2001 channel 4 documentary on porn

[darleneconnor]

hcdocu.blogspot.com/

The best anti-porn evidence I've seen.

(Please watch with caution, some scenes are upsetting)

Just to precise, after what happened upthread, I am of course quoting the bastards in porn with my use of the word 'whore'.

Beachcomber, fantastic post, thank you.

Thank you. Sorry about the woman/women typos - must proofread!

Beachcomber - thank you, very helpful post.

This documentary has sparked a lot of discussion in my household. I was talking to DP this morning about the bit where MH just starts having sex with Felicity and it brought up all sorts of questions... things we discussed around:

He didn't gain explicit consent from her before doing it, therefore surely it is rape. But was her using the lubricant on him implied consent? (leaving aside the coercion/money aspects/her vulnerability for now).

About how you could see from her face how she really felt and that she really didn't know how the hell to stop it or say no or get out of there. Reminded me a lot of myself when I was 16 with 24 year old men, the not knowing what the hell to do and how to get out of the situation

About how in relationships you wouldnt get explicit consent each time you had sex but you would obviously get implied consent, I suppose I mean you kiss you partner, he kisses you back, things progress, at each stage you would assume that if your partner responds then they are consenting. Not quite sure why we started talking about this but it followed on from talking about explicit consent I think.

It was obvious that the nasty pimp took her to MH to get her to see everything else as 'normal' almost and at least 'better than that'.

I think it also shocked me how low Felicity's self esteem was that she would listen to MH's rather obvious tricks to try to get her to carry on and actually fall for it. His 'logic' was along the lines of that I use on my 6 year old 'I bet you can't get dressed in 2 minutes' type stuff. The fact that she actually 'broke' under it showed me that she was obviously in a very difficult place emotionally, and just the sort of person they prey on

Sorry just rambling. Documentary has raised a lot of questions/thoughts with me.

No, I don't think her using the lubricant is implied consent at all. She was in a situation of being coerced; she was naked in unfamiliar surroundings and fully clothed men frightening her and pressuring her. We cannot put aside the element of money/vulnerability as they are part and parcel of the whole thing.

MH raping her like that within seconds of meeting her, is a manipulative technique to unnerve/destabilise her and put her in a context. (His context of fucked up misogyny - the 'rules' by which the real world functions have already been blown apart by him raping her on film in front of other people as though he was doing nothing more than cracking open a beer.)

He has already put his cock up her anus and vagina so she might as well get on with things now and at least do a scene and get paid for having his cock in her. Plus she was already in a state of dissociation due to him raping her.

Remember she went there 'just to talk'. Within seconds she had been raped and penetrated - minutes later she was doing extremely hardcore violent porn with a psychopath.

Techniques like these are used on girls and women in prostitution too.

Good points thank you, I think it was interesting to see the societal conditioning of 'don't scream/shout/cause a scene' in action as well. I could see she felt frozen but society tells you you should be nice to everyone and not cause a fuss so she just sort of got on with it.

It shocked me that MH did it all on film too (the Chnl 4 doc), if he acts like that with them there what the hell is he like when there's no one but his cronies watching?

That's exactly what I thought Fuppy, what does he do to the women he sees who don't have documentary film crew following them?

I have had nightmares since watching this documentary. I cannot believe some of the dismissive/she-knew-what-she-was-getting-into posts.

Stewie.

I was not being stupid - you misunderstood, made an asumption then were very agressive and rude.

I asked if porn showing beastiality and necro were illegal. Did you assume I meant some kind of documentary where everything was real, where boobs are made of flesh and where the man in the plumbers uniform really does fix the tap?!?!?!!?

Beachcomber - I think what you said was really interested and what i hoped to hear/learn from on this thread. So you think i was wrong in suggesting she was driven by money and that she feared that chap [I use chap generally for 'male' so please don;t misunderstand and I think I am trivialising this].

I think I am correct Mumble to say that necrophelia and bestiality are illegal!!

