Suppose porn was mainstream

Author	Post
Rolf Muller Member 119 Posts 11/11	Posted - Dec 25 2011 : 2:09PM I for one would rather than porn was viewed as a normal and loving thing, that porn stars were not looked down on in society, and that porn was freely available for adults. However, I could also see an aspect in it's appeal to some folks is the illicit/underground nature of porn. Would most people rather have porn stay an underground because that makes it hotter, or would you rather it be a mainstream entertainment? [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Dec 25 2011 : 2:21PM Rolf Muller wrote: I for one would rather than porn was viewed as a normal and loving thing, that porn stars were not looked down on in society, and that porn was freely available for adults. However, I could also see an aspect in it's appeal to some folks is the illicit/underground nature of porn. Would most people rather have porn stay an underground because that makes it hotter, or would you rather it be a mainstream entertainment? Click to expand Porn can be mainstream only in exclusively adult type of environment. Because even when there is only one kid running around, then adults hide their sexual desires and interests. [Link]
Rolf Muller Member 119 Posts 11/11	Posted - Dec 25 2011 : 3:19PM That's fine - just for adults but still mainstream in the way that smokes & drink are adult but mainstream... [Link]
Dan Senior Member 2056 Posts 6/07	Posted - Dec 25 2011 : 3:44PM Rolf Muller wrote: That's fine - just for adults but still mainstream in the way that smokes & drink are adult but mainstream... Click to expand Adults don't need to hide their smoking and drinking from kids. Kids are free to see this kind of thing at home and on TV. Which is what makes these activities more mainstream than porn movies can ever be. Edited by - Dan on 12/25/2011 3:44:44 PM [Link]
Gunzo Senior Member 1377 Posts 2/05	Posted - Dec 25 2011 : 4:59PM Well, most adults hide their sexual desires from other adults as well. Instead of 'exchange of smelly bodily fluids through fucking like animals' we call it 'to make love'. [Link]

Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 25 2011 : 5:02PM Rolf Muller wrote: That's fine - just for adults but still mainstream in the way that smokes & drink are adult but mainstream... Click to expand There's really no reason for it to be "mainstream". I would think anyone who wants it can get it. Besides, porn would probably suffer overall if it went "mainstream". Pretty much anytime anything goes "mainstream" it gets very watered down to make it easily digestible for everyone and not offend anyone. The watered down mainstream porn would be the biggest seller and most porn makers would try to make their stuff more like that to cash in. The harder stuff would be a much easier target for the people who need stuff to be offended by to protest it and have it stopped being made. This pretty much happens with everything that goes "mainstream". Other than the sales suffering because of piracy porn is in a safe place right now. People kinda accept it exits and it doesn't call a lot of attention to itself. [Link]
LCF All-Star Member Non Prevalebunt! 10364 Posts 1/05	Posted - Dec 25 2011 : 5:36PM Can't be, even if restricted to adults there are adults who don't want to see actual sex. [Link]
WardqueenJanine Member 914 Posts 2/08	Posted - Dec 25 2011 : 9:33PM I think currently porn straddles the area between what we are terming mainstream and underground. Not too many years ago the term "Porn" itself would have been something that would have caused a gasp in an everyday conversation but I think it can be afreed that people in all strata of society, males and females, freely use the term. Also, it is more prevalent that couples openly among themselves are ,are open about freely admitting that they view porn as part of their foreplay. I wish I could remember where I recently read this but it was written that internet porn is THE most commonly viewed media among both genders. [Link]
wcw43921 Senior Member Look Into My Eyes-- 1252 Posts 4/08	Posted - Dec 25 2011 : 9:51PM Rolf Muller wrote: That's fine - just for adults but still mainstream in the way that smokes & drink are adult but mainstream... Click to expand It would be nice if adult entertainment businesses didn't have to fight the communities in which they wanted to open. It seems like every time I read about a strip club opening in the newspaper it's always a story about the controversy it creates. Local residents scream "We don't want this kind of filth here!" and the local politicians vow to fight it with every legal tactic at their command. Kind of like what happened in Sparland, Illinois, with a club called Fluffers. My own hometown even went so far as to pass an adult entertainment law based on the strength of a few rumors and polite inquiries. No one in my town has a problem with a liquor store being a couple of blocks from a elementary school, or liquor being sold in grocery stores or convience stores. But an old-school adult bookstore with a video arcade? Or a BYOB-club with nude dancing women? "Not in our fair community!" scream the hatchet-wielding old biddies charging to the attack. Hell, there was a time in Peoria, Illinois when the locals tried to stop a Hooters restaurant from opening in town. I mean--A HOOTERS! [o\\|] What's the point? What are people trying to prove? No, porn isn't for everybody, and it is certainly not for kids. But that doesn't mean it has to be outlawed. That's an abridgement of speech, and it has no place in our laws or our society. Enough said. _________________________________________________________________________________ "There can never be too many beautiful women Hypnotized for our pleasure." [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Dec 25 2011 : 9:59PM Absolutely everything that goes "mainstream" turns to utter shit. [Link]
