Femme Fatalities Message Board

Well, there may be official definitions of 'pornography', but the way I look at it is that it is a moving target, depending on current public standards on what is acceptable by mainstream audiences and what isn't. In the fifties, several current TV shows would be considered unacceptable simply because of sexual innuendos or sexual situations. Today, we are more accepting. In the forties, nude scenes in film were rare, now they are regular mainstream content. Which brings us to FF Rule #6, or at least the relevant parts of it:

6) Subject Matter Not Permitted On This Board: ...The administration also does not allow the posting on this board of pornographic material, unless it is posted in one of the non-public areas of the board and relates to the erotic death fetish. The exception to this Rule is the Producers' Advertising Forum which contains material posted and produced by independent companies and may contain material which is not permitted on the other forums of this board. The management of FF is not responsible for any material posted by other producers on the "Producers' Advertising" forum and such material is allowed in the interests of fostering artistic freedom of expression by other producers. The producers themselves shall be responsible for the material that they choose to post on the "Producers' Advertising" Forum.

The way I look at it is that simple nudity is not pornographic. For example, Dalila's stills of upcoming videos are perfectly acceptable to be posted on the main forum. I personally consider them as art! Stills showing sexual intercourse should be restricted to the 'Video and Image Share forum" or the "Producer's Advertising forum".

Now, any other comments on what constitutes pornography for you are welcome on this thread, including whether or not you think I'm right in setting this rule in the first place? What do you think pornography is, and what do you think should be allowed on open forums such as FF.

Blue

"Pornography is the portrayal subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction."

Well, that is a pretty blanket statement. But, essentially, it is the just of it. If I get turned on by electronic gadgets and someone sends me a gadget catalog and I use it to get excited--that is pornography to me.

Some out argue that the sentence should read like this:

"Pornography is the portrayal [explicitly sexual] subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction."

But, that just puts someones personal view on what's pornographic. Sorta like this famous quote by Justice P. Stewart:

“I shall not today attempt further to define [obscenity]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it….”

Come to think of it....that is what I would prefer. That everyone have their personal view. The only thing I would ask is that---they keep that view to themselves, including and especially, the government, which, last time I checked, worked for me.

JohnM

Photos of a ewe's behind could be highly titillating to someone heavily into bestiality - while to most of us they just are illustrations of a ewe's behind. Pornography is and always will be in the eye of the beholder, and as such impossible to legislate against in a free society. Trying to do so is and always will be folly. This doesn't mean that fools won't keep trying.

Perhaps the word pornography itself should be banned.

Our material, as well as Bluestone, Susyfight, Peter, and others is well known for not including graphic scenes of sexual intercourse.

That however is not going to make it less shocking or filthy in the eyes of someone who doesn't understand the erotic horror genre than those producers who include actual sexual intercourse in their films.

There are those who would ban the Victoria's Secret Catalogue because they consider it to be "porn" or exploitation.

These people would take one look at me in my gown from Cannibal Night and say
"Disgusting. She must be a porn actress"

There is no winning with that type.

I think we all need to have much more fun in producing our material. Certainly we are also running businesses, but why not remember why we chose this type of business in the first place?

Baci

JohnM wrote:"Pornography is the portrayal subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction."

Using that definition, a huge number of todays [Broadcast] TV ads would be "pornographic. So would a large number of magazine and newspaper advertising at least to some people.

Pornography, like beauty, exists in the eyes and mind of the beholder. It is, therefore, not easily defined, if it is capable of being defined at all. Obscenity is, at the very best, a gray area, with a spectrum that is very broad.

The Western World has long been subject to "consensus values" which really determine what is and is not acceptable. These, largely unwritten, but well understood "boundries" determine what is acceptable to societies and communities. Probably most people would agree that extremes of obscenity - bestiality and child porn, to name a couple of examples, constitute pornography. As a Libertarian, I don't like the idea of government defining what is moral and what is not; as a parent and grand parent, my opposition to "control" and "regulation' backs up a little. Child Molesters would definitely not like my brand of justice.

As far as the rules here, well, they are certainly tolerant and reasonable.

If it's created for the express purpose of getting someone off, it's fair to call it pornography.

leone wrote:If it's created for the express purpose of getting someone off, it's fair to call it pornography.

I get off on a good Verdi Opera..."Trovatore" in particular.

I get off on Pavarotti's High C

I get off on a man's raw talent or intellect

(wealth for it's own sake means nothing to me)

I get off on a great Beethoevn Symphony

(but not the bad ones)

And I get off on a beautiful women even though I am not a lesbian
(Well I could be persuaded with Paola but...that's another story)

None of the above are the least bit pornographic...

