from Libya or Egypt over a savage German for example , and such African very much had such white slaves at his service. Emperor Caracalla himself was mixed Syrian-Berber. The Berbers ,also known as Numidians in Ancient times. have a very wide variety of complexions from very dark to almost white their ethnic groups spread from along the Niger river to the Mediterranean sea
I respect your opinions as well MissPornUSA as well as all the other expressed in this thread, I have always been of the mindset differing opinions and reasoned arguments are never a bad thing as long as they don't devolve into hostile arguments and pettiness. That is how we grow and evolve. Like I have said that the hardcore racial play has no place in MY porn. That is not going to change; my personal opinion on the matter can be summed up in this meme. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cegr9-xWQAAn1_b.jpg Now if there were such a site that had the content that some here have been advocating I most definitely would not be spending anytime, money or even giving it any thoughand it's existence would not bother me (as long as it content remained in its lane so to speak). I know this content already exists on clips2sale but as an IR fan I would fear that if this proved to be very popular and profitable avenue then it would begin to seep out into the mainstream. I think that most if not all of us are familiar with the idiom give a man an inch and he'll take a mile." That is exactly what I as an IR fan would be afraid of for the genre. Yes I understand that there will always be producers that will not shoot IR in that way that way and that was the case back a decade ago when Dogfart and Hush Hush were shooting those types of scenes, but they were the first companies that the non informed and ignorant thought of when it came to IR porn and thus the entire genre was label in that way unfairly by those not only outside but inside the industry as well.
I've been meaning to bring up Storytelling in this thread for a while. Specifically because it's an instance (while outside of porn) of hard race play that isn't based on some sort of "ghetto/thug" culture. Specifically, it's a powerful and well-educated black man getting off on having these women be so subservient to him that they're willing to do this thing that they know that they aren't supposed to be doing/saying/thinking. Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 3/31/2016 12:15:07 AM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Mar 31 2016 : 6:40AM
Back in school a friend of mine once said that it kind of bothered him that he often felt white girls wanted to sleep with him to piss off their parents. At the same time, he liked to sleep with white girls, so...
You should just take your high horse out of here. People have rape fantasies. And it's not just guys. Women have them too. But as long as they remain fantasies, who are you to judge? Are you really that oblivious to the kinds of dark twisted fantasies that those into BDSM relish entertaining? They may not be for you or me, but judging people for them is no better than judging people by what kinds of violent media they enjoy: e.g. Call of Duty, Mortal Kombat type games, horror movies, macabre novels about serial killers, etc. Actually I think it's much worse to judge people with masochistic or BDSM oriented sexual fantasies. You have to realize by now how much sexual deviance derives from sexual repression, the stigmatization of sex in general. There's actually a good and healthy purpose for sex in our lives. And yet it's suppressed to the point of obliteration in our culture, meanwhile violence is embraced all over TV, in video-games -even in reality, where we are conditioned to approve of so many examples of "justified" violence (homicide by police, death penalty, war) etc. Just how healthy is violence? But if we can tolerate that, then why in the world could you get up in arms over some bad language and fictional hanky panky? I also am not sure who said anything about liking the portrayals of black guys as rapists out for some white booty. The closest example I recall was the ones I provided, referring to porn that was created by a black director in collaboration with a black male performer, Dynamic Booty #4. Those Jake Steed movies were pretty raunchy/rapey too. You must have a problem with them then. I think that exposes a flimsy principle on your part though. Do you not see how much dark twisted or deviant themes in white porn there is? There's no shortage of "bad boys" in porn played by white male performers. You must have a problem with all that as well, right? But if you could at least acknowledge the fact that darker themes exist in white porn just as much if not more than in black/IR porn, then I don't think you would be so quick to judge people with such indignation. The reason I don't judge people on fantasies is because so much of it is relative, and there's no way to really know if those fantasies manifest in minds of so many people because those people are likely to act on them, or on the contrary, do those fantasies exist in their minds because they are so unlikely to act on their natural sexual urges? There's no one size fits all analysis or proscription we can apply.
