Well the more diluted the definition, the easier it is to find in vanilla porn. It's definitely plenty of it out there. Personally I almost never watch porn with more than 1 dude in it. BBG is rare for me to watch. So if we're restricting the parameters to gangbang stuff, honestly I practically never watch that. If there is some bias, then it must be there. I don't see it in 99% of the IR/black fare I watch. Folks like to see some tension sometimes, but that's a universal appeal. Porn has plenty of abusive females too. And personally I like femdom stuff. And a lot of other guys do too, or else it wouldn't be so popular. So what of it? Should we go on some moral crusade about how femdom can be exploited to propagate misandry? Please. lol Honestly, there's way more depictions of hard rape in mainstream media than in porn. We're not talking intimidation or debt collecting. Talking brutal assault, tackling and beating and raping. They can only visually show so much in terms of explicit detail, but then they will describe the details anyway. Porn is very tame by comparison. The only scenes I saw with some kind of "debt collector" scenario show the girls a little nervous, but quickly submitting and thoroughly enjoying the sex. Usually the point of the scene is how much the girl enjoys the very prospect from beginning to end, because she's getting back at the bum who became indebted in the first place. Again, we have to stress how unrealistic porn tends to keep things. They just want to present some kind of kink or deviance for tension or drama, but it's NEVER been some girl being chased down and wrangled and beaten, screaming for it to stop. I have never seen that and I highly doubt that would ever be as common in porn as it is in those murder of the week types of dramas "ripped from the headlines." But in Hollywood, mainstream cinemas commonly show movies with such scenes, cutting short only of the sexually explicit parts. Lots of screaming, lots of violence, brutality, and rape.
^ Of course, I have no problem with any of such scenarios either black or white, I was merely stating some POV of some double standard bigoting statements
@MissPornUSA Back when Lily Carter was actively I was a huge fan of hers and I tried to seek out just about everything that she was in especially her IR content and while searching for some I unfortunately(to me at least) stumbled across Psycho thrillers not knowing what the site entailed and honestly what I saw was so stomaching turning I could not watch any of Lily's scenes for a while after that. But yes there have been not one but several IR scenes on that site: Lily Carter Jennifer White Lyla Storm Adrianna Luna Maya Hills This was about 3 or 4 years ago and I have not been back since because even now as I recall seeing the previews for those scenes my skin is starting to crawl so I am not sure if they are still up or not I am sure you can google search for them if you want to see for yourself the male talent in some of the scenes was Tyler Knight. @Mojo there are places in the far reaches of porn that do feature such scenes with white on white sexual violence, and I find them just as vile as I would if the site featured black on white sexual violence. @Draxxx I don't think there is a problem with acknowledging the differences between performers in a scene, you point out a girl saying "give me that BBC" in a scene and that is perfectly fine. Hate to go back to the Lily Carter well again but in her 1st IR scene released on her website(2nd overall I believe) she is licking Mr Marcus' balls and at a point he says something like "you like this nice dark chocolate." to which Lily replies "mhmm, nice and black" and the way she says it and and the look on her face when she says it is a total turn on; which is why it always stuck out to me and it is still one of my favorite scenes ever just for that 10 seconds. Back to today just look at a typical Blacked scene the performer being black is brought up all the time and fans don't have a problem with that. When it starts becoming over used then it is quite annoying. It's like we are watching the scene we know she is white and he is black do we really need a reminder of it every minute. Acknowledgement is fine but constantly bringing it up is annoying. You make mention of people setting their rules differently for white men vs black men. The rules for white men and black men have always been different no matter if it is a porn set or real life. The fact is white male performers do get more rope in scenes than black men because they are judged as individual performers, while black male performers are often(not always) judged as a group. When a girl has a bad experience with a white performer he is put on her no list, a girl has a bad experience with a black performer all IR is off the table for a while. Remember the whole Mr. Marcus situation as soon as it came out several girls stated they would not shoot IR at least for a while as if Marcus was the total embodiment of IR porn. You also mention how white male performers seem to go harder in their scenes. Adrianna Chechik and Casey Calvert have both said as much, when they noted how black performers were in some of their scenes as opposed to similar scenes with white performers. You don't think that black male performers hear about how girls have been more hesitant to shoot with them because they are believed to be too rough or how a bad experience with them can lead to fewer shoots overall because the girls talk. Then to the imagery issue. Again nothing wrong with portraying a black guy wearing a chain and timbs running into a girl and trying to pick her up. Where people take offense is when that has become the prevailing image of a black guy. It is offensive when you watch 10 IR scenes and 7 or 8 of them portray black guy as some walking stereotype of being into the thug/street life. As a black man myself I am aware that there are black men who are actually that way but I also know there are more black men who don't fit that stereotype than do. In white porn that is not the case there is more of a balance for all the bad boys images portrayed by white male performers there are an equal amount of non bad boy images.
