There's porn and then there's evil evil shit...

September 15, 2007 9:53 PM

Bad Sex with Shalom Auslender. So you're a progressive, relativist, live and let live kinda person, but what happens when you come across porn even you think is evil? A short digression on the state of porn in 2007. NSFW and [via]

For more see the Horrible Sage of SWAP.avi. I warn you, this is evil, evil shit, but I think it serves as a point of further discussion. Majorly NSFW.

posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth (70 comments total)

Should have been titled "Sex Bad with Shalom Auslender".
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:08 PM on September 15, 2007 [2 favorites]

Any chance of a summary or safe link for those of us sadly at work past one in the morning (NYC time)?
posted by Bookhouse at 10:11 PM on September 15, 2007

Basically it's about finding porn that's premised around degrading women through gagging and rough treatment (that is less S&M and more oriented towards what you would do to a sex slave).
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 10:13 PM on September 15, 2007

What's that? A collapsing civil society which is just learning the frisson that comes with ritualized, state-sponsored violence might also start eroticizing abuse and degradation? That's impossible!

Also, your [more inside] is disgusting, distracting and will likely get your FPP deleted. What were you thinking?
posted by felix betachat at 10:14 PM on September 15, 2007

What is wrong with German people?!
posted by Epenthesis at 10:14 PM on September 15, 2007

I was thinking that this is a legitimate topic for debate.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 10:14 PM on September 15, 2007

Having some prior acquaintance with the mores of this community (which, for example, can't seem to talk about menstruation or circumcision without pitching a collective fit), I'm guessing that there isn't a lot of room for debate where poop is concerned. I might be wrong, though.
posted by felix betachat at 10:19 PM on September 15, 2007

Chalk up another one for porn in the woods.
posted by nebulawindphone at 10:20 PM on September 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

Thanks for posting this -- though I had hoped for him to add a bit of analysis in addition to the commentary.

I still feel something like cognitive dissonance about this issue. One the one hand, censorship. On the other hand, that.

It's not exactly that binary, I know, but there certainly isn't any easy middle ground. One could always just censor it on a personal level, of course -- just avoid such sites, and forget what unlucky glances at the stuff you've had -- but wouldn't it be unethical to just pretend this didn't exist?

What if you knew your neighbor was beating his wife, but she never complained about it? What if she even begged you not to go to the police? This is the problem.



ps: The Swap.avi thing (which I haven't clicked on, since my brother explained it to me a while back when we were talking about just this issue) probably wants a textual description aside from "This is nasty but relevant," so that people can decide which of those adjectives they care more about in the present context.
posted by voltairemodern at 10:21 PM on September 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

Well, I've stated my disdain at these sorts of taglines, but...

Metafilter: It's important for you to know at this point that me and porno go way back.
posted by quin at 10:21 PM on September 15, 2007

I'm guessing that there isn't a lot of room for debate where poop is concerned.

Unless, of course, elephants are involved.
posted by the_bone at 10:25 PM on September 15, 2007

(that is less S&M and more oriented towards what you would do to a sex slave)

Please explain the difference.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:27 PM on September 15, 2007

The Scat link is pooptacular.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 10:28 PM on September 15, 2007

Could someone who is more intrepid than I tell me what's behind the Majorly NSFW link?
posted by Crotalus at 10:30 PM on September 15, 2007

(that is less S&M and more oriented towards what you would do to a sex slave)

Please explain the difference.

Err... I thought about it, and I can't really qualify it, but it's like what that judge said about obscenity... you know it when you see it.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 10:30 PM on September 15, 2007

Basically it's about finding porn that's premised around degrading women through gagging and rough treatment (that is less S&M and more oriented towards what you would do to a sex slave).

I think it's called gonzo, or probably extreme gonzo. And I think the difference is that in gonzo, the humiliation of the woman is real, or at least the attempt to humiliate the woman is real. Much of S&M seems to be about theater -- thus the costumes, the rituals, the props -- and there's a tacit understanding that the dominated subject is to some degree playing a part.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 10:35 PM on September 15, 2007

Thanks for the post - it's always nice to be reminded that, compared to the stuff linked to in this post (and I'm not going to click on the links when my time is better spent looking for MILF cheerleader upskirts) that my own kinks and perversions are so vanilla that they will likely be taught as part of sex-ed classes in the year 2025.