wcw43921 Senior Member Look Into My Eyes-- 1252 Posts 4/08	Posted - Dec 25 2011 : 10:38PM ^Isn't that the same sort of rock-solid, laser-precise reasoning that led Kurt Cobain to blow his brains out? Granted, the heroin addiction didn't help any, but still-- ________________________________________________________________________________ "There can never be too many beautiful women Hypnotized for our pleasure." [Link]
LCF All-Star Member Non Prevalebunt! 10364 Posts 1/05	Posted - Dec 26 2011 : 5:02AM In Tinto Brass' La Donna Lupo" the main actress Loredana Cannata performs a true blow job to the actor it is less than half minute , although sexually related yet it is a mainstream movie not a porn nor the actress is a pornstar. [Link]
ServerZ Deactivated User 25 Posts 12/11	Posted - Dec 26 2011 : 5:21AM Why would you want it to go mainstream? [Link]
wcw43921 Senior Member Look Into My Eyes-- 1252 Posts 4/08	Posted - Dec 26 2011 : 2:46PM ^For the reasons I mentioned in my above post, and that it would be really great if porn stars and other porn professionals didn't face being ostracized from society, or losing their children in custody disputes, or even the prospect of being Sent To Fucking Jail for choosing to express themselves as sexual beings--for choosing to undress and fuck on camera, or filming those who undress and fuck on camera, or being involved in any part of that industry. To my mind, porn at its best puts forth the premise that sexual pleasure for its own sake is a positive thing for all who participate. And in a society that has always put forth the notion that sex is dirty and degrading, that its only place is for procreation--that is something it cannot abide. And while that is changing--slowly but surely--there are still aspects of sex for its own pleasure that society, and by extension the law, finds intolerable. And most of those aspects are concentrated in the adult industry. Think of the worst mainstream filmmaker, the worst mainstream author, the worst mainstream singer, the worst mainstream artist you know--that person will never be thrown in jail for their artistic creations. Not in this country anyway. But adult industry artists and other professionals have been thrown in jail, or fined excessively, or otherwise had their freedom of speech abirdged. That should not be happening. I hope that explains my position better. _________________________________________________________________________________ "There can never be too many beautiful women Hypnotized for our pleasure." [Link]
Rolf Muller Member 119 Posts 11/11	Posted - Dec 26 2011 : 3:04PM Agreed, WCW, in that what I'd like to see is porn performers and industry types being able to live without shame. Then again, I don't find the underground to make the porn experience any better, or it's disreputable nature, but I can also see that it's a turn on to some. Interesting to read folks opinions about this whatever side you are on. [Link]

Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 26 2011 : 8:54PM wcw43921 wrote: ^For the reasons I mentioned in my above post, and that it would be really great if porn stars and other porn professionals didn't face being ostracized from society, or losing their children in custody disputes, or even the prospect of being Sent To Fucking Jail for choosing to express themselves as sexual beings--for choosing to undress and fuck on camera, or filming those who undress and fuck on camera, or being involved in any part of that industry. Click to expand I see your point but it's a bit more complicated than that. If porn actually went mainstream I don't think that would stop people from possibly being charged or going to jail over what some might view a making "obscene" porn. The people who've recently been on trial or charged for the porn they've made didn't do so because they made porn but because they made the "bad" type of porn. If porn went mainstream it would be the "soft" and "safe" type that would be most widely accepted. Once the porn starts to venture too far away from that there'll be problems. There will be people and groups who let everyone know that they don't like what they're seeing. If porn was more visible it would happen much more often. The extreme stuff would be crucifed first then the not quite as extreme all the way back to anything that didn't resemble the "acceptable" "safe" stuff. We've seen it happen with pretty much everything that goes "mainstream". Making something more visible makes it an easier target. The way you'd like to see pornstars treated is probably more of a "respect" thing than a "mainstream" thing. I would think strippers/dancers are fairly mainstream but still get treated badly because of what they do. Besides, I know pornstars get a lot of grief from the public and there have been situations in the past where child custody became an issue because of being in porn, but are things still that bad these days? There are lots of older female pornstars these days with kids and I don't hear about those types of issues that much anymore if at all. [Link]
