I don't like this stuff myself because I need to see a beautiful face to get off.

[Link]

I'm not going to say I want to see this, or think it actually is funny, or think there's anything good about it. But I think there are probably a thousand movies out there more dehumanizing, more misogynist, and more detrimental to the world at large and to the image of porn. Any Max Hardcore flick, for instance, or to take an easy and extreme example, Forced Entry. I personally am not a big fan of Gag Factor. Dirty ass-to-mouth disturbs me much more.

And on and on. It's definitely not "the lowest", IMHO. It's just stupid. I don't think it's even that hateful, really. That's going to be just a matter of perspective, so I don't know if there's any way to argue that point, but I think it's just playing off the observation that there are people whose bodies are more attractive than their faces. I'm going to guess that the uncredited ladies under the bags aren't even unattractive... they're regular porn hotties doing it in service of the gimmick.

This is assuming that the movie contains regular porn sex, except with a bag. If the material is abusive, verbally or otherwise, that might change my opinion. But then my offense would be at the abusiveness, and not the bag.

$.02

[Link]

I don't see any need to get outraged over it. I think there's a lot more degrading and humilating stuff in porn that pops up all the time besides putting a paper bag over someone's head. And I usually see people raving about those titles.

-- Snowman

[Link]

I wonder if there is big (if any) demand for brown-bag movies? Seems like the producers are trying to be original, but they missed the mark. I'm not familiar with this studio, do they make gothic/satanic-wannabe movies?

Like the character in "8mm" with Nicolas Cage?

[Link]

and

Edited by - Bob on 7/10/2003 12:56:38 PM

[Link]

I can certainly understand Bob's problems with it... dehumanizing... to a great degree it compartmentalizes porn even further down into nameless, faceless body parts and penetration--which is pretty much my biggest problem with today's porn in general. Although I don't have terribly strong feelings of outrage over it, I simply don't understand its appeal, and that's the end of it for me.

To be truthful though, I'm watching less and less porn these days largely because of this continually perpetuating content, and my reaction to this might be one of mere ambivalence just because I may not be holding out much hope for porn in general, and in a way I'm giving up.

That's not to say that there isn't great stuff out there still. I have my likes, for sure, and it's still relatively easy for me to find it. Consumer tastes are changing I suppose, or maybe it's just the producer's interpretation of those tastes that are changing, and consumer's are just taking what they're given. I really don't know anymore. Thankfully I've still got my imagination to provide EXACTLY what I want for the moment that I want it. That's what I'm relying on more than anything now-a-days. I can say for sure that this particular title will never be on my list. Take away the women's beautiful faces... and what's the point? That's how I feel.

To each his own I suppose. :)

Mike L.

Edited by - MLyons on 7/10/2003 5:20:53 PM

[Link]

I find it hard to believe anyone would have such a strong emotional reaction to this....... ......

Clearly this goes beyond your comprehension of tasteful porn, but think yourself lucky you don't live in Iraq, where even the thought of owning a porn dvd is liable to get your willy chopped off.

image from adultdvdempire.com

[Link]

Edited by - Myload on 7/10/2003 5:03:05 PM

[Link]

Brown Bag is right along the lines of what a lot of wall to wall sex dvds contain; it just is more obvious about it.

I wonder what your reactions are to extreme associates, max hardcore, some of brandon irons work, Mason, or even the girlvert series. Does 'fuck you and die' apply to them too? Whats the measuring stick here? Here's my chart for different euphemisms towards these indiviuals starting with yours-

'fuck you and die' - Devils Films for creating Brown Baggin

'blow me and choke till unconscious' - Sineplex for slapping, choking of talent, spitting.

'kiss my ass and feel a slight pain in the groin'- Max Hardcore for pissing in asses to be sucked out with tubes.

'stick a foot in my mouth and feel bad about yourself'- Nacho Vidal for sticking a foot in a girls' mouth and yelling at her in Back 2 Evil.

I am not trying to slight your post, I FULLY understand the disgust you feel towards misogyny in porn. I just think this title is slightly above middle in terms of offensive content...

Edited by - P-Knuckle on 7/11/2003 11:42:49 AM

[Link]

AND... I say this as a "face man". I usually look at a girl's face before breasts, ass or legs.

-- Snowman

[Link]

But if I can't see a girls face, it won't do anything for me.

