Reality porn Re: Rape=Empowerment for men
StorMKisS
"Movies are much more likely than porn to have some basis in reality.
Porn is intended to be surreal."
For a great deal of porn, this is absolutely false. There are genres
of porn (like reality porn, amateur porn, homemade porn, etc.) that
are not intended to be surreal in the least. Such movies often have no
scripting or staging of any sort whatsoever. Do you really think porn
made by couples, individuals, or small groups is necessarily "intended
to be surreal"? Of course it isn't. You are neglecting the large
amount of porn (especially after the advent of cheap camcorders and
the internet) that is produced for the fun of it - or fun with money
as a bonus. People make non-sexual home movies all the time, with no
staging or scripting, so why should it surprise you that people make
reality porn too? I have a friend who (with his girlfriend) have
hookers come over. (And sometimes, instead of hookers it's just
adventurous women.) They turn on a camcorder and do whatever the hell
they want (usually degrading and edgy) to the whore(s). The result is
an unscripted, unstaged, and very real product that sells like crazy.
And my friend and his gf have a lot of fun making it.
Laurie:
"Then again, women do "take it in the ass" and "swallow cum" in real
life."
Now you are getting somewhere. This is true, and yet another example
of the fact that the things in porn are not "fake." There's really
nothing in porn that isn't also done outside of porn.
Laurie:
"Btw, aren't you in your 50s? Don't you think it's time you graduated
from such phraseology as "take it in the ass" and "cum" ... to "anal
ex" and "semen"? Your language is a little out of place in a serious
discussion group."
While Sky King is an idiot, I don't think such language is limited to
adolescents or non-serious discussion groups. Such phrases are used
routinely in soc.sexuality.general, which is meant to be a serious
group for discussing sexuality. I think your language bias reflects a
suburban prejudice against "icky" words, but that's just a guess.
Neil
news:MPG.1b4dcc86d...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net:
> In article <8130da7d.0406...@posting.google.com>, stormkiss1
> @yahoo.com says...
> Well..isn't that nice...you moron...............What do you know about
> me?
Everything, it appears.
--
Neil
DEDHeather94
>>
>> Well..isn't that nice...you moron...............What do you know about
>> me?
>
>Everything, it appears.
>
>--
>Neil
Yeah, he can read.
John James
"Neil" <ix_ta...@saintly.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95188C9153FBst...@130.133.1.4...
> Sky KIng <laug...@home.net> wrote in message:
> news:MPG.1b4dcc86d...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net:
> > In article <8130da7d.0406...@posting.google.com>, stormkiss1
> > @yahoo.com says...
> >> While Sky King is an idiot,
> >
> > Well..isn't that nice...you moron...............What do you know about
> > me?
>
> Everything, it appears.
>
> --
> Neil
Go easy on him, Neil. He thinks t.r. is a village and it's the only job he's
qualified for.
John James (JJ)
John James
"StorMKisS" <storm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8130da7d.0406...@posting.google.com...
> Laurie S. wrote
> "Movies are much more likely than porn to have some basis in reality.
> Porn is intended to be surreal."
>
> For a great deal of porn, this is absolutely false. There are genres
> of porn (like reality porn, amateur porn, homemade porn, etc.) that
> are not intended to be surreal in the least. Such movies often have no
> scripting or staging of any sort whatsoever. Do you really think porn
> made by couples, individuals, or small groups is necessarily "intended
> to be surreal"? Of course it isn't. You are neglecting the large
> amount of porn (especially after the advent of cheap camcorders and
> the internet) that is produced for the fun of it - or fun with money
> as a bonus. People make non-sexual home movies all the time, with no
> staging or scripting, so why should it surprise you that people make
> reality porn too?
"A great deal of porn"? I think you're overstating your case. If not in
volume then certainly in audience commercial porn vastly exceeds amateur,
and commercial porn quite evidently sets out to stage artificial scenes with
no basis in reality.
There is also the faux-amateur market, which pretends to stage unscripted
sex scenes with as little sincerity or credibility. While undoubtedly there
is a vast quantity of home-made sex video material, it is by its very nature
confined to the producers or their small circle of like-minded friends.
Those who sell by definition tailor their product to the demands of a market
geared towards cliched and unnatural set-pieces.
> I have a friend who (with his girlfriend) have
> hookers come over. (And sometimes, instead of hookers it's just
> adventurous women.) They turn on a camcorder and do whatever the hell
> they want (usually degrading and edgy) to the whore(s). The result is
> an unscripted, unstaged, and very real product that sells like crazy.
> And my friend and his gf have a lot of fun making it.
>
> Laurie:
> "Then again, women do "take it in the ass" and "swallow cum" in real
> life."
>
> Now you are getting somewhere. This is true, and yet another example
> of the fact that the things in porn are not "fake." There's really
> nothing in porn that isn't also done outside of porn.
Try the dialogue ;-).
>
> Laurie:
> "Btw, aren't you in your 50s? Don't you think it's time you graduated
> from such phraseology as "take it in the ass" and "cum" ... to "anal
> ex" and "semen"? Your language is a little out of place in a serious
> discussion group."
>
> While Sky King is an idiot, I don't think such language is limited to
> adolescents or non-serious discussion groups. Such phrases are used
> routinely in soc.sexuality.general, which is meant to be a serious
> group for discussing sexuality. I think your language bias reflects a
> suburban prejudice against "icky" words, but that's just a guess.
If you'd ever met Laurie, you'd know there are few people less like
'Suburban American Mom' (sorry, Laurie ;-)). I think she was alluding to the
tendency amongst many posters on Usenet to affect 'street-speak' (or liberal
use of the Anglo-Saxon vernacular, as we would say here) in order to lend
'authentic' authority to their arguments. I am not suggesting you do (I've
no idea), but it is common, and to point it out does not mean one is prudish
about language. Hey, I say 'fuck' and 'cunt' quite a lot, but only if I
think the circumstances do not require the extra energy to say 'copulate',
or whatever. Well, let's be fair, it would need pretty extreme
circumstances, but the point remains - deliberate use of slang within
otherwise conventional English is a surer sign of linguistic prejudice than
the reverse.
Now I'm on the subject, it happened to remind me of a conversation I had
years ago at college. Some bloke I was talking to suddenly came out with a
stream of invective in the middle of a hitherto uneventful dialogue. He
obviously picked up on my bemused reaction, and said something along the
lines of "You can always tell suburban guys because they react to swearing.
Where I come from, you don't even notice when someone's swearing...". I said
"Only if you're a fucking twat...", and walked away. Older and more senile,
I think I'd have done the same today.
John James (JJ)
Cele
LMAO! I'm so glad you'll be joining us in London, JJ. I look forward
to that wit in person!
[g]
Cele
To me, 'surviving' is not about hatingthe perp, or the representatives of the perp - to me, 'surviving' is being yourself in spite of the people and the places that want to crush you.
John James, talk.rape, Oct.31, 2003
Sky King
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2004 01:39:20 +0100, "John James" <n...@all.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Neil" <ix_ta...@saintly.com> wrote in message
> >news:Xns95188C9153FBst...@130.133.1.4...
> >> Sky KIng <laug...@home.net> wrote in message:
> >> news:MPG.1b4dcc86d...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net:
> >> > In article <8130da7d.0406...@posting.google.com>, stormkiss1
> >> > @yahoo.com says...
> [...]
> >> >> While Sky King is an idiot,
> >> >
> >> > Well..isn't that nice...you moron...............What do you know about
> >> > me?
> >>
> >> Everything, it appears.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Neil
Sure...just like I know you are a sissy boy.
> >
> >Go easy on him, Neil. He thinks t.r. is a village and it's the only job he's
> >qualified for.
> >
> >John James (JJ)
We know your job....have another pint...you drunk.
chuckle
>
> LMAO! I'm so glad you'll be joining us in London, JJ. I look forward
> to that wit in person!
>
> [g]
>
> Cele
Watch your panties...I am sure he would want to wear them. You can't see "wit"
in person you dumb cunt.
>
Sky King
And you can SUCK.
chuckle
Sky King
> "StorMKisS" <storm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8130da7d.0406...@posting.google.com...
> > Laurie S. wrote
> > "Movies are much more likely than porn to have some basis in reality.
> > Porn is intended to be surreal."
> >
> > For a great deal of porn, this is absolutely false. There are genres
> > of porn (like reality porn, amateur porn, homemade porn, etc.) that
> > are not intended to be surreal in the least. Such movies often have no
> > scripting or staging of any sort whatsoever. Do you really think porn
> > made by couples, individuals, or small groups is necessarily "intended
> > to be surreal"? Of course it isn't. You are neglecting the large
> > amount of porn (especially after the advent of cheap camcorders and
> > the internet) that is produced for the fun of it - or fun with money
> > as a bonus. People make non-sexual home movies all the time, with no
> > staging or scripting, so why should it surprise you that people make
> > reality porn too?
