The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
In light of Wal-Mart removing GTA San Andreas from shelves because of sexual content, I'm going to nail my colours to the mast here - I like porn.
I hold porno on a level with good literature (none of that Proust/F Scott Fitzgerald crap, I'm talking Eddie Bunker/Bukowski), good music and fine food.
Good porno is an artform. None of this softcore, boobs and bouncing hair nonsense that Channel 5 thinks is good. None of this "I'm a security guard employed to protect you Shannon Tweed, and we shall have saxophone scored, wind-blowing-curtains meetings" tosh.
No, I'm talking a man & woman/woman & woman/man & man/whatever getting naked and making uglyfaces with zero plot, zero Casio accompaniment, zero clunky script with anything more than "Wow, I want to sit on your face and bounce".
And with the advent of the internet, you’ve seen porn – I absolutely 100% promise you that, regardless of whether you’re a teen in the throes of puberty or a middle aged person, even an old person curious (Silver Surfers are no longer the domain of comics). Everybody has, at some point, looked at/downloaded porn from the net.
And I think it’s damaged porno, and planted a dangerous mindset in inexperienced teenagers.
I’ll explain:
Way back when I first noticed that girls weren’t actually “yucky” and they had buried treasure under those school uniforms that I yearned to plunder (never mind that I didn’t know how, or even what exactly I was supposed to be interested in), my fevered 13yr old imagination ran amok. Being at an all boys school, girls were a vague and mysterious topic of whispers and “my mate/older brother says” stuff of legend.
You knew somebody that had “gone all the way” with a girl and they were accorded the same level of respect as Neil Armstrong or the kid that told Mr Williams, our drunk and violent CDT teacher, to perform lewd acts upon himself and invited his wife to watch said abominations.
But it remained forever a topic of fevered tales of experience (or lies) and unprovable sexual conquests that would shame Caligula.
The only form of advice/assistance available then (we’re talking 1986-7, pre-internet) were porno mags. Usually “borrowed” from somebody’s dad, safe in the knowledge he wouldn’t dare accuse them of stealing his secret stash. Passed round before class with giggles and “Yeah, that’s what she looked like” boasts (lies again) from Jonathan Pearson – he reached puberty waaay before we did and earned the nickname Donkey Kong for obvious reasons.
Or, if you were really lucky, somebody would have a well-viewed VHS “dirty movie” that you begged to borrow and watched when everyone else had gone to bed, finger hovering near the volume button ready to mute at the slightest suggestion of somebody coming downstairs.
There was an illicitness to discovering what sex (or Hollywood’s version of it) was all about, albeit with a dog-eared and worryingly fragrant magazine.
It gave you a vague idea of what to expect, prepared you for the real deal – call it a trailer for the summer blockbuster (of course it also led you to believe you were going to “do it” in a room with flock wallpaper and with a woman who had, for some reason, a massive black bar across her eyes).
Of course the reality is vastly different from those naïve assurance you gave yourself that you’d be Mr Swordsman from the get-go. But that’s all part of the thrill, the discovery of what sex is, the dawning realisation “Christ, I’m actually doing it…!”.
It’s the same as reading a book on how to drive. You’ll know the technical stuff, but you’ll kangaroo down the road on your first attempt and probably stall, red-faced as people behind you toot their horns and shake their heads. Which is pretty much how your first sexual encounter goes (minus the disapproving crowds, unless you’re extraordinarily confident and shameless).
But you’ve been prepared at least by leafing through a magazine or squinting at a poor-quality videotape you borrowed. You have an idea.
And then came the internet.
The tool of wonder, the ability to have the world’s entire knowledge at your fingertips. The greatest minds known in human history at your beck and call to consult and learn from.
And what happened?
This information superhighway turned rapidly into your very own peepshow booth.
A vast swathe of porn available 24hrs a day to cater for any and every whim you can possibly think of.