^ as for Mr Marcus nobody was even considering he was black and some black performers were vocal against him , this until some "IR fan" begun to cry about the future of IR porn and I asked them to stop pointing at his skin it didn't really matter , he insisted here and possibly elsewhere , then his sentiment and fear for his poor IR porn going to stop because of the racism against "poor Mr Marcus" that at one point everybody was defending him because he was black , some of those vocals against his behaviour changed their mind and some just stayed silent from then on. It was at this point that some stars claimed they would stop doing IR. Much compliment those guys really succeeded into taking the blame from ONE MAN and put it upon a whole race and then pushing the whole race at his side to defend him just because he happened to be black and removing what the real problem was from the equation. It was at this point that the stars begun to talk (and only that) about not shooting any longer IR scenes , those dumbasses transferred the problem on a race , plus those black were banding together to cover everything up. Blacks in porn seemed to be on a mission, how could you trust them? I mean if another performer showed up positive to syphilis would they stop him? Would they tell to the girl? Would they tell it to the producers? Won't you be afraid something might be covered up just because the performer is black? those were the questions. and I repeat nobody was blaming any black at first, just a man. I saw that coming I howled that to them, it was useless and pointless no reasoning was there. almost at that time though a really bad thing happened to a black man over a familiar issue and what was said really showed prejudices and racism , I don't mention him because I'm pretty sure he doesn't want the issue to resurface, but believe me it was ugly , very few defended him, and I'm proud I can say I was among them BTW , he was right , and he got no consequences everything went well Edited by - LCF on 4/3/2016 1:38:33 PM
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - Apr 3 2016 : 3:23PM
I stand corrected. However, that doesn't prove Mojo's point. Most rape scenarios in porn are not IR, and that includes Psycho Thrillers. Edited by - misspornUSA on 4/3/2016 3:24:11 PM
Everyone is different and draws there own line where they consider it to be too much. I'm fine with people being turned off by it at certain points but there are some people who want all their IR to be just two people having sex with no mention of race. That's fine for some scenes at some studios but I think it's strange when IR fans make a big deal about wanting to see whatever white girl with a black performer and want no acknowledgement whatsoever. Particularly with certain studios. There are people who don't want any mention of race in their IR.I agree with you on that and I've heard of it happening with some girls in the past. But the other part of the equation is that in many cases for some people black performers doing the same thing as their white counterparts become more scandalous simply because they're black.Kylie Ireland has said the same thing about black performers. I think that probably goes back to the double standard thing you mentioned above. If a black performer gets to rough or crosses the line there are girls who will swear off shooting with all black men because of instead of the one(s) responsible for the bad interaction. Plus, I tend to think most black guys are big/bigger and make the decision to go easier because of their size.I don't know if that's the prevailing image for black guys in porn or just the one that sticks out the most or people get upset about. Depending on where you live that's how a lot of black teens and men dress. With sites like DOGFART that's the costume of choice because they're doing a specific kind of black representation there. With studios like JULES JORDAN, EVIL ANGEL, ELEGANT ANGEL, BLACKED, WCP, etc., I don't remember seeing much of that. And as I mentioned, I'm pretty sure some of those guys dress like that in real life. I don't think guys are like the women in porn and bring a suitcase full of clothing choices and some directors aren't picky about what the guys wear.
It seems like everything else everyone has different definitions of "rape" (as we've seen from the James Dean thread). There is "rape" type porn out there. EXTREME ASSOCIATIES did rape type porn back in the day. There's a site called RIPHERTOSHREADS or something of the sort that shows guys showing up and rips the clothes off a "teen" girls force themselves on girls. There's another one where the boyfriend blindfolds his girl and then has a black guy come in and sex with her just to name a few. The reason I say these are "rape type" porn is because in every scenario of this type of porn it shows the girl not wanting it at first but then gets into it along the way. Which I think is a horrible thing to portray in some ways because I'd hate to think there are people who think if they just jump on the women she'll eventually get into it...but then again it would be horrible to watch a girl doing it against her will from start to finish. So it's creepy on multiple levels.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Apr 3 2016 : 6:11PM
I haven't seen any evidence that posters who are against forced sex or rape scenerios here in IR are okay with it in non-IR scenes. That seems like a straw man.