- - - B-I-G-m-i-k-e, over & out! - - -

[Link]

...and I too think the "Fuck you and die" comment is way over the edge. calm down, this is just a porn video we are talking about.

Edited by - joe college on 7/10/2003 9:13:07 PM

[Link]

It is the the misogynistic element, but the dumbness that I find unappealing.

Ron

[Link]

It's not degrading, just a tired old joke.

Karl

[Link]

I think this is probably degrading - to the whole human race. On the other hand, so is pretty much everything else - in one way or another. I'm not sure it's even productive to attempt to figure out why anyone might have a fantasy of covering someone else's face so they don't have to see it during sex, or covering their ugly, fake, pumped up breasts, or covering their bald head, or covering their stretch marked ass, or covering their bunion, hammer toe, nail fungus feet...

[Link]

Using phrases like "fuck you and die" & "Troll" to quote a few, it can be extrapolated that Bob has a hatred which equates that which he claims to oppose.

Edited by - Hardz on 7/11/2003 2:29:26 AM

[Link]

Talking about brown bags: I've been a couple of times in the U.S.A. and I always wondered why you have to put alcohol in brown bags. Everybody knows what is in it anyway. It just says: "Please lie to me". Prohibition was a great way to support the Mafia.

I don't feel sorry about the girls wearing the brown bag. Probably they had a great laugh. If this shit sells it is probably a problem of the society who wants to see it.

Let's forget porn for a moment and look at all the violence and degrading shit in movies and on TV every day. As soon this is gone I'm sure you will not see anything like this in porn anymore.

Steve Holmes

[Link]

However, I don't back down from my sentiment about the video and its defenders one iota.

As to my reactions to the other pornographers you cited, here they are (such as they are):

1. Extreme Associates: Their only director's work that I liked was Tom Byron's. It only took me one video to determine that Robert Black was not making anything I wanted to watch -- even the presence of Tricia Devereaux, Jeanna Fine and P.J. Sparxx couldn't save that video for me. With Thomas Zupko, I lasted about 5 minutes. 'Nuff said.

2. Max Hardcore: Never watched his stuff; his box-covers were enough to keep me away.

3. Brandon Iron: I hadn't really followed his work until PXP, except for the "Rampage" series for West Coast, which I mostly liked. Regarding "I LOVE IT ROUGH", I enjoyed most of it other than Brandon's toilet antics with Claire Ryder and Manuel's slapping of Julie Night.

4. Mason: Again, I don't like the toilet stuff at all. However, I generally find her stuff interesting if sometimes disturbing. I like "Dirty Trixxx 2" the most. Maybe I cut her some slack because she's a thinking woman and seems really intent on exploring her psycho-sexual terrain.

5. "Girlvert": I didn't like #1 and haven't seen #2 or #3. I don't like Jeff Steward's attitude or his box-cover language though (IMO, there's a big difference between the words "horny little slut" and "filthy little whore").

My favorite directors: John Stagliano, Jules Jordan, Lexington Steele, Michael Stefano (not as "Luciano", though), Mike John, Tom Byron, Bruce Seven, and Bionca Seven. For BDSM, Ernest Greene and Skye Blue.

Edited by - Bob on 7/11/2003 9:31:45 PM

[Link]

I don't find it offensive personally, I just find it to be like a stupid joke. I personally find DVDs with titles like "A cum sucking whore called (whoever)" or "(whoever).. Filthy Whore" to be far more offensive.

I'm sure there are a lot of people out there who disagree with me however (Cal posted defending the "Cum Sucking Whore" series once, granted he knows which hand feeds him though) but then again I myself own 2 of the "..Filthy Whore" series, despite hating the names of the DVDs, (Tera Patrick/Brianna Banks) so then again that makes me a hypocryte if you want to look at it that way.

Anyway point being that I think there's a lot worse stuff out there if you want to get upset at something, but then again your own moral opinions and outrages are your own.

cheers,

scipio

[Link]

Misogyny is defined as ": a hatred of women "

A lot of porn displays acts that 'may' come from this mindset. A number of porn fans have varying degrees of hatred for women, but MOST don't go beyond the fantasy level. It's really clear (and I'm not knocking anyone) that a number of porn fans have fantasies that involve misogyny and a general degradation of women. The reasons for this are deep and would require countless other threads.