Not exactly sure if there is anything out there that is really shocking, anyway. That is, what you've linked to is probably nothing new. I mean, Christalmighty, we live in an age where there is a sexual practice called 'rosebudding'. Seen it all, already. The Internet is like the human mind, or that hollow tree on Dagoba. Whatever you most fear is out there waiting for you. Which means that this post is most definitely not 'best of the web.'
posted by KokuRyu at 10:46 PM on September 15, 2007

FYI, the "Horrible Sage [sic]" link is actually a link to a Something Awful article about a film made-to-order (by way of a request in a SA forum, apparently) that includes all manner of awful somethings, including shit-eating and vomiting, apparently. There are some stills from the film, but no video. The review includes the passage: "Make no effort to find SWAP.avi. Make no attempt to download it for 'a laugh'. It will change you in ways you will not fully understand for at least a decade."
posted by Rock Steady at 10:47 PM on September 15, 2007

you know it when you see it

Hrm. With the possible exception of snuff, all porn is theatrical or otherwise divorced from reality, to some degree.

Anyway, all the post is about are this writer's sexual hang-ups.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:50 PM on September 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

Which is to say, not "Bad Sex", but rather "Sex Bad".
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:52 PM on September 15, 2007

I know its the internet but you're kind of a jerk.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 10:54 PM on September 15, 2007

I am seriously wondering if someone has done a serious study on how fucked up is the status of video porn, statisically.

I may have a predeliction for watching porn starring younger and prettier wymn than my fiftyish wife. Sorry. I can justify it on psychoevolutionary arguments, but you know that story. An old one.

And my occasional porn viewing has little statisical correlation with the frequency of our marital sex. Also, I do not fuck outside of our marriage.

BUT: This is the primary argument against porn by feminists (and I am a feminist, based on a multi-generational tradition...my mother's mother was a Planned Parenthood founder).

Porn degrades women.

Does it?

I would agree that many of the porn queens have abuse issues.

But. How many of the porn videos produced -- and watched -- involve degrading acts? I know this is somewhat subjective. The bondage "community" is huge and does not consider what I find repulsive...umm...repulsive.

But simulated rape videos are certainly crossing the BDSM lines.

Leaving aside the more difficult (statistically) question of whether porn-watching stimulates or deflates the perv's actionable activities:

How much porn is sick...and portraying illegal and degrading activies; how much is normal sex?

These questions need to be answered before the imminent censorship of porn begin to be seen. In non-burkha Western societies.
posted by kozad at 10:58 PM on September 15, 2007

"And I wonder how many of you only read this far in the hopes of finding out the name of that website."

Thread does not deliver.
posted by travis vocino at 10:58 PM on September 15, 2007

This is horrible. The internet and porn makes monsters of us all.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:05 PM on September 15, 2007

With the possible exception of snuff, all porn is theatrical or otherwise divorced from reality, to some degree.

I think the hidden camera genre is an exception, too. At least the authentic examples.

But I think the acts in S&M are often motivated by a desire to play a role, whereas the action in gonzo is often motivated by real anger and hatred. You can see it in the actors -- their frustrations are palpable, and that is what disturbs people. When they're choking those girls with their fists and cocks, they mean it. So in that sense, gonzo could be called more real than S&M. (At least by my narrow understanding of S&M. I'm not a fan so I don't know much about it.)
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 11:08 PM on September 15, 2007

Eh, I already have that video. Don't you have anything NEW to titillate me with?

joking, of course; you couldn't pay me to click on that link, and I don't even know what's behind it, because I couldn't bring myself to read the summary in that one comment.
posted by davejay at 11:09 PM on September 15, 2007

Also...

MetaFilter: When they're choking those girls with their fists and cocks, they mean it.
posted by davejay at 11:10 PM on September 15, 2007

Okay, I'm a jerk, but let's put it this way:

Your post is about:

1. A middle-aged upper-middle-class suburbanite waxing nostalgic over adolescent porn and decrying a decidedly non-mainstream fetish he and his wife wouldn't otherwise experiment with, anyway.

2. A porn movie filmed to specifications actually contains the behavior contractually agreed upon. OMG! Sex workers agreeing to be "degraded" by people who asked them to film fictional scenes of "degradation" in exchange for money? Who saw that coming?!

If we learned anything from the 1950s, fringe behavior we don't like is an indictment of society-as-a-whole-going-down-the-tubes-OMG-we're-all-going-to-hell, and we should therefore all agree with the writer: namely, we must huff and puff and not have any sex at all until we fetishize pretending to find the safe-but-lost porno (which was there all along).