>
> "A great deal of porn"? I think you're overstating your case.
I don't.
If not in
> volume then certainly in audience commercial porn vastly exceeds amateur,
Cites?
> and commercial porn quite evidently sets out to stage artificial scenes with
> no basis in reality.
Just like regular movies..many have some basis in reality.
>
> There is also the faux-amateur market, which pretends to stage unscripted
> sex scenes with as little sincerity or credibility. While undoubtedly there
> is a vast quantity of home-made sex video material, it is by its very nature
> confined to the producers or their small circle of like-minded friends.
What? Video stores have a whole area dedicated to this. You really
need to visit some adult video stores in the States.
> Those who sell by definition tailor their product to the demands of a market
> geared towards cliched and unnatural set-pieces.
Depends on ones opinion of unnatural.
She didn't say anything like that or for that reason.
I am not suggesting you do (I've
> no idea), but it is common, and to point it out does not mean one is prudish
> about language.
Prove it happens.
Hey, I say 'fuck' and 'cunt' quite a lot, but only if I
> think the circumstances do not require the extra energy to say 'copulate',
> or whatever. Well, let's be fair, it would need pretty extreme
> circumstances, but the point remains - deliberate use of slang within
> otherwise conventional English is a surer sign of linguistic prejudice than
> the reverse.
>
> Now I'm on the subject, it happened to remind me of a conversation I had
> years ago at college. Some bloke I was talking to suddenly came out with a
> stream of invective in the middle of a hitherto uneventful dialogue. He
> obviously picked up on my bemused reaction, and said something along the
> lines of "You can always tell suburban guys because they react to swearing.
> Where I come from, you don't even notice when someone's swearing...". I said
> "Only if you're a fucking twat...", and walked away. Older and more senile,
> I think I'd have done the same today.
>
> John James (JJ)
PKB.
Deathspeaker
On 30-Jun-2004, "John James" <n...@all.co.uk> spake the following:
hi... are you sitting cross-legged in a velvet antique chair smoking a pipe
by the fieplace with an oversized open tome in your lap?
i know... the sentence structure is ALL to hell...
--
death with a smile
StorMKisS
> news:8130da7d.0406...@posting.google.com...
> > Laurie S. wrote
> > "Movies are much more likely than porn to have some basis in reality.
> > Porn is intended to be surreal."
> >
> > For a great deal of porn, this is absolutely false. There are genres
> > of porn (like reality porn, amateur porn, homemade porn, etc.) that
> > are not intended to be surreal in the least. Such movies often have no
> > scripting or staging of any sort whatsoever. Do you really think porn
> > made by couples, individuals, or small groups is necessarily "intended
> > to be surreal"? Of course it isn't. You are neglecting the large
> > amount of porn (especially after the advent of cheap camcorders and
> > the internet) that is produced for the fun of it - or fun with money
> > as a bonus. People make non-sexual home movies all the time, with no
> > staging or scripting, so why should it surprise you that people make
> > reality porn too?
>
> "A great deal of porn"?
Yes. Google it sometime. There are plenty of amateur sites ran by
couples, individuals, swingers, and sex clubs. There are many
pro-amateur sites through which homemade porn is distributed and sold
online. There are yahoo groups where private sex clubs (i.e.
saturdaysocial, bukkake, gangbang groups) post pictures and videos of
their sex parties online and invite people to join in the fun. Some of
the amateur and pro-amateur sites are extremely hardcore, like
lisaprivat. But they are totally real and can be just as profitable.
Lisa of lisaprivat, for example (also distributed through HighTide,
etc.) was active in the extreme scat scene long before she decided to
allow her once-private home videos to be sold online. She was active
in swinging and looked for partners on usenet. Now she's bringing in
money doing what she enjoys with her husband and friends. This doesn't
make her porn fake -it's all real and homemade. There are plenty of
similar examples all over the net.
>I think you're overstating your case. If not in
> volume then certainly in audience commercial porn vastly exceeds amateur,
> and commercial porn quite evidently sets out to stage artificial scenes with
> no basis in reality.
> There is also the faux-amateur market, which pretends to stage unscripted
> sex scenes with as little sincerity or credibility.
Fake porn still seems more common than the real deal, but the latter
is rapidly catching up in this new age of ultra-cheap production and
distribution. The Internet is changing things. There are reality porn
sites all over the place.
While undoubtedly there
> is a vast quantity of home-made sex video material, it is by its very nature
> confined to the producers or their small circle of like-minded friends.
> Those who sell by definition tailor their product to the demands of a market
> geared towards cliched and unnatural set-pieces.
>
Your thinking is stuck in the 1980s and before, when no cheap
distribution system existed (i.e. no fast Internet) and affordable
consumer camcorders simply did not exist. With time, these
technological barriers have been lifted. Now brand-new digital
camcorders sell for as low as $200 and super-cheap internet access is
widely available. This enables homemade porn to be distributed at
extremely low cost. Homemade porn is no longer "by its very nature
confined to the producers or their small circle of like-minded
friends." This is because "its very nature" has changed dramatically
with the advent of the Information Age. Back in the days of $20K
camcorders and snail-pace dialup, your assertions would make more
sense. But they simply no longer hold true.
> > Now you are getting somewhere. This is true, and yet another example
> > of the fact that the things in porn are not "fake." There's really
> > nothing in porn that isn't also done outside of porn.
>
> Try the dialogue ;-).
Such as? Sexy talk isn't confined to big commercial porn sets. If you
think Spice TV dialogue is corny, try a couple's bedroom or a
swinger's hotel.
LOL. Interesting anecdote. I guess that kind of filthy dialogue
*isn't* confined to San Fernando Valley porn sets. :) But then, I
already knew that. I sit corrected regarding Laurie.
StorMKisS
> me?
Well maybe there's more than one Sky King.. but the one I've read is
always going around insulting people, ranting about dykes,
carpetmunchers, the gay conspiracy and a bunch of other paranoid
bullshit.
John James
Funnily enough, I do Google it from time to time - hey, I'm no saint ;-).
Reading your post, I'm not all that sure we disagree fundamentally - but
perhaps on emphasis. Yes, I know the Internet provides a vehicle for people
who previously would not have distributed 'home-made' porn, but how much of
that which reaches the *mass-market*? Perhaps I shouldn't here, but I'll
admit to subscribing to several BDSM and similar sites (it's a fetish of
mine) - the majority are professional. Where they are not, most have
connections with the models from those sites, and are leveraging off what is
straightforward commercial porn. Without an audience in tow, how easy is it
to set up and pay the necessary search engine fees, let's be honest.
> >I think you're overstating your case. If not in
> > volume then certainly in audience commercial porn vastly exceeds
amateur,
> > and commercial porn quite evidently sets out to stage artificial scenes
with
> > no basis in reality.
> > There is also the faux-amateur market, which pretends to stage
unscripted
> > sex scenes with as little sincerity or credibility.
>
> Fake porn still seems more common than the real deal, but the latter
> is rapidly catching up in this new age of ultra-cheap production and
> distribution. The Internet is changing things. There are reality porn
> sites all over the place.
True. We have a genuine difference of opinion here though. You think it's
changing things. I think it's simply the overspill before commercial porn
merchants learn how to control the channel. I do not think most punters
*want* true amateurism - they just want professionalism dressed tidily as
amateurism.
>
> While undoubtedly there
> > is a vast quantity of home-made sex video material, it is by its very
nature
> > confined to the producers or their small circle of like-minded friends.
> > Those who sell by definition tailor their product to the demands of a
market
> > geared towards cliched and unnatural set-pieces.
> >
>
> Your thinking is stuck in the 1980s and before
You get that when you're about to turn 40, I'm afraid ;-). But seriously, I
don't think so - I keep abreast (and I'll leave the double entendres to
others)...
>, when no cheap
> distribution system existed (i.e. no fast Internet) and affordable
> consumer camcorders simply did not exist. With time, these
> technological barriers have been lifted. Now brand-new digital
> camcorders sell for as low as $200 and super-cheap internet access is
> widely available. This enables homemade porn to be distributed at
> extremely low cost. Homemade porn is no longer "by its very nature
> confined to the producers or their small circle of like-minded
> friends." This is because "its very nature" has changed dramatically
> with the advent of the Information Age. Back in the days of $20K
> camcorders and snail-pace dialup, your assertions would make more
> sense. But they simply no longer hold true.
