Southwind17 said:
To be clear, the question is: "Does she deserve some disrespect?", and my answer is "yes", she does (as does everybody else involved in the production).
I completely disagree with you. And yes, that comes from a male Dom. If I am sceneing with a woman who has that fantasy, I HAVE to remain respectful otherwise I cross the line from fantasy into reality.
Southwind17 said:
It's not having the fantasy that matters, it's how she's prepared to act on that fantasy, and who's prepared to be act on it too.
Why? The "act" is just that: "acting". In other words, playing. Haven't you ever played cops and robbers when you were a kid? Or pirate? Or football star?
It's play. In this case, adult, controlled play.
Do you believe that if people have the fantasy then they must want the reality?
Do you see the difference between a fantasy situation and a reality situation?
Is the simple act of watching porn, and getting aroused by it, also passively acting on the fantasy?
Belz... said:
I'd think that's too broad. By definition porn is meant to arouse, which requires at least some level of publication.
I see what you are saying, but the act of filming the sex could be the arousing factor in itself, perhaps?
Southwind17 said:
I don't have a threshold as such - that's the point - respect is based on many factors, but porn actresses who display a certain behaviour lose a lot of respect with me, and whatever they do to compensate there's a notional threshold above which they will not pass. I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you have a pre-defined respect threshold that sits at the "harmful" level. Can you not think of somebody, either real or hypothetical, whom you would have low respect for even if they did not behave in a harmful way?
Nope. I can't think of anyone I have no respect for that did not behave in any harmful way. There are people I may not like, but I still respect them.
Southwind17 said:
So, by the same token, then, you'd have "no problem with" the portrayal of child molestation, intercourse and sodimy (provided children are not involved, of course), right?
Let me ask you this: don't you think some men (not all, but some) predisposed to rape (assuming there are such men) might see legally published material portraying rape for arousal purposes as legitimizing rape? I think that's conceivable. If so, don't you think that such men might then be more inclined to rape? I think that's conceivable.
Then that particular person you are talking about would find anything to legitimize his desire. People are very good at rationalizing. It's not the item's fault that someone decided to do something bad. That's taking the responsibilty away from the human.
Southwind17 said:
Only that you and JFrankA proceeded to jointly psycho-analyse me like a couple of snidey grinning Cheshire cats and, at worst come up with, and at best imply, erroneous and, frankly, highly personal and somewhat offensive conclusions to say the least. That's all. I thought that was a pretty low blow (and, incidentally, bordering if not crossing the threshold of certain Forum Rules).
You know, you have done exactly the same thing to me, several times, and I've said nothing about that since we apologized to each other, other than to correct your assumptions. And I am NOT trying to psycho-analyze you. I'm trying to understand you. I had drawn conclusions from your own words. When I found out I was wrong, I apologized but I believe I've been patient with you, especially with your own insults and incorrect assumptions you've been making on me since the apology.
Still, I am going to take the higher road. I apologized before, and I will again: I am sorry that I have offended you, but I am trying to understand you position and your viewpoints.
And by the same token, you accuse us of "psycho-analyzing" you and then you come up two posts later with something like this:
Southwind17 said:
You are SO naive sugarb! Either that or you're only talking what I call "marshmallow" porn, if you know what I mean.
Isn't that the same thing you are accusing SugarB and myself of?
Look, I understand "stirring the pot". I've done it a lot, myself. However, could I please ask for a little more (dare I say) respect on your part?
If we get something wrong, then simply correct us. No need to be so condescending, superior and making assumptions.
Southwind17 said:
Perhaps when you've decided in which ballpark to place your goalposts JFrankA we can have a meaningful discussion. I'm beginning to see why this thread has gone the way it has now!
I'm sorry, I do not understand what you mean here. I just don't.
To recap, I simply stated that my opinion is that women wouldn't detest doing porn, and in fact most women would do porn, but under "ideal circumstances". You asked me if one those conditions would exclude publication of the video footage. I said yes it would because it's still sex in front of a camera. The image is on video somewhere.
The definition of pornography is this:
–noun
obscene writings, drawings, photographs, or the like, esp. those having little or no artistic merit.
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: "Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the ... pornography of the era" (Morris Dickstein).
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pornography
It doesn't
have to be published, according to the main definition and minor definition 1 and 3.
Earlier in this thread I told you that I write porno stories for my girlfriend. Since she is the only one reading them and they are not being published in any way, is it not porn? When I'm writing a story and I don't show it to anyone, but I get aroused simply writing it, is it not porn?
I've stated my opinion. I've based it on the definition and by my experiences. That's all I was saying. I was being polite in answering your question, and now I get your response?
I'm sorry, SW, I don't understand what you mean at all.
Indeed ...
... but I doubt it
...and that's your opinion.
BenBurch said:
Why are y'all still feeding the troll. The "ignore" feature is really quite nice and then we can all have a civil discussion on this.
Ben, I don't think he's a troll. I think he's a pot stirrer, which isn't a bad thing and I've been known to do that as well. Also, I feel challenged so I am patient enough to stand up to the challenge.
No offense meant, SW.
...and speaking of stirring the pot, here's my turn.
Southwind17 said:
But if you like - yes - using cartoons. You see that as acceptable do you? Why do you see rape portrayal and child sex portrayal different, in principle?
I see nothing wrong with two real life adults doing age play sex and I see nothing wrong with a porno of two real life actors and actresses portraying an adult-child sex.
Again, the key word here is fantasy. There's a major difference between wanting to indulge in the fantasy and wanting to indulge in the reality. That's the line. If someone wants to see the fantasy of any kind of sex, I see nothing wrong with it. I may not agree with it, it may not be my thing, but I see nothing wrong with it.
However, when someone wants to go into the reality of it, that's a whole new ballgame. The reality of real rape or child molestation has major consequences that affect real lives and hurt real people. If someone doesn't care or doesn't see that before perusing the reality, then that person has crossed the line and has no empathy, and yes, I do not respect that person.
But if a person is satisfied with the fantasy, where no one gets hurt, no one is affected, there are no consequences, and it's a totally controlled environment for everyone involved, then it's just play and it doesn't bother me even if it's something I don't like.
That's the difference for me, that's the line.
And if I may anticipate the next question which might be along the lines of "Do I think that porn will give a person with such "taboo" fantasies a reason to think it's alright or to "legitimize" the actual "taboo" act?" and "Do I think that acting out the "taboo" fantasy in a controlled, fantasy-only environment will give a person with such "taboo" fantasies a reason to think it's alright or to "legitimize" the actual "taboo" act?"
My answer to both is no. It is my opinion that people who are sane will see the difference, understand the line and feel that the consequences of crossing that line would be so repugnant that it would be very undesirable.
Those who do not care about the consequences of crossing the line, or are so blinded by their desire that they don't even see the consequences have already made up their minds to do it and will find any reason to justify their actions.
I hope I made myself clear. I'm sorry for the long post and I didn't get to the next page yet. But it's midnight here. I need to write some more porn for my girlfriend, then pick up my son tomorrow morning and build our haunted house together so that we can scare people for Halloween. so, I may not be able to answer much tomorrow.
...and yes, scaring people in a fake haunted house where there is no real danger and no real harm is also fantasy, just not a sexual one in this case.