For the record, no better "scholarship" had been introduced into this discussion. Not sure why you demand it of me when the person I was mainly going back and forth with presented nothing which was any more substantive or credible, much less "scholarly." So what's wrong with a link to wiki? If that's not good enough, just google the term "trans-Saharan slave trade" and learn about why Tasty was so incredibly ignorant in his responses. There's countless other sources on the matter. I also didn't only post a link to the wiki entry. I posted a link to Marcus Garvey III, a highly educated and esteemed academic, who gave a 2 hour lecture on the matter. But I guess either you weren't interested in learning after all, or I guess that doesn't count as scholarship. Again, need I remind you, you seem to be applying a higher standard for me than for the people I was going back and forth with. Talk about "whataboutism." Ok, so you dismiss the trans-Saharan slave trade as "whataboutism" when people bring up the trans-Atlantic slave trade - even though it is explained how very relevant those systems were, and how in fact they were directly connected. You could not possibly have had the latter system in its capacity and scale without the former having existed for nearly 1,000 years already establishing the network of trade routes and way points, prison cells, etc. They built up villages, cities, even kingdoms on top of that chattel and sex slave system. And it's directly connected to the trans-Atlantic slave trade, because it used the same routes to the point of sale. The only difference was, instead of rich African and Arabs and Indians buying the slaves, this time it included Europeans. So how is that a "whataboutism" when it's directly related? How is that "whataboutism" when it's the same thing? It's far less of a "whataboutism" than bringing up the trans-Atlantic slave trade in the first place when the specific subject I was debating with TFGSH was why we shouldn't tolerate black porn stars doing what they want to do. TFGSH wanted to say what they do was both wrong and irrelevant. He couldn't make up his mind. As I said before, his whole argument amounts to one conspicuous "whataboutism." It would take less time if you go back and read through his arguments and present one which is not a "whataboutism" given the issue. He's trying to be the sole arbiter of what should or should not be allowed in the domain of people's sexual fantasies. Good grief, this is about as fascistic and intolerant as imaginable as far as matters of speech go. Imagine the gall. Telling people their fantasies are not allowed, when they are already regulated in order to be compliant with legal code. Trying to regulate sexual fantasy... Come on. Go back and review this thread and tell me it is not abundantly clear who the truly intolerant parties are. It should come as no surprise, certainly no coincidence, that they'd be the ones most given to insults. As to your assertion that I don't find anything wrong with a site called ghettogaggers, it is quite clear you were not paying attention. I believe I was among the first to bring that site into discussion because it's actually fascinating how popular that particular site is with its black audience. In fact, the only contacts I've known who were rabidly enthusiastic about that site were dudes on a predominately black forum. They loved seeing those women degraded and humiliated by "crackas." And more ironic was the fact that the forum in question was especially afro-centric and typically racist toward non-blacks. So again, I urge you to actually pay attention to my comments ITT if you're going to attempt a dialogue here. If you were paying attention, I personally took exception to Ghettogaggers because it's not to my taste at all. But not only did you miss that, you missed the whole point, which was it doesn't matter if I subjectively find a site distasteful. Why? Because there is a principle here which is greater than any one person's sensibilities. We have to tolerate the legal and consensual sexual fantasies, however deviant or distasteful they may be to you or me, because the whole world is not supposed to cater to just you or me. I've long understood this. Why don't you? Not every site out there is going to cater to your sensitive tastes. Not every site will suit your sensibilities. Some may even seem offensive to you. There countless sites out there I find distasteful or even offensive. That doesn't grant me moral authority to urge or agitate for some kind of regulation against them, or to cast judgment on those into said incongruous fetishes or kinks. I don't get that by engaging in the kind of "whataboutism" that TFGSH was dredging up. I don't get to point fingers and morally exculpate myself just because it's some shit out there I ain't like. It doesn't work that way. If there's something we could possibly agree on, it would be that we both dislike Ghettogaggers. Although it's only implied you don't like it. Maybe you do. Maybe you're just here to say it's wrong but the truth is you love it anyway. But I'll give the benefit of the doubt that you actually have the same distaste for that particular site as I do. The main difference however - and this is key - is that unlike me, you are intolerant of it. You actually think it should be shut down? Edited by - Melvyn on 4/27/2016 4:29:36 PM
Uh because after three autopsies and a federal investigation overseen by none other than the chief-most legal executive in the land, the attorney general of the United States, Obama's own watchdog who called America "a nation of cowards" with regards to race, Eric Holder found that "hands up don't shoot" was in his words "BOGUS" and that prosecuting Wilson would have been another colossal waste of time and resources. A better question is, why the hell would someone compare Darren Wilson with Dylan Roof? Come on. This is why people won't take you seriously. Their stories are not the least comparable, and if you think they are, then you've been hoodwinked and bamboozled to a shocking level of blind faith in whatever your dubious sources of information are. You just reminded me of that "leak" in the frenzied circus that was the Ferguson aftermath in which Wilson was supposedly implicated as some kind of KKK wizard. That "bombshell" was supposedly revealed by the notorious Anonymous Collective. Only it wasn't Anonymous. It was just anonymous. An anonymous fraud posing as Anonymous. But their "expose" was rife with grammatical and spelling errors. Speaking of lies and fraud and Ferguson, everyone has their own opinions, but for me when the case totally fell apart irretrievably was when one key witness who claimed Wilson shot Brown execution style, while Brown was on his knees with hands up, said she got it recorded on video on her phone. This was one of the key initial witness statements to media that caused the story to erupt, along with the city itself. When it came time to testify before the grand jury, where was she and her evidence? She refused to appear, saying of her critical evidence oops, she "dropped it in the toilet."
