Does this Bother you???

Esco! said:

There are girls who are into that... she seems to enjoy it, she evens says "Fuck me" near the end...

I had a girlfriend like that once... man, she loved the rough stuff and dirty talking...

But the abuse shit... I dunno, I'm not into that... but it is a fetish... I'm not sure whether that first vid is real or not, but I do know they usually are not real... I've also seen much worse starring girls like Lacey Duvalle... must get paid a shit load for it...
 
bangcamaro said:
There are girls who are into that... she seems to enjoy it, she evens says "Fuck me" near the end...
I had a girlfriend like that once... man, she loved the rough stuff and dirty talking...
Still though, it bothers me
Maybe not you mate, but a certain air of it bothers me greatly
 
Well She should have said no

The real issue here is the child rearing of these two.

Clearly the guy has control issues, and gets great glee in abuse. Perhgaps his Dad treated his Mom that way, and now he sees all women as door mats to be abused.

And as for her, she may well have learned from parents (Mom) how the sale of the body, in particular in third world countries gets you very needed cash. She stepped up to the plate...however has insufficient self respect to end it. Likely the fallout from her Dads abuse.

Anyway.......SHE SHOULDA SAID NO
 
tboy said:
As for the contract that this young lady signed. No matter what was put into the contract I doubt that it was legal in any sense of the law. Just because it may say that you will be forced into painful sex, doesn't make it legal and or binding.

For eg: I have someone sign a contract that says I can break their arm if they're late for work....doesn't mean I can break their arm.
That gets into the general issue that a contract for an illegal purpose is unenforceable. For instance a contract for murder for hire. However, let's say we had a contract with the late Evel Knievel that he would perform some highly dangerous and painful motorcycle stunt - that's valid and in the same way if we said to Evel sign these waivers because we think there's a strong likelihood you'll break X number of bones and be in a body cast for three months, Evel would probably have a hard time suing us the promoters after he signed the waivers and indeed was in the body cast. To my mind the bigger issue is did she give informed consent in other words - were the legal documents provided for her in a language she fluently understands. These are not the strongest analogies I realize.

Perhaps I'm naïve, but in the wake of the legal problems of “Girls Gone Wild” etc. . . I find it hard to believe that a commercial "porn" company would have available on the internet a video which their lawyers had not vetted to make sure everyone wasn’t going to prison.

This has nothing to do with whether or not each of us personally find such videos distasteful.
 
I did not click the links, I hate that stuff. I am not so sure that they would not just film abuse and publish it. Girls Gone Wild was a giant empire, yet it turns out they were using under-age, drunk girls, they just did not care. With presumably lower end stuff like this, why would we assume that there were anything but coked-up losers, abusing women and not considering the consequences?

What percentage of guys enjoy watching this anyway? That is what disturbs me, that for a decent market, they like this. It makes it seem like for every actual rapist, there are a hundred guys who would like to, but have some self-control. That is disturbing.
 
Aardvark154 said:
That gets into the general issue that a contract for an illegal purpose is unenforceable. For instance a contract for murder for hire. However, let's say we had a contract with the late Evel Knievel that he would perform some highly dangerous and painful motorcycle stunt - that's valid and in the same way if we said to Evel sign these waivers because we think there's a strong likelihood you'll break X number of bones and be in a body cast for three months, Evel would probably have a hard time suing us the promoters after he signed the waivers and indeed was in the body cast. To my mind the bigger issue is did she give informed consent in other words - were the legal documents provided for her in a language she fluently understands. These are not the strongest analogies I realize.

Perhaps I'm naïve, but in the wake of the legal problems of “Girls Gone Wild” etc. . . I find it hard to believe that a commercial "porn" company would have available on the internet a video which their lawyers had not vetted to make sure everyone wasn’t going to prison.

This has nothing to do with whether or not each of us personally find such videos distasteful.