The only lesson being reinforced is that sexual hang-ups of a society's cultural elite are inevitable, predictable and boring. IMO, a much more interesting essay would have been mined in the subject matter that felix betachat hinted at.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:15 PM on September 15, 2007 [3 favorites]

Blazecock Pileon, Snuff films are a myth.
posted by banished at 11:16 PM on September 15, 2007

Yeah, you're still a jerk.

But in the morning, your post will still be about a bored, uptight couple.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:18 PM on September 15, 2007

KokuRyu writes "I mean, Christalmighty, we live in an age where there is a sexual practice called 'rosebudding'."

Nice try KokuRyu, there is no way I'm searching to find out what rosebudding is.
posted by Mitheral at 11:18 PM on September 15, 2007

(that is less S&M and more oriented towards what you would do to a sex slave)

Please explain the difference.

Err... I thought about it, and I can't really qualify it, but it's like what that judge said about obscenity... you know it when you see it.

Obscenity laws belong on the shelf beside blasphemy laws. And maybe that judge, too.

Wouldn't the difference be, I don't know... consent?
posted by dreamsign at 11:19 PM on September 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

There is an entire generation just waiting to discover Salo:120 Days of Sodom.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:20 PM on September 15, 2007

Okay, blazecock, we get it. You don't like the post and you don't seem interested in a discussion. Why are you still here?
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 11:25 PM on September 15, 2007

A couple that enjoys a spot of porn alongside their healthy marital relations, but finds porn about the induction of vomiting via fellatio un-hot is uptight, is it?

Are you listening to yourself? Having a less than glowing opinion about a kind of porn won't turn you into a Republican. Relax.
posted by thehmsbeagle at 11:25 PM on September 15, 2007 [2 favorites]

But in the morning, your post will still be about a bored, uptight couple.

No you're right, I should do more posts about web sites with Bill Gates jokes.
posted by PostIronyIsNotaMyth at 11:26 PM on September 15, 2007

the action in gonzo is often motivated by real anger and hatred

There's the fantasy and the portrayal of the fantasy, and I think it's critical to separate the two. I won't claim sex workers will win Oscars any time soon, but in the end they are just playing a role in front of a video camera for money. If playing that role moves product (and doesn't break laws), generally speaking the product will probably get made.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:33 PM on September 15, 2007

I won't claim sex workers will win Oscars any time soon, but in the end they are just playing a role in front of a video camera for money.

Err... I don't get it. Are you saying the porn stars are good actors, or they are not? Because in some gonzo porn, those guys are very convincing in their anger. Now either that's fake and they're Oscar-worthy actors, or it's real -- and that's what's disturbing to so many otherwise porn-friendly people.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 11:48 PM on September 15, 2007 [1 favorite]

No you're right, I should do more posts about web sites with Bill Gates jokes.

My criticism of your post's SLOE content and unnecessary editorializing is nothing personal about you. Feel free to call me a jerk in the Gates thread, or on Metatalk, any time you like.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:50 PM on September 15, 2007

Are you saying the porn stars are good actors, or they are not?

Since the evaluation of any performance is subjective, it's not really a binary thing. Actors are as good as they need to be to sell any given product to a given target audience. In this case, you are clearly not their target audience.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:53 PM on September 15, 2007

Erm...

Well, I say, disturbing as it is, that it's like alcohol. This porn is NOT an indictment of society as a whole, it's an indictment of the people who watch it, get off on it, need sex to be like THAT. There ARE people like this, and within the porn community, Max Hardcore isn't well liked, which goes to show that not all pornographers (and, if Vivid and Jenna Haze and Julian Rios and Suze Randall are the people who make the most money in this business, I'd say most pornographers) aren't like that.

Remember the old saws about how Asia Carerra (I think I'm spelling that right) had an IQ of 140? After that, you don't see too many people calling porn stars dumb, unsuccessful idiots anymore. But you can say that about Bangbus.com actresses and get away with it. This industry is the same thing - Max Hardcore is the J.P. Morgan of humiliation porn, and BP is a much more benign company. Yeah, it does a bit of nasty shit, but I think a level of that is to be expected in any industry. Same as porn. It's growing, laws don't exist, misinformation flies from both poles in the debate, and a healthy middle is something we've only seen emerge in the last 5-6 years.