And it’s done two things, neither of which I see as particularly good or helpful.
The first thing it’s done is to destroy the mystique of sex.
The old magazines, aside from the Wives section, were amusingly coquettish looking back at them. Hardcore was illegal in this country (yes kids, illegal. This was before the internet, mobile phones, PCs, playstations, emails and everything else). So you could almost see something vaguely naughty if you peered really strongly and could decipher what it looked like when she was standing behind a water-filled goldfish bowl.
It gave tidbits, tantalising peeks at forbidden fruit. You knew enough to not reel back in terror like The Nostromo’s Crew as Hurt explodes when your first proper grown-up girlfriend was undressed in front of you for the first time – although that image still stuck the first time I ever went down on a girl, I cursed my movie-geek brain then, I can tell you.
These magazines served a purpose. They said “Ok boys, these are boobs and these are good things, treat them with the reverence they deserve”. But more importantly, it featured the whole woman. Usually smiling at you, yes you horny teen, and sometimes inexplicably dressed in a tennis skirt. Sure your hormones compelled you to gaze with wide-eyed and slightly confused awakening joy at the obvious parts, but they were connected to a person.
An awful lot of the internet porn I’ve seen has been less than welcoming – we’re heading back to The Nostromo here I fear.
Instead of an entire happy sexually liberated woman bearing herself with pride and the knowledge that legions of men are imagining what lies beneath (giving her the upper hand ironically for somebody in such a supposedly exposed state), you are presented with…well…there’s no polite way to put it…you’re presented with guts.
Yes that’s harsh, but that’s what 95% of internet porn is about. Graphically close-up disembodied organs shown in a detail that you wouldn’t imagine possible without electron microscopes.
It’s removed the idea that there’s a real living person there and has broken it down into what amount to a PowerPoint presentation for medical students.
I can’t think of anything less erotic. Sure it may be biologically more helpful than Ms October standing waist-deep in a pool of water chewing her bottom lip, but unless you’re Jack The Ripper I really don’t see the eroticism in such brutally frank images.
Don’t think I’m a finger-wagging prude, I’ve done things with women that would turn you into pillars of salt. But it’s all been part and parcel of having sex with somebody. I’ve grown up a lot since I first lost my virginity (and I’ll be forever grateful that you were goodly enough to sleep with me Becky) and have since learned what I like and what will, in general, work for her.
But, to me, something is just not arousing to see disembodied flesh in what appears to be a scene torn from Geiger’s fevered mind. I want to see two (or three, sometimes even four) people involved in enjoying themselves. And that’s the key here, “enjoying themselves”. Because let’s be honest here – sex may be vital to the continuation of our species and the reason we’re here, BUT, it’s an awful lot of fun too. That’s why we want porn, because feeling turned on is fun.
That’s missing with webporn, it’s just a cold and harsh “Here it is, do your business and then feel vaguely seedy as soon as you’re done”
The other thing that I’m not too pleased about with internet porn, apart from the insistence on gynaecological extreme close-up is the treatment of the women.
My teen forays into pornography were using the old fashioned methods of magazines and movies as I’ve said.
But since the advent of the internet, we’ve seen the death of porno mags (as a postman I can tell you we simply don’t get any to deliver now) as people use the internet. Fair enough, saves on money and you don’t have to go red-faced buying a grotmag from Smiths anymore, saves a lot of bother for those with somewhat more chaste moral battlegrounds.
But my unease comes from the notion that inexperienced teens are going to get their formative ideas about sex from websites. I’m not just talking about the “insert a into b” mechanics of it, but the whole emotional connection about what sex is.
From my positively Kinsey like research (we’ll call it research for the basis of this article), I’ve seen an awful lot of sites and have downloaded Smithsonian levels of movies – purely so you don’t have to, aren’t I considerate? – and I’ve noticed a disturbing trend here.
Anybody that’s ventured onto the information superhighway will no doubt have been almost forced off the road by something called The Bangbus.