No. The medium is there. The message is not - it never is. Take
Public-Access TV in the States - who watches it? People are conservative -
they do not want what is available to them 24x7 - they want something that
takes effort and time and *money* to produce. That's why they'll never pay
for Bob and Brenda getting it on over the kitchen sink. Why should they when
they can watch some unbelievable, but professionally produced, facsimile?
>
> > > Now you are getting somewhere. This is true, and yet another example
> > > of the fact that the things in porn are not "fake." There's really
> > > nothing in porn that isn't also done outside of porn.
> >
> > Try the dialogue ;-).
>
> Such as? Sexy talk isn't confined to big commercial porn sets. If you
> think Spice TV dialogue is corny, try a couple's bedroom or a
> swinger's hotel.
Porn dialogue isn't believable. It isn't meant to be. You really want them
to cut to the chase and start shagging, or whatever you're into, but you
need the dialogue to convince you it's 'real'. *Real* dialogue is full of
all sorts of crap. *Real* people either don't say anything, or more likely
say stuff that isn't relevant to the scene. Porn dialogue is there to
satisfy *you*, not them - that's why it's so fake. As the late Bill Hicks
once said on porn, if I'd wanted 30 minutes looking at a hairy-man-arse I'd
have bought a mirror.
Incidentally, I just wish my old friend Avedon Carol was still here (look
her up on Google) - she did more to educate me on porn than anyone else.
And her book "Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship" is
essential reading for anyone interested in the subject (and no, I don't get
a commisssion for that ;-)).
John James (JJ)
John James
"Deathspeaker" <Deat...@Hellschoir.com> wrote in message
news:06ea806f6e48f5be...@news.teranews.com...
>
> hi... are you sitting cross-legged in a velvet antique chair smoking a
pipe
> by the fieplace with an oversized open tome in your lap?
>
> i know... the sentence structure is ALL to hell...
> --
> death with a smile
Hi 2,
How did you know? To be honest, I had to put down the oversized tome because
it made wanking too uncomfortable - but otherwise, spot on.
John James (JJ)
John James
[...]
>
> Well maybe there's more than one Sky King.. but the one I've read is
> always going around insulting people, ranting about dykes,
> carpetmunchers, the gay conspiracy and a bunch of other paranoid
> bullshit.
In case you hang around here (and more than welcome), the official FAQ about
Terry 'Sky King' Dotson...:
Q: Who is 'Sky King'?
A: 'Sky King' is a <54>-year-old man called Terry Dotson with too much time
on his hands, now living in Connecticut, USA (that's all we'll say because
revealing personal information on Usenet is immoral and wrong, not to
mention serving no useful purpose - the latter information is in the public
domain). See below.
Q: Is he a talk.rape regular?
A: *Good* question. I'm glad you asked the FAQ that... We suppose he *has*
to be since he's been hanging around for <2> years ( as of <July 2004>).
We'll only comment that he's as regular and welcome as the odour in your
bathroom the morning after a visit to the local Indian curry house.
Q: Why does he post to talk.rape?
A: *Another* good question - you'll do well here... To be truthful, we don't
*know*. Terry originally came from soc.men (or 'sockmen' as many of us style
it), the only Usenet group ever to receive an official KOTM (Kook Of The
Month) award. His original tactic was cross-posting from there to here,
mostly threads which had nothing to do with t.r., and in which the regulars
weren't interested, but could be guaranteed to start a flamewar. Since then,
he's just, well, 'stuck around' - presumably to garner as much contempt as
possible, and create as much offense and nuisance as possible.
Q: He don't seem so bad - why are you all so nasty to him?
A: The quickest way to answer that is to point you to alt.kook.sky-king
(yes, he's irritated enough of Usenet to earn his own newsgroup). But in
case your newserver doesn't carry it, a 'Sky King' 'highlight' from his
infestation of t.r.:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------
> In article <20030501215326...@mb-m16.aol.com>, dedheather94
> @aol.com says...
[...]
> > Sorry oh retarded one. As you can see above, and in a few other posts I
tried
> > to debate with you in a civil, non-confrontational way and all you did
was come
> > back with insults and crowing about how I wanted to "make friends"
(ugh).
> > You've proven once again that you have no interest in debating, only in
playing
> > stupid schoolyard games. Well Sky, as I'm sure you're wife has said
many many
> > times....go play with yourself.
> >
> > Heather
Naw your daughter would take up my wife's slack IF it were necessary.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------
(Heather's daughter was 6 years old at the time...)
Terry has a thing with daughters - another of his targets currently here was
Cele, one of whose daughters was raped - the 'fake'one according to Terry.
Q: What does he do then?
A: God knows. The Gospel According To Terry maintains he's a retired
'counsellor', in 'Reality Therapy'. We only hope it's another of his
fantasies. It would be like getting anger management therapy from Mike
Tyson.
Q: What's this stuff about where he lives, and how old he is? Who cares?
A: Well nobody really. It's just a way of winding him up. The thing is,
Terry posted personal information about the Kobe accuser (which was on the
Net at the time). Some of us thought that was pretty shitty even so. It's a
way of reminding him about Netiquette and common decency. No information has
ever been posted which didn't come from *his* own Internet submissions
(although the summary is hard to piece together admittedly). He knows we
know a lot more though. It's nice to make Terry sweat, immature though that
may be ;-).
John James (JJ)
Sky King
> "StorMKisS" <storm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8130da7d.04070...@posting.google.com...
> [...]
> >
> > Well maybe there's more than one Sky King.. but the one I've read is
> > always going around insulting people, ranting about dykes,
> > carpetmunchers, the gay conspiracy and a bunch of other paranoid
> > bullshit.
Cite any conversation I have had about any gay conspiracy. Folks call
me names all the time and I don't see you calling them on it. Maybe
its the names I choose to call them that upsets you. Tough. We don't
have insult police here.
>
> In case you hang around here (and more than welcome), the official FAQ about
> Terry 'Sky King' Dotson...:
>
> Q: Who is 'Sky King'?
> A: 'Sky King' is a <54>-year-old man called Terry Dotson with too much time
> on his hands, now living in Connecticut, USA (that's all we'll say because
> revealing personal information on Usenet is immoral and wrong, not to
> mention serving no useful purpose - the latter information is in the public
> domain). See below.
This is an outright lie. You know it and I think MOST know it by now.
>
> Q: Is he a talk.rape regular?
> A: *Good* question. I'm glad you asked the FAQ that... We suppose he *has*
> to be since he's been hanging around for <2> years ( as of <July 2004>).
> We'll only comment that he's as regular and welcome as the odour in your
> bathroom the morning after a visit to the local Indian curry house.
You would know about that eh Alice.
chuckle
>
> Q: Why does he post to talk.rape?
> A: *Another* good question - you'll do well here... To be truthful, we don't
> *know*. Terry originally came from soc.men (or 'sockmen' as many of us style
> it), the only Usenet group ever to receive an official KOTM (Kook Of The
> Month) award.
LOL. JJ thinks a kook award from a kook group means something. What
a loser you are pal. Have another drink.
His original tactic was cross-posting from there to here,
> mostly threads which had nothing to do with t.r., and in which the regulars
> weren't interested, but could be guaranteed to start a flamewar. Since then,
> he's just, well, 'stuck around' - presumably to garner as much contempt as
> possible, and create as much offense and nuisance as possible.
All..total lies. Its simply your opinion.
>
> Q: He don't seem so bad - why are you all so nasty to him?
> A: The quickest way to answer that is to point you to alt.kook.sky-king
> (yes, he's irritated enough of Usenet to earn his own newsgroup). But in
> case your newserver doesn't carry it, a 'Sky King' 'highlight' from his
> infestation of t.r.:
Bullshit. Are you saying that you think the kook newsgroup is filled
with
normal folks? Careful now.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------------
> > In article <20030501215326...@mb-m16.aol.com>, dedheather94
> > @aol.com says...
> [...]
> > > Sorry oh retarded one. As you can see above, and in a few other posts I
> tried
> > > to debate with you in a civil, non-confrontational way and all you did
> was come
> > > back with insults and crowing about how I wanted to "make friends"
> (ugh).
> > > You've proven once again that you have no interest in debating, only in
> playing
> > > stupid schoolyard games. Well Sky, as I'm sure you're wife has said
> many many
> > > times....go play with yourself.
> > >
> > > Heather
>
> Naw your daughter would take up my wife's slack IF it were necessary.
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> (Heather's daughter was 6 years old at the time...)
But she has grown up by now eh pal.
chuckle
>
> Terry has a thing with daughters - another of his targets currently here was
> Cele, one of whose daughters was raped - the 'fake'one according to Terry.
