Well i never thought i would see tennis and porn in the same conversation!!
I have always belived that if a woman does the same job as a man she should get paid the same. I do a job that has always been male dominated, over the last 3 years woman have now started doing the job to, some like some men are no good, others have proved themselves more than capable therefore deserve the same pay.
Within porn i buy a DVD to see the women not the men, i buy a DVD as it has a certain actress in it i like. In the film the women do the harder job as they my be taking on anything from 2 men to 10 or in some cases more, so therefore the women should get paid a lot, lot more then the men.
There is still exploitation of women in certain less desirable parts of the industry and because of this the industry as a whole can get tarred with the same brush by certain anti-porn factions.
I dont know anything about the inner workings of the adult industry, but could not the repuatble companys and the performers make some kind of stand against the small companys who don't give a damn about the woman as long as they get there buck? Or is that an impossible task, due to the fact that there will always be poor girls/women needing that quick bit of money with unscrupales film makers not caring.
Yeah, unfortunately, I don't think it would be possible, iain. You'll always have directors and companies who will treat women like shit, simply because there will always be some women who are desperate enough to take anything, just to get some quick money :(
That was another point that I tried to make. Why is there so much social alienation associated with it in the first place?
I'm certainly not alienating anyone. I don't care what a person does for a living. The people who are causing the alienation are the folks who stand up and pass judgment on half of society for not being the "fine upstanding" people that they are. Wanna blame somebody for the perception that porn is degrading and exploiting women? Blame the people who think that everything but their idea of what is moral is completely wrong.
If I met a girl tomorrow on the street that I'd seen in a dozen porn flicks, doing whatever, I would treat her just the same as I do everyone else I meet. OK....I might be happy to meet her and tell her that I loved her in such and such but I most certainly wouldn't look down the side of my nose at her. So who is causing the alienation? Me? Other porn fans? No. It's the people who may have seen her in the same flicks I did and then, if they see her on the street, they want to call her names and act like they're better than she is because they work at a car dealership....or a bank...or in real estate. Yep...it's those wonderful, "respectable" folks who think it's their duty to judge the rest of the world who cause at least half of the problems associated with porn.
Abso-fucking-lutely, ObiBong. In fact, I had the coal miner and the commercial fisherman in mind too, but chose not to include them in my post because of the expansive generalization to which I was responding.
You're right. Several industries exploit men terribly, including the lower rungs of the porn industry, I'd presume. Certainly coal miners are exploited. Those men live in areas in which the mine is the only employer. They destroy their health, risk death, and perform a hellish job in order to support their families. However, I don't see where their plight fits into the feminist movement's agenda. After all, their main focus is on women's rights. That's why they're called feminists.
At any rate, I don't agree with the feminists' cry to ban porn. They demonize men, which I think is wrong. They condemn men for enjoying the sight of a young woman having sex. Who the fuck are they to judge all porn viewers so harshly? And by endeavoring to close an avenue of enjoyment to men, they're also closing a big avenue of empowerment to women; both porn viewers and participants. Many women take advantage of the good that porn can offer them, sexually and financially. They should be able to do so.
So although I don't agree with the feminist agenda to exterminate porn, I do understand where they're coming from. They're thinking of the truly exploited women in the industry who really do need protection. I just think their call for an all-out ban is the wrong way to deal with that problem.
Again, I have no qualms with liberal feminists and I don't deny that they've done positive things. I'm specifically referring to the group of radical feminists who think that pornography and capitalism are two evils.
Edited by - Ryan81 on 5/2/2006 5:38:36 PM
[/quote]
....IMHO your 'radical feminists' are bang on the money when it comes to capitalism, it is truly evil and We Are All Prostitutes - and women in porn are, in the main, no more or less exploited than any of the rest of us wage slaves....
...the real degradation of women comes not from the ideologically honest and straightforward business of pornography (it's fucking is all), but rather in the way that capitalism uses an extremely distorted take on female sexuality to sell everything and anything...the presentation of women as passive, sexual and stupid comes from Hollywood & mass advertising, and affects everyone - this is the sort of woman you're supposed to be, and if you're not you're a failure....screws up male sexuality at the same time, natch.....hey, I could go on....
peace & love
SR
best cure for migraine - masturbation & marijuana. Peace & Love!
