If the category straigth really means that it is supposed to be consumed by straight males, my assumptions may be wrong. It might be that that is what "straight" means, I'm not 100% convinced, but I guess there are differing opinions on this. More people might agree with you than I had guessed, at least judging from this thread.
Believe me, I am not trying to play any semantics game. I just tried to explain how I viewed it from a pure fairness/equality perspective and I felt that people misinterpreted me, so I tried to explain more. With limited success I guess. But I'm not trying to argue just for the sake of argument.
Not my point either. It might be to exaggerate to call it "wrong", but there is a difference in how the sexes are treated. I didn't really intend go judge on it, I just wanted to state that that's how it is. No more, no less.
I don't beat myself up about it. Far from, I enjoy straight sex and lesbian sex a lot in porn movies, and I would probably not enjoy most of the bi scenes if they were introduced into "standard" porn. But I wouldn't really complain either since women have to put up with exactly what men are complaining about here.
So, you won't see me in a protest march over whatever discrimination or unfair practises existing today... If I haven't explained myself well enough now, it is really not any point in continuing. There is a lot of emotion involved in this topic, and I don't want to come off as supporting any kind of intervention, communism or far-out extreme-feminist perspective.
Me neither.Not in the heterosexual porn, but with proper labeling, I can imagine there could be made good movies including straight/lesbian/bi scenes. I would not mind buying any of those if they had things I wanted. A scene with gay activity in a movie would not stop me from buying it if there was other good things on it. After all, I am extremely picky and there are a lot of scenes I dislike and don't watch in the movies I already own.I would not mind a girl that liked that. After all I love lesbian porn myself. There would of course be a limit, I could not tolerate if she wanted to show me gay sex every time we had sex. But if she wanted to watch it once in a while and have me around, I'd be all over her and not the TV anyway.
[Link]
AlexPanzer Deactivated User
1593 Posts 6/03
Posted - Apr 22 2007 : 2:20PM
Wiska is sure is sweet.
[Link]
_swede_ Deactivated User
579 Posts 4/05
Posted - Apr 22 2007 : 3:45PM
It's Sandra Romain. Didn't you recognize her famous ass ?
I actually think it's been a reasonable discussion with people staying civil, like grown ups. Makes a change from discussing the size of some starlet's ass gape.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Apr 23 2007 : 9:24PM
Uh, 'scuse me perfessor, but, as per the syllybus, I've done the required reading in ADT History, including the chapters on Arthur: The Dark Years. Why don't you climb down off your elitist high horse and stop pretending that this is a seventh grade popularity contest with cliques and gangs and everyone ranked and pidgeonholed, mmmmmmkay?
Paying trib-ute to SinncentVanSage 1412 Posts 12/04
Posted - Apr 24 2007 : 8:01AM
Ummm... yeah... I see, you know much more about Arthur than about me. I just liked the way someone comparatively new to this forum talks about matters from when I started posting here, like those typical Arthur posts. After all that means if someone gets deactivated that person can still become an ADT legend. Maybe I should have added a few more smilies. Because if I really was seated on an elitist high horse I'd use words like "pigeonhole" and would expressly mention that my preferred spelling of the word was without a "d".
Panties - maybe not the best thing in the world, but next to it.
I like to see more attractive males, but not in male/male action, but with attractive women.
male/male action should be in homosexual porn only. I dont rent bi movies with male/male action. I am not narrowminded or have prejudices, but I just dont like to watch male/male action. Why should I watch it as a bi-sexual woman ? These males arent interested in women. Lesbian and bisexual women are, so this is arousing me. And even hetereosexual men are aroused by attractive lesbian women performing her loveplay.
There are already movies where male-male scenes are woven in with straight sex scenes - they are called bi movies. I am not in favor of seeing the straight companies putting gay scenes in their movies and I think that most gay viewers would not be interested in having straight sex scenes woven into their movies either.
Bad idea pal but I don't object to you stating your opinion in this respect.
As a straight guy, I just plain don't choose to watch gay scenes. It doesn't bother me in the slightest, what anyone does in his private life. But if/when gay guys start telling me that I should have to watch them go at it, even if I don't want to . . . well, this is another classic illustration of, your rights end, where my nose begins.
The best way I can get the point across, to john45 and any others who support the idea of putting gay scenes into videos for people who don't choose to watch gay sex, is simply to propose the converse, and see how they respond.