>
> Q: What does he do then?
> A: God knows. The Gospel According To Terry maintains he's a retired
> 'counsellor', in 'Reality Therapy'. We only hope it's another of his
> fantasies. It would be like getting anger management therapy from Mike
> Tyson.
Again...you haven't a clue. Its nice to see how much of a hole you
have dug yourself.
>
> Q: What's this stuff about where he lives, and how old he is? Who cares?
> A: Well nobody really. It's just a way of winding him up.
I never posted any information about a t.r regular and it doesn't wind
me up...it makes me happy...happy to know that you folks fall for
anything.
You have proved that many times.
The thing is,
> Terry posted personal information about the Kobe accuser (which was on the
> Net at the time). Some of us thought that was pretty shitty even so. It's a
> way of reminding him about Netiquette and common decency. No information has
> ever been posted which didn't come from *his* own Internet submissions
> (although the summary is hard to piece together admittedly). He knows we
> know a lot more though. It's nice to make Terry sweat, immature though that
> may be ;-).
>
> John James (JJ)
You didn't tell the poster that you and I had a bet...on who could
refrain from calling each other names. YOU lost because you are a
drunk and you simply couldn't control yourself. I won because I can
control what I say. That is the difference betweeen you and me. You
have no control left. You know nothing
about me and any information you would post would be about someone
else.
You do know that I know much more about you and am ready to post it
whenever the mood strikes me...that is what bothers you most.
chuckle
Sky King
I forgot to mention that when JJ lost the bet with me..he went "away"
for a while. If you google his name you will see when he stopped
posting and when
he started back up again...so don't let him tell you that its me that
does all the name calling or starts it. HE LOST.
chuckle
Sky KIng
n...@all.co.uk says...
Sky KIng
@yahoo.com says...
for a long time until they started it up again. Just ask JJ.
John James
> > Well maybe there's more than one Sky King.. but the one I've read is
> > always going around insulting people, ranting about dykes,
> > carpetmunchers, the gay conspiracy and a bunch of other paranoid
> > bullshit.
> >
> You need to read more of my posts. I went without calling folks names
> for a long time until they started it up again. Just ask JJ.
I wouldn't if I were you - unless you have a masochistic tendency and/or a
high boredom threshold. BTW, Terry, I haven't posted here for a while
because I got bored of the contentless drivel of you and the sockmen
invading the place, not because of your self-declared 'challenge' or any
nonsense about 'rehab'. You're a sad little fantasist with nothing
worthwhile to say and a regrettable tendency to abuse people you regard as
having weaknesses. I care not a jot about your 'challenge' since you have
done nothing to deserve the remotest respect or consideration from anyone
here, and plenty to earn our enduring disdain.
John James (JJ)
Sky King
> "Sky KIng" <laug...@home.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1b51d2b8f...@news.snet.sbcglobal.net...
> > In article <8130da7d.04070...@posting.google.com>, stormkiss1
> > @yahoo.com says...
> [...]
> > > Well maybe there's more than one Sky King.. but the one I've read is
> > > always going around insulting people, ranting about dykes,
> > > carpetmunchers, the gay conspiracy and a bunch of other paranoid
> > > bullshit.
> > >
> > You need to read more of my posts. I went without calling folks names
> > for a long time until they started it up again. Just ask JJ.
>
> I wouldn't if I were you - unless you have a masochistic tendency and/or a
> high boredom threshold.
Yep...you wouldn't be honest about it JJ but its easy to provide a
cite.
chuckle
BTW, Terry, I haven't posted here for a while
> because I got bored of the contentless drivel of you and the sockmen
> invading the place, not because of your self-declared 'challenge' or any
> nonsense about 'rehab'.
Sure...sure. You have said I have had no influence on this group and
now you say its because of your group being invaded. You lost the bet
and you left soon after..because you couldn't put down the bottle and
had to seek help.
You accepted the challenge pal.
You're a sad little fantasist with nothing
> worthwhile to say and a regrettable tendency to abuse people you regard as
> having weaknesses. I care not a jot about your 'challenge' since you have
> done nothing to deserve the remotest respect or consideration from anyone
> here, and plenty to earn our enduring disdain.
>
> John James (JJ)
Just speak for yourself, you little drunk. YOu are right about one
thing...many here have a lot of weaknesses.
chuckle
Sky KIng
n...@all.co.uk says...
No...it was simply a way to try and get personal. You even admitted to
hiring someone to try and find out info on me..but what you didn't know
is that you were wasting your money trying to find out info about
someone you THINK is me. Its sad really. You are not the net nanny
here pal. There is nothing wrong with the info I posted on Faber...like
you said it was already all over the net.
No information has
> ever been posted which didn't come from *his* own Internet submissions
> (although the summary is hard to piece together admittedly).
He knows we
> know a lot more though. It's nice to make Terry sweat, immature though that
> may be ;-).
>
> John James (JJ)
You know nothing about me because I am simply not the person you think I
am. You are the one sweating pal..because I do have the goods on YOU.
That deserves a double chuckle. Not get back to your bar stool and your
boyfriend.
CHUCKLE
CHUCKLE
>
>
>
>
Sky KIng
n...@all.co.uk says...
>
> "Deathspeaker" <Deat...@Hellschoir.com> wrote in message
> news:06ea806f6e48f5be...@news.teranews.com...
> >
> > hi... are you sitting cross-legged in a velvet antique chair smoking a
> pipe
> > by the fieplace with an oversized open tome in your lap?
> >
> > i know... the sentence structure is ALL to hell...
> > --
> > death with a smile
>
> Hi 2,
> How did you know? To be honest, I had to put down the oversized tome because
>
> John James (JJ)
>
>
>
Laurie S.
>Laurie S. wrote
>"Movies are much more likely than porn to have some basis in reality.
>Porn is intended to be surreal."
>
>For a great deal of porn, this is absolutely false. There are genres
>of porn (like reality porn, amateur porn, homemade porn, etc.) that
>are not intended to be surreal in the least. Such movies often have no
>scripting or staging of any sort whatsoever. Do you really think porn
>made by couples, individuals, or small groups is necessarily "intended
>to be surreal"? Of course it isn't. You are neglecting the large
>amount of porn (especially after the advent of cheap camcorders and
>the internet) that is produced for the fun of it - or fun with money
>as a bonus. People make non-sexual home movies all the time, with no
>staging or scripting, so why should it surprise you that people make
>reality porn too?
It doesn't. But I wasn't talking about home movies, or documentaries,
etc. I was talking about ordinary commercial movies, with plots,
dialogue, interpersonal situations, etc., in comparison with ordinary
commercial porn, with plots, dialogue, and sexual situations. Both
tell a fictional story. Regular movies tend to do so in a more
believeable way than porn movies.
> I have a friend who (with his girlfriend) have
>hookers come over. (And sometimes, instead of hookers it's just
>adventurous women.) They turn on a camcorder and do whatever the hell
>they want (usually degrading and edgy) to the whore(s). The result is
>an unscripted, unstaged, and very real product that sells like crazy.
>And my friend and his gf have a lot of fun making it.
>
How realistic is that to the consumer, just because it was unscripted?
I'm sure some people like it because they don't have to sift through
the "plot" to get to the juicy part (that could be me, depending on
what the juicy part is), but it's still a performance for the camera,
and it sounds like it's patterned after commercial porn, anyway, just
without a plot.
>Laurie:
>"Then again, women do "take it in the ass" and "swallow cum" in real
>life."
>
>Now you are getting somewhere. This is true, and yet another example
>of the fact that the things in porn are not "fake." There's really
>nothing in porn that isn't also done outside of porn.
>
I used to say there's nothing in soap operas that doesn't also happen
in real life, just not as often, and to the same people/families. But
then soap operas started to do some very weird things. I suppose porn
has too, though. I did see a porn movie featuring a woman writhing on
a coffee table while being "screwed" by a ghost.
>Laurie:
>"Btw, aren't you in your 50s? Don't you think it's time you graduated
>from such phraseology as "take it in the ass" and "cum" ... to "anal
>ex" and "semen"? Your language is a little out of place in a serious
>discussion group."
>
>While Sky King is an idiot, I don't think such language is limited to
>adolescents or non-serious discussion groups. Such phrases are used
>routinely in soc.sexuality.general, which is meant to be a serious
>group for discussing sexuality.
I wouldn't say routinely, although it happens more often in SSG (which
I read regularly and post to occasionally) than it does here, which
makes sense. However, I think "take it in the ass" is a phrase that
most of the regulars probably wouldn't choose to use.
> I think your language bias reflects a
>suburban prejudice against "icky" words, but that's just a guess.