Rolf Muller Member 119 Posts 11/11	Posted - Dec 26 2011 : 9:41PM Didn't Asia Carrerra, after all she went through with the death of her husband, have to fight not to get thrown out of a upscale community because of her porn past? I can't remember the full details, but I think it was in the last five years or so. [Link]
RandomPrecision Senior Member Enjoy! 8175 Posts 3/06	Posted - Dec 26 2011 : 10:52PM wcw43921 wrote: ^Isn't that the same sort of rock-solid, laser-precise reasoning that led Kurt Cobain to blow his brains out? Click to expand Kurt Cobain is really the first thing you think of when someone says porn doesn't need to be under the sphere of influence that includes (or has included) Oprah Winfrey, Dr (quack quack) Phil, Jerry Springer and Dr (almost unbelievably creepy) Oz? I'll refrain from making any other commentary about Cobain. Just suffice it to say that our lovely controlled mainstream is good for nothing as far as I'm concerned. Making an attempt to mainstream porn will not gain us acceptance with people who hate everything we stand for. And I shouldn't have to bring this up but our mainstream does not have a viable channel for real alternative viewpoints. It is utterly inflexible and hateful towards anything that is different. Porn is not Dr Phil. Edited by - randomprecision on 12/26/2011 11:06:02 PM [Link]
wcw43921 Senior Member Look Into My Eyes-- 1252 Posts 4/08	Posted - Dec 27 2011 : 5:20AM ^I was referring to the notion that if something is immensely popular--in other words, mainstream--it must be utter shit. There's a saying--"Ninety percent of everything is shit--"--and that includes adult entertainment as well as mainstream entertainment. The second part of that statement, however, is "--but the ten percent that isn't is worth fighting and dying for." And you cannot fight for the right of the ten percent to exist without fighting for the right of the ninety percent. You can, however, hope that the worthwhile ten percent, will be recognized and celebrated over the worthless ninety percent, and work to make that happen. Of course, the judgement of what is worthless vs. what is worthwhile is a subjective one, as exemplified by the saying "One man's junk is another man's treasure." And the Oprahs and Dr. Phils of the world do not have to approve of something in order for it to be mainstream. I seriously doubt that Eli Roth's movie Hostel has their blessing, or the blessing of any other talk show host. That hasn't stopped the movie from making millions, and Mr. Roth would never find himself facing obscenity charges in any jurisdiction in the United States for making it, even if it had been ten times as violent. That, to my mind, is what comes with mainstream acceptance--and it has very little to do with whether a work is part of the worthless ninety percent or the worthwhile ten percent. Draxxx wrote: I see your point but it's a bit more complicated than that. If porn actually went mainstream I don't think that would stop people from possibly being charged or going to jail over what some might view a making "obscene" porn. The people who've recently been on trial or charged for the porn they've made didn't do so because they made porn but because they made the "bad" type of porn. If porn went mainstream it would be the "soft" and "safe" type that would be most widely accepted. Once the porn starts to venture too far away from that there'll be problems. There will be people and groups who let everyone know that they don't like what they're seeing. If porn was more visible it would happen much more often. The extreme stuff would be crucifed first then the not quite as extreme all the way back to anything that didn't resemble the "acceptable" "safe" stuff. We've seen it happen with pretty much everything that goes "mainstream". Making something more visible makes it an easier target. Click to expand It's my understanding that to some extent this has already happened. If I remember my porn history correctly, in the Seventies there was a lot of BDSM-themed porn with the women being treated fairly rough--then along came the Reagan Administration and Attorney General Edwin Meese, and along with that was the anti-porn movement in feminism which equated porn with rape. Faced with those dual pressures, porn producers dialed back from the rough stuff to feature almost exclusively what one news program called "cheerfully consenting adults." That, coupled with the home video boom, enabled porn to move out of the easily-targeted X-rated movie houses into people's homes, and therefore survive the Eighties. Then the Clinton Administration came along and cut back severely on the Justice Department's prosecutions of the industry--and that, coupled with the rise of the Internet, led porn from a multi-million dollar industry to become a multi-billion dollar industry. This also led producers to take risks with their material that they would not have taken before--and under the Bush Administration there were like Max Hardcore who paid a price for it. (That's my understanding of it anyway. I would not mind at all if someone with a greater knowledge of the history of porn were to correct me on my recollection.) And while there are still those who are willing to take risks, there are those who, even though talented and wanting to tell good stories, are inclined to tread lightly--as this post indicates-- NicaNoelle wrote: You know, I'm with you 100% on that. I wish I could explore those themes - hypnosis is INCREDIBLY sexy to me. The problem with DVDs is that there's that little issue of "consent" and