Like rough stuff with tamed and humiliating girls..:):) ???
- Thread starter elwapo
- Start date
Millions of women have such low self worth's that being ****** makes them feel useful or that they deserve it. No emotionally stable woman wants to be publicly ****** and humiliated. None.
I love the rough stuff (like hair pulling) but that spitting thing is GROSS! It actually disgusts me to the point where I will turn a scene off rather than watch it.
As for tears - if a willing partner gets tears in her eyes because she is gagging herself on cock - HOT
BUT if she is ****** because she feels embarrassed ior humiliated, thats sad and shameful for all involved.
The whole reason that domination/********** is such a turn on is that the subs allow themselves to be dominated. Anything involving ********* or ****** is just plain WRONG.
As for tears - if a willing partner gets tears in her eyes because she is gagging herself on cock - HOT
BUT if she is ****** because she feels embarrassed ior humiliated, thats sad and shameful for all involved.
The whole reason that domination/********** is such a turn on is that the subs allow themselves to be dominated. Anything involving ********* or ****** is just plain WRONG.
while i'm a fan of a god rocco movie every now and again, i dont wanna see the girl not enjoying herslef. i'd have to agree with the whole eye's tearing as a result of gagging or as a result of ******. i have one scene with nacho and belladonna, and he shoved a baseball bat up her ass... and they were married at the time. so it really does depend on the scene and the person.
I think intimidation and *********** come through on film. The "Max Hardcore" stuff is cinematic intimidation thinly-veiled as "porn." I'd probably arrest him and burn his archives. It's worthless ****, in my opinion.
I like a good rough sex scene. But what makes it great is that the two performers seem "into" each other. This is the same as in any porn scene, I suppose.
I used to think that a good/bad/successful scene depended on the chick. My opinion has flipflopped. A good scene depends on the guy now, even if I never watch him. If he fades away into the background...that's the best. If all he does is bark orders, pant and curse...I find myself hitting the NEXT button or closing the webpage.
I like a good rough sex scene. But what makes it great is that the two performers seem "into" each other. This is the same as in any porn scene, I suppose.
I used to think that a good/bad/successful scene depended on the chick. My opinion has flipflopped. A good scene depends on the guy now, even if I never watch him. If he fades away into the background...that's the best. If all he does is bark orders, pant and curse...I find myself hitting the NEXT button or closing the webpage.
So we are all one big happy group in agreement :glugglug:
Bring on the clips!
meanwhile here's a couple threads in this theme. If you are not "into it" then just DON'T go to the threads!
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=70753
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?t=149612
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=2024051#post2024051
http://board.freeones.com/showthread.php?p=2013923#post2013923
Enjoy!
Just because the actress looks like she enjoys it, doesn't mean she does. They are called 'actresses' for a reason.
If they don't enjoy it, they'd be waitresses intstead of actresses 
If they don't enjoy it, they'd be waitresses intstead of actresses
It's pretty hard to be an addict on a waitresses pay.
If they don't enjoy it, they'd be waitresses intstead of actresses
Wrong- porn is better money than waitressing. Money money money- Sputnik girl is right that we're living in a capitalist society. Problem is the guys who are wanting to pay women to do this stuff to them- there is something wrong with those guys.
Call it what you want, but I don't think most of society thinks it's a normal thing to pay a woman so you can slap her in the face, stretch her asshole so big you can park a VW in it, spit on her, and make her cry all in the name of "eroticism".
H
People have all kinds of fetishes which get them off, and I try not to judge. So long as everyone involved is consenting AND wanting, I'm not troubled by it. Just because someone is so submissive that they enjoy getting treated extremely roughly, it does not make them insane or unstable. It simply means their tastes are different to your own.
That said, the problem I have with porn in general (NOT just the rough stuff!) is the point sputnik touched upon. While a woman may have legally consented to performing sex acts on camera, she's not necessarily enjoying it, and that applies whether she's simply masturbating or getting spat on.
I find myself put off by porn in general these days, because I usually end up feeling guilty after watching it. The knowledge that these girls are just doing it for a pay-cheque always creeps in, as does the thought that many of them go home and cry after shooting a scene. I've seen that despairing look of 'what the fuck am I doing this for?' in completely vanilla scenes without the roughness described too.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm certainly no saint by any stretch of the imagination. I still watch female solo porn, and a handful of hardcore stars (girls like Belladonna) who seem so into what they do that it seems difficult to believe they could be faking it. The possibility that they end up feeling traumatised by what they're doing is still there, but the likelihood seems reduced.
That said, the problem I have with porn in general (NOT just the rough stuff!) is the point sputnik touched upon. While a woman may have legally consented to performing sex acts on camera, she's not necessarily enjoying it, and that applies whether she's simply masturbating or getting spat on.
I find myself put off by porn in general these days, because I usually end up feeling guilty after watching it. The knowledge that these girls are just doing it for a pay-cheque always creeps in, as does the thought that many of them go home and cry after shooting a scene. I've seen that despairing look of 'what the fuck am I doing this for?' in completely vanilla scenes without the roughness described too.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm certainly no saint by any stretch of the imagination. I still watch female solo porn, and a handful of hardcore stars (girls like Belladonna) who seem so into what they do that it seems difficult to believe they could be faking it. The possibility that they end up feeling traumatised by what they're doing is still there, but the likelihood seems reduced.
Agreed. Unfortunately, fetishes can be harmful. This is something that has to be considered on a case-by-case basis, though.
Wrong.
Perhaps you missed the point in your own post about "inflicting pain or completely controlling an ********* person". I already spoke about consent and desire.
No. Read up on sexual masochism. Consent doesn't automatically make someone mentally sound.
By definition, consent isn't possible from someone who is 'mentally unsound'. Therefore, when I say don't have a problem with people acting out these controversial acts when they're legally consenting and genuinely desirous of acting out the fetish, I'm obviously not referring to this group of people and the lifestyle they wish to lead (not the occasional acting out fantasies which many people indulge in).
As is common with your posts, judging by your post history, you're being extremely pedantic for no particular reason.
As is common with your posts, judging by your post history, you're being extremely pedantic for no particular reason.
That may be so from a legal perspective. However, you didn't specify that initially. Thus I wasn't considering legalities.
Thanks for the ad hominem. :tongue:
I don't need to. *sighs* Most people who use the word consent when discussing controversial sexual topics are actually referring to the legal perspective.
For instance, when people talk about it being acceptable to have sex with anyone who is consenting, this clearly does not refer to a ***** who may 'consent' to sex. It *is* pedantic to need to have this spelled out.
You're welcome. It wasn't actually intended as an argument against what you were saying though, since I went to the trouble of replying to the points you made as well.
The funny thing about ad hominem is that while it doesn't go any further to establishing the soundness of an argument, it doesn't necessarily make the observation any less true.
