Angry..do you see this as ok?

Lotus-eater

janninew wrote: »

Why the need to insult me? Because I believe that people in !!!!!! are real? You've even said people in !!!!!! 'are mostly real people in it, with real reactions and actions.' I except that some acting takes place, especially in big budget productions, but what about amateur !!!!!! which is very readily available? Aren't these just normal couples who film themselves and put it on the internet to be viewed? I just don't understand how they can be classed as 'not real people.'

You need to go back and read my posts again and all will be explained.

janninew

Lotus-eater wrote: »

You need to go back and read my posts again and all will be explained.

I've read your posts thanks and when insults starting being used and posters start swearing at others simply because they have a different view point I no longer wish to join in.

MeganKate

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

I think you did.

Alternatively, I'm not sure what you meant by being prepared to have sex 5 times a day with them to ensure they don't stray - which they (all) will. (paraphrased but go back and have a read if you still think you didn't say/imply this.)

Whilst I agree with Lotus Eater's point about men and sex drive to a degree, it does slow down with less sex. Isn't there a saying about the more men have sex (orgasm) the more they want it, but the more women have it, the less they do? I also think now is an opportune time to bring religion into this hot debate, because self control is advocated in the Bible. :rotfl:

Er no, I said are you prepared to make up for [him not being allowed to watch !!!!!!] by having sex with him instead. I didnt mention that he would stray if she didnt.

So are you suggesting that men should have less sex so that they need it less? whats wrong with just going with what their bodies tell them? you only live once after all, might as well enjoy it!

the_cat

Jeez the poor OP must be regretting ever starting this!

green1970

I'm going to jump into this one too. There's obviously a market for !!!!!! and the bigger Hollywood companies you would think would be more legit in their recruitment of actors - you would hope that these actors aren't co-erced in any way. However, it seems that the movies offered by the bigger companies aren't hitting the spot any more which is why the amateur stuff has caught on more. But who would put their home movie out there, what if one party changes their mind, what if they didn't know it was going out into the wild at all. Who would be okay with their daughter making amateur movies and putting them out their as a personal service to the nation's masturbation needs? You kid yourself if you think you're not encouraging something far more sinister and unless you're watching a movie where the production company are open and clear about their employment methods, you don't know what's going on behind the scenes.

Gingham_R

http://www.hsexweek.org/workers-rights-in-the-!!!!!!-industry/ Great comment from 'Harvard Sex Week' - American obviously but relevant here too.

MeganKate

Actually one point is that you would think men would feel worse about watching !!!!!! that women, as most of the blokes have huge members that can keep going for hours, which is hardly very 'real life' !!

(apologies to any men reading that do have huge members and can go for hours)

Lotus-eater

Gingham_R wrote: »

Don't swear at me. I'm not disagreeing with you. The sex is real, the people are real, their excitement/pleasure/the circumstances are not real.

I'm objecting to people saying that the people in !!!!!! aren't real. They are. I'm objecting to people saying the women are turned on - they're probably not, as you seem to agree. I'm pointing out that there is coercion and abuse within the industry. This is not new knowledge, nor does it mean that all the women, or even most of them are forced into it. Nor did I imply otherwise.

They are as real as the actors you see on the telly, is that alright? Of course they are real people, but the person they are portraying on the tv isn't them, it's a personality they put on (acting)

Some of the actors are turned on, some aren't, I find it difficult to tell sometimes tbh, some are very good actors.

You're really nit picking because you want to get over your case about the abuse of women in !!!!!!. Which I have no interest in debating on this therad, I was debating the use of !!!!!! in relationships.

Gingham_R

MeganKate wrote: »

Er no, I said are you prepared to make up for [him not being allowed to watch !!!!!!] by having sex with him instead. I didnt mention that he would stray if she didnt.

Actually you did, depending on your definition of 'stray'. You said he'd 'go behind her back'.

Lotus-eater

MeganKate wrote: »

Actually one point is that you would think men would feel worse about watching !!!!!! that women, as most of the blokes have huge members that can keep going for hours, which is hardly very 'real life' !!

(apologies to any men reading that do have huge members and can go for hours)

No worries.