I saw a lot of it at Parris Island - guys who had no business at all being there, who thought Marine Corps training was some 'silver bullet' that was going to get them the respect and admiration of their peers and hordes of swooning women (I was in it for the women - duh -- oh, and the G.I. Bill), when, in fact, all they were going to do was get somebody dead. I'm shallow; I didn't want them in my squad then, and I don't have any sympathy for it now.

Then there are the bullies themselves, the kind of guys who pulled the wings off flies when they were little, and the little pissants who hovered around them and patted them on the back for it. The guys who would throw cats over a fence to watch dogs tear it to pieces, and their little followers who would watch and live their vile little fantasies vicariously through their 'heroes'.

Surely, these guys all fall in one of these camps I've mentioned? Maybe. Maybe not. I do simplify, you know.

Or, maybe it's just funny. Look at the silly girl, so desperate for money or love or attention that she'll let me treat her like a piece of human garbage for money, and let me film it, to top it all off! Let's all glory in this poor girl's bad judgement, and laugh our asses off at her like we do at the poor simp who trips on the sidewalk and busts his ass and drops his groceries.

On any level, it seems to me the inherent entertainment value is in the enjoyment of someone else's distress and the ascendancy of some dubious 'hero' who, through his mishandling of power, whether physical or financial or emotional or some combination thereof, gives some worthless little whore what she really deserves.

Now, I won't lie and say I haven't been turned on watching some cute young thing get turned out by a man twice her age and experience. +1 Brian Surewood, Rocco, Manuel, Steve...

But in general, if there seems to be some blatant attempt to show the girl up as somehow an inferior human being while building up some frat-boy, high-fiving "oh hell yeah man" caveman stupidity ... I'm bored like the skronkman. And that, sadly, is more the rule than the exception. Porn, no matter how 'edgy' with a capital TM, is such utter transparent, slapped together inane stupidity that I can't even jerk off to it.

Ask anybody here, I love a good, physical, limits-testing sex-fest. Where the fuck is it? Where's something that's not some slapped-together, interview/tease/suck/fuck/pop McPorn that .. OH never mind, wrong rant.

Now, I like ass destructin' and load gobbling and a little smacky smack here and there, I LOVE IT! I really do.

But...give us some fucking SUBTLETY. Where's the subtlety? Rocco knows, Manuel, Steve H., Brandon on his best days...tangent, sorry.

So -- the sadness described in this thread, this wallowing in human misery and meanness and total lack of humanity...leaves me cold.

Explain it to you, Soul Sphere? I think you know. And between you, me and the fence post -- we're right. Or not, I'm totally full of shit, and three beers and crackin' ther fourth! So...

[Link]

Edited by - dac on 2/23/2005 10:25:44 PM

[Link]

I have a lot of complicated thoughts about all of this. Cobalt captures one end of this bell curve perfectly, though.

[Link]

Melissa you are the queen of hardcore

[Link]

Those who believe absolutely in the ability of consent to justify anything are also a funny breed . Almost as strange as the freedom of speechers . And people who think that their lot see the truth while everyone else is mired in loveydoveyism are the funniest of all .

[Link]

If it's only degrading on video, I don't think it's that bad... I'm more concerned how these girls are treated on the set. I like 'behind the scenes' where the actors are talking or warming up a little bit before the shoot because then it's obvious that the guys aren't evil and that the girls aren't just plain stupid.

Violence and sex goes way back in evolution... most of us probably love both tender lovemaking and rough action.

I won't defend meatholes though, I hate when women is referred to as 'meat', 'flesh' etc... probably because I'm more fond of a fabolous face than the perfect body.

[Link]

And cobalt certainly has a very valid point about the frat-boy "let's laugh at someone inferior" stupidity ("reality" sites like bang bus et al. are 100% guilty of this).

That being said... I do enjoy meatholes very much. Like many ADT'ers I've been watching gonzo for many years and I'm tired of most of it. If I consider 90% of the porn I watch mediocre, meatholes certainly falls into the exciting 10%.