1) Contracts involving illegal activities are...ahem...illegal and unenforceable (at least legally) For eg: you cannot legally force someone to break the law and no court (even in the messed up US) would enforce such a contract because then that would excuse ALL criminals since they could simply sign a contract stating that they would break the law.
2) As for the Evil Kneival example: that is totally different than signing a contract to break the law. For two reasons: a) He's doing a performance of his own free will and not being coerced into it. b) The risk is his to bear, he is not risking anyone's neck but his own (and I seem to recall that he couldn't perform some of his stunts in certain states due to them being illegal there same as base jumping). C) I bet dollars to donuts that he does sign a million documents excusing his promoters from liability.

If you would like to continue to use the EK example and compare it to the documents the young lady in the videos signed this would be like EK signing a document stating that he would perform a certain stunt, and then finding out that the stunt involved him not risking his life, but guaranteeing he'd be injured. (say for eg the stunt involved him driving his motorcycle at 100 mph into a brick wall). Again, I'd like to see a court enforce such a contract.
 
tboy said:
1) Contracts involving illegal activities are...ahem...illegal and unenforceable (at least legally) For eg: you cannot legally force someone to break the law and no court (even in the messed up US) would enforce such a contract because then that would excuse ALL criminals since they could simply sign a contract stating that they would break the law.
2) As for the Evil Kneival example: that is totally different than signing a contract to break the law. For two reasons: a) He's doing a performance of his own free will and not being coerced into it. b) The risk is his to bear, he is not risking anyone's neck but his own (and I seem to recall that he couldn't perform some of his stunts in certain states due to them being illegal there same as base jumping). C) I bet dollars to donuts that he does sign a million documents excusing his promoters from liability.

If you would like to continue to use the EK example and compare it to the documents the young lady in the videos signed this would be like EK signing a document stating that he would perform a certain stunt, and then finding out that the stunt involved him not risking his life, but guaranteeing he'd be injured. (say for eg the stunt involved him driving his motorcycle at 100 mph into a brick wall). Again, I'd like to see a court enforce such a contract.
Let's just say I disagree. However, I'm grateful that I'm not part of their team of lawyers.

Of course above you assume that what is being done is illegal, which of course is determinative of the whole hypothetical.
 
C Dick said:
What percentage of guys enjoy watching this anyway? That is what disturbs me, that for a decent market, they like this. It makes it seem like for every actual rapist, there are a hundred guys who would like to, but have some self-control. That is disturbing.
Well said!
 
There are a lot of sick sites out there I wonder if facial abuse is related to latina abuse but it's pretty much the same thing.

There are rape sites and all sorts of sick stuff but in this case I think it's a consensual video.

If this was non consensual then the girl would have some pretty damning evidence if she wanted to take them to court..... never mind criminal if it's the states she could make a ton on a civil suit.

But like another poster said this is pretty much another bang bus/reality/ gonzo style porn.
 
If she went to court, she'd be exposing herself in the national media - who wants to be humiliated again?

Sadly, what was once taboo becomes mainstream. Bukkake is seen as normal and enjoyable, hair pulling is part of foreplay, forced deep throat is how you show your love, all women desire double penetration - no wonder guys are out of touch with what pleases women in everyday life.
 
The very best indication that this is consensual is that it is publicly posted on the internet.

Do people make videos involving illegal activity where the victims cannot legaly give consent, they certainly do, do they publicly post them on the internet, they certainly do not. Such illegal materials are past along privately not publicly.
 
bangcamaro said:
There are girls who are into that... she seems to enjoy it, she evens says "Fuck me" near the end...

I had a girlfriend like that once... man, she loved the rough stuff and dirty talking...

But the abuse shit... I dunno, I'm not into that... but it is a fetish... I'm not sure whether that first vid is real or not, but I do know they usually are not real... I've also seen much worse starring girls like Lacey Duvalle... must get paid a shit load for it...