The problem is that no one wants to be seen as a misogynist so you get the kind of reactions you see here.

Over the years I have learned that you never use the M word because even people who would routinely call porn performers "sub-human" would never admit to have issues with women. Similarly, you shouldn't use such personal favorite phrases as "Freak-show" porn, P4P (Porno for Pedos), point out that some porn flicks cater to those with rape fantasies, kiddie fantasies etc. You never point out that he-shes are men taking hormones, you never point out that A2M in real life is probably not a great idea, you never question certain directors :-)

Most importantly, you never, (and the Rog means never, hehe) point out that two men rubbing their cocks together might, just might be a little homo-erotic.

OK, so I went off the reservation a bit. The point is that you're right. Such a movie does display a certain amount of anti-woman, anti-sex sentiment. How many of the guys watching the video, stroking themselves silly while muttering about what ugly dogs the broads are, would give their left nut to actually talk to one of these chicks? It plays to a certain fantasy set. It may be misogynist-fantasy, but so what? Don't like it? Don't watch. Conversely, if you don't like it when Bob calls a spade a spade, then don't read what he has to say. Me thinks many of you protest too much.

Rog Reviews

[Link]

I actually wish you hadn't removed the "fuck off and die" from the post, Bob, since I think that's what really made the thread interesting. To me, anyway. The "!?&^@*!&@?!" doesn't really provoke the same response.

[Link]

I know some people won't get the tongue-in-cheek nature of the post, but oh well :-)

Thanks,

LATE
Rog

[Link]

and

Although the language I chose to express my views may have been inappropriate in the context of a public message board, I believe that the anger at its source was (and is) perfectly justified. Anyway, I'm comfortable with it; if other people aren't, I'll live. I don't post here for the sake of my popularity -- I post here to say what I feel like saying.

[Link]

I saw the boxcover today at the store and I was trying to figure out who the chicks were.One of them has a tight body with a small tattoo on her pelvis,and another tattoo on her lower back.Makes me think I've seen her somewhere before.To me it's just a gimmick.I personally refuse to watch vids if I don't already know what the chick looks like.I have a big problem with videos that obscure a woman's face by masks,heavy or theatrical makeup,or bad camerawork.I need to see what a chick looks like,if it's the first time I've seen her,and I NEED to see her eyes.

That's why I can't stand so much of Euro porn,they too often have the girl walk into the scene so she's in profile,then she starts sucking the guys off and of course her eyes are closed.So it's hard to get a good look at the chick.

[Link]

Edit: Hmmm, just looked at the back cover. Looks just plain silly. Maybe the noise of the bag rustling might be a mild turn-on somehow.

On a side note, and this is a bit gross, but I think the next trend in porn is "ass cleaning". We'll see the buttholes being cleaned out before the sex act. First it will be just simple enemas bit it will quickly progress from there and it will all culminate with titles such as “Girl, I Really Dig You” and “Out Diggin’ in the Brownfield” with the guys digging out poop with a spoon to make room for the penis.

Okay, gross, I’m sorry…..but just a way of pointing out things could be worse.

Edited by - heynow on 7/12/2003 1:59:21 AM

[Link]

I suppose I have a hard time deciding exactly what constitues 'dehumanization' and whether portraying a woman in the one-dimensional way that porn almost always does is really made that much worse by putting a bag over her head?

To pick up on Ramseys comment:

I suppose my basic feeling is that porn already tends to display people as very one-dimensional: men as animalistic grunts; women as sex dolls. The question is whether this is really a problem?
Does it really matter if this film dehumanizes women, I mean to say, do we ever stop to question whether the stock car racing coverage is displaying the drivers as whole human beings with feelings and needs? Do we fuck: they are stock car drivers and we expect to see them drive round the track, helmets firmly in place. This is a porn film and we know we are seeing paid performers having sex for personal gain. In fact, in many ways a porn performer and a stock car racer are so very similar, some do it for money, some for enjoyment, some to satisfy a basic desire (sex or competition/speed) and most importantly they are both disciplines that expose only one aspect of their persona to the viewer: why then do we worry so much about this with porn but so little with stock car racing?

SNP.
(Sorry this is a bit of a rambling post but I have to shoot off to work now so I haven't time to try and paper over the cracks to make it sound like I know what I'm talking about, or at the very least know what it is that I don't know what I'm talking about. Or something.)