I’ll use this example because it’s achieved internet fame for being the “gonzo” porn equivalent of Citizen Kane.
The premise is simple and cheap – reality tv style porno (using “real” women I’ve seen on other sites, but the veracity of the real-sex thing isn’t the issue).
It doesn’t require sets and plot, vast casts of thousands and high production values. Just 3 apes, a van and a digital camera.
Fair enough, porno is always pushing the boundaries of technology etc.
But what struck me apart from the low-fi nature of it was the way the women were treated by the guys.
They’re subjected to insults, slaps and generally treated like simple receptacles for seed. Humiliation, abuse and degradation seem to be the order of the day here.
And this site isn’t alone following the trend of being just plain nasty to the women involved.
Porno, when you remove the social implications, is simply filming people having sex with each other in whatever shape or form you wish to see.
It’s a natural (mostly) and perfectly zesty enterprise and entertaining enough to watch without having to go off into tangents of behaviour that wouldn’t be amiss in Videodrome.
Which, however distasteful I find it, would be fair enough if it weren’t for the fact that apart from adults who might enjoy seeing women treated like scum, there are also teens of both sexes looking at this stuff who have no emotional experience of sex.
That’s the side that frightens me, if I’m honest.
Somebody that’s never had sex before has probably never been in a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Now that’s not a criticism at all or sniggering at virgins.
It’s a simple fact, if you’re a virgin then chances are you’re not in a relationship with somebody (religious people not withstanding).
So whilst you’re looking at net porn to get off and to see exactly what all the fuss of sex is about, you’re also going to be assimilating the emotional side and how to act/treat the other person.
And here is where we’re venturing into dangerous, unhealthy territory in my opinion.
If you’ve not been in a relationship with somebody before and had the faltering, unsure experience of sex and you’ve been reared on net porn then you’re going to assume you have to all-but-beat the woman, call her names and laugh idiotically as she gets humiliated beyond belief.
That’s *not* what normal, non-fetish sex is about. I’ve had sex with enough women to say, with hand on heart, apart from one or two that encouraged and demanded being treated like a POW that sex is, for the most part, a mutually enjoyable, non-abusive pastime.
Sure, sometimes a woman (or man, but I’ve no experience with mansex) will want to be treated a bit rough but it’s always been in a playful manner (with many chuckles and an awareness it’s just roleplay) safe in the knowledge that, hey she may want it like that at that particular moment, but we’re both experienced and adult enough to realise that it’s just how she likes it sometimes.
But for somebody with zero experience of the emotional side of sex, to constantly see the male dominating and humiliating the woman is going to foster a somewhat warped view of sexual behaviour.
And what about a teen girl looking to see what is to come (pun intended)? She’ll be looking to see what will be expected of her – and it’s going to be bloody off-putting to say the least. Not only will she have the standard virgin’s fear of “That’s going to hurt and be messy and not fun” but she’ll be confronted with leering, aggressive males who seem to be thoroughly enjoying the debasement of the woman.
It’s hardly going to encourage her is it?
Pornography is a healthy thing, we’re all interested in sex or it wouldn’t be the billion-dollar industry that it is.
But I cant help thinking that a majority of internet pornography has removed…well…the fun from sex.
And that makes me sad.
I hold porno on a level with good literature (none of that Proust/F Scott Fitzgerald crap, I'm talking Eddie Bunker/Bukowski), good music and fine food.
Good porno is an artform. None of this softcore, boobs and bouncing hair nonsense that Channel 5 thinks is good. None of this "I'm a security guard employed to protect you Shannon Tweed, and we shall have saxophone scored, wind-blowing-curtains meetings" tosh.
No, I'm talking a man & woman/woman & woman/man & man/whatever getting naked and making uglyfaces with zero plot, zero Casio accompaniment, zero clunky script with anything more than "Wow, I want to sit on your face and bounce".
