Thoughts on Pregnant Porn?
- Thread starter Bones_92
- Start date
Vanilla Bear
Bears For Life
I love it! Pregnant women are the most beautiful beings on earth.
I think it's wrong for a pregnant woman to fuck on camera because it's disrespectful to her unborn child. I think it's morbid for a man to want to fuck her on camera, and even worse for someone to wax his carrot while watching it.
Exactly my thoughts.
I accidentally stumbled upon some videos Dominno did when she was pregnant, and instantly became ashamed of my erection.
A pregnant woman is a beautiful thing and I don't think in theory there is anything wrong with finding her sexually attractive, but ethically speaking I kind of feel like the unborn child has no say in their appearance (as bump) in such scenes, so I'm against them being made. It feels like exploitation.
A pregnant woman is a beautiful thing and I don't think in theory there is anything wrong with finding her sexually attractive, but ethically speaking I kind of feel like the unborn child has no say in their appearance (as bump) in such scenes, so I'm against them being made. It feels like exploitation.
It's not my thing.
That said, the baby is in the womb, not the vagina. The womb is sealed with a mucus plug. Inside the womb, the baby is encased in the amniotic sac. And all of this is inside the woman's belly. So nothing is happening to the child. The child is not on screen.
While some people might think it's "icky" some people think S&M is icky, some think interracial is icky, some people think "midget" porn is icky, some people think anal is icky, some people think sex in general is sort of icky. Everyone draws their own lines, and think that's important... to draw your own lines and let everyone else draw theirs. While it may not float my boat, there's nothing immoral about it and people who have issues there are simply having a knee jerk reaction to their own misgivings and misconceptions about the female body.
There goes my boner.
It's got fuck all to do with "the female body." It's to do with the kid growing up and the possibility of finding out their mama was fucking on camera with them inside her. One day there's a chance someone vindictive calls up the clip on a tubes site on their phone, waves it in their face and says "look, that's you!" Most people have to be 18 before they decide if they want to contribute to the porn industry in some way, bump doesn't have a say in the matter. I think that's wrong. Bump grows up to be a person, whether they're in the amniotic sac or not.
Scout Willis featured on the most famous pregnant nude pic in history and seems no worse off for it.
If you're worried about people being taunted by it then you're not looking at something much different than, "Hey look I've got pictures of your mother/father/sister/brother/daughter/son doing porn!" These can still be theoretically used to taunt, and someone has no more control over that. So that becomes an argument against porn as a whole that I don't think you're looking to make, but becomes equally valid.
And ultimately the baby isn't contributing. The baby isn't on screen, it's in the woman. You can't see it. You can't identify the child. Can't tell what gender it is, what color eyes, nor even skin it has. The baby is behind a wall of flesh which is just as obscuring as any wall of wood, sheetrock or concrete.
Elwood70
Torn & Frayed.
I agree with everything you said, except I don't think it's a chance, I think it's a certainty, it's just a matter of time.
It'll take bullying-by-computer to a whole new level. I don't think this generation is any better or worse than mine, but damn, I'm glad I grew up when I did.
:rofl2: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to LucyOHara again.
The wall isn't swollen, giving away that there is a human being inside it. An identifiable human being, that we don't need to see as a finished article to identify, thanks to the internet informing us "so and so continued to film while pregnant with her first child." That is contributing, by virtue of being inside their mother, to the creation of a "pregnant girl gets fucked" (for instance) scene. For guys that have that kink, to masturbate while watching. Think about that for a second.
The wall isn't swollen, giving away that there is a human being inside it. An identifiable human being, that we don't need to see as a finished article to identify, thanks to the internet informing us "so and so continued to film while pregnant with her first child." That is contributing, by virtue of being inside their mother, to the creation of a "pregnant girl gets fucked" (for instance) scene. For guys that have that kink, to masturbate while watching. Think about that for a second.
Elwood70
Torn & Frayed.
Gotcha covered....after I finished laughing...
So true :yesyes:
That human being isn't identifiable without any external input, you admit as much yourself. That input isn't any more or less available with any other type of porn. So again, if the child is behind a wall of flesh, or a wall of concrete 50,000 miles away, or is born ten years after the scene is filmed you still have the potential for someone being taunted with the material who had no say in it's production.
They're not involved with the actual act. You know this, Stiffy. You wouldn't argue that a man having sex with his pregnant wife is committing incest, would you?
Taking that into account, while they may (in an unidentifiable and indirect way) be appearing on screen, they're not involved in the act, just in the production. Now, consider for a moment the film Antichrist with William Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg. There is a baby in that film. There is also penetration. If you can agree that a man having sex with his pregnant wife is not incest, and thus that the baby is not involved in the actual sex, the argument simply becomes an issue of the child being involved with the production itself. Thus, logically, you'd have to have a problem with Antichrist since it features both a baby and penetration, but that wouldn't seem very logical (well, I'm sure there's plenty of valid issues to have with Antichrist, but I don't think that's one of them).
Logically, I just don't see your argument. I can see your misgivings, and I share them (since it is kind of squicky... and I'd file in under the same heading as porn that is or is meant to look painful, or porn involving people who look underage but aren't) but ultimately I don't think that's a valid reason to suggest it's something immoral, just controversial and... icky for a lot of people, myself included.