presenting something that looks like "coercion" or hypnosis, drugs, blackmail, anything that would cause a person to perhaps do something that they don't want to do, that they didn't choose to do -- we're not allowed to go there with DVD. Website only content has a little more leeway due to the ambiguous interpretation of 'community standards' but that's why we have to stay away from stuff like that. I try to sort of orbit around it as much as I can though, and I'll continue to try to incorporate themes that I personally find sexy into our videos, without crossing any lines that could cause trouble for our studio. Click to expand What mainstream producer has to worry about whether or not their content will get them arrested? None that come to my mind. Not even Eli Roth. Certainly not Michael Bay. They can make whatever movie they want and the law can't even so much as say "Boo!" to them, except at tax time. Perhaps this current administration is less anti-porn than the previous administration--I have not heard one way or the other. Perhaps subsequent administrations, be they one party or the other, will decide they have better things to do than infringe on adult entertainers' free speech rights. Perhaps then there will be an adult producer willing to stick his or her neck out to make a movie that would be previously considered "unsafe." It would be nice to think it could happen. Draxxx wrote: The way you'd like to see pornstars treated is probably more of a "respect" thing than a "mainstream" thing. I would think strippers/dancers are fairly mainstream but still get treated badly because of what they do. Besides, I know pornstars get a lot of grief from the public and there have been situations in the past where child custody became an issue because of being in porn, but are things still that bad these days? There are lots of older female pornstars these days with kids and I don't hear about those types of issues that much anymore if at all. Click to expand I do think porn stars and strippers are worthy of respect and courtesy, just as any other human being. I certainly do not understand why anyone would treat them with contempt. As for child custody issues, I don't think a porn star is as likely to lose custody of her child as she may have been in the past. There are still, however, instances (some of which have been discussed on these boards) where a school district would discharge a former stripper or porn star in their employ upon finding out what she used to do for a living. The most notorious of these was when the porn star formerly known as Sasha Grey volunteered to read to a grade school class, and the kids' parents lodging complaints about it. I wonder if these same parents would have complained so much if the celebrity in question had been one of the Kardashian sisters, or one of the women from Jersey Shore. Because given a choice, I choose Sasha over any of those others. My thanks to you if you've stuck with me this far--this has been much longer than most of my posts here. I hope I've answered everyone more effectively than my previous posts in this thread, and I hope we all look forward to a time when our free speech rights are not abridged by the narrow-minded in and out of government, and that adult entertainers are treated with more respect than they have been in the past. ________________________________________________________________________________ "There can never be too many beautiful women Hypnotized for our pleasure." [Link]
CummingLinguist All-Star Member 5908 Posts 11/11	Posted - Dec 28 2011 : 7:27AM Almost by definition pornography is erotica that is forbidden or at least hidden. So this painting is considered art today and hangs in a museum: (Note: If this were a photograph, it would violate ADT image policy.) When it was painted, it was meant for private consumption, and was literally hidden behind this painting: The first was pornography when it was created, but today is considered erotica. The only change is that nude paintings are no longer considered unfit for public consumption. If pornography went mainstream, it would no longer be pornography. You may be asking, "Suppose explicit sexual contact was routinely portrayed in mainstream cinema?" I think that's unlikely. In almost every society on Earth, and throughout most of human history, paying someone to have sex is considered a crime, or at least socially taboo. It's hard for me to imagine it ever becoming commonplace. [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 28 2011 : 8:57PM The thing I've never quite understood is why Hollywood makes such a big deal about the supposed "hot" and over the top love scenes/nudity in mainstream "R" rated movies when cable tv has tons of much more revealing Soft-core stuff playing every night. They act like a Angelina Jolie/ Antonio Bandarass movie with a few glimpes of flesh is so hot the public might not be able to handle it but you've got Glori-Ann Gilbert, Julie K. Smith and a bunch of ex-pornstars doing scenes that blow the mainstream out of the water. I don't expect actual real sex in a manistream movie but at this point I would've thought that a this point the sex scenes/nudity in mainstream would be closer to skinamax levels. [Link]