If it's mean-spirited, it is hardly unique. I tend to get those vibes from almost all sites that are oriented around casing brand new young girls. I usually get the impression the guys who do that are especially turned on by exploiting girls. They even have popular brands with that exact concept: ExploitedTeens, etc. Many sites and movie series cater to that exactly. STILL, to reiterate my previous post, that doesn't mean I'm judging the people who are into that. I bet a lot of females like rougher sex too with both physical and mental manipulation in it. It pretty much wipes out my impulse to feel indignation on behalf of some aggrieved group when there is never unanimity on it within that group. 100% unerring unanimity is not a fair requirement for me to be concerned either, but I don't necessarily mean there has to be literal unanimity. I can be concerned if it's only 10% of a group that is outraged by something. But not so concerned to presume that people who are into some type of fantasy/subject matter are bad people. I simply cannot assume that people are likelier to deserve contempt than tolerance based on their interests in certain fantasies. Maybe if there could be at least a simple majority of a group, say women, who believe some type of porn is especially offensive, I could be more concerned. But even a simple majority, 51%, is very hard to find who feel the same degree of outrage over porn/fantasy. Because there's always so many within a group who feel strongly in favor of said niche. Folks simply do not feel that emotionally invested in haranguing others over the issue of sex fantasies. I can't believe we could even have this debate in 2016. It seems like the moral crusades Tipper Gore and Nancy Reagan spearheaded in the 80s. The most offensive thing about this debate by far is the idea that some people think they either have or should have authority to regulate private sexual fantasies on moral grounds - even on stuff that is entirely legal and consensual. And when I say consensual, I don't mean it only involves parties that are resigned or surrendering to a theme, but actually actively pursuant of participating in it. Some women object to porn where the female performers are roughed up and manhandled. But so many deeply love and desire that very thing. As long as it's happening to those who enjoy it, where's the harm? Who is the victim? If it happens to someone who does not enjoy it, then ok, obviously you have a serious issue. But I think that's all the more reason why it's important to have outlets for people where they know something is not just tolerated by celebrated. That's why the BDSM culture is positive. Look how Kink managed to become a major tent pole in the industry, and notice how they take abuse very seriously. I think without communities like those, you have a lot more people stumbling and more miscommunication and hazard. Once again, pioneering sexual fantasies in porn has had a positive impact on society.
[Link]
Mojo Deactivated User
1223 Posts 9/03
Posted - Apr 3 2016 : 6:32AM
Funny, we don't see any fake rape scenes with white guys raping women. Or what about white guys raping black women, with her using racist remarks towards the white guys? Better still, what about scenes based on 19th Century plantations showing the white master raping his black slaves? Good for those "rape fantasies" too, are you? And nope, I'm neither black nor a lefty.
^ We did and we still do the White Guy Stomp series were gang bangs with a bunch of whites dominating black girls , many gang bangs at Kink are as such and so are some scenes at Dogfart either Interracial Cum Bangs or We Fuck Black Girls (Adriana Malao's scene shows a girl dominated physically and verbally by three guys in a male bathroom at one point they leaned her upon a reverted trash can) again in BDSM contest at Sexually Broken. Fact is that even when a white woman uses a derogatory word while getting thoroughly fucked and dominated by a gang of thugs is still seen as racist by some , you can imagine what would happen if some white guys dominating a black girl would use such words. Actually something like that did happen , Ryan Madison in a Pornfidelity's scene (or Teenfidelity I'm not sure) with Skin Diamond played the role of a Master owner who forced his slave into sex and forced her to say how much she liked his cock , in the end she killed him in revenge, but still a massive shitstorm followed , it raised hell. No wonder nobody would do that again
Ryan Madison put out a scene where he took a whip to Skin Diamond. Edit: That's what I get for leaving the page open for a few hours before replying. Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 4/3/2016 6:59:11 AM