So one asks yet again...what is pornography?...or better still does this word still have meaning?

Baci

But those things weren't created with the express purpose of getting you off (and obviously, I'm speaking strictly about getting off sexually). The vids created by producers in our community, no matter how well made, clever or subversive around the edges, are created specifically because someone is buying them to pleasure themselves to. :)

But that is my exact point.

If something that is sexually thrilling has been placed in something that is artistic on the whole
it is the sexual thrill that sells it, not the artistic integrity.

"Carmen" is a sex murder, pure and simple. Audience members want to see Carmen get what she deserves.

She uses sex to control men until it backfires on her. But it is sex itself...Carmen's sexiness and the fact that the sexy evil woman will die a well deserved death before the evening is done...that gets people to go and see that show.

"Carmen" was considered ponographically indecent at its premiere...It was not a "flop" at all in the traditional sense, but simply a flop with stuffy critics who called it "pornography" while the typical French audience member went off to see this masterpiece of sex and violence for himself. Some no doubt took their mistresses but left their wives at home

The same was true of Rigoletto, Traviata...in Wagner's Walkyrie a brother and sister have sex with each other....

You can bet that these sexual elements were used to draw audiences of the day precisely because the conservative critics protested all of the cheap filthy and disgusting tricks the composers and producers used to lure audiences. Goodness "Traviata" is about a high priced call girl with a sexually transmitted disease who lures a young man from a good family to her summer cottage. She dies spitting up blood. (Sound familiar?)

Now these operas are considered art because they have stood the test of time.

I am striving to migle art sex and violence. My films are not meant for children or the squeamish, but they are artistic and sexual at the same time.

There is no reason why I can't try to do both.

I would say the same thing about producers such as John M, even thoguh his material containts actual sexual intercourse.

He has the right to make them artistic if he so chooses.

You are free to call it all "pornography". That is your right. But that is also why I say that the word no longer has any impact.

Some called each opera I just named "disgusting filth" and "pornography" a hundred and fifty years ago because they thought those works to be just that. History has proven them wrong.

The jury is still out with our material.

Now I have to go off and do a very artistic high minded strangle

Referring to Dalila point above. I make my movies the way I do to sell movies so I can make more movies. But, my movies are an art and a passion to me. I don't make my movies to "get myself of". And, when I make a movie, I never think about how people are going to view them only in that, I hope they enjoy them. How they enjoy them is their business.

JohnM

I am about to go to sleep after a long shoot, but I just read John's post...

As I said before he has the right to combine art, sex and commercial elements to make the kind of movie he wants to make...and wants to watch himself...

If the word "porn" is used by John himself to market his films...then yes..he makes porn.

If it is used by others to condemn his films then I suggest you re-read my comments about 19th century opera and how much of it was condemned as "porn".

I am the last person who would condemn anyone for filming his or her fantasy.

That is what I have been doing for the last six years.

Sleep well everyone...and dream about..well...you know!

JohnM wrote: I make my movies the way I do to sell movies so I can make more movies. But, my movies are an art and a passion to me. I don't make my movies to "get myself of". And, when I make a movie, I never think about how people are going to view them only in that, I hope they enjoy them. How they enjoy them is their business.

JohnM

Well, I can agree with most of what JohnM wrote. We all have to create something that's marketable... unless we want to be starving artists who hope that their material will be viewed by future generations when we're long gone It is a passion for me. I do enjoy what I film and consider it true art... but I also selfishly film what I find erotic, and I do get off on this stuff, and know that others do too. To say otherwise, for me at least, would not be the truth. I enjoy my films immensely, and find them very... let's say 'stimulating'

Blue

Blue---it more that when I watch my movies, I see people I know--some are friends. I cannot get off watching my friends acting. It is just weird. I look to other producers work. Therein lies the next problem. Technical issues, editing styles and choices, all serve to distract me. It is a rough time to fine something that works. I have 1000's of movies, but only a few to repeat view.

JohnM

I agree, the term 'pornographic' like many other demonizing terms is a moving target meaning virtually anything. Instead of trying to define the word 'pornography' - use your definition for the word 'pornography' as the text in your rule. "No pics that show explicit sexual behavior."

An interesting anecdote when it comes to words that resist strict definition: 'Paraphilia'. One adult advertiser (Black Label Ads) kept turning down my sites - even really generic sites like 'WeirdandSexy.com' and 'DeadlyAmazons.com' for containing 'paraphilia' - really? WHAT paraphilia? HOW do you define paraphilia? The guy I was emailing couldn't define paraphilia as a specific anything, gave up and finally approved my sites. :) BTW: Absolutely terrible program, don't use them.