Everyone already has an opinion about meatholes, and even discussing the legitimateness of it will lead nowhere (this thread and the previous one are there to prove it ).
The thing i can however do, is try to explain why i like it, and why it works for me:

- If gonzo is defined as "actors acknowledging the fact that there is a camera shooting what they are doing", then meatholes is the gonzo of gonzo: the footage is almost unedited, or mostly unedited (breaks or director instructions are left "as is"), there's a general "behind the scene" feeling which increases the suspension of disbelief.
The point being: I find it more believable/real than the rest of the porn I watch. It doesn't mean it is, it doesn't mean I'm less/more naive or gullible than anybody, it just means it looks convincing enough to me to be enjoyable.

- Unlike your average gonzo, which often focuses on specific acts (DP, A2M, Cum fart and the rest of the repertoire), meatholes focuses mainly on the girl and her reactions, and unlike your average gonzo, the expected reaction is not pleasure but unease. I'd rather watch a genuine "sour face" than listen to a fake moaning solo for the 1000th time.

Having the main focus on the girl is of course not specific to meatholes or rough material. I enjoy watching the girl talk with the director in any kind of video (Vince Voyeur often does this for example), when correctly done (with a bit of subtlety) it reveals a little more about the girl.
Showing a girl as a real person and not as an anonymous body & face is a major turn on for me.

- As skonker puts it, the "deer-in-the headlights effect". Again, this is not specific to meatholes, it is a whole porn sub-genre and the reason people (myself included) crave for newer and newer girls.

- Taking the girl were she doesn't want to go. I know this is kind of a "taboo" thing in porn, and it is often were people will draw the line. But it's exactly what makes meatholes different: it looks borderline non consensual. The sex acts certainly are consensual and it's absolutely the way it should be. What is not (or may seem like it is not) is the whole Khan Tusion speech, the personal questions, the face spitting etc... and that's also were most of the excitment is.
The way i see it, this "non consensual" element is just some kind of new spice to accommodate an old meal. It works great for some people but it makes others sick.

Labeling Khan Tusion as "S&M light", "S&M with no leather and no fancy kitchen utensils" or "S&M for the gonzo crowd" may hold some truth, but the bottom line is, it is still a different product/niche. I would be very interested to hear what S&M fans do think of meatholes... (not a whole lot of good things I'd imagine )

Ps: sorry for the long post, the "un-natural" (TM diabolic) english and for the general nonsense rumbling. English is my first language... but you knew that already .

Edited by - anti-pop on 2/24/2005 9:39:01 PM

[Link]

Yawn.

2Big

[Link]

Trying to pass judgment or psychoanalyze someone from a distance is a risky business, usually resulting in personally-familiar attributes or motives being unjustifiably assigned to others.

PS. As I was about to post this, I noticed a post elsewhere by Taryn Thomas (whose MeatHoles scene this thread is about) commenting

[Link]

Now, before you try to tell me that the performer in the scene being discussed wasn't a victim, that wasn't my point. My point in the post you questioned was that Pericles was using the classic blame the victim argument in his post. One can use an argument irregardless of its validity to the situation being discussed, no?

[Link]

Just because you personally happen to have become so jaded by "standard" anal, dp, a2m porn that you now need to see christians thrown to the lions to "feel like it's real" is hardly a justification on any level -- what's most lame about such an argument is that you are only admitting to one of the most cherished claims of the rabid anti-porners that would ban everything from Playboy on down -- that porn users get desensitized & start looking for bigger kicks. This utterly specious argument of "you like what you like, & I like what I like" suddenly doesn't hold water if one of the parties happens to be a Ted Bundy fan.

and jrv -- you're either not reading very carefully or else trying to ignore what I stated earlier in this thread when you write:

Jrv:Where is it?I would really like to read it.

[Link]

Quaze

[Link]

You are absolutely right that I shouldn't try to psychoanalyze other people from afar, however, that was not my intention.