[Link]

Now that really hurt, Hardz! You're not some kind of
woman-hater, are you dude?

On a more serious note, if your posts reflect your actual attitudes (rather than, say, your attempt to appear perpetually tough and cool), then I'll gladly admit to being your moral and spiritual superior, as your epithet suggests.

[Link]

To me, that's like saying, "Why the big fuss over Sadam Hussain -- he was nothing compared to Adolph Hitler?"

How desensitized have we become, as porn consumers and as a culture?

[Link]

And again, to me the real issue in play is: Why this movie, exactly? Because something here struck you as outrageously, singularly offensive -- "the lowest that porn can go" -- and most of us would choose a different example. Yet you felt so strongly about your choice that you think anyone unoffended should fuck off and die. While that may have been hyperbole, the underlying sentiment was real enough for you to type it.

And yes, we're jaded. Remember that in "polite company" a facial might cause a reaction as strong as yours.

[Link]

What's my point?

Just that I simply disagree with the degree of righteous rage you have over this particular example of porn stupidity. Of course your righteous rage is yours to have, but I don't see this as any comparison to Saddam vs Hitler, and in fact IMO it essentially cheapens the reality of those who suffered under those brutal regimes in comparing them even in such erstwhile terms to a mindless unfunny joke of a porn film.

scipio

[Link]

Probably Steve Holmes' attitude is the most level-headed.

[Link]

Actually, he's a very bad example, because one of the things he gets most outraged by is women he deems not attractive enough to be doing porn (talk about demeaning and insulting -- have you read his reviews?). In a way, it's ironic he didn't like that movie.

Edited by - obibong on 7/12/2003 4:16:46 PM

[Link]

Another thing, as I've noted before, is that I don't run across a lot of porn that I hate, because I have a very good idea about what stuff to avoid in the first place.

A third thing is that I'm not generally inclined to complain about porn that I dislike, but rather to celebrate porn that I like. However, when I see hate directed at something or someone that I love, I feel compelled to oppose it and to defend "the beloved" with a strong response. Call me impulsive.

I'm sure there are more explanations, some that don't reflect so positively on me. I don't claim to be a paragon of virtue (my rhetorical sniping at Hardz, notwithstanding); like anyone else, I have my own flaws and failings, and my own, very personal axes to grind.

Scipio wrote:

ObiBong also wrote:

Finally, ObiBong wrote:

Edited by - Bob on 7/13/2003 5:18:25 AM

[Link]

Since nearly all of the posters here have already stipulated that, yes, the premise of this movie is insulting and stupid, it hardly seems necessary to drive that point into the ground. I think the other point was much more fertile ground for discussion (though now it has been pretty well-fertilized). I don't think anyone was dodging anything.

Edited by - obibong on 7/13/2003 12:03:22 AM

[Link]

Answer 1: "Well, at least he didn't cut off a limb or something - so don't worry about it. There are a lot of far worse things he could have done. Maybe he was just joking."

Answer 2: "That's terrible!"

So far, those are the only two answers I've seen here. Those who also think that the bag thing is offensive went with the 2nd answer; those who didn't think it so bad went with the first one. (Personally, I would have found it funny if somebody had said that the people making the movie were marketing it at the brown bag fetish crowd. <grin> At least that would help explain the bag, if not the rude emotional message. The "subtitle" could have then been changed to "Do brown bags excite you? Get ready to go shopping!" Or something like that. Why the need for degradation? It's unnecessary and simply mean.)

Unless you're talking about the swearing. But while that may be inappropriate, it doesn't negate a valid emotional response or the statement against the marketing (which should be the real issue here - not the personal red herrings).

Perhaps we should just agree to disagree, and realise that a fair number of people do find this movie (or at least this marketing ploy) to be extremely offensive. (While others don't.)

Edited by - Mythsong on 7/13/2003 12:39:59 AM

[Link]

Edited by - Mythsong on 7/13/2003 12:34:10 AM

[Link]

You seem to be implying that these are mutually exclusive issues: If you ask question 1, then you must approve of the movie. Not at all true, and seemingly obvious (but apparently not).

Yes, Bob did eventually explain his position more elaborately and very well... but not until we asked him to, which is the point.

[Link]