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - May 3 2006 : 12:58PM
RandomPrecision wroteSo would I. But it seems you are grossly overlooking the reality of social mores and norms by imagining that they don't exist. I think people are gullibly lying to themselves by saying that porn is the same as any other industry, because realistically it is not. Plus, people are aware that social alienation is a risk that they face when entering the porn industry, so I'm assuming that most of them prepare themselves for it and become acclimated to it. It comes with the territory of working in porn, so it just seems strange that people still wouldn't realize that.
Pagoda wrote
If I may speak momentarily in defense of feminism, I don't know if the feminist agenda is necessarily to exterminate porn. I always thought their goals were a bit loftier than that. Is not the feminist objective to ensure social equality between the sexes? Yet, how can social sexual equality be achieved as long as women are, presumably, still being relegated to the position of sex objects? I perceive this is what concerns feminists in relation to porn.
Beate Uhse facts: Turnover in 2005: $360 million 1523 employees 13 countries 1000 domains founded in 1946
Almost everybody in this industry will work with them of for them at a certain moment, but you will not always realize that, since they own many different companies.
They make toys, movies and even have their own tv-channel. They basically have a finger in every part of the business.
No. I'm not imagining that they don't exist. I'm simply saying that (in this context, at least) they shouldn't exist and it isn't my fault, the fault of the porn industry or anyone who makes porn that they do. I'm saying that if you want to make a change, start by telling those people who are actually causing the problems to step off, get a life and mind their own business.
Additionally, porn *could be* (pretty much) the same as any other industry. It isn't because some people refuse to see it as such. And once again, you see that it isn't porn or it's fans that are causing these issues. It's the way people look at it that's largely responsible for that.
Porn can't really be changed (At least, not enough to make these people happy). It either exists or it doesn't. People CAN change their attitudes, the way they look at things and the way they behave towards other people. These are things that don't change overnight but they can (and usually do) change eventually. I feel that someday.....it won't be an issue to anyone if a woman has made 500 porn flicks when she goes and applies for a job in another industry. And again....the point I'm trying to make here is that *it shouldn't be an issue*. Sex isn't wrong. Enjoying sex isn't wrong. Selling your own sex isn't any more wrong than selling your mind or any other part of your body. When a majority of people comes to hold this viewpoint, there will still be some problems associated with porn (just as there are problems associated with just about everything else in life) but a lot of the problems will simply not exist.
You're probably right. My problem with most isms is that lofty ideals preclude compromise. Feminism, in my view, is too intellectually idealistic. Human instinct and emotion are too often discounted (for both sexes) by the loudest of the feminists.
The intellectual ideal that a woman can "have it all" -- a top notch education, a successful career, happy children and a satisfied husband -- isn't the reality for most women. Most people can't do everything right all the time, and keep everybody around them happy, but that's the ideal the original feminists (Boomers, mostly) hold us to. There are now 2 generations (mine and my daughters) that have so many expectations heaped upon them from so many directions that they're turning to the lecherous pharmaceutical industry to help them be everything to everyone.
If a girl wishes to cash in on her sexuality early in life to secure a future for herself in which she can enjoy a free lifestyle of her choosing, more power to her, I say. The old-school feminists will condemn her, or worse, pity her for it. That's their problem, not hers. I guess, of all the "feminists," I identify most with Camille Paglia, who's so often criticized for her self-contradiction. Personally, that's what I like about her.
Pagoda wroteWhy isn't it? I think that's a problem that feminism seeks to adress. By the way, I happen to know many women who are living contradictions to your statement of being unable to "have it all", which is subjective from person to person. It just depends on priority. Of course, almost nothing in life is easy, regardless of gender. But it is certainly still more of a reality than the notion that a woman can sell sex and still maintain her dignity in the process, which is probably another issue the feminist movement might address.Not to split hairs on minor technicalities, but the Baby Boomers were not the "original feminists." To the contrary, they are the modern feminists. Despite the fact that they did not actually call themselves "feminists" (a politically-correct label that wasn't invented until the latter part of the 20th-century), the original feminists- Susan B. Anthony, Sojourner Truth, Abigail Adams, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Alice Paul, Lucretia Mott, etc.- were the original crusaders for equality not only for women, but for other oppressed human beings as well (many of them were also slavery abolitionists), and they were around long before the Baby Boom.
Of course, these women were concerned with issues that, in my opinion, were more pressing than whether or not a woman can hop into bed with any guy who'll have her. The issues concerning the original "feminists," for a lack of an appropriately better term, were in the areas of employment, education, and suffrage. Had it not been for the arduous work of the "original feminists," the modern feminists would likely not have so much idle time to argue over whether a girl has the "right" to bear half her ass in public while ironically demanding that she not be viewed as a sex object.
