Yep , I had GF who worked as a waitress at a Waffle House. Customers would play beat the check, stiff her after treating her like their personal servant. While making when all was said and done a little more than min wage.

Just so everyone here knows, this is all approved from the beginning of the booking process: from my initial call to the agent, to all the girls' arrivals on set, through make-up, each and every girl who was "Cumbanged" knew exactly what was going down...and approved it. Also, some of the girls refused to allow the "Cumbangers" to wear the shirts, and, instead of not booking the girl, we turned it into a fun scenario that the girl not only approved...but liked.

Everyone makes their money on a Dogfart set in a fun, relaxed, and, most importantly, a consensual atmosphere -- whether Spring Thomas is dropping the "NBomb" on one of her co-stars, or there's a cuckold eating a creamed pie, or a cute white girl is interrupting a Black Power Meeting for Interracial BlowBang.

was it staged?

i have a hard time believing every freak out in the facial abuse scenes is staged. its the amateur girls they get from god knows where that are the ones that seem to freak out/break down the most.

there is reasons for before and after filming for bdsm scenes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion

congrats to the winners.

"Duress has two aspects. One is that it negates the person's consent to an act, such as sexual activity or the entering into a contract; or, secondly, as a possible legal defense or justification to an otherwise unlawful act.[1]"

i think it's fair to say that some adult actors have had meltdowns on set. regardless of what they signed or were informed of.

I think you misunderstood his post.

ds make the girls cry and he laughs about it

im often misunderstood :thumbsup

its definitely a good idea. i'm sure this is probably done with most porn scenes to some extent as well. we just don't see it as they don't publish it. there are a lot of things we don't see in many scenes. facialabuse gets a lot of flack because where most would edit those bits out, they leave them in. fact is we don't really know how common of an occurrence having to calm a girl down who freaks out and starts crying is.

Some of the so called porn posted on here makes me feel sick whats wrong with you people that like seeing a girl beaten then fucked its discusting

Not enough pictures in this thread :)

whenever i book a porn*star* for a shoot i'm always curious how many bruises she will show up with. most the time they're fine, but it's more often that i would like they show up bruised.

Till I read this thread, I'd always guessed that a jury made up of people in the adult industry would be a dream come true in the defense of a criminal obscenity trial.

The title of the thread - implying a line that somebody needs to set - is an affront to what I think freedom of speech means. Now, it's possible that people posting here are only talking about their own, personal moral tastes and values, and if that's the case, I respect all of those opinions and the people who assert them. But I'm afraid that some of them mean more than an expression of personal opinion and go to what society should permit.

No one has the right to tell anyone else what they can read. What they can view. What they can produce and take to market. If freedom of speech does not mean that, it does not mean anything.

No limit. No line. Nobody should go to jail for publishing anything.

If you can't accept that, you believe in censorship and you're just quibbling over the definition.

Great post Joe!

There must be a line:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luka_Ma...der_of_Lin_Jun

and freedom of speech is not the point.
There are humiliating someone who is trapped in a situation.
And it doesn't look stagged and she doesn't seems to enjoy what they are doing. They are humiliating her and she doesn't seems to like it.

You don't need censorship or obscenity laws to prosecute murder.

No limits.

When People v. Freeman was being decided in California, the case that took the making of porn out of the reach of the prostitution laws, your precise argument was made by prosecutors - that pornography should not deserve constitutional protection because it was nothing more than the recordation of the crime of prostitution. The backdoor entry into censorship has always been that argument. In fact, grisly videos showing every cruelty that one person can inflict upon another (some lawfully, others clearly criminal) exist on the internet and they all teach important lessons that can't be learned as well but by seeing them. It is a better society that shows everything, hides nothing, and lets people make decisions based on reality, visual and audio, leaving as little as possible to revisionism and interpretation. The truth is nothing to fear. And it is necessary for people to make decisions. If a video captures a crime, prosecute that crime, not the video that records it.

No limits.

could you provide some real world examples please?

:)

the reason i ask is that i've chosen to never watch those videos and am curious what lessons i am missing.

I always think it's kind of funny when people post about how they got out of serving jury duty because they're just so smart. Here's to hoping that if they're ever falsely accused of something they end up with a panel of jurors too "stupid' to get out of jury duty.

I like naked midget wrestling in poo with syrup BBW cumbang interracial MILF swapping swinger butthole anal blowjob bondage pierced twat choker smoker sex.

But I'm a typical American male so it's expected.

:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

I watched WWE Monday night Raw and saw a bunch of guys in that EXACT same situation.

They "seem" to enjoy what they were doing and they were "humiliated" and didn't seem to like it.