She says "fuck me, but don't touch." after he grabbed her hair. She repeatedly tells the old fuck not to do that throughout the clip.
 
trisket said:
If she went to court, she'd be exposing herself in the national media - who wants to be humiliated again?
C Dick said:
It makes it seem like for every actual rapist, there are a hundred guys who would like to, but have some self-control. That is disturbing.


Not to sound like I'm praising the video and to perhaps put myself out on thin ice, but I do want to comment on the above.

Not to put words into other poster's mouths, there are many things that victims of crimes find uncomfortable to testify about in court, however courts can and do give certain protections to those victims: closed courtrooms, publication bans etc. . . victims of crimes should come forward and testify - to be blunt if not you whom. That said all of us should do everything in our power to encourage crime victims to testify and to make the process the least uncomfortable it can be.

On the other hand, I hope that we are not condoning getting onto the slippery slope of saying: unless it is clear that the action on film is acting it should therefore be banned. This strikes me as dangerous (and in the U.S. the U.S. Supreme Court has addressed it) - I realize that this viewpoint may not be much liked because the video is disturbing, but I truly do think that this advances us out onto a dangerous spot.

As to the second comment although this video is disturbing to a great many, do we really want to venture into the realms of the thought police. Our standard in Anglo-American Jurisprudence as well as in Judeo-Christian Moral Theology has been that it is not one’s thoughts (slimy and putrid as they might appear to some) but rather one's actions. It is not that one has certain feelings or lusts but rather that one acts out on them.

That said I think it entirely appropriate for those so moved to write the producers of this video expressing their revulsion.
 
Last edited:
Aardvark154 said:
The very best indication that this is consensual is that it is publicly posted on the internet.

Do people make videos involving illegal activity where the victims cannot legaly give consent, they certainly do, do they publicly post them on the internet, they certainly do not. Such illegal materials are past along privately not publicly.

But that is not so, Girls Gone Wild were regularly using underage girls, even though they were a big empire with enough money for proper lawyers.
 
C Dick said:
But that is not so, Girls Gone Wild were regularly using underage girls, even though they were a big empire with enough money for proper lawyers.
I concede that you have a very strong countervailing point. However, Mr. Francis, was a victim of the arrogance of power, he not only ignored legal advice, but frankly deliberately flouted the legal system.

Most people have a better developed sense of self-preservation.
 
sad fact is, porn just keeps pushing the envelope. There are MANY websites that have no other purpose than making the female performers suffer immensely. Crying, vomiting, choking until unconciousness and more all for the entertainment of some freak who has see pain and humiliation to get off. If you can imagine the kind of fuel this type of stuff gives to anti-porn types, it could bring even plain vanilla stuff like Vivid down. I know that might sound paranoid but guys like George Bush have shown an interest in going after porn. Esco, if you were freaked by that clip... don't view anything by Max Hardcore or Khantusion either. Those motherfuckers aren't happy until they have crushed your soul and put you through the emotional/physical equivelent of a meat grinder. You'll want to fly to L.A. and hunt them down if you watch 'em. And I'm no fan of the stuff where guys get tortured either.
 
Whether or not it was consensual or there was a legally binding contract is really moot.

The issue is abuse, misogyny, and why someone would be sexually titillated by such behaviour. And why someone would try to make money off such behaviour.
 
This writer definitely isn't a prude, she has some good views and quotes an interesting expert.
-----

Cruel, degrading scenes `normalized' for generation brought up in dot-com world
Jan 26, 2008 04:30 AM
Antonia Zerbisias
Living Columnist

The hottest place on Earth this month was Las Vegas.

That was the site of the AVN Adult Entertainment Expo where thousands of, um, exhibitors and fans of pornography came together to look at the latest in media, toys, games, gadgets, paraphernalia and genitalia.

Yes, the pornography industrial complex is so huge that it can fill one of the world's biggest convention halls, so mainstream that it need no longer operate in the dirty raincoat section of your local newsstand or video store, so available that it's on basic cable, so accessible that any child could Google her way to Internet sites where women (and men and children) are brutalized for somebody's fun and profit.