Therefore, I disagree with your assertion: It was not the original "feminists," but some of the modern ones, who are unrealistic. As was mentioned on another thread in this forum, even Larry Flynt, one of the most famous pornographers around, openly stated that women will never be able to change the fact that they are sex objects. Although I somewhat disagree with him, I do have to agree that he is right as long as women continue to willingly assign themselves to that position.
I disagree with many of the assertions in this thread especially the discussion on tennis (or sports in general) and equal pay. But most of my objections don't really relate to porn so I shouldn't derail the thread even further.
The question isn't whether women should be sex objects (or men, for that matter), but why being a sex object should come at the expense of being a human being with equal rights and social status. It's not like we humans don't uphold contradictory principles all the time. One need look no further than the marriage of the New Testament to the Old Testament for proof of that.
With few exceptions, women have not been given equal status by the societies in which they live, and I suggest that it is this general inequality, not the lack of some particular privilege, that defines feminism.
I keep seeing the sentence "women have been given" used in various posts on this subject which to be quite honest does amaze me. We are all part of the human race no matter what sex, colour or nationality. We all deserve the same rights as the next person.
To say "women have been given" makes it sound like we are the superior beings and they are lower life forms and us men have done them a favour. Women deserve the same rights and pay and respect that any of us men would expect.
Some of the extreme left wing men hating feminists proberly do more harm than good, you do not see them addresing the Oxford University Debating Society where as Jenna Jameson has.
The porn industry should be a bowing down and thanking the women as without them there would be no billion pound plus indusry employing many people from the unseen people of porn such as the secretary's and the cleaners to the stars.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - May 3 2006 : 9:02PM
iain35-uk wroteWell, to be honest, that has been the common attitude of men throughout history.Jenna Jameson did not attend that debate, though she was invited. Obviously, since the debate was on pornography, if Jenna had attended, she would have been debating on the opposing side of other anti-porn activists (probably some of the same "extreme left wing men hating feminists" that you say "do more harm than good").
Hardware wrote
I was going to comment on this, but since I know it will open up a whole other can of worms which has nothing to do with the topic, I'll leave it alone.
When a man get dumped or beaten to a bloody pulp by a woman he don't start hating all women... it's like never driving another car again after crashing one...
I don't think feminists are as concerned and political as they claim, I think they're just searching for a club to belong to. Members of these clubs must agree to the agenda, which says that porn is either bad or good, to remain a member... like neo-nazis basically. A group held together by outer and inner social pressure.
Why some people hate pornography is ignorance... if they read about it in the encyclopedia for 15 minutes they are likely to if not change their mind at least know what porn is.
untrue! I know a man who has an intense fear of driving after a car wreck, but more to the point of the conversation a lot of people feel porn has gotten as rough as it is because men hate hot chicks for rejecting them and want to see them put down.
You're most welcome :)No, I didn't say that now, did I? No need to be putting words into my mouth. Besides, I don't believe that female pornstars are "oppressed"
Let's have a definition of the word "oppressed":
1) To keep down by severe and unjust use of force or authority: a people who were oppressed by tyranny. 2) To weigh heavily on: Poverty oppresses the spirit. 3) Obsolete To overwhelm or crush.
Now, I don't see that any of those definitions apply to women in the porn industry. Severe and unjust use of force or authority? Nope, it's not like they are forced to work in the industry and up to 30K a month? Unjust and severe? Methinks not.
The second definition doesn't apply to this circumstance and finally the third definition about "obsolete" is something completely different.
If you are talking about a government torturing a people because of their political beliefs, race, class, etc, then the term "oppressed" is applicable. Or if employees in Asia are forced to work their guts out for 50p a day, under the cruel tutelage of some kind of overlord, then that's also oppression. Or if girls are forced to work in brothels by pimps who could very well either severely maim them or kill them if they refuse, that's oppression.
It's actually pretty horrendous to even compare these scenarios with women who willingly and knowingly have sex with other adults for money (much of the time, a great deal of money)
Actually the roughies predate hardcore (being shown theatrically anyway), going back to the mid 60's - way before gonzo or home video, so naturally they appear totally different. Although I enjoy some of them as films, I think alot of the time they served the same purpose as the more mean-spirited stuff of today.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - May 4 2006 : 5:21PM
And that is just for starters right? Then you have to caress, kiss, suck and be penetrated by that person who's unattractive and you may even find repulsive. And do it for two hours, all the while there's the director, the camera, lighting, etc...