http://www.snopes.com/dylann-roof-donations/ Seriously. Quit drinking the kool-aid. That was debunked almost a whole year ago. Whatever your sources of info are, you cannot abandon them fast enough. And it's a mite bit ironic you speak about indoctrination, when you sound not merely indoctrinated but brainwashed.
I forgot about this thread because it had become intolerably tedious and aggravating before it was halfway through, so I gave up on it. But it's still been lingering in "My Topics" in the top 10, so I finally decided to catch up. I think the topic is still relevant. You may disagree but I believe the principles of free speech are of paramount consequence. I also resent having my views mischaracterized. And while a month may seem a long time to respond, it could hardly be argued as being too long to dispel a myth that was debunked 10 months ago. There's no statute of limitation for fact checks.
Don't know how to feel here, I understand that this site seems to be one of the newer clip sites and its small and growing and if they are getting complaint and possible losing business then they have to do what's best for them. While I in no way support that kind of content (I find it sickening personally) if you start down that path of removing it you go down a very slippery slope. What if a bunch of racist assholes got together and started complaining and said that they were offended by the IR category in total do you remove it. Like I said I said previously I have no problem with this stuff on these sites, these clip sites seem to fill the void for those who seek out this content it would not be made if someone was not buying it.
I'd have to actually see what they mean by "racial humiliation" before I decided whether to be upset about this. It could not just be about raceplay, and more along the lines of a video of the woman just verbally degrading someone using racist language, without sex involved. I mean, there's already a niche out there where women basically just call men sissies and weak and tease them. Even then I'd side with the idea that it has a right to exist, but a company also has the right to say they don't want to be affiliated with that type of content.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - May 5 2016 : 1:02AM
^Thing is, the site still has categories like dehumanization, humiliation, verbal humiliation, verbal abuse, etc. up and running. Is the thinking that it's okay to get off to those videos because the subjects of the humiliation are men, and men are not an oppressed class? Is "Ebony Female Domination" acceptable to the site owners for similar reasons, and do those same reasons explain why they don't have a problem with clips from people like Tiffany James extolling the superiority of BBC over white cock? Edited by - misspornUSA on 5/5/2016 1:14:49 AM
I think sites like Blacked and DarkX are great. They show a different aspect of porn. HOWEVER....Im pretty freaky lol. So raceplay, hard sex, dirty talk, etc are a big turn on. Theres a time and place for passion and theres a time and place for FUCKING. I prefer hard nasty fucking normally. Thats what I like to bring to the table.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - May 6 2016 : 11:01PM
^The Violet Monroe scene on your site is definitely right up my alley. In there much or any raceplay on the site? That would definitely be a draw for me.
Glad you like the scene. Violet is one of my favorites. There's a bit of raceplay ive filmed so far. My scene with Amarna Miller has some moments, for example. But Im going to be shooting a VERY hardcore scene with a pretty nasty west coast talent next weekend. That scene will have lots of race play, n word, choking, slapping, etc.
Battle flag yes. The racist white girl who gets destroyed by big black dick is a classic raceplay type of scene. Not really feeling the swastika, iron cross or whips. Chains yeah tho. Restraints are kinky. www.dickdrainers.com
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - May 7 2016 : 12:49AM
Sounds like it could be a GREAT scene. I may just have to sign up.
[Link]
Dick_Biggins Deactivated User
64 Posts 5/16
Posted - May 7 2016 : 5:50PM
I think it's more jealousy than hate. True, some people can't stand to see race mixing, but others know when they see a black man with a white woman, that woman is getting her guts grinded out. That's not to say that love isn't involved, but I think its just the sympton of a culture that see their well as pure and once a black man gets his hands on it, it's tainted. On the flip, black women can hate white women as well. It makes me laugh. Taboos aside, white women, in my experience, are much more passionate in bed, much more open and take more pride in their personal appearance. At the end of the day. IR porn is entertainment. You got men who couldn't pull a 6 on a good day fucking 8's and 9's and corny cats, pretending their are the kings of cool. My suggestion to anyone is don't take it too serious. IR porn will never be known for class.