And just like the girls in videos...they sign contracts and get paid for it.

THIS ISN'T REAL, IT'S A MOVIE NOT A DOCUMENTARY

Excellent post.

Diff'rent strokes to move the world...

You got yourself confused, dumbass. The majority of people that are well balanced healthy and normal, consider douchebags like you that pimp out their wives lowlife ball-less fags.

You're just a lowlife scumbag puke; you like pass yourself off as some kind of ladies man with such broad and liberal sexual horizons, but I see you for the deranged pig you are. And the majority of the skanks you've been with are the bottom of the barrel, they'd fuck a snake for a couple of hundred bucks, that doesn't make you wordly. Shut the fuck up you old idiot, you're not authority on sexuality.

man there are so many un experienced virgins in this thread its hilarious :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Off to "ignore" for you. Congratulations on acting like a jackass.

:thumbsup :thumbsup

So what you're saying, Joe, is that we should tolerate websites openly publishing and selling child porn, for example, so long as the people selling it didn't personally take part in the making of it?

I'm surprised that you're surprised that some people disagree with that.

so when a girl is doing double anal in a video, there aren't really dicks in her ass? i've been duped!

Ive been working in Adult for over 15 years now, so for me that scene is perfectly normal. It doesn't break any laws, therefore, people have the right to enjoy it.

this one sure went off course fast

?Godwins Law? for porn strikes again.

Is sexual abuse of children a crime?
Is what is happening in those vids in question (consenting adults premised) a crime?

OK, simplified questions, but as far as I know the answer to question one is yes to question two it is no.

By the way: Obscenity laws = No freedom of speech.

WTH are you talking about? The only way to determine whether you believe in free speech or free expression is to consider your position on the most extreme content.

It's not very difficult to believe in free speech for stuff you already agree with, is it?

Unlike you, I expect Joe to give a straight answer the question I asked. Furthermore, I expect him to answer 'yes' to the question I asked, because he has already said there is no limit on free speech.

I understand what his position is; it's not a unique position, but it's not a position that many people agree with, because while it's admirable in theory I don't believe it's a position that works very well in practice.

Given your avoidance of the question, or even the premise of the question, I can only assume your answer to my question is "no". Therefore, to take Joe's fundamentalist stance, you don't believe in 'freedom of speech' either, you're just quibbling about the definition.

Maybe I should have been more specific. My post was not about the discussion between you and Joe but that it seems to be unavoidable that CP pops up in such discussions like nazi comparisons pop up in political discussions (Godwins Law) and about obscenity laws. Maybe it was kind of OT.

When it comes to law I am definitely a fundamentalist. Laws must be universal or they are just arbitrariness. Unfortunately that arbitrariness is that common that we accept it as natural.

There is a worldwide consent (something rather rare) on banning real CP simply because it is based on a real crime and there is a victim, not because it is disgusting, pervert, sick, immoral, whatever. Of course those basically reasonable laws developed into full blown hysteria and insanity with time.

When it comes to porn ?obscenity? allows the majority (or even a minority) of people to limit the speech of a other group based on taste or personal moral opinions, and that is censorship. Imagine the situation would be the same with religion or politics.

Regarding the initial topic of this thread the only question is: Was the creation of that content itself a crime, did a crime happen on that set? If yes the content, as a result of that crime, is illegal also. If not: If you don't like it don't look at it.

Normally I agree bringing up extreme examples in a discussion like this doesn't serve anyone, but to be fair Joe did kinda state *all* video including those depicting illegal criminal acts should be legal to view:

So helterskelter was taking it to its logical extension.

I can't get on board with this idea that extreme content (and now I'm talking about Joe's 'grisly videos showing every cruelty' stuff rather than the OP's clip) is "teaching important lessons". To me that sounds like a lawyer married to his ideology. More often than not IMO it serves to titillate, desensitize, and alienate and isn't doing much for viewers' minds beyond warping them a bit.

Wow that is fucking disturbing...

^ Yep. I think that video is quite relevant to all the claims about 'consent', and how the girls 'agree' to it, beforehand. Even if people agree to something, even if they sign something, it doesn't necessarily mean there isn't pressure or coercion involved.

There are plenty people who take the stance that (I'm assuming) Joe does. In fact I respect that stance a lot; it's a tough one to take, and I believe it makes a lot of logical sense.

I also agree that if you believe in a line, anywhere, then you believe in censorship. Most people, however liberal, including myself, draw the line at CP, which is why it's relevant to mention it.

Some men hate women.
Some men love women.
Some men want to BE women.

So there ya go.
Next.