Not all exploitations are created equal and can't be quantified. When it becomes a quality of being life can become intolerable. And to that end--there's a new intiative Best Practices in Adult Videoto make the industry more ethical and to cut down on exploitation. So the Industry realizes there's a problem and this attempt to police themselves should be applauded.
Edited by - alexander portnoy on 5/4/2006 6:09:21 PM
[Link]
scrotencemalone Deactivated User
167 Posts 12/03
Posted - May 4 2006 : 7:52PM
everyone is exploited who works for someone else. Period. If you weren't be used to make someone money, they wouldn't hire you. As far as being degraded, again it depends on your definition of degradation. Is being jizzed on degrading? Only if that is your perception of a degrading act.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - May 4 2006 : 9:55PM
Gunzo wroteIt could not be more of an extreme parallel than to falsely try to compare feminists to neo-Nazis. That's an utmost insult. Feminists, at least in principle, support socio-economic equality of the sexes, despite the fact that their arguments or tactics may occasionally be questionable. They are nothing at all neo-Nazis who are opposed to any type of equality whatseover. To compare any person or group working in support of social equality to such a horrendous hate group as neo-Nazis is an offense to anyone who believes in social equality.It is not ignorance that is to blame for peoples' hatred of pornography. It is simply personal taste and a matter of opinion which accounts for it. One need not label someone as "ignorant" for disliking a particular genre of entertainment. If people hate pornography, then it is their choice to not watch it or even acknowledge its existence if they choose not to do so. I hate romantic comedies, but I do not think that makes me at all ignorant of them. Telling someone that they should watch or learn about porn just so they will no longer hate it would be no different than me torturing myself by watching some stupid, sappy and unfunny romantic comedy for two hours just for the sake of confirming that I really hate it. What would be the point?
Kami wrote
Paging Dr. Freud....
But seriously, I disagree with that nonsense. This is really no different than the common generalization that all women who perform in porn were sexually abused as children, or are secretly seeking the love and affection that they never received as kids by having sex with a whole bunch of guys. Is that also true? I like rough sex, but do not at all agree with these crazy people who think that everything in life that someone finds arousing must always have something to do with some hidden childhood tragedy. Believe it or not, some of us actually had very happy and normal childhoods, but still prefer to see something more exciting than just the same repetitive boring vanilla sex all the time.
Ryan81 wrote
You did insinuate that women should happy to be exploited for money. In your opening post, you wrote that you would be happy to be "exploited" for 30K/month. Later, you clarified yourself by stating that you would only be happy to exploited for alot of money if you were a woman, thus implying that only women should be happy to be sexually exploited for money. So basically, no one put words in your mouth. That is what you wrote.
Professional sports are a stupid example to use with regard to "equal work and equal pay". It's based on the popularity of the athletes involved, and therefore the amount of money that the promoters and advertisers and sponsors can make off of the exposure. It's not about "work".They're doing the same thing we all do in our jobs. They're not litereally selling their bodies. They're renting them out for a short time. Just like everyone else does in their jobs (though many jobs require more mental then physical activity). The main difference comes from the puritan/conservative mindset that says sex is bad. (But violence is ok).
The bigger issue really is that a however-brief Porn career can screw up your chances for post-porn employment in many fields. Again, related to that mindset.
...
That's one of the most naive things I've ever read on this forum. What realtip said about 30k/month for self-exploitation was right on the money.
scipio wrote:I'm aware of that but it's still unfair.He said he heard about A CASE (one, in other words) where a guy was "gay-for-pay" So, it doesn't sound like the norm to me. If you have factual evidence to show otherwise, let's see it.
realtip: I was just comparing the group psychology, I could've used used Greenpiece or Hells Angels instead.
Most people I know got their opinion about porn from the news and critical quasi-documentaries, and those sources are quite biased... I've discussed porn but since I'm the only one who knows anything about it I usually avoid it. It's the same thing with drugs, it's not accepted to recognize the good sides (No... LSD is not likely to get you killed, not even fucked up...)
But I'm thinking it's still quite rare to develop some kind of serious phobia, I know many who loves to tell stories of how they wrecked their cars (and others too), how they wandered around in chock etc. They still drive too fast on winding roads...