^^Dude you managed to hit the ugly stereotype that every IR couple faces there are a whole lot of IR couples out there that love each other and it is about way more than the guy grinding his girls guts out. And like Joey said I don't know where you are meeting the non white women you come across but all those I have come across sure as hell make sure to keep themselves up, when I hit the gym I see just as many non white women in there as white. Nail salon the same thing and getting their hair done forget about it. As for openness again the most open girl I have ever been with was Asian and passion that depends on the person herself. Don't deal in generalities they do more harm than good.
People talk about stereotypical interracial but do I believe a lot of girls that shot for dogfart/hush hush back in the day enjoyed using the N word. You can tell they were turned on being able to call a black guy the N word. I mean from sasha grey to spring thomas, They used the N word and you can tell they really enjoyed it and it was a major turn on for them. It's they would usually be afraid to say, so it was a turn on. They clearly were very comfortable saying it. I like this type of IR porn, 1 of my my favorite pornstar every is spring thomas. She was the bomb. So i do agree it is becoming way to PC. It should be raw and intense. I mean they get paid more to do it on blacked, so no point and trying to say it is equal or the same as white on white.
Clearly it's not for everyone ,and many aren't comfortable with it, but yeah, it can be kind of hot when they don't hold back with the hard language. It's all just roleplay anyhow.
I think iWC are gambling here with this. It's their business, so they have a right to operate it how they feel best. I just think it's unnecessary to alienate consumers like that. Most bookstores offer a variety of subjects and authors. Some authors are very conservative and overzealous and their views offend me. Some are on the polar opposite end, and their views are similarly hypocritical and sanctimonious, and they offend me. Left wing, right wing - it doesn't matter to me, because it's never been hard for me to find fault with polemics in either camp. I still prefer a bookstore that allows both of their works to be sold. You don't fight speech you disagree with by censoring or no-platforming it. You fight it with more speech, better speech, so that in the end, the better ideas will win. Ideas need to be a free market where we can scrutinize and interrogate views with civil discourse and healthy debate.Keep doing what you do and don't ever let anybody browbeat you into conforming. It is my humble view that raceplay or hard race themes in porn is no more controversial than violence in media, and it seems like tempting grounds upon which some sanctimonious demagogs seek to grandstand and foment hysteria and wrangle unearned moral authority among sheep, such are the dynamics of moral panic. Think about it. It's just like the fake outrage over violent videogames in the 90s, spearheaded by ill-informed, manipulative political opportunists on crusade. They wanted to scare people into thinking kids were being "brainwashed" and "trained" by Mortal Kombat and DOOM to become hardened killers. Indeed, videogames were becoming dramatically more explicitly violent in the 90s, but what the crusaders failed to recognize was that also during this time, rates of violent crime were entering a steady decline and have continued to fall ever since. We all know that correlation =/= causation. However, if there is a correlation, which the moral crusaders so fastidiously insist, then as it turns out, it is a negative correlation, meaning, the more prevalent violence in media/videogames have become, the less violence we've seen in the real world. Jackasses like activist Jack Thompson shouldn't have been condemning their chosen targets, but praising them. The guy made a career of projecting evil where it wasn't. It only came from him, which incidentally would lead to his disbarment. You can read about that goon of a litigator here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Thompson_%28activist%29#Disbarment So there was the crusade against videogames in the 90s, despite inconvenient things like facts and statistics to the contrary, and before that, there was the moral crusade against violent comic books and metal music in the 80s. In the 80s they called it the "Satanic Panic." Oh yeah, Ronnie James Dio and crossdressing Dee Snider were lieutenants of the Devil out to turn your kids into mass murders and summon the anti-Christ. Now we have all the moral panic instigators telling you about this impending race war. What a joke. Don't believe the hype. I don't even believe that racial motivations account for 1% of all violent crimes. But if you stay glued to the media, you'd believe every other crime being committed was a hate crime. If, as iWC claims, racism is a growing issue, then how do they explain rising rates of interracial couples and marriage? Our society is as mixed and tolerant as it has ever been in the history of this nation. Forget the shocking headlines. All media promotes are outliers and anecdotes to rattle you, just like those manipulative opportunistic idiotic political crusaders in past moral panics. They want to make you scared so you will grant them more authority and power. That's their agenda. I do not care to hazard too much speculative psychoanalysis upon any sexual fantasy or fetishes, but if anything, hard raceplay is only going to undermine racism in the real world, which is to say, it takes power away from bigotry and superstitious hatred. I think it represents a cathartic release of anxiety that has built up because of repression which has been imposed by society. It could very well be constructive. For some I would wager it is even therapeutic.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - May 13 2016 : 1:52PM
You're reaching, this is a purely inter-porn discussion, there's no evidence anywhere that it is remotely like the mass social panic of the 80s around supposed Satanic cults.