How would gays feel, if religious folks tried to start weaving messages into gay or bi porn, along the lines of, "If you try THIS approach, with counseling, and going to church, and support groups that will help try to change you, then maybe you could become straight, which would make you happier ..."
Do any gay guys agree to have THOSE kinds of messages, woven into the porn videos THEY choose to watch? After all, those aren't hateful messages. All they really do is suggest a possible alternative. Kind of like regarding gay sex as an alternative to straight sex.
Are any gay guys willing to have those kinds of messages, woven into what they like to watch for sexual enjoyment? That's a serious question, and john45 should try to give a serious answer.
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro 306 Posts 2/07
Posted - Apr 25 2007 : 3:33AM
Whatever, Perfessor. Give me a call when you've graduated GED on TV with Wally "Famous" Amos. You seem to be in need of remedial reading comprehension. Oh, and here's a smile for ya
EDIT: And that's the last I'm going to say on the matter because I have no intention of derailing this thread.
I'm not asking anyone to put gay male scenes in a straight production if they don't want to, I was kind of getting to that in a scene with two men and a woman it would arouse me to watch some interaction between the men as well with the woman,-- two straight men, playing up for the pleasure of the woman between them and for my viewing pleasure. Not many folks making porn with my pussy in mind...
Kind of on the subject, Cheating Housewives 4, one of the most anticipated relases this year, at least for me, has a scene with some dude taking it up the butt with a strapon. I was repulsed by the scene. I know, some may say this type of act is not homosexual (in the m/m sense), but it is certainly borderline homoerotic. If you are into that type of thing, then do what makes you happy, but please don't subject me to it. It's not by force!
Porn is all about categorizing what kind of action the consumer is looking for.Porn is not an engine for social change.Male on male action is something that the vast majority of men would want to know about before buying /renting/downloading a scene.The different categories are one of the best things about porn.When you are in the mood for something specific you can find it.In straight porn there are some surprises that are ok.If you don't like anal and you see an anal scene no big deal.But if they throw a scat scene at you you might be pissed.Some things you just don't want popping up unexpectedly.Most people are just looking to get off or get turned on.
There's a market for bi-sexual B/B/G stuff already--there's no reason to introduce it into mainstream gonzo. Isn't watching one of those Erik Everhard/Steve Holmes dp's where they stare deeply and lovingly into each other's eyes enough?
I'm not even interested in dp's anymore because of all the damn man-ass blocking out the female talent--which is the reason I'm watching in the first place.
I say bring back the B/G/G! 2 girls in a 69--the guy jumps in with an anal to the girl up top! Dual facials and french kisses!
I can't believe I was intentionally skipping this thread! Let me jump in
Conquistador: You're wrong about customers. As an experienced porn shop employee you should know better. If a customer finds something crazy in their porn, you know dang well that they don't say SHIT! They just drop it off and go. It is very rare that a customer will complain about the content of their purchase. Most complaints are about the DVD not functioning. Plus...what about the customers who don't want g/g in their straight porn? What about the customers who don't want facials? Don't want anal? Don't want she-males (lots of videos have started to mix in shemales without being shemale titles)? ESPECIALLY newbies to porn. The truth is that pornographers can and DO get away with putting whatever they want into videos, and yes some of them (eg Rocco) even slip m/m content in without announcing it on the cover. Customers who don't like what they see don't trip. They just get something else. You're assuming too much about customer's anxiety. When customers get product that's beyond their pale, they either don't buy it again or...guess what!...they get a kinky little thrill out of the surprise of seeing it, and a fetish is born. What they almost NEVER do is make a big stink about it at the counter of the porn shop. It's just too easy to fast forward past something you don't like, be it m/m, f/f or anal. And it's just too easy to choose one of the other 2000 videos in the local shop or 10000 in the online store.
So the pattern is already there: porn directors already put whatever they want in videos (with or without informing of it on the cover). And they will continue to do so. They have MADE us used to what we're used to seeing. We accept F/F and shemales and anal and gang cumshots and gapes because the directors have progressively added and added over the decades. If a few directors decided that they wanted to start adding explicit M/M action, then they would, and it would grow and grow just like a Falcon Man's dick, then spread just like a Bon Ami twink's hot cum all over the belly of "straight" porn.
sidenote: tranny porn is bought exclusively by STRAIGHT and BI customers, not strictly dickly customers. The tranny fantasy is about a WOMAN with a dick, not a MAN with boobs. So if you like WOMEN, you're more likely to be into trannies.
wheat and aussieguy said: statements about john45 being secretly gay and that no straight guy ever wants to see M/M.