And with the advent of the internet, you’ve seen porn – I absolutely 100% promise you that, regardless of whether you’re a teen in the throes of puberty or a middle aged person, even an old person curious (Silver Surfers are no longer the domain of comics). Everybody has, at some point, looked at/downloaded porn from the net.
And I think it’s damaged porno, and planted a dangerous mindset in inexperienced teenagers.
I’ll explain:
Way back when I first noticed that girls weren’t actually “yucky” and they had buried treasure under those school uniforms that I yearned to plunder (never mind that I didn’t know how, or even what exactly I was supposed to be interested in), my fevered 13yr old imagination ran amok. Being at an all boys school, girls were a vague and mysterious topic of whispers and “my mate/older brother says” stuff of legend.
You knew somebody that had “gone all the way” with a girl and they were accorded the same level of respect as Neil Armstrong or the kid that told Mr Williams, our drunk and violent CDT teacher, to perform lewd acts upon himself and invited his wife to watch said abominations.
But it remained forever a topic of fevered tales of experience (or lies) and unprovable sexual conquests that would shame Caligula.
The only form of advice/assistance available then (we’re talking 1986-7, pre-internet) were porno mags. Usually “borrowed” from somebody’s dad, safe in the knowledge he wouldn’t dare accuse them of stealing his secret stash. Passed round before class with giggles and “Yeah, that’s what she looked like” boasts (lies again) from Jonathan Pearson – he reached puberty waaay before we did and earned the nickname Donkey Kong for obvious reasons.
Or, if you were really lucky, somebody would have a well-viewed VHS “dirty movie” that you begged to borrow and watched when everyone else had gone to bed, finger hovering near the volume button ready to mute at the slightest suggestion of somebody coming downstairs.
There was an illicitness to discovering what sex (or Hollywood’s version of it) was all about, albeit with a dog-eared and worryingly fragrant magazine.
It gave you a vague idea of what to expect, prepared you for the real deal – call it a trailer for the summer blockbuster (of course it also led you to believe you were going to “do it” in a room with flock wallpaper and with a woman who had, for some reason, a massive black bar across her eyes).
Of course the reality is vastly different from those naïve assurance you gave yourself that you’d be Mr Swordsman from the get-go. But that’s all part of the thrill, the discovery of what sex is, the dawning realisation “Christ, I’m actually doing it…!”.
It’s the same as reading a book on how to drive. You’ll know the technical stuff, but you’ll kangaroo down the road on your first attempt and probably stall, red-faced as people behind you toot their horns and shake their heads. Which is pretty much how your first sexual encounter goes (minus the disapproving crowds, unless you’re extraordinarily confident and shameless).
But you’ve been prepared at least by leafing through a magazine or squinting at a poor-quality videotape you borrowed. You have an idea.
And then came the internet.
The tool of wonder, the ability to have the world’s entire knowledge at your fingertips. The greatest minds known in human history at your beck and call to consult and learn from.
And what happened?
This information superhighway turned rapidly into your very own peepshow booth.
A vast swathe of porn available 24hrs a day to cater for any and every whim you can possibly think of.
And it’s done two things, neither of which I see as particularly good or helpful.
The first thing it’s done is to destroy the mystique of sex.
The old magazines, aside from the Wives section, were amusingly coquettish looking back at them. Hardcore was illegal in this country (yes kids, illegal. This was before the internet, mobile phones, PCs, playstations, emails and everything else). So you could almost see something vaguely naughty if you peered really strongly and could decipher what it looked like when she was standing behind a water-filled goldfish bowl.
It gave tidbits, tantalising peeks at forbidden fruit. You knew enough to not reel back in terror like The Nostromo’s Crew as Hurt explodes when your first proper grown-up girlfriend was undressed in front of you for the first time – although that image still stuck the first time I ever went down on a girl, I cursed my movie-geek brain then, I can tell you.