What I was doing was trying to tie together some inferences and deductions based on a couple of years here getting a feel for the people who make and watch porn, all different types from 'what cobalt60 likes' to 'what you like' and everything in betweeen, and more or less work a logic puzzle based on the end product, the archetypes involved, the tone (subject to the viewer's perception, granted, but overall I would have to say 'grim' no matter how much lipstick you put on that pig), the intended audience, and other factors far too esoteric and perhaps off the mark to warrant serious discussion (including my mood at the time, my disdain for treating people like garbage unless of course they deserve it - then I'm all for it - and the feelings I was trying to evoke). Unfortunately, I can't seem to observe the processes dispassionately and objectively enough to not affect my own conclusions, but hey, I'm working on it.

It seems to me you can put a crucifix in a jar of piss and call it art and a statement against organized religion all you like, and those may be valid points, but the fact remains that it is confrontational, and that does imply something about either the state of mind of the artist or the intention to provoke (or evoke, as the case may be) strong feelings in the viewer of the work that just won't fly without some understanding of the nuances of human behavior. Or both. Or neither. Maybe it's just a jar of piss with a crucifix in it. Maybe you're the only real person and the rest of us are just daydreams. And maybe either Meathole Man has issues that aren't just projected by me or he's trying to make some serious statement about misunderstood or misrepresented aspects of human sexuality.

Maybe a lot of things. Maybe I care so very little about porn because of what it does or doesn't do to glorify the postive aspects of the human sexual experience that I do project my own feelings and perceptions onto others, and who the fuck cares?

I'll say this, and it's just my opinion, of course, but one-trick ponies like Khan and Max who can't seem to fuck any way but the way they present in their products are not 100% mentally healthy (an unforgivable faux pas for a lay person such as myself, I know) and I suppose I should glad they're able to find willing participants and an audience for it, whether I like it or not. Big of me, yes? I love liberty, even if it means bad porn. And I'm not saying I can't get a nut to some humilitainment myself (I'm that much of a hypocrite, yes), but variety is the spice of life, is it not?

I got issues of my own. I expect porn to glorify something. What the fuck is that?

Edited by - cobalt60 on 2/25/2005 9:44:03 AM

[Link]

Where've you been , my friend!

Edited by - MLyons on 2/25/2005 10:44:18 AM

[Link]

-T.C.

Comstock Films: Films For People Who Like Sex

[Link]

However, back on point, while not assuming dac's statement is based on personal knowledge may be prudent, ignoring the implication that dac does have personal knowledge is not.

[Link]

Myk

[Link]

While the argument of the pro porn camp (for example David Loftus in "Watching Sex: How men really respond to pornography") is that is the vast majority of cases, there is no progression, people like what they like, and will probably keep doing so ad eternam.

Taking myself as anecdotal evidence, I can say this is not true either. Boredom (or desensitization if you want to call it that) will make a minority look for new things...

The bottom line is: I choose what I watch & enjoy and I'm 100% responsible for it. Sadly for Dworkin and anti-porn fanatics, i wasn't manipulated by some "evil" porn producer into watching meatholes or anything else.

On the other hand, the porn industry & porn people have to accept the fact that a part of their audience does enjoy "meatholes type" material. They have to accept it even if they would prefer that kind of material not to exist in order to be able to present a clean and politically correct face to the general public and to anti-porn loonies.

.

As for the "submit your name to the local sex offender registry just in case" type of posts, it's a bit sad that these kind of knee-jerk reaction keep coming up.

Ironically, i could say that these kind of sentences are usually shouted by hysterical "feminists" and religious types holding "BAN PORN" protest signs.

I'd rather keep discussing the topic without anymore "moral high ground" comments.

Edited by - anti-pop on 2/26/2005 7:35:58 AM

[Link]

From a cynical brit pointr of view, I regard this as typical american hard sell to draw the customer in with what appears to be 'sensational' porn, demonstrated by wiling participants playing out overacting theatrics. In short, the people are playing out a psychological performance, that people here are taking far too serious. If you don't like it. Don't watch it...But you will, because it draws you in.