To both of you I call BULLSHIT ARTIST. Sexual orientation is not either/or. It is a spectrum. This fact is gender studies 101. You shouldn't have fallen asleep in sociology class. Anyway, the fact is that plenty of het guys are curious to see what M/M is like, even though they wouldn't want to do it. Just like people are curious as to what antelopes fucking looks like, even though we'd never want to fuck an antelope.
You homophobes are going crazy with imaginings that your privileged world is crumbling around you. It's not. If you see content you don't like, just FF past the M/M dick-sucking. What are you so worried about? Ain't nobody trying to legislate putting M/M in your precious "straight" porn. But porn directors are artists, dude. They are interested in sexuality. They are free to put whatever they want in their videos, as porn's history has proven. And they will continue to do so, and it will include more and more M/M action. Get used to it, and get your FF buttons out.
To this I call Bullshit Artist. Not necessarily on your part alone, H. Because a lot of people think their beliefs aren't political, but that people who oppose their beliefs are the political ones. Those who are the majority or who are the elite especially have a blindness to the their own group behaviors being a form of societal goal-making. EVERYTHING remotely artistic or mass-produced is about satisfying somebody's societal goals. There is almost nothing that is apolitical. I would say that trends in the porn industry DO in fact work toward satisfying societal goals. Porn has goals of making the society more exposed to sexualities, of making the society more shameless about sex, of making the society more knowledgeable about each others' sexual fantasies. Of taking sexuality back from fundie forces that would burkha it up and take it to a purity ball.
So, I submit that porn's current trend defines "straight" or hetero as "anything which hetero dudes might want to see." And I submit that porn would like "straight" women to swallow this definition of heterosexual as their own. This is one of porn's current "societal goals". Is this goal being met? I don't know. Ask the straight girls in the club who like to kiss up on dumb dykes like me just to get a dude's attention.
"Labels" aren't hard and fast, especially in porn. If the "straight" label can be shifted to mean "including F/F" or "including shemales", then it can be shifted to include anything the director wants. If can be shifted to include the M/M that Loraine wants. You see, your straight male privilege gives you the sense that *you* get to control what labels mean. I'm saying that as a female porn consumer, I'm going to push against that straight male privilege and say "Yo! I'm here too. Gimme what I want." But it's fun to see how anxious some get just seeing me write that. What have you got to worry about, really? You are kings on a throne. Don't get so anxious just because we're saying what we want. It's not like we women are going to be taking over the porn throne anytime soon.How do you know? The way sexuality works is Pavlovian, son. If seeing M/M is associated with getting hot sex from your gf, then eventually you won't need the hot sex to get hard when seeing M/M.
I don't think we should have more labelling of sex acts. There's already too many sex acts to possibly fit on the smaller DVD covers. Just label the primary fetish you're going for, and we can skip anything we don't like.
Not really. Most "straight" porn is about getting men off, and showing that the women are pleased that the man is getting off. There, I said it. This is why female pornstars constantly say that they don't get off on-set, and this is why 99.999% of "straight" scenes end with physical evidence that the *male* has gotten off. If male pornstars' sole purpose was to "please the woman", then each 20-minute "straight" scene would include 10 minutes of clit attention, umkay? Let's be real here, son. Haven't you ever had sex with a real woman? Isn't it plain how different real woman-pleasing is versus Anabolic's "woman-pleasing"?Hmm...sounds like what women have been asking about the male partners who try to make them watch porn.
Big Matt, thank you for your efforts in trying to explain how you feel. It's funny how some dudes get threatened by even talking about this issue. But the truth is I know for certain that including M/M scenes in porn that's not labelled such is not going to kill anyone. Back in the day before there was 10,000 new porns a year and all this categorization, there was M/M action in "straight" porn. Most het dudes are just not homophobic enough to go crazy if there's M/M action in their porno. So go ahead directors, include whatever content you want.
Society is a moving train on which no one is standing still. Porn is, in fact, a strong and proud engine for social change, and going to porn conventions and listening to speeches will assure you of that. The porn industry has directions that it wants to push society (discussed above) so don't think that it's apolitical. Ask any fundamentalist if they think porn is "not an engine for social change."
The point about porn being focused on men, their dicks, and their orgasms, and not so much about actually pleasing a woman = 100 per cent on the mark. It's pretty dick and jizz-centric. I never thought of it that way. It has a lot to do with why I love good tese footage so much - it's about the woman. The meat and potatoes of fucking, especially gory closeups and especially of dps - does nothing for me.