When I liken this type of kneejerk grandstanding to moral panics of the past, I don't mean just within the domain of adult entertainment. I am speaking more broadly about PC-hysteria in general. The fact that it has now crept into adult entertainment is just the damning final straw. Adult sexual fantasies virtually never leave the bedroom. So what threat do they pose to society? You could have actually made the case, however paranoid and tenuous, about the ill effects of metal or hiphop music on impressionable youth because that material emanates into the public domain. It pervaded the airwaves. It entered the mainstream culture. But you'd still have been left with a ridiculous, fascistic, and illiberal repression rooted in hysteria. But trying to regulate people's fantasies is absurd. This is arguably worse than the moral panics of decades past. The panic may not yet be as widespread, but it cuts deeper. These nazis actually want to regulate your private fantasies. They want to regulate your thoughts. Telling you how you can behave in public or what words you can say on the radio is child's play compared to what they want now. Now they want to get inside your head and control your mind. I can be cynical about this and concede that there are always limits to speech. I think most people reasonably draw the line when it comes to call to action, or instigation of force. The idea of free speech is pretty much like the idea of democracy - principles we aspire to, but there's always limitations. We hedge our bets. And it's interesting that these limitations are self-imposed for the same reason. We can't really have totally free speech, because people think society will fall apart. We can't really have total democracy, because people think society will fall apart. So we have gatekeepers and representatives to regulate everything and act as shepherds, and we must be the sheep. But at no point have I ever seen any porn that functioned as some call to action to harm any group or any individual. I've seen some really fucked up stuff in non-porn fiction though. As I've said before, there's countless acts depicted on basic cable which are worse by far. Here's a pretty insightful commentary on the current state of society with respect to PC: https://youtu.be/IPsmJESO-ZE
I don't need the dumb racist tropes of old. But I think it's strange how it's incredibly easy to find rough white-on-white porn... but I can't find much rough interracial porn, whether old or new. Recommendations welcome.
As others and myself speculated, the difficulty in finding just basic rough IR stems from PC sensitivity. People are afraid it will be construed as uniquely aberrant and stereotypical. " White guy fucking white girl with aggression, slapping, choking, berating = "good old fashioned rough sex." Black guy fucking white girl with any of the above = "that is offensive." It's aggravating how there could be people not realizing what's happening here, especially when these people who fail to recognize this are ostensibly looking out for minority interest. They pose as being conscientious and for social justice in not just all public avenues of life, but also in general media, and not just general media but also adult entertainment now. In effect, they are not combating any double standard but creating one. And what you're now noticing is a trend that's been going for a while now, which has meant the taming of IR porn. I think it's a bizarre manifestation of the bigotry of low expectations. People are misguided because they think by acknowledging tropes of old, or stereotypes and stigmas, that they are helping, but they don't realize they are just reinforcing them, by constantly reminding people "that's a stereotype." It will never die like that. It only becomes more potent by hyping it up into some great outrage. It's the same thing that happens with so-called "dirty words." What George Carlin famously enumerated as the "7 things you can't say on TV." Telling people that some words are "worse" than others only makes those words stronger. The best way to keep kids using dirty words is to tell them not to. The best way to get them to tire of those words and eventually abandon them is to act disinterested or unimpressed. Raise the next generation without the same silly concerns, and eventually those superficial concerns will fade. Acting more and more outraged by silly things is only cannibalizing language. Look up the concept of the euphemistic treadmill. It supports the idea that all these word and thought police are only perpetuating trivial issues and making them into bigger ones than they EVER were before. But I think the younger generations are actually doing their part by using "dirty words" so much that they lose power. And shouldn't that be the goal? If dirty/bad words are a huge concern to you, you should be all for their dilution by overuse. Use the word "fuck" so much, maybe we stop thinking there's something evil about sex. Use the word "bitch" so casually, people no longer attach inherent female characteristics to it. For the most part, these words have lost a lot of power they used to have, and people these days are simply less impressed by them. "Fuck" is still regarded as the ultimate obscenity (not to be confused with the ultimate pejoratives - those being the N and F words), but who seriously gives a fuck anymore? I think as these terms become diluted and their weight diminished, people finally focus on what is really important with respect to language, and that is context. And I think the ultimate trump card in terms of context is porn. That changes everything. This is a domain where we should be a lot more tolerant of speech, because no one can just go out and project or broadcast it into the public sphere. There's laws