[Link]

I even think it could be the other way round. Porn evolves because of some crazy or not-so-crazy ADT posters who tell what they want to see. I for my part fantasized about getting squirted on my face by multiple ladies before I bought a single porn movie. Finally porn catches up with that fantasy.
I'm sure lots of people would be disgusted by my fantasy. So though I would wish violent porn did not exist I'd say I let others have their fantasies and hope they let me have mine, as long as we do not rape the girls virtually (if they'd be forced to do their scenes).

[Link]

The argument that watching porn leads to a need for harder porn comes from analogy to drug addiction. As the body gets used to a certain level of chemical stimulation, it requires more or harder drugs to get the same kick. But sex, and therefore porn, doesn't work that way. The brain floods itself with opioids when we have orgasm, but it always creates the same level of opioids. Hard porn isn't a harder drug than soft porn. The things that get you off create the same levels of the same chemicals, regardless of the external stimulus.

A better analogy for porn is marriage. You fall in love with the girl, you spend all your time thinking about boinking her, you get married, and after a couple of years it isn't the same. You still love her, but you don't spend all your time thinking about her. If you want to get the magic back, you don't go from soft core to hard core marriage. A little change is usually enough for a temporary increase in libido. Or you get divorced and go through the same cycle with someone else.

The same thing happens in porn. Just because you're a little tired of watching butt fucking doesn't mean that you're going to get turned on by DAPs. But you will get turned on if some director comes up with a clever twist on the usual formula. It's the formula you get tired of, not the sex. Romantic love tends to last for a couple of months to a couple of years, with the average at about a year. Similarly, porn fans tend to worship a particular performer for about a year, and then move on to someone else. A periodic change in face results in better masturbation.

The supply of hard core porn is greater than it used to be, but the demand has always been there. In an extreme case, there's always been a demand for bestiality. I've read about people in the 1950s going to North Africa to watch girls having sex with goats. People who like bestiality have generally always been interested in it. They didn't get interested in it because Meat Holes gave them a taste for humiliation. The rise in Internet porn hasn't caused a massive shift towards BDSM or kiddie porn. The people who are into it are usually people who were into it previously.

I once watched a Max Hardcore scene by accident, and I hope I never see another. I've never seen one of Khan Tusion's videos, and I don't plan to watch any. At the same time, accusing people who watch them of being incipient sex offenders doesn't make sense to me. They may be sick, depraved, joyless perverts, but they're socially well adjusted. They have a strong enough grasp of reality not to destroy their lives by trying to act like Max Hardcore or Khan Tusion in real life.

Gen Padova is an unusually moral person. By that I mean that she knows what she thinks is wrong and right, she knows what she's willing to do and not willing to do, and she's prepared to do what's necessary to make it stick. The fact that she can do a Khan Tusion scene without feeling abused doesn't mean that the average porn chick can do it. Taking her experience as the norm is like assuming that all porn fans are like those guys who go on college lecture tours to talk about their careers as porn addicts. At the other extreme from Gen is Laura Roxx, who is so screwed up that she will probably never be able to make an intelligent, informed decision, no matter how much information she has.

Most people fall somewhere in the middle. Whether the screening process that Gen describes is enough to prepare performers for what KT is about to do to them is not a question I can answer. Is it possible to prepare someone for something completely different from anything they've experienced before? Can they make an informed decision if no amount of description can tell them what the experience is like?

Rather than examining the motivations of people I don't know and don't know anything about, I'd rather look at their actions. KT produces videos I don't want to watch. But he also screens his performers carefully. If KT were forced to stop producing videos, it would mean slightly less work for porn whores. Some would benefit from not working with KT and some, like Gen, would not. I don't know whether the good would outweigh the bad.

On the other hand, if KT's screening process were applied to the whole industry, it would be a definite improvement. No girls would go to a shoot expecting to do g/g and discover that the director was planning b/g creampies. No one would be pressured to do anal when they weren't prepared for it. It would eliminate a lot of miscommunication and force some producers to clean up their acts.

KT may be a twisted little psycho or not. Either way it's possible he has something to teach the porn industry about treating people with respect.

[Link]

ghostpro.com

[Link]