I don't want more m/m sex. I want Hollow Man porn where all I see is a gal and sex scenes like 'The Entity' - minus the rape part - you know what I mean. Yeah. Gotta go
Porn producers can hardly be called the elite, let alone the majority. Pornographers do have the obvious goal of getting more people to consume porn, but calling that a societal goal would be absurd. The fact that somebody's goals of a more sexually liberated society may be furthered by porn's existence doesn't make the industry an active agent. Nor does the odd man within the industry doing so give cachet to everyone else. As I said before, experiments have been tried with interlacing 'straight' and other types of sexuality in porn movies. The market didn't reward those experiments. Social agents would have kept working on it. Pornographers said 'To hell with that' and followed the money.I submit that porn defines straight as what their distributors can sell to straight customers. I doubt they really give a rat's ass if those customers are male or female. However, they do care about their margins. The male porn consumer is a relatively known quantity. The female porn consumer is a much riskier proposition. Everybody wants the other guy to take the risk. I predict that the first time somebody hits a home run selling to women there'll be a new gold rush.
I think this has already happened. We just don't notice because women mostly prefer their porn in a non-visual format.
One company has cornered the women's porn market, and its name is Mills and Boon.
Check out the standard fantasy of a violent but sensitive but tough but loving but horny but smart hero having his way with a protesting but willing but struggling but yielding but demure but aroused female.
I had in mind a popular set of phonetic symbols known as the Roman Alphabet, commonly used to represent audible speech as a string of characters with neither audio nor video content.
Simply, male on male will not sell to a straight audience. There are many types of people in this world with varied taste. The porn industry recognizes this and has titles to suite that varied taste of their consumers. There is no need to try and combine two very different products, you run the risk of alienating your primary target/demographic. Separate product lines for a separate demographic. Not a sermon, just my opinion.
"Music the true universal language "
[Link]
john45 arthur again
26 Posts 4/07
Posted - Apr 28 2007 : 12:36AM
I don't like the types of movies in the "bi" category that include male-male in every scene.
But I do like the idea of a porn movie with mainly hetero action and some female-female and male-male all in it together.
No, it is a textual format that represents a set of sounds. Otherwise it would be impossible to cipher it into braille.
You could chisel it on stone and read it with fingertips. Using eyes to read it is just one input mechanism that is convenient for a lot of people. It does not use pictures.
I have no desire to see homosexual sex in any porn I watch. Man on man porn cut into any porn I'm watching would be about as entertaining as watching old ladies play bingo. It even annoys me that one of the pay sites I joined has tranny crap and they put it in with all the new releases. I don't even wanna see still shots of that shit. Not for a minute. Puke.
Reminds me of a German movie I saw once. Two guys and a girl fucking all over a very nicely laid dinner table, including DP but no guy/guy sex. Then the two guys leaned against the table side by side and jerked each other off for the cumshots. I can't say that it horrified me but it was a helluva surprise just because I'd been expecting a cumshot with the attractive babe - who wasn't even in the same room at that moment, let alone in frame. It simply wasn't what I wanted or expected and was something I didn't want or expect. I don't mean it disgusted me, either. I don't have a strong anti-gay feeling. I've even watched a bit of gay porn with a gay friend. It didn't do anything for me, my friend said "Well, I guess you're not gay then" and that was that. It's just not something I want to see any more than I want to watch golf. And if I bought a DVD of great cricket moments that had a five minute golf clip in it I'd feel annoyed and a bit ripped off, even if it was a really good golf clip... The market defines the categories unless the sellers manage a very united stand. When heterosexual buyers want heterosexual porn they mean 'guys with girls and sometimes girls with girls'. If it's got male-male sex the vast majority of heterosexual buyers won't accept it as het porn. Unless over 90% of sellers put male-male sex in their supposedly het porn, the market will stay the same, and even then I'd be willing to bet the other 10% would sell like crazy and the 90% would lose money hand over fist (if you'll excuse the pun).
M-M action belongs in straight porn like big tits and shaved pussies belong in Gay vids! Anyone who wishes to see male on male action has plenty of choices in the gay/bi genre. All the drivel posted by morons like Bustdown Gal is nothing but an attempt to force their personal agenda on the rest of us. It's all too transparent, not to mention incredibly stupid. Do you ever hear straight guys complaining about the lack of hot chicks in Gay flicks?!...I mean, it's all a "spectrum" after all.
Natural 6 - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Apr 22 2007 : 11:09AM