These magazines served a purpose. They said “Ok boys, these are boobs and these are good things, treat them with the reverence they deserve”. But more importantly, it featured the whole woman. Usually smiling at you, yes you horny teen, and sometimes inexplicably dressed in a tennis skirt. Sure your hormones compelled you to gaze with wide-eyed and slightly confused awakening joy at the obvious parts, but they were connected to a person.
An awful lot of the internet porn I’ve seen has been less than welcoming – we’re heading back to The Nostromo here I fear.
Instead of an entire happy sexually liberated woman bearing herself with pride and the knowledge that legions of men are imagining what lies beneath (giving her the upper hand ironically for somebody in such a supposedly exposed state), you are presented with…well…there’s no polite way to put it…you’re presented with guts.
Yes that’s harsh, but that’s what 95% of internet porn is about. Graphically close-up disembodied organs shown in a detail that you wouldn’t imagine possible without electron microscopes.
It’s removed the idea that there’s a real living person there and has broken it down into what amount to a PowerPoint presentation for medical students.
I can’t think of anything less erotic. Sure it may be biologically more helpful than Ms October standing waist-deep in a pool of water chewing her bottom lip, but unless you’re Jack The Ripper I really don’t see the eroticism in such brutally frank images.
Don’t think I’m a finger-wagging prude, I’ve done things with women that would turn you into pillars of salt. But it’s all been part and parcel of having sex with somebody. I’ve grown up a lot since I first lost my virginity (and I’ll be forever grateful that you were goodly enough to sleep with me Becky) and have since learned what I like and what will, in general, work for her.
But, to me, something is just not arousing to see disembodied flesh in what appears to be a scene torn from Geiger’s fevered mind. I want to see two (or three, sometimes even four) people involved in enjoying themselves. And that’s the key here, “enjoying themselves”. Because let’s be honest here – sex may be vital to the continuation of our species and the reason we’re here, BUT, it’s an awful lot of fun too. That’s why we want porn, because feeling turned on is fun.
That’s missing with webporn, it’s just a cold and harsh “Here it is, do your business and then feel vaguely seedy as soon as you’re done”
The other thing that I’m not too pleased about with internet porn, apart from the insistence on gynaecological extreme close-up is the treatment of the women.
My teen forays into pornography were using the old fashioned methods of magazines and movies as I’ve said.
But since the advent of the internet, we’ve seen the death of porno mags (as a postman I can tell you we simply don’t get any to deliver now) as people use the internet. Fair enough, saves on money and you don’t have to go red-faced buying a grotmag from Smiths anymore, saves a lot of bother for those with somewhat more chaste moral battlegrounds.
But my unease comes from the notion that inexperienced teens are going to get their formative ideas about sex from websites. I’m not just talking about the “insert a into b” mechanics of it, but the whole emotional connection about what sex is.
From my positively Kinsey like research (we’ll call it research for the basis of this article), I’ve seen an awful lot of sites and have downloaded Smithsonian levels of movies – purely so you don’t have to, aren’t I considerate? – and I’ve noticed a disturbing trend here.
Anybody that’s ventured onto the information superhighway will no doubt have been almost forced off the road by something called The Bangbus.
I’ll use this example because it’s achieved internet fame for being the “gonzo” porn equivalent of Citizen Kane.
The premise is simple and cheap – reality tv style porno (using “real” women I’ve seen on other sites, but the veracity of the real-sex thing isn’t the issue).
It doesn’t require sets and plot, vast casts of thousands and high production values. Just 3 apes, a van and a digital camera.
Fair enough, porno is always pushing the boundaries of technology etc.
But what struck me apart from the low-fi nature of it was the way the women were treated by the guys.
They’re subjected to insults, slaps and generally treated like simple receptacles for seed. Humiliation, abuse and degradation seem to be the order of the day here.
And this site isn’t alone following the trend of being just plain nasty to the women involved.