I believe the reason for banning LSD is that it's a 'spiritual' drug and governments do not like free-thinking people, it's a threat to the ruling life style. It's not like other drugs made too make a lot of money for makers and distributors (which is why it is rare these days)
Anyways, that porn has gotten rougher I believe to be that work is simply harder these days, which is probably a result of commercialization. I'm guilty too, I assume girls in the business to do pretty much everything because basically I'm paying them to do it.
I look at rough sex as a friendly game of basketball - just because you're good friends doesn't mean you can't play rough. An outsider may not realize that it's a friendly game.
That's an interesting theory (which may, in fact, be true in some cases) but I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Example - How would that theory explain very attractive men who have almost never been rejected who like rough sex? Or, alternatively, how would it explain women who like rough sex?
Human sexuality is almost always more complicated than it might appear on the surface. I like rough sex and I certainly don't hate women. I don't hate anybody as a general class of people. If I hate someone, it would be a very specific someone and there would be more of a reason than that they rejected me. It takes a lot more than that to make me hate someone. And even if I do hate someone, I don't want to see them hurt or get revenge. I just stay away from them or ignore them if I have to be around them.
Under ordinary circumstances, I would agree. If I like romantic comedy and someone else doesn't, hey, they don't have to watch it. I don't care. Whatever. But if that other person wanted to ban romantic comedies because they personally didn't like them, found them offensive or insulting, then I'd call that person ignorant (among other things).
I don't have a problem with people who don't like porn. What I have a problem with is people who think I shouldn't be allowed to watch porn and it shouldn't be made because they find it offensive. That crosses the line between being having an opinion and forcing your opinion on other people. It's done all the time, of course but it shouldn't be.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - May 6 2006 : 8:45AM
I think that Kami's on to something here.Ah, here's the rub. Beauty standards aside the larger issue that Kami is hinting at is male power and control over woman's bodies. As women have become more assertative in terms of challenging male power...even the stereotypical lady’s man may harbor deep resentments against women. Gonzo and rough porn gives us guys a way to even the score so to speak-Kami is right on here. But this backlash against women's equality takes many forms rough porn is one and another one is religious fundamentalism.
As for woman who like rough sex. Surely there are some, but there I do not think that there is any statistical evidence to back this assetation. Women are not buying these DVD's. The idea that women like it rough is the stuff of male fantasy.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - May 6 2006 : 9:34AM
Alexander Portnoy wroteNo offense, but this still sounds like a load of anti-gonzo psychobabble crap to me. The reasoning that you provided does not hold water when taking into consideration that most men who enjoy rough sex are not opposed to female equality. Personally speaking, I fully support female socio-economic equality, as I have already stated before in this thread. It poses no threat to me, or to any man as far as I'm concerned. I have been surrounded by strong assertive women practically all my life. Even now, as an adult, I find strong independent women to be very attractive. Intelligence, eloquence, and mental/emotional/spiritual strength are actually qualities that I find appealling in a woman. Thus, I harbor absolutely no resentment against women for demanding the social equality that they should already have anyway. Nonetheless, I still greatly enjoy gonzo porn and extreme rough sex. Does it ever occur to people that perhaps this is all just entertainment; nothing more than a form of sexual fantasy? So if I enjoy watching horror movies where teenagers get slashed in the woods by masked murderers, does this mean that I have some hidden deep resentment against adolescent campers? This type of logic (or lack thereof) is ridiculous and cannot be used as a generalization for an entire audience of gonzo porn. Are there men who watch rough sex who really do hate women? I'm sure there are. But it is lunacy and "ignorance" (now that we are talking about it) to attempt to place all men into that one limited category.I think there may be some women on this forum who might disagree with you.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - May 6 2006 : 10:35AM
I'm glad we have in common the same social values regarding Women's lib. And I don't want to get dogmatic about this. So please enlighten me. For someone with your social values what is it about rough sex that turns you on? (Please don't answer me with a cliche about personal taste, yada yada...) Give it some thought.
Edited by - alexander portnoy on 5/6/2006 10:36:45 AM
I think mr portnoy is honest enough with the factors involved to make some valid points, Im guessing hes been around the block
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - May 7 2006 : 3:46AM
Alexander Portnoy wroteI'm not exactly sure what type of answer you're looking for, as the only thing I can think of is personal taste. I can provide no other reason. To ask this question, while ruling out personal taste as a sufficient answer, is the equivalent of asking why someone prefers poultry to beef, or why someone prefers to opera to rock 'n roll, without considering personal taste. The only answer I can give as to my reason for enjoying rough sex is simply because I just enjoy it, and no other reason. If personal taste is not a sufficient reason, then I don't know what else I can tell you.