I've never lived in a suburb, and I don't consider words "icky" at
all. I don't have a problem with words like fuck, cunt, pussy, cock,
dick, slut -- etc. -- in my bed. I find them generally annoying in a
serious discussion, although I don't mind an occasional fuck. ;)
Laurie
Laurie S.
>In article <8130da7d.0406...@posting.google.com>, stormkiss1
>@yahoo.com says...
>> Laurie S. wrote
[...]
>> Laurie:
>> "Btw, aren't you in your 50s? Don't you think it's time you graduated
>> from such phraseology as "take it in the ass" and "cum" ... to "anal
>> ex" and "semen"? Your language is a little out of place in a serious
>> discussion group."
>>
>> While Sky King is an idiot,
>
>Well..isn't that nice...you moron...............What do you know about
>me?
>
> I don't think such language is limited to
>> adolescents or non-serious discussion groups. Such phrases are used
>> routinely in soc.sexuality.general, which is meant to be a serious
>> group for discussing sexuality. I think your language bias reflects a
>> suburban prejudice against "icky" words, but that's just a guess.
>
>No...she just tries to get little digs in now and then...even when she
>is wrong.
I'm not interested in playing any games with you, so no, It's not a
little dig. It's a complaint. I wish you would use adult words more
often in place of the juvenile phrases you so frequently choose. I
find it distracting and annoying.
Laurie
Laurie S.
>
>"StorMKisS" <storm...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:8130da7d.0406...@posting.google.com...
>> Laurie S. wrote
[...]
>> Laurie:
>> "Then again, women do "take it in the ass" and "swallow cum" in real
>> life."
>>
>> Now you are getting somewhere. This is true, and yet another example
>> of the fact that the things in porn are not "fake." There's really
>> nothing in porn that isn't also done outside of porn.
>
>Try the dialogue ;-).
There's dialogue? Oh, yeah. Those sounds that happen before I hit
"mute". ;)
>>
>> Laurie:
>> "Btw, aren't you in your 50s? Don't you think it's time you graduated
>> from such phraseology as "take it in the ass" and "cum" ... to "anal
>> ex" and "semen"? Your language is a little out of place in a serious
>> discussion group."
>>
>> While Sky King is an idiot, I don't think such language is limited to
>> adolescents or non-serious discussion groups. Such phrases are used
>> routinely in soc.sexuality.general, which is meant to be a serious
>> group for discussing sexuality. I think your language bias reflects a
>> suburban prejudice against "icky" words, but that's just a guess.
>
>If you'd ever met Laurie, you'd know there are few people less like
>'Suburban American Mom' (sorry, Laurie ;-)).
Heh. I've never lived anywhere big enough to have a suburb ;) My last
dwelling of my own was nearly downtown, and I've since lived 10 miles
in the country. While I have occasionally spent long periods of time
in a city with suburbs (where I am now again), I'm an hour or so from
the suburbs. And I like "icky" words just fine. =P
Laurie
Sky KIng
lauri...@yahoo.com says...
But you posted this.
"I'm an hour or so from
the suburbs. And I like "icky" words just fine. =P
I guess it depends on who is using the icky words
and when huh?
Laurie S.
More like where and why. Anyone's regular use (as opposed to the
occasional drop of a word or phrase) of that sort of terminology would
be annoying and distracting to me in the context of a serious
discussion in a group like this, and I would find it kind of juvenile.
In a bed, it would be different. In a cozy discussion about sex with
pals, it might be different. In a lighthearted situation, it might be
different.
Laurie
Sky KIng
lauri...@yahoo.com says...
Depends on what you mean by regular. I don't use it regularly. My
reason for doing it suits my purpose.
Laurie S.
This is a nitpick. Change "regular use" to "frequent use," then. You
do it more often than not.
Laurie
--
"Even one wrongly imprisoned man is too many."
Mariska Hargitay (as Detective Olivia Benson),
Law and Order: Special Victims Unit (U.S. TV show)
Sky KIng
lauri...@hotmail.com says...
Again..I disagree. I do it with some folks more often than not but not
with MOSt.
StorMKisS
before my response. I apologize for the delay!
"John James" <n...@all.co.uk> wrote in message news:<40e60e5f$0$28073$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com>...
A great deal actually. The Internet not only provides a vehicle for
distribution, it also makes exposure much cheaper and easier.
Perhaps I shouldn't here, but I'll
> admit to subscribing to several BDSM and similar sites (it's a fetish of
> mine) - the majority are professional.
The 'majority' leaves room for a growing 'minority'. And even the
'professional' sites are often pro-*am* instead.
Where they are not, most have
> connections with the models from those sites, and are leveraging off what is
> straightforward commercial porn. Without an audience in tow, how easy is it
> to set up and pay the necessary search engine fees, let's be honest.
Easier than you seem to think. In fact, one need not even pay the
(extremely modest compared to most forms of advertising) search engine
fees in order to get exposure. For example, many link sites (i.e.
fetishbank.net) are supported by banner advertising and allow links to
be listed for FREE. Yet their website receives heavy traffic, having
been visited many millions of times. Submit your site and presto: you
have a large audience for free. Would that have ever been possible
anywhere in the pre-Internet age?
> > >I think you're overstating your case. If not in
> > > volume then certainly in audience commercial porn vastly exceeds
> amateur,
> > > and commercial porn quite evidently sets out to stage artificial scenes
> with
> > > no basis in reality.
> > > There is also the faux-amateur market, which pretends to stage
> unscripted
> > > sex scenes with as little sincerity or credibility.
> >
> > Fake porn still seems more common than the real deal, but the latter
> > is rapidly catching up in this new age of ultra-cheap production and
> > distribution. The Internet is changing things. There are reality porn
> > sites all over the place.
>
> True. We have a genuine difference of opinion here though. You think it's
> changing things. I think it's simply the overspill before commercial porn
> merchants learn how to control the channel.
How are they going to control the Internet? It is not a single
'channel' but an information superhighway with many lanes, always
undergoing further development and expansion.
I do not think most punters
> *want* true amateurism - they just want professionalism dressed tidily as
> amateurism.
Even assuming (just for the sake of this sentence) that you are right,
'most' does not equate to 'all'. Also, how can you possibly ignore the
massive popularity of reality TV? Shows like Fear Factor, Survivor,
Scare Tactics, etc. involve real people thrust into real situations.
And guess what? These shows are immensely popular. The same is true of
many talk shows such as Jerry Springer. Why do you believe that
something must be staged in order to be entertaining or appealing?
Have you not heard the cliche that 'truth is stranger than fiction'?
It can often be true. Why would you expect porn to be any different?
You act as if 'professional' and 'amateur' are mutually exclusive
things that can never be combined. In fact, a production can involve
real people responding naturally to real stimuli yet be filmed, edited
and/or distributed by professionals. In many cases, such porn is
produced in a hobbyish fashion -- for the *fun* of some or all people
involved -- then distributed/marketed with professional assistance.
These approaches are referred to as 'pro-am'.
Allow me to give you an example of pro-am porn. Say you are a horny
guy with sick fantasies. You want to degrade the sort of woman that
has always rejected you for dates. Say further that you want to get
*paid* doing just that. Sound like a dream come true? Well, it
certainly is for some guys (I'm female, and I find it fascinating
myself)!
Well, what do you do? Buy a cheap but reasonable quality camcorder
(i.e. Sony Digital8 series). Hire an escort/adult model/porn actress
to come make a movie with you. If necessary, be persistent and look
among naive or desperate women until you find one that is willing. Lay
down a wad of cash (say, $500 or $1000) and be forthright. The woman
need do only a few bizarre and degrading things before the camera,
i.e. receive enemas and play with the expulsions, have sex with fruits
and vegetables, pick her nose and eat it, urinate on herself, dress up
in a baby outfit and vomit, etc. Then she will have the cash - easily
the fastest $1000 she ever earned. For variety and additional reality
content, invite some friends over to degrade and talk shit to her.
Shoot the movie. Have fun doing it. Let everything get crazy and out
of hand, like Jerry Springer taken to an even sicker level. After an
hour or two of filming, you already have good starting material for an
'extreme' reality pornsite. People dig this stuff - look at the
immensely popular Fear Factor that has had people eating cockroaches
and pig rectums. This stuff sells. And yes, many 'perverts' even jerk
or jill off to it.