Porno, when you remove the social implications, is simply filming people having sex with each other in whatever shape or form you wish to see.
It’s a natural (mostly) and perfectly zesty enterprise and entertaining enough to watch without having to go off into tangents of behaviour that wouldn’t be amiss in Videodrome.
Which, however distasteful I find it, would be fair enough if it weren’t for the fact that apart from adults who might enjoy seeing women treated like scum, there are also teens of both sexes looking at this stuff who have no emotional experience of sex.
That’s the side that frightens me, if I’m honest.
Somebody that’s never had sex before has probably never been in a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. Now that’s not a criticism at all or sniggering at virgins.
It’s a simple fact, if you’re a virgin then chances are you’re not in a relationship with somebody (religious people not withstanding).
So whilst you’re looking at net porn to get off and to see exactly what all the fuss of sex is about, you’re also going to be assimilating the emotional side and how to act/treat the other person.
And here is where we’re venturing into dangerous, unhealthy territory in my opinion.
If you’ve not been in a relationship with somebody before and had the faltering, unsure experience of sex and you’ve been reared on net porn then you’re going to assume you have to all-but-beat the woman, call her names and laugh idiotically as she gets humiliated beyond belief.
That’s *not* what normal, non-fetish sex is about. I’ve had sex with enough women to say, with hand on heart, apart from one or two that encouraged and demanded being treated like a POW that sex is, for the most part, a mutually enjoyable, non-abusive pastime.
Sure, sometimes a woman (or man, but I’ve no experience with mansex) will want to be treated a bit rough but it’s always been in a playful manner (with many chuckles and an awareness it’s just roleplay) safe in the knowledge that, hey she may want it like that at that particular moment, but we’re both experienced and adult enough to realise that it’s just how she likes it sometimes.
But for somebody with zero experience of the emotional side of sex, to constantly see the male dominating and humiliating the woman is going to foster a somewhat warped view of sexual behaviour.
And what about a teen girl looking to see what is to come (pun intended)? She’ll be looking to see what will be expected of her – and it’s going to be bloody off-putting to say the least. Not only will she have the standard virgin’s fear of “That’s going to hurt and be messy and not fun” but she’ll be confronted with leering, aggressive males who seem to be thoroughly enjoying the debasement of the woman.
It’s hardly going to encourage her is it?
Pornography is a healthy thing, we’re all interested in sex or it wouldn’t be the billion-dollar industry that it is.
But I cant help thinking that a majority of internet pornography has removed…well…the fun from sex.
And that makes me sad.
Page:
While I don't exactly have a passion for murderdeathporn, the thought of watching a government-sanitized skin flick makes me shiver - I think it's the image of Tony Blair nicking a few DVDs off the table at the House of Lords and saying 'I'll take these home for the weekend and check them out for you, guys...'
Is it rocco that guy from something called Kingdom of evil or something?
Very_Metal wrote:
> video clips
> of people dying is no worse than seeing it on a news channel,
Since when did they have people dying live on news channels? They never did. They even kick up a huge fuss about showing dead bodies.
> video clips
> of people dying is no worse than seeing it on a news channel,
Since when did they have people dying live on news channels? They never did. They even kick up a huge fuss about showing dead bodies.
if you get off to people being humped and slapped at the same time and if other people are prepared to make the videos then i don't see the problem.
they're moaning because some nutter who killed someone liked violent porn. i bet he liked blood sports as well but as ever, instead of going "hey, he had a few screws loose" they've gone "well, must be t'internet, lets get our banning pants on"
gonzo porn is filled with people who are paid to make it, video clips of people dying is no worse than seeing it on a news channel, it's complete hypocrisy, if they prove that some murderer somewhere watched the news i doubt they'd try to ban that.
edit: i think my point was that it takes more than a game, a cd, a movie or the sight of 2 coital actors to inspire a killing or whatever.
they're moaning because some nutter who killed someone liked violent porn. i bet he liked blood sports as well but as ever, instead of going "hey, he had a few screws loose" they've gone "well, must be t'internet, lets get our banning pants on"
gonzo porn is filled with people who are paid to make it, video clips of people dying is no worse than seeing it on a news channel, it's complete hypocrisy, if they prove that some murderer somewhere watched the news i doubt they'd try to ban that.
edit: i think my point was that it takes more than a game, a cd, a movie or the sight of 2 coital actors to inspire a killing or whatever.