Sydnee Steele, Savanna Samson or None. 275 Posts 12/05
Posted - May 8 2006 : 9:47AM
Okay, let me re-phrase it this way: what are the specific triggers (turn ons) in a rough sex scene that excite you? Is it: gapes, dirty talk, cream pies, cum farts, spanking, slapping, gagging or something else not listed?
Here's mine: In addition to the obvious reason why we all watch porn (hot babes having sex), the female gaze (brief intense glimpses at the reciever or split second acknowledgement of the camera) is my trigger--especially during oral. [If this thread continues I'll give the official pyscho babble explanation for this:)]
PS. Hey Kami, thanks for the affirmation! I wish that I had been around the block a little bit more, but evidently I've just read too much 'pyscho babble.'
PPS. Kami: Since I've been reading your posts and leering at your icon, I've become enchanted. But all I've been able to find at the video store is your Gonzo/Rougher stuff. Have you been in any features or lighter gonzo(if there is such a thing)?
Edited by - alexander portnoy on 5/8/2006 9:49:58 AM
Edited by - alexander portnoy on 5/8/2006 10:02:06 AM
As a feminist, I have issues with other feminists (typically radical) who fight for equality. I don't aspire to be equal. I want to be treated fair , just like any other human being should. Those are drastically different things.
When discussing a concept like “radical feminism”, there’s a danger that the debate will devolve into an argument over the correct definition of the term rather than the pros and cons of the particular philosophical positions represented by each different definition.
“Feminism” covers a large spectrum of beliefs and attitudes; “radical feminism” does too.
One wing of “radical feminism”, as exemplified by Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, is associated with a hatred of pornography and (sometimes) a hatred of men. These feminists tend to view female empowerment largely in terms of women prevailing in a power struggle with men (power understood in terms of “power over others”).
Another wing of “radical feminism” – sometimes termed “the sex-positive” wing -- is exemplified by Naomi Wolf and Tristan Taormino. These feminists tend to view female empowerment largely in terms of the self-determination of women in all their diversity (power understood in terms of “power to choose for oneself”).
One of the few beliefs that unites the two wings (and one with which I agree) is suggested by the definitions of "radical" above -- that women’s liberation requires more than the establishment of certain political rules (such as "equal pay for equal work”, as vitally important as that may be in its own right); it requires a fundamental shift in traditional beliefs and attitudes, a shift that goes to the root of how we as a society view femininity, masculinity, and sexuality.
What direction that shift should take . . . ah, there’s the rub.
<typos>
Edited by - bob on 5/9/2006 10:56:54 AM
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - May 8 2006 : 7:32PM
Alexander Portnoy wroteAll of the above, with the exception of dirty talk. Those ridiculous artificial moans, those loud glass-shattering shrieks of "Fuck Me! Fuck Me!," those obnoxious animal-like grunts and groans, and those obviously fake gagging noises all do nothing for me except kill the whole scene. As for all the other choices listed, I like them all.
Bob wrote
Personally, I am always hesitant to even use the term "radical" in regards to feminism. As far as I'm concerned, feminism is feminism. As we have seen time and time again throughout history, subjugated groups have a tendency to be labelled as "radical" by the dominant group(s) whenever the subjugated group demands, through words or actions, just treatment. This probably explains why most modern women, especially younger ones, regard the word "feminist" almost as a curse. The word "feminist" now carries with it such a negative connotation that even women who hold feminist principles will despise being called one. Although I also disagree with the overuse such of crazy labels in our society (as I said before, the term "feminist" was not even used or created by the actual originators of the women's rights movement), I also do not agree that everything that points out the flaws in our society needs to be so quickly labelled as "radical."
Sports isn't a good example, because as you note very, very few people make a living at them, but let's not forget that the whole point of having women's tennis in the first place is so they don't have to compete with men.
If women want equal pay they must be willing to take on all comers, so the very idea of women's tennis (or any women's sports) rules out the idea of equal pay for equal work.
Don't even get me started on the military. Why don't women have to shave their heads during boot, or in the academies?
Special treatment , that's why. I'll end my post now before I start a "cake and eat it too" rant.
@ Lindi.