^ well I didn't mention the whip your remark contributes to put such scene in a even more controversial and abusive field as it wasn't on a BDSM site, although the scene actually was EDIT and i didn't mention Ghetto Gaggers, go figure. Edited by - LCF on 4/3/2016 7:09:41 AM
What I always find strange and yet interesting in discussions like this is that the moment race enters the picture it becomes a horrible thing but when it's white on white it's perfectly acceptable. People talk about how wrong it is to have a black guy ravish a poor white girl yet in much of the porn out there white guys do this to white girls on a regular basis. Apparently it's okay for a girl to squeal "Give me that big dick!" if it's white on white sex but if a white girl says "Give me that big black dick" during sex with a black guy it's a horrible and racist? If the guy has a big dick and he's black why is it so bad for the girl to acknowledge it? Why is it okay for porn to portray shady or brutish white guys ravishing poor little white girls but it's no okay for a poor little white girl to get ravished by a black guy wearing certain clothes and carrying himself a certain way without him being a "thug"? Why is it that anytime a black male is involved some of you have different rules of what's "right" or "PC" or "racist"? Not only is there a white version of most of if not all this stuff but in many cases the white version goes further. I see lots of people on this site complaining that BRAZZERS doesn't do PORNSTAR PUNISHMENT anymore. Apparently, white guys doing forceful, "rapey" type scenes is okay and encouraged but I'm pretty sure if someone did a series like that with black guys doing that same thing to white women some people here would be bothered by it. If someone did a movie set in the past of a crew of pirates having their way with women on a ship it's okay but if it were a set in the past on a plantation with blacks and whites for some it becomes a racist travesty. "BLACKZILLA" is bad but "WHITEZILLA" is okay? A white guy on the prowl for barely legal cheerleaders is okay but a black guy wearing a chain and Timberlands running into a white girl who likes black guys is offensive porn? I'm sure some of you will have your own made up rules of why it's not the same but realistically there isn't much difference other than you've applied a set of rules to black men that you don't have for white men.
^ About the plantation: As for the "double standard" I have to admit I was one of those found racist the mention of a black dick or even a black man in a scenes it looked to me as if he wasn't considered a man but something different. But then someone on this board (Blacksix if I recall well) pointed out that he was in fact a man and was a black man so that to acknowledge what was a fact wasn't racism but just love talking during sex. It was like removing something from my eyes, he was right and I suddenly saw that , I don't see that as racist , after all a skin tone could be attracting by itself in my case I consider Ana Foxxx' skin tone very attractive , it glitters in the light. Much alike some other peculiar particulars I like a lot such as red hair ,trimmed pubic hair , very pale fair skin , Japanese women ,little round shaped asses Edited by - LCF on 4/3/2016 9:31:36 AM
^ Yeah, I actually always find it strange that so many people get bent out of shape with porn acknowledging the guy or girl has a different skin color during sex when that skin color might be the reason they're attracted to each other in the first place. If a girl is into black guys of course she's going to acknowledge he's black. If a guy is into big breasts he's going to acknowledge them. If a girl is into big penises she going to acknowledge that the guy has one. Some white girls who are into black guys are into them because of skin tones. Some are attracted to the culture. Some are attracted to the "taboo" aspect. Some are into that whole badboy/thug persona. Some girls are attracted to a guy who just happens to be black. Whatever the case I don't see anything wrong in the girl acknowledging what she's attracted to during a sex scene. But as I stated above when it comes to black men some people have a different set of rules for them.
[Link]
Mojo Deactivated User
1223 Posts 9/03
Posted - Apr 3 2016 : 9:37AM
I did say white guys raping women, as in ANY woman. But the scenes I see with multiple white guys tend to be either simple gangbang context (no rape fantasy) or BDSM, again with no rape fantasy. It's all just guys piling in with the woman being fully accepting. I've never seen any "Let's get the bitch!" fantasy when it's been white guys against one woman. I've seen it loads of times with the IR stuff though, where the focus is on loads of black guys forcing themselves on the white woman with a "Let's get whitey!" attitude, and her spouting out racist expletives.