We have nothing to worry about, I think. Someone needs to help the women and men who get sucked into the wrong side of the industry, and someone needs to expose the bad business practices. But we're not going down the toilet as a society, and porn, itself, isn't bad. Even humiliation porn. God knows I have moods where I'd like to choke-fuck someone, but they're rare. Eventually the shock factor will wear off and this genre will retreat to the niche it belongs in.
posted by saysthis at 11:59 PM on September 15, 2007

I have to agree with the writer of the nerve.com article. I used to frequent a video store that had a huge collection of adult VHS tapes from the 70s, 80s , and 90s. The difference between older pornography and current-day pornography is astonishing. In general, the older movies have a more “fun” or “playful” attitude, whereas the current day stuff is way more aggressive and angry-- lots of choking and spitting on women.

I know people say, “No one held a gun to these women. They agreed to be in these movies and were paid. So what’s the big deal?” But, pornography is starting to resemble violent entertainment like boxing or ultimate fighting. I’m not a 100% sure, but I think the government regulates the safety of boxers. It seems like only a matter of time before some poor woman dies or is severely injured while making one of these movies.
posted by Jasper Friendly Bear at 12:17 AM on September 16, 2007

I think it's called gonzo, or probably extreme gonzo. And I think the difference is that in gonzo, the humiliation of the woman is real, or at least the attempt to humiliate the woman is real. Much of S&M seems to be about theater -- thus the costumes, the rituals, the props -- and there's a tacit understanding that the dominated subject is to some degree playing a part.

Nope, the term gonzo doesn't really have anything to do with the content of the porn, it describes the way it is filmed. Gonzo is kind of the reality TV of the porn world. There are no real stories and they typically are filmed hand-held. Anything from non-nude panty shots to extreme scat can be gonzo.
posted by Arch_Stanton at 12:22 AM on September 16, 2007

Jasper Friendly Bear writes "It seems like only a matter of time before some poor woman dies or is severely injured while making one of these movies."

In which case they'll have caught up with main stream films where even child actors die.
posted by Mitheral at 12:23 AM on September 16, 2007

"And I wonder how many of you only read this far in the hopes of finding out the name of that website."
Thread does not deliver.
posted by travis vocino

I really didn't think they would ever be a chance to post this link up on metafilter, but i guess here goes.....

This goes for 99% of people here
WARNING DO NOT WATCH: MAJORLY NOT SAFE FOR WORK OR MENTAL HEALTH!!!!!

This site was sent to me as a kind of a prank/ 'Rick Rolled' or lemonparty thing. So i guess if you want to diminish what ever sanity your friends may have send it on to them........

http://www.2girls1cup.com/

doesn't leave much to the imagination going by this thread topic.....
posted by ItsaMario at 12:31 AM on September 16, 2007

Nice try KokuRyu, there is no way I'm searching to find out what rosebudding is.

Sledding naked. Or so I've heard.

HTH
posted by Clave at 12:33 AM on September 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Blazecock Pileon typed "The only lesson being reinforced is that sexual hang-ups of a society's cultural elite are inevitable, predictable and boring."

It's the Glass Ceiling, man. Women with "slut" written on their foreheads just never seem to make it out of middle management.
posted by roll truck roll at 12:41 AM on September 16, 2007

How you see porn online is determined by what words you type into google.

If what you see troubles you, well, look at what you typed.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 1:17 AM on September 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Dear god, that they named an incredibly degrading style of pornograpy after the coolest Muppet.
posted by JHarris at 2:09 AM on September 16, 2007

I'm curious, is there an equivalent with women in dominating roles, or do women just not go for things like that? Perhaps some get off on being humiliated?

I could point to films where guys are having their testicles crushed and nailed and say that maybe the complaint is that the www makes the extreme more visible. I'm rather more concerned with the women who send serial killers marriage proposals.
posted by quintessencesluglord at 2:12 AM on September 16, 2007

Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese writes "When they're choking those girls with their fists and cocks, they mean it. "

I'm confused.

What about when they are frolicking and laughing with the same actresses in the hot tub after the shoot? Do they mean that as well?

And how is any of this different from the 70's, when peep shows showed reels of Linda Lovelace getting fucked by a dog? Here's how: today, genuine hardcore is available to everybody who wants to take a look. For free. You no longer have to stump up large sums of money to see things that'll curl your toes. So people who aren't really interested in seeing serious domination and humiliation take a peep, aren't turned on by it, and immediately retreat into the old-tyme chant of 'My kink is cool, but your kink is not OK'.

Choke fuck'em in the mouth, that's what I say.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:14 AM on September 16, 2007

I thought I could just look for a bit at 2girls1cup, see what it's about and then quickly! close the window, before I would be damaged inside.