Smiler Grogan All-Star Member the war cry 14790 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 28 2011 : 9:37PM Draxxx its two different things: It used to be because, we're such a prudish society and any hint of skin in a major work of art or culture just automatically gets attention, i.e., ratings. Almost 20 years after Basic Instinct people are still talking about that 2 seconds of the film. Hell, look at the attention generated by Lindsay Lohan doing Playboy. Skin sells. Nowadays though, it's different. Softcore, as you mentioned, is widely available but has been pushed to the fringes: the internet, late night cable, straight to DVD flicks. Major movies with sex scenes have been flops. In fact no one wants to make big-budget R-rated films anymore, especially if it concerns sex. That new Twilight film got a lot of attention for its supposedly "as-sexy-as-PG-13-sex-scene-can-be" honeymoon scene (haven't seen it, don't care too) mostly because this is a huge movie franchise and its two stars are dating in real life. It gives people writing about it an angle ("Oooh, this is so risky!") Yeah, yeah whatever. By contrast the movie Blue Valentine originally got an NC-17 rating for sex, but it was an indie film with two relative unknows in it, so no one outside of the industry reported on it. [Link]
Smiler Grogan All-Star Member the war cry 14790 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 28 2011 : 9:38PM Great post CunningLinguist!! [Link]
Draxxx Senior Member 3831 Posts 2/07	Posted - Dec 29 2011 : 7:49PM zarinafan wrote: Draxxx its two different things: It used to be because, we're such a prudish society and any hint of skin in a major work of art or culture just automatically gets attention, i.e., ratings. Almost 20 years after Basic Instinct people are still talking about that 2 seconds of the film. Hell, look at the attention generated by Lindsay Lohan doing Playboy. Skin sells. Nowadays though, it's different. Softcore, as you mentioned, is widely available but has been pushed to the fringes: the internet, late night cable, straight to DVD flicks. Major movies with sex scenes have been flops. In fact no one wants to make big-budget R-rated films anymore, especially if it concerns sex. Click to expand Yeah, I know that today's movies don't have much skin/sex in them but I have to wonder what happened. Back in the 80s and early 90s there were tons of teen comedies, sex comedies and "R" rated movies that had lots of nudity and sex. In the 70s and 80s it seemed most major actresses did topless and nude scenes and it wasn't that big a deal. Now you hear about actresses with no nudity clauses and body doubles. I don't understand what happened to that audience that liked or didn't mind seeing nudity/sex in movies. Did they become conservative? Why doesn't this younger generation want to see those types of movies? Is it because they can see that stuff elsewhere? [Link]
BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Dec 30 2011 : 3:16AM CummingLinguist wrote: I think that's unlikely. In almost every society on Earth, and throughout most of human history, paying someone to have sex is considered a crime, or at least socially taboo. It's hard for me to imagine it ever becoming commonplace. Click to expand Not really true. Prostitution has been tolerated and has been quite open through many historical eras and in lots of countries. As for porn going 'mainstream.' In some ways it already is... [Link]

BlackSix All-Star Member pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07	Posted - Dec 30 2011 : 3:17AM Draxxx wrote: Yeah, I know that today's movies don't have much skin/sex in them but I have to wonder what happened. Click to expand Reagan. [Link]
Smiler Grogan All-Star Member the war cry 14790 Posts 1/08	Posted - Dec 30 2011 : 7:24PM Now you hear about actresses with no nudity clauses and body doubles. I don't understand what happened to thataudience that liked or didn't mind seeing nudity/sex in movies. Click to expand Again, movie studios get skittish where the R-rating is concerned. I think back to a few late 80s, early 90s films: *Basic Instinct* was a success of course, but movies like *9 1/2 Weeks,Color of Night, Body of Evidence, Sliver, Jade, The Lover* and, of course, Showgirls all flopped. All came with a large amount of hype over the explicit skin and sex, but not much box office. (yeah, even *91/2 weeks*, as legendary as it is, only grossed $6M) Some of these films found a second life on late-night cable and video, but movie studios decided not to throw more money after sex. Also, movie directors and male actors (in addition to actresses) don't want too much explicit sex in films either. Because even if the film is an indie film without aspirations of $100M box office, you risk having everybody just talk about the sex factor and then you get a reputation of just being a "softcore" director. Plus with the rise of file-sharing, sex scenes can just be downloaded without regard for any context and stills of nude actresses appear on Mr. Skin. Legitimate directors don't want that. Did they become conservative? Why doesn't this younger generation want to see those types of movies? Is it because they can see that stuff elsewhere? Click to expand Exactly. Watching sex is something far more easily done in private than in a crowded theatre. I don't think porn would have ever grown like it did without the advent of the VCR. And another thing -- and how many gonzo threads have we seen explain this? -- if you want to see sex, explicit sex, why waste time with big hollywood films? It's three-seven minutes of sex, often surrounded by 80 minutes of hackneyed plot and bad acting. Skinemax shows give you what you want in a succinct 30 minutes. Porn gives it to you in copious quantities. [Link]