I have a friend who does exactly the things outlined above. And I have
been one of the friends invited over to degrade the 'whores'. I was
not acting. I simply allowed my resentment for prettier (and I like to
think, dumber) women to take over. I degraded and abused the 'whores'
and I enjoyed myself immensely. My friend makes over ten grand a
month, and he spends only a few hundred (yes, you read that right) on
advertising and marketing. To promote his site he uses link exchanges
(mostly free) and natural placement on spider engines like Google
(also free) as well as word passed along by fans on message boards. He
also makes sales one on one. The overhead is minimal - he offers the
porn for download online, so there are no tapes to dub or ship out, no
DVDs to burn or mail, nothing of the sort.
Are you starting to see how reality porn (especially of the pro-am
sort) can be a major factor? I fail to see how anything will be able
to make this go away. I mean, even mainstream TV is full of reality
content - as a porn medium, it is even more tempting. People have
always loved a good freak show, combine that with perennially-popular
sexual themes and you have a winner.
> No. The medium is there. The message is not - it never is. Take
> Public-Access TV in the States - who watches it?
Bad example, I'm afraid. A better comparison would be reality TV shows
and talkshows which have no acting. These sell like crazy.
> People are conservative -
> they do not want what is available to them 24x7 - they want something that
> takes effort and time and *money* to produce.
Only if you subscribe to Karl Marx's labor theory of value.
Unfortunately, his theory is rubbish in the real world. How much labor
and money are required to produce a pair of stained panties? Obviously
close to zero. Yet many 'fetishists' are known to pay substantial sums
of money for soiled lingerie.
You also assume that pro-am, am, and reality porn need be 'what is
available to them 24x7'. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most
people do not have the guts or balls or whatever to do what my friend
has done. Yet my friend is not acting. I was not acting when I joined
in. Even the 'whores' are not acting - they are simply thrust into an
embarrassing situation and react accordingly. People pay for this
stuff for the same reasons they pay for Fear Factor and Jerry
Springer!
>That's why they'll never pay
> for Bob and Brenda getting it on over the kitchen sink.
Well, I'm afraid they already do! People trade home videos all the
time. However, a great deal of reality porn involves things other than
'Bob and Brenda getting it on over the kitchen sink' obviously.
> Why should they when
> they can watch some unbelievable, but professionally produced, facsimile?
Because, again, reality can be more interesting than fiction.
> Porn dialogue isn't believable. It isn't meant to be.
Reality porn dialogue is believable because it is real.
> Incidentally, I just wish my old friend Avedon Carol was still here (look
> her up on Google) - she did more to educate me on porn than anyone else.
> And her book "Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship" is
> essential reading for anyone interested in the subject (and no, I don't get
> a commisssion for that ;-)).
>
> John James (JJ)
Thanks for the attribution. I'll have to look her book up.
StorMKisS
me extra long to type all that! I just bought a new keyboard today,
thank heavens. :)
John James
> John, I hope you are out there. My keyboard was messed up so it took
> me extra long to type all that! I just bought a new keyboard today,
> thank heavens. :)
Yes, I am here - and I shall reply ;-). It will take rather longer than the
usual off-the-cuff reply, which is why I am waiting until the weekend...
John James (JJ)
StorMKisS
Thank you, I'm looking forward to it.
StorMKisS
>Laurie S. <lauri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:<053ve0tssv6onerel...@4ax.com>...
> On 30 Jun 2004 02:16:13 -0700, storm...@yahoo.com (StorMKisS) wrote:
> > I have a friend who (with his girlfriend) have
> >hookers come over. (And sometimes, instead of hookers it's just
> >adventurous women.) They turn on a camcorder and do whatever the hell
> >they want (usually degrading and edgy) to the whore(s). The result is
> >an unscripted, unstaged, and very real product that sells like crazy.
> >And my friend and his gf have a lot of fun making it.
> >
> How realistic is that to the consumer, just because it was unscripted?
What does it mean to be "realistic to the consumer"? Since every
consumer has his/her own unique sex life, how could *any* porno be a
realistic representation of everyone's sexuality?
By "realistic" I mean realistic for the ones producing it. Some
pornographers (like my friend) would be doing exactly the same thing
even if there were no money to be made. In these cases, it is not a
mere act to satisfy an audience and make money.
Let me make some comparisons. Say I enjoy painting lovely oil
paintings. My main motivation is fun and self expression. However, I
also need to pay bills and enjoy having money. Therefore I sell my
paintings for a handsome profit. Does this mean that profit was/is my
only motivation? Of course not. Does that mean the painting is nothing
but an act on canvas, a farce put on for the audience? No. Neither is
profit the only motivation for all pornographers, especially those who
use porn production as a way to live out their fantasies with all
kinds of beautiful women.
> I'm sure some people like it because they don't have to sift through
> the "plot" to get to the juicy part (that could be me, depending on
> what the juicy part is),
Yes, that's part of the appeal.
> but it's still a performance for the camera,
How so, when he (and some other pornographers) gladly do the exact
same things in absence of a camera? I fail to see how this is an act,
since my friend and his friends are simply being themselves. Even the
whores are generally not acting; they are just thrust into a
humiliating situation and react accordingly. I suppose some might try
to act dignified, but this tends to break down before long. :D
> and it sounds like it's patterned after commercial porn, anyway, just
> without a plot.
How so? It is just what my friend enjoys. Even if it didn't pay a
dime, he'd still do it as a hobby. People usually don't buy porn for
the acting, plotting, or dialogue. People buy porn because they want
something to jack or jill off to. And something to entertain, to
amuse, to please. And perhaps something from which they can pick up
new ideas to spice up their sex lives.
My friend is so 'perverted' that his normal sex life is bizarre and
interesting to other people. So, he figures, why not make movies out
of the things he *wants* to do anyway and sell these? He has bills to
pay like everyone else, after all. He'd rather be living out his
fantasies than working for some boss!
Reality porn like my friend's is able to satisfy the fantasies both of
the producers *and* the consumers. That is its greatest magic.
Some people claim that staged, fictional, glossy porn is what people
want. Reality porn (or reality anything) is too boring, they say.
The market says otherwise. Porn is getting ever more gritty and
amateur (in style, substance, or both). Especially on the Internet,
this is the stuff that sells: unscripted, no-nonsense meat grinding.
Reality TV is explosive in its popularity: witness Fear Factor,
Survivor, Scare Tactics, various talk shows, etc. While it may strike
some as in poor taste, this is the kind of thing people eat right up.
> I used to say there's nothing in soap operas that doesn't also happen
> in real life, just not as often, and to the same people/families. But
> then soap operas started to do some very weird things. I suppose porn
> has too, though. I did see a porn movie featuring a woman writhing on
> a coffee table while being "screwed" by a ghost.
Interesting. Now that I have never seen, but then I have only watched
a couple soaps (All My Children mainly).
> I've never lived in a suburb, and I don't consider words "icky" at
> all. I don't have a problem with words like fuck, cunt, pussy, cock,
> dick, slut -- etc. -- in my bed. I find them generally annoying in a
> serious discussion, although I don't mind an occasional fuck. ;)
>
> Laurie
It all boils down to a matter of personal taste, I suppose!
Bob
> Apologies for the late response...
>
>
>>Laurie S. <lauri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:<053ve0tssv6onerel...@4ax.com>...
>>On 30 Jun 2004 02:16:13 -0700, storm...@yahoo.com (StorMKisS) wrote:
>
>
>>>I have a friend who (with his girlfriend) have
>>>hookers come over. (And sometimes, instead of hookers it's just
>>>adventurous women.) They turn on a camcorder and do whatever the hell
>>>they want (usually degrading and edgy) to the whore(s). The result is
>>>an unscripted, unstaged, and very real product that sells like crazy.
>>>And my friend and his gf have a lot of fun making it.
>>>
>>
You have to be very careful. Some guys did that in California and got
prosecuted for "rape."
Bob
--
When did we divide into sides?
"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
StorMKisS
> StorMKisS wrote:
> > Apologies for the late response...
> >
> >
> >>Laurie S. <lauri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:<053ve0tssv6onerel...@4ax.com>...
> >>On 30 Jun 2004 02:16:13 -0700, storm...@yahoo.com (StorMKisS) wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>I have a friend who (with his girlfriend) have
> >>>hookers come over. (And sometimes, instead of hookers it's just
> >>>adventurous women.) They turn on a camcorder and do whatever the hell
> >>>they want (usually degrading and edgy) to the whore(s). The result is
> >>>an unscripted, unstaged, and very real product that sells like crazy.
> >>>And my friend and his gf have a lot of fun making it.
> >>>
> >>
>
> You have to be very careful. Some guys did that in California and got
> prosecuted for "rape."
>
> Bob
Consent forms are wonderful. Got a link to any news article about that event?
StorMKisS
party, does what they do suddenly become an "act"?
StorMKisS
Which weekend? :P
StorMKisS
> Incidentally, I just wish my old friend Avedon Carol was still here (look
> her up on Google)
I did.