Not possible. They escalate the harm so quickly. It's like getting shot in the mind.

Thanks for the link, ItsaMario.
posted by krilli at 2:54 AM on September 16, 2007

The main reason why we have freedom of speech is so that good ideas can spread by their own merits through open discussion. I know my post is going to sound all judgemental, but a lot of the posts above are just as judgemental and trying just as hard to squelch any contrary discussion as any anti-sex crusader would squelch pornographic speech. The political correctness police who don't know that they're political correctness police always jump up and down and wave their hands whenever there's the insinuation that some sex is bad.

Likewise, all this hand wringing about, "I'm a good liberal and I have cognitive dissonance about torture porn," is asinine. And, guess what, freedom of speech means that we're allowed to say, "your 'kink' is not okay." No cognitive dissonance necessary. The difference is that we're not necessarily going to sic the government's monopoly on force on the problem, if only because they have real fish to fry with the epidemic of rape and other violence against women in this (and just about every) culture.

But, hell yeah, I reserve the right to call a spade a spade. The fight against authoritarianism and fear means that sometimes we're fighting anti-sex crusaders and sometimes we're fighting misogynistic porn. There's no contradiction here. They both deal in the language of hate and force. It's two sides of the same coin.

The good news is that so long as you fight from one side of that coin or the other, you're likely to affect the both, because it seems likely that there's a correlation between the authoritarian suppression of sexuality and the reactive, mirror force of violence. When you abuse or neglect a population in one way, the most susceptible strike out, randomly, at another, more vulnerable, population elsewhere. It's not usually a cycle of abuse, it's trickle down. The rise in the prevalence of the anti-sex and pro-violence culture of conservative America are exactly why the popularity of this stuff is increasing at this point in time.

And speaking of boring sexual hang-ups, if the measure of boring is how uncreative and, therefore, common, something is, I gotta say, the whole men dominating women thing is way overdone. If somebody could do a FPP highlighting porn that celebrates women as three dimensional, beautiful AND sexual beings, that'd be awesome. That stuff is fantastically rare in the ocean of porn.
posted by Skwirl at 3:40 AM on September 16, 2007 [7 favorites]

So you're a progressive, relativist, live and let live kinda person...

A few thoughts:

1) I'm not aware of any definition of "progressive" that also includes "relativist". It seems to me that the very idea of being progressive implies that you believe certain things very strongly and work dilligently to see them through. Maybe he meant "sexual relativist", though? Still, I would imagine that progressive political thought would have at least a thing or two to say about sex.

2) Theres a lot of room, I think, for a liberal society to talk about what kind of consentual behavior should be limited. "Consentual self-destruction" is a good way to describe most of the lower-rung (and maybe quite a bit of the higher-rung) pornography business. And what about bugchasing? Do we have anything to say about those who intentionally destroy their lives with HIV to achieve a sexual high? The same could be said for most other consentual self-destructive behavior: alcoholism, drug addiction and so on.

A sane, humane civilization will encourage some behaviors and discourage others. The "Choke fuck'em in the mouth, that's what I say" attitude won't lead us anywhere but a hatefully hostile dystopia. So too will the "Outlaw everything we don't like attitude". There is a middle ground, and we should think about taking it.

There is a continuum, I think, between outright banning of a behavor and "anything goes". While I don't really have the answers for these issues right now, I think it would serve us well to at least think about the questions raised by such behavior, and our reactions to it.
posted by Avenger at 3:42 AM on September 16, 2007 [1 favorite]

Or, what Skwirl said.
posted by Avenger at 3:43 AM on September 16, 2007

Lemme put this another way. All things consent being equal, what is the ethical difference between this porn and bumfights?
posted by Skwirl at 3:46 AM on September 16, 2007

ItsaMario, I'm not really sure why you felt compelled to post a link to an extreme scat video, but decorum in these situations would have the blink tag employed for the warning and not the link itself.
posted by peacay at 4:12 AM on September 16, 2007

And speaking of boring sexual hang-ups, if the measure of boring is how uncreative and, therefore, common, something is, I gotta say, the whole men dominating women thing is way overdone.

Uh-huh. So when we get right down to it, that whole rant was just another excuse for 'It doesn't actually push *my* buttons so your kink is not OK'.

Ho-hum.

Lemme put this another way. All things consent being equal, what is the ethical difference between this porn and bumfights?