against that which we'll likely never see changed in our lifetimes. I'm okay with laws restricting when and where porn can be publicized. Maybe I shouldn't be, but this speaks to my previous comment about how we all concede limitations on speech. I understand why people may not want to take their kids to the park and see someone with a T-shirt that has a screenshot of a gangbang on it. If I took my kids out and saw that, I wouldn't act appalled and outraged. I wouldn't call the cops. But I do understand how it makes some people uncomfortable. And I can understand something being uncomfortable while still respecting free expression. Sorry about yet another tangent, but I just feel strongly about this because I think the solutions or resolutions are so simple if people just smartened up about it. Let kids use whatever dirty words they want. If we do this, eventually either they'll grow up and tire of them or the connotations of these words will evolve to the state those who are constantly outraged by them should actually want them to arrive at. It wouldn't be such an issue anymore. And let adults indulge in the sexual fantasies they wish to. As far as catering to those fantasies goes, the only concern producers of adult content should have is being in compliance with codes regarding age of performers and consent. Edited by - Melvyn on 5/14/2016 2:50:57 PM
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 14 2016 : 6:10PM
I think you're missing something that makes porn different from most other forms of entertainment. It isn't just a fantasy. Porn is real in so much as what you see on the screen is pretty much what happened on the set. You aren't watching simulated sex. You are watching real sex. You aren't seeing simulated violence for the most part, you are watching real violence. There may be some acting with regards to how the performers respond to what's happening to them, but generally speaking, the stuff did actually happen. So you have to consider the possibility that the performers aren't comfortable acting out those scenarios because they aren't just acting. Snuff porn isn't illegal because it's not politically correct. It's illegal because somebody fucking dies. So it makes sense to me that the more you push the boundaries with things like hard race play, fewer and fewer performers will be interested in participating. Looking at Hollywood where most people know that the actors are acting many performers still shy away from roles where they portray particularly unsavory characters, either because they just aren't comfortable in the roll, or because they don't want to be tainted by the roll. Nobody wants the roll of "creepy pedophile" in a movie because if you do the job well, people tend to think of you as a creepy pedophile even though they know it was just a role. Now think about how difficult it is for most people to separate porn performers from their on screen persona (this board is chock full of people that refuse to acknowledge that such a line even exists) and ask yourself why a black male performer might not want to film scenes where he is mistreating a white woman. Don't get me wrong. I have no problem with people having whatever fantasies they want. Heaven knows there is some fucked up shit that turns me on, but the reason that some stuff doesn't get produced isn't necessarily political correctness. Sometimes its just stuff that people aren't interested in doing.
^ The way I like to describe it is that most mainstream BDSM pornography (i.e. Kink) is basically like wrestling. So yeah, they are hitting each other, but there pulling their punches and making it look worse than it actually is for the sake of creating a show that people will enjoy. ^^ I do generally agree with you, and my only counter argument would be that some of the people that were creating these scenes 5-10-15 years ago are still around and active (from male performers to female performers to producers). So I ask myself the question of did they stop producing this stuff because they became less comfortable shooting it, or because they figured that the marketplace for it dried up in terms of making a mainstream commercial product full of it. Edited by - whatsatelephonebill on 5/15/2016 3:43:05 AM
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - May 15 2016 : 3:49AM
Good comparison. In terms of why it has dried up, I think it has more to do with the contraction of the market, it was niche before the gonzo boom and has returned to that state. At the same time, light S&M with some story or vignette has boomed due to Fifty Shades.
I ♥ the male gaze (and Palestine). 8737 Posts 11/13
Posted - May 15 2016 : 6:06PM
^There's niche and then there's niche. Is it really just the market that has banished hard raceplay to clip sites? Is the consumer base that small? ^^Are you asking about hard raceplay or rough IR? Murdock's comment was about why there aren't many rough IR scenes, but he appears to have mistakenly conflated hard raceplay with rough IR.
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - May 15 2016 : 6:24PM
I'd say both genres are pretty niche. Overt hard raceplay porn barely existed in the 70s when features had to try and appeal to a wide audience and range of tastes within one feature, but at least one kinky or S&M scene per film was considered standard. Perhaps that was because IR was considered so taboo that hard raceplay would be gilding the lily? The only exception that comes to mind is the infamous Hot Summer in the City but that film is dirt cheap even by sleazy 70s standards. Even watching the slowly increasing rate of IR throughout the 80s and early 90s it seemed pretty rare. Not sure exactly when it kicked off and became more acceptable, somewhere during the gonzo boom of the mid 90s to early 00s?
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 15 2016 : 6:39PM
I didn't mistake anything. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and each one can contain elements of the other. That said, even if we went with your incorrect assumption about my comments, they still apply because I'm sure there are performers that aren't comfortable with hard raceplay. (I sure wouldn't be)
Sigh... I know the difference between fantasy and reality. What I am trying to explain is if people consent not just to the physical but the psychological aspects entailed in these scenarios, then how can we complain about it? If you have a problem with someone else's fantasy, you can still respect it as long as they are not imposing that fantasy on you or anyone else against their will. The only area that gets complicated is with age of participants, and depending on where you live, the societal standards vary on what is an appropriate age for consent. But no one here is arguing about age of consent. I think it's a given we all generally accept this moral parameter. And no one here is arguing that anyone must accept some fantasy being imposed on them. The examples you may give about some performers having misgivings or qualms with certain scenarios does not contradict what I said at all. If a performer is of age to consent, but they are not comfortable with a given scenario, then they don't have to go along with it, and forcing them into that is wrong. That's why I have stressed this over and over and over again. Consent matters for the participants. This really should go without saying. However, if we're referring to fantasies of a given audience, their fantasies impose nothing on anyone against their will. That's why it's just called a fantasy. Some producers will try to cater to those fantasies. I see nothing wrong with this, (repeating this caveat for the umpteenth time) so long as the performers involved are alright with what the scenario entails. If they feel misled or mistreated, then it is not only a shameful violation of their trust, I support legal recourse against the producer if they are coercing the performers to comply. When it comes to PC-sensitivity, I fail to see how what I have described conflicts with even the utmost sensitive person. My view is that people should be allowed to do as they please so long as it's legal. The parameters for what is legal are already quite restrictive beyond what I believe is necessary, but I'm not on some crusade to move any existing legal goalposts. If someone is especially sensitive to certain themes, like abuse of women, or better yet, concerned for abuse of anyone, then they can simply avoid the edgier porn that caters to the BDSM fans. Do we really need some kind of authoritarian pressure to regulate sexual activity even further than what it is legally constrained to be in compliance with? Edited by - Melvyn on 5/17/2016 11:31:20 PM
I think what some of us are trying to get at is that there certainly is a audience for the raunchy, raucous, and racy - even "offensive" - porn also featuring hard raceplay. Look at Dogfart. How in the hell could they possibly have been #1 for over 10 years otherwise? I do criticize them often, but one thing you have to tip your hat to is Dogfart's willingness to offend all comers. It's pretty fair to call them equal opportunity offenders. And isn't that the PC way to be? If you're going to offend someone, may as well offend everyone, right? That's how most professional comedians last without being hated too much. You gotta be able to take it if you're going to dish it. Most comedians know their audience doesn't want to be preached to, so they make room to make fun of themselves. All the greats understood it. Pryor, Carlin, Dangerfield, Murphy, Hicks, Rock, etc. I'm sure eventually someone will realize what's missing, or if I may hazard a prediction, I expect Blacked will gradually increase the edginess of their content, just as Dogfart has been incrementally trying to improve their technical production quality. I'll tell you now, neither one is perfect, nor do they have to be. It's okay for brands to try and stay distinct. They can evolve too. What I'd like to know is what do you guys think of Dogfart. I've dispensed by 2 cents on numerous posts. I use them as a reference point because, until Blacked came along, Dogfart was the biggest name on the web for exclusive IR. I try not to hate on them too much and forgive them for their past. I can't condemn them forever. But surely some of you must think they should be shut down? I mean, what with the PC sensitivity and everything? Or what about HushHush? Do you guys remember them? It's ok to draw the line somewhere. Everyone has to at some point.
I'm not an actor, but I play one on TV 911 Posts 4/06
Posted - May 18 2016 : 12:00AM
^^My point had nothing to do with forcing people to perform in scenarios they weren't comfortable with. As you said that should go without saying. My point wasn't necessarily counter to yours but in addition to it. You and others basically addressed things from a consumer/demand side of the equation and I was simply pointing out that isn't the only variable that can lead to more PC porn. I'm not trying to attack those that do perform in those scenes. I couldn't care less what other consenting adults do. You mention there is clearly a demand for such scenes. I agree. (and again, couldn't care less) So if we agree the demand exists, and it isn't being produced in the quantities expected, then we might ask ourselves why. My answer is that there are fewer performers willing to make such scenes. If you think any of that is wrong, that's fine too but in the future, I'd appreciate it if you'd take it down a notch when responding to a post of mine where I am effectively agreeing with you.