> - she did more to educate me on porn than anyone else.
Interesting.
John, from my perusal of Ms Carol's posts I can see that she
acknowledges the existence and appeal of *genuine* amateur porn. For
example:
"Try the amateur stuff, which shows real couples - not professionals -
just having real sex."
Message-ID: <36219fe6....@news.demon.co.uk>
and:
"Some of those people did it primarily for the money - like you do any
other job - but many of them enjoy their work and quite a few of them
are exhibitionists who would do it for nothing just for the fun of it.
Much of the amateur porn on the net was done in just that way - for
the fun of it, with no intention or hope of remuneration."
Message-ID: <35f76141....@news.demon.co.uk>
Also:
"There is an enormous market now in "amateur" porn made by couples -
actual lovers, partners - who video their own love-making and later
decide to sell it."
Message-ID: <fvljqsc1g79bqf0gj...@4ax.com>
Avedon may be on a hiatus from posting (hopefully a temporary one).
However, her views regarding reality porn are eerily similar to my
own. Reading her posts was oftimes like reading myself!
And as I have pointed out, along with Avedon's "enormous market" in
"amateur porn" there is also an enormous market in other forms of
reality porn. My friend's stuff (elaborated upon in my other posts) is
an excellent example. As I explained in other posts, my friend and his
buddies would be doing the exact same thing without a camera present.
They are a social group whose favorite activity is letting loose
frustrations and perversions on hired 'hoes'. These festivities are
often filmed (why not?) but that does not make them fake. The same is
true of many sex clubs that allow their parties to get filmed. It does
not suddenly become an 'act' just because a camera is rolling.
Laurie S.
THE weekend. ;)
Laurie
Laurie S.
>Apologies for the late response...
>
>>Laurie S. <lauri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message >news:<053ve0tssv6onerel...@4ax.com>...
>> On 30 Jun 2004 02:16:13 -0700, storm...@yahoo.com (StorMKisS) wrote:
>
>> > I have a friend who (with his girlfriend) have
>> >hookers come over. (And sometimes, instead of hookers it's just
>> >adventurous women.) They turn on a camcorder and do whatever the hell
>> >they want (usually degrading and edgy) to the whore(s). The result is
>> >an unscripted, unstaged, and very real product that sells like crazy.
>> >And my friend and his gf have a lot of fun making it.
>> >
>> How realistic is that to the consumer, just because it was unscripted?
>
>What does it mean to be "realistic to the consumer"? Since every
>consumer has his/her own unique sex life, how could *any* porno be a
>realistic representation of everyone's sexuality?
>
>By "realistic" I mean realistic for the ones producing it.
Apologies. I thought you meant that the consumer would be getting porn
that was more realistic (in general) than the more "fanciful" world of
porn.
> Some
>pornographers (like my friend) would be doing exactly the same thing
>even if there were no money to be made. In these cases, it is not a
>mere act to satisfy an audience and make money.
>
I understand.
[...]
>Some people claim that staged, fictional, glossy porn is what people
>want. Reality porn (or reality anything) is too boring, they say.
>
>The market says otherwise. Porn is getting ever more gritty and
>amateur (in style, substance, or both). Especially on the Internet,
>this is the stuff that sells: unscripted, no-nonsense meat grinding.
That sells to *some* people. I think the people who buy mainstream
porn magazines are probably mostly not the same people who hunt for
gritty porn on the net. The latter people don't find what they like in
mainstream magazines. They were already probably looking in other than
ordinary bookstores for their magazines.
As for movies, I really don't know. Maybe more people than I think
specifically want to see unscripted, real-life amateur porn, but I
don't know. I suppose it would depend on the lighting, camera angles,
overall quality, that sort of thing.
>Reality TV is explosive in its popularity: witness Fear Factor,
>Survivor, Scare Tactics, various talk shows, etc. While it may strike
>some as in poor taste, this is the kind of thing people eat right up.
Well, that part I won't argue with. But I'm hoping the reality TV
craze will run out of ideas at some point.
[...]
Laurie
Laurie S.
>If a group of swingers decides to let a cameraman film their sex
>party, does what they do suddenly become an "act"?
When the swingers start giving spread-eagles to the camera?
Laurie
StorMKisS
Do you not know that some swingers (and some couples, for that matter)
experiment with all sorts of "wierd" sexual positions regardless of
whether or not a camera is present?
StorMKisS
>
> Apologies. I thought you meant that the consumer would be getting porn
> that was more realistic (in general) than the more "fanciful" world of
> porn.
No problem. I would point out that something does not need to be
"fanciful" in order to be interesting.
> That sells to *some* people. I think the people who buy mainstream
> porn magazines are probably mostly not the same people who hunt for
> gritty porn on the net. The latter people don't find what they like in
> mainstream magazines. They were already probably looking in other than
> ordinary bookstores for their magazines.
People can enjoy more than one genre, as well. There's no need to
enjoy only one flavor of ice cream, and porn is no different.
> As for movies, I really don't know. Maybe more people than I think
> specifically want to see unscripted, real-life amateur porn, but I
> don't know. I suppose it would depend on the lighting, camera angles,
> overall quality, that sort of thing.
The quality can be just as high or higher compared to the typical
'professional' porn movie. Professional cameramen (camerapersons,
whatever :) can even be hired to film swingers parties, or sex clubs,
or other amateur gatherings.
> Well, that part I won't argue with. But I'm hoping the reality TV
> craze will run out of ideas at some point.[/quote]
Why? And why would it? Reality is far richer than fantasy. Fantasy is
always *derivative* of reality. It is a mere shadow of something
infinitely more complex. If reality bores you, then it is inevitable
that fantasy will too in the end.
Laurie S.
Yes, of course; I find it strange that you would ask. Who doesn't know
this?
You still seem to think I'm some sort of clueless, prudish vanilla
gal. Why is that?
Anyway, I referred (and mostly facetitiously, I should point out) to
the positioning (not the position) of sex acts so as to get a good
camera angle.
Laurie
Laurie S.
>Laurie S. <lauri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<36cdh09hqs3pimiah...@4ax.com>...
[...]
>> Well, that part I won't argue with. But I'm hoping the reality TV
>> craze will run out of ideas at some point.[/quote]
>
>Why?
Because it's like staring at bloody accident scenes, or peering into
locker rooms.
Just for starters.
> And why would it?
I dunno, maybe because people might just tire of watching people eat
bugs, stab one another in the back, and make fun of people who are put
on stage to sing badly.
Or maybe because people will get tired of seeing reality shows that
are more fake than real.
> Reality is far richer than fantasy.
*Some* reality is richer than *some* fantasy.
"The Last Unicorn" is richer than "My Big Fat Obnoxious Fiance."
> Fantasy is
>always *derivative* of reality.
OK...
> It is a mere shadow of something
>infinitely more complex.
Fantasy in general is complex. Reality in general is complex. A
specific fantasy is less complex and a specific reality is less
complex. Some aspects of reality are bloody boring; some aspects of
fantasy are breathtakingly stimulating.
> If reality bores you, then it is inevitable
>that fantasy will too in the end.
Who said anything about boring? Reality shows are just inane and
tasteless.
That said, reality certainly can be boring. That's part of why we
humans fantasize. You seem to be saying that reality is "better" than
fantasy. I find that strange. There's no reason IMO to try to compare
them in that way.
Laurie
Laurie S.
>Laurie S. <lauri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<36cdh09hqs3pimiah...@4ax.com>...
>
>>
>> Apologies. I thought you meant that the consumer would be getting porn
>> that was more realistic (in general) than the more "fanciful" world of
>> porn.
>
>No problem. I would point out that something does not need to be
>"fanciful" in order to be interesting.
>
No, but has anyone implied that?
>> That sells to *some* people. I think the people who buy mainstream
>> porn magazines are probably mostly not the same people who hunt for
>> gritty porn on the net. The latter people don't find what they like in
>> mainstream magazines. They were already probably looking in other than
>> ordinary bookstores for their magazines.
>
>People can enjoy more than one genre, as well. There's no need to
>enjoy only one flavor of ice cream, and porn is no different.
>
Um, we're not talking about what they "can" enjoy. We're talking about
what they *tend* to enjoy. I don't think those who particularly like
"Playboy" are all that interested in rough, hardcore porn that would
make their mothers faint. Conversely, I think that those who are
particularly into the latter would find Playboy a bit boring.
>> As for movies, I really don't know. Maybe more people than I think
>> specifically want to see unscripted, real-life amateur porn, but I
>> don't know. I suppose it would depend on the lighting, camera angles,
>> overall quality, that sort of thing.