There's no difference at all. In exactly the same way that I expect other people to respect my choices and decisions as a sentient and rational adult, so I'd also respect the choices of those who participate in such movies. All of us make those decisions under various genetic, environmental and economic constraints. As long as people are able to make an informed decision, I see no reason to protect people against the poor decisions that they make. On the contrary, making poor decisions and learning from them is an important part of growing up.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:43 AM on September 16, 2007

Personally, I think a more interesting question is what is the difference between Bumfights, where the bums actually got paid, and Bumfights: Cause for concern, which purports to be a documentary disapproving of the Bumfights phenomena, but which actually uses footage from the original movie to titillate the moral majority, while allowing them to tut-tut their disapproval at this exploitation, for which the bums actually received nada.

If I were a bum, I know which of the two I'd rather have. Dolla dolla bill, y'all.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:49 AM on September 16, 2007

Wait, are you saying there is porn on the Internets?
posted by Muddler at 4:59 AM on September 16, 2007

If somebody could do a FPP highlighting porn that celebrates women as three dimensional, beautiful AND sexual beings, that'd be awesome.

That shit doesn't get people off. Despite what you may wish, sexual attraction is all about dominance, submission and objectification for both men and women. Wishing it away can't change human nature.

The way to help our culture become more healthy in regards to sex is to foster an open tolerent pro sex attitude, where consent is the major issue to consider when deciding if something crosses the line. Any kind of moralizing or censorship will not change people basic desires and will only push the really fucked up stuff underground where it is much more likely to involve exploitation.
posted by afu at 5:02 AM on September 16, 2007

Capitalist scum porn.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 5:04 AM on September 16, 2007

Don't read porn threads before coffee.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:25 AM on September 16, 2007

I, ummmm, have a, ummmmm, copy of, ummmm, swap.avi.

Two words.

Eye bleach.
posted by Samizdata at 5:39 AM on September 16, 2007

Afu: Sexual attraction isn't ALL about dominance, submission and objectification. It's certainly a part, but ALL of it? Even though doing stuff that feels deliciously wrong can enhance things, sex is still a basic pleasurable sensation. It feels good, remember?

Looking at sex at a social tribe / pack / herd / whatever level is interesting but it still tends to miss a few points. I don't feel like the girls I'm dating are a part of a herd or whatever. Feelings is what it boils down to in the end, though the feelings themselves may be geared to pretty brutal stuff. But. Sex and reproduction, when viewed as a 'social currency', is certainly a catalyst for dominance and submission -- but also for reciprocity and 'prettier' things.

celebrating women as three dimensional, beautiful AND sexual beings is pretty lame though. (Sorry, Skwirl.)

There's a middle road.
posted by krilli at 5:53 AM on September 16, 2007

The best sex involves some form of mutual domination. The best porn involves that as well.

The thing that sucks about the humiliation porn thing (beyond the fact that it, uh, sucks), is that I have no interest in seeing some muscle-headed ugly dipshit slap around some equally stupid naïve chick. Stupid = boring.

The great porn of the 70s and 80s was great because it often included sexy, mischievous liberated women who were up for a fun romp. That was definitely hot.

As for the stuff from today, the Jules Jordan stuff (some of it at least) captures the spirit of what I'm talking about above. There is some quasi domination going on, but it's just as often the women getting the upper hand as it is the men. Not all of it is great, but it mostly tries to be higher quality.

The Vivid stuff bores me. It's just as vapid and lame and anything in pop culture today, but just has cumshots.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 6:16 AM on September 16, 2007

Your favourite kink is retarded.
posted by Captaintripps at 6:19 AM on September 16, 2007

Tommy Gnosis, I agree.

... but here's a thought:
Mutual domination == equals, with power ?

I have a hard time seeing it as domination, if it's mutual.
posted by krilli at 6:30 AM on September 16, 2007

You're right, krilli, it was the wrong word to us. Maybe not so much mutual domination as alternating?
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 6:34 AM on September 16, 2007

I think the author of the article forgets the what I consider to often be (based on the individual) the primary reason one wishes to acquire such material: horrifying your friends. C'mon. You either are or know that guy who likes to introduce folks to the wonders of tubgirl, goatse.cx, or lemonparty. The truly dedicated will build up directory upon directory of such materials, carefully sorted and occasionally culled.

My real question about these videos is that, while I know actresses in pornography will, of necessity, obtain greater control of their gag reflex, wouldn't they have to, I dunno, have it surgically removed somehow to deal with this? Is there some secret medical procedure one undergoes that burns out a nerve or two?
posted by adipocere at 6:34 AM on September 16, 2007