Another point: We live in a society (particularly in the US) where sex is seen as bad, but macho violence and explosions are accepted (commended in fact). Couldn't this be said to be the reason for violent pron?
The problem I see with it being made illegal is that it automatically creates an element of "Cool, must have that then".
I'm more saddened that people are turned on by sexually violent images than the availability of them.
So whilst I disagree morally with violent porn, I can't add my voice to the "BAN THIS SICK FILTH!!!!!", because I don't see that would help. Hopefully if a person is raised with a healthy interest in sex, rather than it being swept under the carpet by parents, then they would simply look at this stuff and think "...nope, not for me" and wander off to find nice, non-violent porno.
I'm more saddened that people are turned on by sexually violent images than the availability of them.
So whilst I disagree morally with violent porn, I can't add my voice to the "BAN THIS SICK FILTH!!!!!", because I don't see that would help. Hopefully if a person is raised with a healthy interest in sex, rather than it being swept under the carpet by parents, then they would simply look at this stuff and think "...nope, not for me" and wander off to find nice, non-violent porno.
Pandaemonium wrote:
> There is talk of violent porn being classified as illegal.
Which is why I popped the thread. Didn't really mean to kick off the debate again.
> There is talk of violent porn being classified as illegal.
Which is why I popped the thread. Didn't really mean to kick off the debate again.
I can add nothing except my original thoughts.
Porn = Good
Violent porn = Not good.
And to whomever asked what's the difference between watching Heat and watching a Dominatrix? There is a difference, as a leatherclad vixen isn't what is being discussed. What is being looked at with concern is the just plain vicious humiliation and degredation element. And like somebody else points out, Robert De Niro pretending to be a classy thief is a million miles away from 3 blokes near-raping a woman and urinating on her face/defecating on her/punching/spitting/choking.
If somebody has the time, it'd be worth looking at the evidence from research into the effects of sexual violence and it's influences.
The general gist is that violence itself isn't so much of a trigger, neither is sex. But the combination of the two is a dangerous element towards those with a slightly unhinged worldview.
Porn = Good
Violent porn = Not good.
And to whomever asked what's the difference between watching Heat and watching a Dominatrix? There is a difference, as a leatherclad vixen isn't what is being discussed. What is being looked at with concern is the just plain vicious humiliation and degredation element. And like somebody else points out, Robert De Niro pretending to be a classy thief is a million miles away from 3 blokes near-raping a woman and urinating on her face/defecating on her/punching/spitting/choking.
If somebody has the time, it'd be worth looking at the evidence from research into the effects of sexual violence and it's influences.
The general gist is that violence itself isn't so much of a trigger, neither is sex. But the combination of the two is a dangerous element towards those with a slightly unhinged worldview.
There is talk of violent porn being classified as illegal.
Meka Dragon wrote:
> Because in a movie the violence is acted, it is not real.
Exactly. Porn is real. The fact that it is - to an certain extent - 'staged' does not put it in the same category as fictional violence or obscenity. And this is why, I believe, that the current type of hardcore (i.e. gonzo) must have a negative effect on the minds that consistently view it.
> Because in a movie the violence is acted, it is not real.
Exactly. Porn is real. The fact that it is - to an certain extent - 'staged' does not put it in the same category as fictional violence or obscenity. And this is why, I believe, that the current type of hardcore (i.e. gonzo) must have a negative effect on the minds that consistently view it.
Page: