i guess when a person can no longer understand or comprehend english, maybe that person needs a long break from reading.

boy, oh boy!

[Link]

I don't care if they "knew" what they were getting into or not!
IMHO, getting-off on the pain of others is just sick

[Link]

so slapping a girl in the face, calling her a piece of s*it whore, slapping their vaginas, slapping their breasts, spitting in their faces, choking them, etc is somehow "not emotional pain", but an "acceptable form of fantasy".

but as soon as the girl sheds a tear, it then becomes an issue of "getting off on someone elses pain".

how is watching everything i listed above NOT "getting off on the pain of others"?

if the girls are doing these films, these girls are subjecting THEMSELVES to "pain", whether "emotional" or otherwise.

somehow a girl, who ALLOWS herself to be slapped around, have people choke her, spit in her face, and choked, the makers of this film are somehow "crossing a line" if the "poor girl" (who agreed to be in this type of film) sheds a tear.

so i suppose everything else in the film is acceptable, but the minute she sheds a tear, a "line" has been somehow crossed.

[Link]

But frankly, I don't think you have never heard that movies are not for real.

[Link]

there is nothing that would constitute a "crime" in any of these films.

ok, so everything thats done to these girls in these films is just "acting", but the minute she cries its all of a sudden "real".

and yes i understand that "movies" (with actors) are not real.

but when a guy is choking a girl, spitting in her face, slapping her in the face etc, it sure seems "real" to me.

maybe the guy is not slapping her in the face, or spitting in her face, maybe its "camera tricks".

please oh "master of united states law", show me where its "illegal" to "humiliate" a porn actress in this type of film?

and if it IS illegal, then why is the rest of the film not illegal?

oh yeah, i forgot-

the rest of the film is just "acting".

its "real" when the girl sheds a tear.

ok.

[Link]

Nonetheless, everyone is entitled to view what they want, and filmmakers who are in this industry to stay (like Khan, Max Hardcore and Rocco) must respond to the desires of their fanbase, or they're out of business. Write to Khan. Ask him for unabridged "Euro" versions, uncut and without sympathy. They may already exist. God knows the footage is out there somwhere.

Best, Zen

"...you must be ONE! ONE with your DICK!" - Jose Duval, The Pillowman

[Link]

BTW, adorable as she is to the eye, Kat is REALLY fucked up right now, and it has nothing to do with porn. This is a girl who was thrown out of school for fighting, so it's just as likely that Khan cut the scene right before she clocked the camera operator or some other unsuspecting member of the crew. No wood there, my greater point being that you may not have missed a thing.

Zen

"...you must be ONE! ONE with your DICK!" - Jose Duval, The Pillowman

[Link]

In the 70's (perhaps when the law was more vague) some Euro porn featured underage girls (usually nude 'sexual posing' in magazines).
Now we see certain pornographers trying to push the limits with physical/emotional abuse. Obviously they'll take it as far as they can without overly exposing themselves to the risk of prosecution.

Edited by - sir wankalot on 3/24/2007 7:19:53 PM

[Link]

The reason these type of films exist is the same ole same ole gets boring after a while.

I guarantee most men start out with standard porn. After a while u need something else to float your boat.

I always like something different like Midnight Prowl(even though most of the people in them are ugly) or Shanes World with real regular people.

Every now and again I rent a transexual video but when I watch them I mostly FF through them.

Edited by - porn for breakfast on 3/24/2007 8:03:34 PM

[Link]

what i feel is being "cut out" is the ENTIRE episode from start to finish, of the girls experience during the filming.

its kind of annoying to see a girl "fine" one moment, then the footage is "cut", now she is in tears, then the footage is "cut" again, and now she is "fine" again.

i want to see the entire un-cut footage of the girl "breaking down".

if he (khan tusion) is going to show us "some" of the footage of the girl in tears, why not show us the whole thing?

on another note, id like to know more about "kat" being "f*cked up" right now.

does she have "mental issues" or is it something else?

zen master 2007, any further info would be great.

[Link]

Myk

[Link]

Without revealing anything sensitive that would send the "danger boys" rifling through Zabasearch for her exact whereabouts, Kat has had more than her share of disturbing "Britney-meltdown" episodes as of late, and it seemed to be yet another tragic case of a naive young girl with SERIOUS psychological troubles hell bent on bringing an abrupt end to her tenure on this earth. Here's to Kat, with the hope that she's found the help she needs and is getting better. "El chica que me mola."

Zen

"...you must be ONE! ONE with your DICK!" - Jose Duval, The Pillowman

[Link]

"We looked like a monkey fucking a football out there!" ~ Randy Quaid

[Link]

First of all it sounds like a form of mental abuse.

However, if it isn't real - they are actors in a movie - then it is just a domination type of role play. Clearly someone can roleplay even about real life situations. For example in talking they decide their going to talk about her realife father and she's going to cry about it etc.

If the mental abuse is real on the other hand then we enter a gray area. For example it went beyond a domination role then what she expected or they agreed to. Bringing in real life situations, or even not real situations but just pushing her too far and her crying for real.

Now real mental abuse without physical contact is not illegal normally. The illegal factor is important because you can't have a company that commits crimes in order to profit off of the crimes through video distribution. However, it can be illegal in some instances such as causing a person to do something that is illegal or threating them and causing them to do something against their will.

Now for the gray area. If you really mentally abuse someone and combine that with physical pentration that could be a crime even if the penetration was consentual. The crying is seen as a withdrawl of consent. So you hire a girl, you role play, during that role play you mentally abuse her for real to the point of crying, you cannot then go and have sex with her. She is emotionally no longer able to consent. You have to first, remove the mental abuse, give her time to rebalance, than have her re-agree to penetration.

Another issue is obscenity. Obscenity is hard to define but mentally abusing someone real or not can definitely make for a higher percentage of people labeling it as obscene, since

1. most people do find it psychollogically unhealthy (appeals to prurient interest) to abuse women mentally.
2. most people would find combining mental abuse with sex a patently offencsive way to depict sex
3. most people would find mental abuse and sex not to be artistic expression or having some kind of redeming societal value .

I used the term most because some people will not agree with points 1-3. Thats what makes it a gray area. The higher that percentage the riskier it is to sell, the studio cutting the footage is one way of reducing the percentage of people considering it obscene and thereby protecting themseleves.

Conclusion, ultimately I believe the cut was to protect the studio. Additionally, films that contain real mental abuse should not be allowed. Films that contain role playing mental abuse should be handled delicately with proper discretion and balanced against the risk of prosecution.

[Link]

While that may be a bit tricky with a Khan Tusion deal, it's not quite so tricky with flat out bondage. There's not much of a way a girl could go into a bondage scene NOT knowing what she was getting into. Especially since most people into the bondage stuff are very careful about issues of consent, the use of safe words and so forth. The ignorant know nothing of any of this. They see a girl getting whipped or something and she's whining and they insist that she must be being abused against her will. I dunno. Apparently they think this is the middle ages or something where a woman who didn't consent wouldn't go straight to the cops.

I've seen Kat in actual bondage scenes before and she always seems to have gravitated more towards the extreme side of things so I personally think she probably likes it. Khan Tusion does a particular kind of psychological thing that I don't care for and I wish he wouldn't. Mainly because I don't think the market is ready for that kind of thing. Joe Sixpack is never gonna grasp BDSM-type themes. Market it to the people who get it and don't stick your neck out with the run of the mill consumer.

[Link]