>
>The quality can be just as high or higher compared to the typical
>'professional' porn movie. Professional cameramen (camerapersons,
>whatever :) can even be hired to film swingers parties, or sex clubs,
>or other amateur gatherings.
>
Christ, would you quit being so goddamn defensive? You keep insisting
on bringing up the best-case scenario.
Amateur porn is likely to be of quality that is, well, amateur. That
doesn't mean it has to be, and I haven't implied anything like that. I
simply said that interest in amateur porn probably depends on a
variety of factors.
[...]
Laurie
StorMKisS
> On 21 Aug 2004 20:29:35 -0700, storm...@yahoo.com (StorMKisS) wrote:
>
> >Laurie S. <lauri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<36cdh09hqs3pimiah...@4ax.com>...
> >
> >>
> >> Apologies. I thought you meant that the consumer would be getting porn
> >> that was more realistic (in general) than the more "fanciful" world of
> >> porn.
> >
> >No problem. I would point out that something does not need to be
> >"fanciful" in order to be interesting.
> >
> No, but has anyone implied that?
I have seen that implied or even stated outright, yes, though you
certainly have never done so.
>
> >> That sells to *some* people. I think the people who buy mainstream
> >> porn magazines are probably mostly not the same people who hunt for
> >> gritty porn on the net. The latter people don't find what they like in
> >> mainstream magazines. They were already probably looking in other than
> >> ordinary bookstores for their magazines.
> >
> >People can enjoy more than one genre, as well. There's no need to
> >enjoy only one flavor of ice cream, and porn is no different.
> >
> Um, we're not talking about what they "can" enjoy. We're talking about
> what they *tend* to enjoy. I don't think those who particularly like
> "Playboy" are all that interested in rough, hardcore porn that would
> make their mothers faint. Conversely, I think that those who are
> particularly into the latter would find Playboy a bit boring.
That may be true in some cases, but I don't think it's true as a
general rule. We are talking about fine bodies in fine poses vs. fine
bodies in hard action. There has to be a great deal of overlap in the
audience. I, for one, enjoy both hardcore and softcore porn. It partly
depends on my mood. I doubt I'm all that rare, from what I've observed
in others.
> >> As for movies, I really don't know. Maybe more people than I think
> >> specifically want to see unscripted, real-life amateur porn, but I
> >> don't know. I suppose it would depend on the lighting, camera angles,
> >> overall quality, that sort of thing.
> >
> >The quality can be just as high or higher compared to the typical
> >'professional' porn movie. Professional cameramen (camerapersons,
> >whatever :) can even be hired to film swingers parties, or sex clubs,
> >or other amateur gatherings.
> >
> Christ, would you quit being so goddamn defensive?
I didn't feel defensive and I wasn't trying to be defensive. I
apologize if I somehow gave that impression.
> You keep insisting on bringing up the best-case scenario.
I described a scenario common in a pretty popular genre of porn:
pro-am.
> Amateur porn is likely to be of quality that is, well, amateur.
But that's not a valid measure of quality. A skilled cameraman need
not be paid in order to create an excellent production. Talent, skill,
and experience are the necessary ingredients. Money need not be any
object, let alone the sole objective. There are a thousand other
possible motivations. There are many hobbyists who paint, draw,
sculpt, carve wood, fine-tune cars, overclock CPUs, etc. for other
reasons than money. And many are damn good at it. The situation is no
different with movie producers.
I have seen lots of professional porn of poor quality. It's not
exactly the rare exception either.
>That doesn't mean it has to be, and I haven't implied anything like
that.
I didn't think you did. I was just stating an opinion, based on my
observations and experience.
>I simply said that interest in amateur porn probably depends on a
> variety of factors.
I agree.
Laurie S.
>Laurie S. <lauri...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<he3ji0lniafsbohmp...@4ax.com>...
>> On 21 Aug 2004 20:29:35 -0700, storm...@yahoo.com (StorMKisS) wrote:
>>
>> >Laurie S. <lauri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<36cdh09hqs3pimiah...@4ax.com>...
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Apologies. I thought you meant that the consumer would be getting porn
>> >> that was more realistic (in general) than the more "fanciful" world of
>> >> porn.
>> >
>> >No problem. I would point out that something does not need to be
>> >"fanciful" in order to be interesting.
>> >
>> No, but has anyone implied that?
>
>I have seen that implied or even stated outright, yes, though you
>certainly have never done so.
I meant here in this discussion.
In terms of what I like, the "fanciful" stuff can be interesting or
not, but usually isn't. I fast-forward through most stuff, although
I'd probably do it less if the stuff was more to my kinks.
>> >> That sells to *some* people. I think the people who buy mainstream
>> >> porn magazines are probably mostly not the same people who hunt for
>> >> gritty porn on the net. The latter people don't find what they like in
>> >> mainstream magazines. They were already probably looking in other than
>> >> ordinary bookstores for their magazines.
>> >
>> >People can enjoy more than one genre, as well. There's no need to
>> >enjoy only one flavor of ice cream, and porn is no different.
>> >
>> Um, we're not talking about what they "can" enjoy. We're talking about
>> what they *tend* to enjoy. I don't think those who particularly like
>> "Playboy" are all that interested in rough, hardcore porn that would
>> make their mothers faint. Conversely, I think that those who are
>> particularly into the latter would find Playboy a bit boring.
>
>That may be true in some cases, but I don't think it's true as a
>general rule.
Neither do I. I think it's just a tendency. Perhaps it doesn't come
across well here, but I try to stay away from general rules. When I
talk about tendencies, there's some wiggle room. It doesn't mean
anything hard and fast. I'm not the hard and fast type .. well, at
least not in debate. ;)
> We are talking about fine bodies in fine poses vs. fine
>bodies in hard action.
I'd imagine most of the Playboy gals have fine bodies, but porn seems
to have more variety, depending on where you look. Sure, I see some
"great bods," but I also see some more "real" ones. Well, maybe not
the boobs. =P
> There has to be a great deal of overlap in the
>audience. I, for one, enjoy both hardcore and softcore porn. It partly
>depends on my mood. I doubt I'm all that rare, from what I've observed
>in others.
>
I don't think you're *rare*. I just don't think you're the norm. I
don't think I'm the norm either, but then I semi-cheerfully have
dubbed myself SF for Sexual Freak.
Personally, I find softcore boring, but I can see where people with
nicer tastes might like it, and I can see it as being especially cozy
with a partner.
>> >> As for movies, I really don't know. Maybe more people than I think
>> >> specifically want to see unscripted, real-life amateur porn, but I
>> >> don't know. I suppose it would depend on the lighting, camera angles,
>> >> overall quality, that sort of thing.
>> >
>> >The quality can be just as high or higher compared to the typical
>> >'professional' porn movie. Professional cameramen (camerapersons,
>> >whatever :) can even be hired to film swingers parties, or sex clubs,
>> >or other amateur gatherings.
>> >
>> Christ, would you quit being so goddamn defensive?
>
>I didn't feel defensive and I wasn't trying to be defensive. I
>apologize if I somehow gave that impression.
>
You seem to assume that I and others are dissing the stuff you bring
up. You keep referring to amateur porn as if it's inherently positive
and you act like there's some sort of conspiracy that's trying to keep
people from "admitting" to things that you like or experience or
whatever, but may not be as popular as some other things.
>> You keep insisting on bringing up the best-case scenario.
>
>I described a scenario common in a pretty popular genre of porn:
>pro-am.
>
I thought we were discussing amateur porn. How did it suddenly get to
be pro-am.
>> Amateur porn is likely to be of quality that is, well, amateur.
>
>But that's not a valid measure of quality. A skilled cameraman need
>not be paid in order to create an excellent production. Talent, skill,
>and experience are the necessary ingredients. Money need not be any
>object, let alone the sole objective. There are a thousand other
>possible motivations. There are many hobbyists who paint, draw,
>sculpt, carve wood, fine-tune cars, overclock CPUs, etc. for other
>reasons than money. And many are damn good at it. The situation is no
>different with movie producers.
>
But those producers can only go so far, unless they happen to have
plenty of money to play with. A low-budget "regular" movie is
obviously of less quality than a movie made in a major studio,
regardless of the talent, skill and experience of the people involved.
If you somehow managed to put together a great producer, a great
director, a few great actors, and a great screenwriter, you'd have a
great *potential* package, but there are a lot of other costs
involved.
I'm being a little picky here, though. Even professional porn isn't of
great quality, technically.
>I have seen lots of professional porn of poor quality. It's not
>exactly the rare exception either.
>
Hee. Perhaps I should read ahead before I write things.
[...]
Laurie