According to the Internet Filter Review, worldwide porn revenues, including in-room movies at hotels, sex clubs and the ever-expanding E-sex world, topped $97 billion in 2006. That's more than the revenues of the top technology companies combined: Microsoft, Google, Amazon, eBay, Yahoo!, Apple, Netflix and EarthLink.

Listen, I am no prude. I get a kick out of some porn. I was at a strip club as recently as last month. I love sex. I talk dirty. But when I can easily find websites that show women subjected to what can only be described in a family newspaper as waterboarding by ejaculate – or simultaneous impalement on more than one fire pole, or sexual practices that will cause E. coli infections – I have to wonder where the industry gets these ideas.

Not exactly the fun and games most of us enjoy in the bedroom (or wherever your pleasure). It's as if, just like TV reality shows, the fear factor/cruelty/shock value has to be continuously ratcheted up to get them into the tent, especially online. And make no mistake, when you see women being brutalized this way, you are not seeing an act. That woman really is gagging, really is gasping for air, really is drowning.

Every second, 28,258 Internet users are viewing pornography.

Every second.

That's a lot of women who, for whatever their reasons, and most likely they are economic, are being tortured.

That's a lot of sticky keyboards.

There's a huge market for the domination of women.

Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, has been tracking the trend for years. In his new book Getting Off: Pornography and the End of Masculinity, he writes with alarm about how the "cruelty line" in mass-market pornography is driving up. At the same time, the "normalization" line – "the measure of the acceptance of pornography in the mainstream of contemporary culture" – is also up, sharply.

"If pornography is increasingly cruel and degrading, why is it increasingly commonplace instead of more marginalized?" he writes. "In a society that purports to be civilized, wouldn't we expect most people to reject sexual material that becomes evermore (sic) dismissive of the humanity of women? How do we explain the simultaneous appearance of more, and increasingly more intense, ways to humiliate women sexually and the rising popularity of the films that present those activities?"

Two answers, perhaps.

Like the proverbial frog in the pot of simmering water, we're not aware of how the temperature is slowly being fired up.

Pop tarts used to be the exception among rocker chicks, not the writhing music video rule. Pole and lap dancing were for strippers, not workout DVDs. Body shots were fatal bullet wounds, not sexy ways to get drunk and show off on Facebook.

As a result, society, especially its younger members who can't remember a non dot-com time, is increasingly accepting of the systematic debasement of women. It's probably why more young women participate in their own exploitation and abuse and it's also why, at least according to online discussions I have seen, many young men think going through the back door on a first date is normal.

"Porn constantly marches toward these practices that heighten men's domination of women and reinforces this notion that pleasure is to be extracted from women," says Jensen, on the phone from Texas. "(Men) may not seek out multiple penetrations but they can experience the pleasure of seeing the domination of women enacted sexually. They'll say, `I may never do rape porn, multiple penetration or sexual practice X, but I like watching it.'"

The other explanation? The marriage of capitalism and so-called freedom of expression.

Not that Jensen advocates censorship. He just wishes there were legal limits when damage can be demonstrated.

"An important discussion to have is how to construct a law that is both consistent with free speech and a realistic understanding of how mass media affect our culture," he tells me. "We do this all over the place. We're balancing the value of speech with the harms that speech can create. That's why we have libel laws, sexual harassment law, conspiracy law and laws against insider trading in the stock market."

The thing is, there are data that suggest a correlation between the amplification of "gonzo porn" and media violence and a concurrent drop in rapes and violent crimes, at least in the U.S. It could very well be that the more women choke almost to death on screen, the fewer of them do in real life.

But how curious it is that women are the ones to pay the price either way? And the most likely way it's going is not going to be pretty.

Concludes Jensen: "It may be that the more overt sexualization of violence is the only place the industry has to go – and then we'll see what the culture's values really are."

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/296391