I'm pretty sure that was me because you mentioned it to me before and I sorta remember conversation and the point I was trying to make. It was about people talking skin color or acknowledging the man being black in IR scenes and how some people saw it as a bad thing.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Apr 3 2016 : 10:13AM
There are hardly any porn scenes that depict black men "raping" white women. Kink filmed plenty of rape fantasy scenarios and most of these were dominated by guys who were not black. Actually, the all-IR gangbangs Kink filmed were always tamer than their usual fare. There was no IR on Brazzers' rape-fetish themed Pornstars Punishment either. I don't think that Psycho Thrillers, which depicts fantasies of rape, murder, and necrophilia, has ever featured a black man on its site.
^ really? wasn't it the only one with a condom? I remember I talked about this back in 2011 , I understand it's porn but still, a condom in XIX th Century? Come on!
Yeah IDK what some people are asserting or claiming, or what exactly it is they are observing. Because in 15 years of watching porn, I've never seen one rape scene. Not in porn anyway. I have seen PLENTY in mainstream movies though. This should tell us something. And I have no idea why ppl keep trying to stigmatize porn. Mainstream entertainment, even stuff you can watch on basic cable, is far more disturbing than mainstream porn. There are shows that are dedicated to rape, dedicated to serial killers, etc. So where people formulate this narrative of porn stereotyping black men as rapists preying on white women is mystifying. Yes we know there's such stereotypes and stigmas in the real world, but in porn, seriously I watch a lot of IR, but I have never seen anything like rape. Actually the closest thing to it was those Jake Steed series, or like I have referred to several times now, that twisted Rico Strong flick directed by Devoe. So the closest I've actually seen to kidnapping/rape type of porn was directed by black guys. I highly doubt they meant for these fantastical pornos to portray actual rape, much less apologize for it. They tended to be hyperbolic or lampoonish, e.g. the ridiculous "Monsters!" voiceover, the absurd dialogue and contrived scenarios. But there's way worse stuff out there, that attempts to be much more realistic or convincing in portraying sexual abuse, whether it's in the form of manipulation, blackmailing, or physical intimidation. Most of it is vanilla. So I just don't see it as being a fair assessment of the industry as a whole with regards to how they have presented IR before, much less how they present it now. If someone was going to speak out against the harmful depictions, I guess they had no problems with Jake Steed. Even Lex Steele worked with Jake, and Lex is a very conscientious person. But he was cast in some movies where the guys would jump out of the bushes and "kidnap" young white girls then go fuck them. It wasn't meant to be realistic. You could tell by their body language and the dialogue it was practically a satire - certainly more of a satire than some attempt to document realistic behavior. I think perhaps it was a way of exorcising mental demons or functioning as a catharsis for real world offenses. To exaggerate and satirize a subject can be constructive in getting perspective. I think it was quite evident they made it ridiculous on purpose. That's regarding the Jake Steed flicks. The Dynamic Booty flick is a bit more realistic and not so intentionally funny. I could imagine that seeming more controversial, and yet, why can't we just respect creative license? People watch revenge porn in mainstream media, highly popular shows like Dexter. It's all about serial killing for Christ's sake. Even if they contrive it to be justified, that's still way worse than porn fantasies. Again it speaks to the bizarre double standard in our culture where we're conditioned to the point of being desensitized to violence in the mainstream, but deviant sex fantasies are still taboo. We don't even take realistic depictions of violence in the mainstream seriously enough to condemn it, so why should we take unrealistic, even intentionally hyperbolic, porn fantasies in a much more private domain to task? By comparison, mainstream porn is incredibly tame next to all the violence in movies and on TV.
^ I think that by "rape" they mean unwilling or not consensual a bunch of thugs surrounding a "poor little girl" don't give her much of a choice , a black guy sent to recover a debt who accept sex instead is still representing somehow forced sex even though not a rape in terms of personal violence.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Apr 3 2016 : 12:08PM
There are plenty of non-IR porn scenes, especially from the gonzo era, in which non-blacks surround a "poor little girl" and don't give her much of a choice. Likewise with your debt example. Neither of those scenarios are primarily restricted to IR.