Very late to the thread but watched the documentary last night and found it really disturbing.

Max Hardcore looks like the fucking devil when he is raping that woman. Absolutely shocking and disturbing.

Is this where we get to chorus 'but porn is real' again?

Thanks for your comment mumble, I think you have a lot of thinking to do on this issue - as we all do when we start out confronting the realities of porn (that those are real women who really are being penetrated like that).

Its really not a stupid question.

People filming adults having sex with children is illegal, films showing adults having sex with adults dressed up as school girls isn;t.

Obviously somebody film an adult having sex with a dead person is illegal, but I asked if it was illegal if the dead person was actually alive and acting.

Now, if that is clear and you still want to mock me being interested in somthing and not having all the answers feel free. Not really in the spirit of mumsnet that.

Also beach, I didnlt suggest the penatration wasn;t real but the sadism - i.e. when she was being slapped and called names after signing a form that said this was OK.

I;m not suggesting that all porn is free from abuse but stillf eel I;m being incredibly misunderstood.

Chorus all you like. I really really do know what chorus means. Beachcomber, do you think your attidutude on this thread encourages thinking about it? Or just calls them stupid? Unfit to teach? Bad parent etc...

mumble - i dont think your understanding perhaps the type of porn Max Hardcore makes

im sorry to repeat this but in some of his films he has used a speculum to open a womans anus to the most extreme level before urinating inside her and having her then suck it back out with a length of hose - i think thats abuse and i think that is real, its not acting, being beaten is real, watching him force his fingers down a girls throat to make her vomit is real, its not acted - google him and if you can watch some of the vidoes on the web that are made by him and still say its all acted out and not remotely abusive then i think you may have a problem. Felicity in that film ran screaming and crying from the room after he had choked her and stopped her breathing. she told him she felt abused. she said she didnt want to carry on - and he then coerced and cajoled and bullied and swore at her until she was ready to carry on.
some porn, is acting. its what i used to think porn was, old school, plumber comes to fix tap and fucks someone over a kitchen table. the type of porn Hardcore makes is not remotely like this - he wants to abuse young woman on film because some people get off on it. he is a very very sick man. im shocked that anyone could watch the documentary linked from OP in full and not be shocked.
have you watched the whole thing?

Has anyone got any research on why this sort of gross porn (not that its not all gross) is getting more and more popular/prevalent?

Is it because its now available? So men would always have wanted it but wasn't available before?

Or because once you've seen more extreme porn you get desensitised and therefore want more and more 'nasty' stuff? Like with horror films.

Or because as women are getting better jobs/more equality (more than before) this is a way for men to regain control and 'fight back'?

Might be a feminism 101 question, apologies if it is, it just struck me as strange that theres a call for this nasty crap.

I have never really given any great deal of thought to porn before this thread. However it has really opened my mind and I have learned a lot. Especially the stuff about the women who are usually victims of rape, childhood sexual abuse, drug addiction etc. I have always been against prostitution and now it seems that porn is just prostitution being filmed and then viewed....

You said it K999 - porn is filmed prostitution.

And prostitution is pay to rape.

Therefore porn is filmed pay to rape.

The purpose of porn is to wank to pay to rape images. (One purpose -there are others which are even more sinister.)

And that this is legal, in so called civilised society, is a human rights travesty and a fairly obvious manifestation of the oppression of women. Welcome to the sex class - it's not a nice feeling is it?

SGM - Thank you, will go have a look.

I think Dines puts it down to desensitisation and internet sites competing with each other, so it's like an arms race as to which one can be the most outrageous and thus get the most attention and hence the most hits.

'Or because as women are getting better jobs/more equality (more than before) this is a way for men to regain control and 'fight back'?'

I think that one sounds likely but it would be hard for anyone to prove.

'Is it because its now available? So men would always have wanted it but wasn't available before?'

I hope not - it would be such a depressing view of men. I think with sex, people are conditioned to want particular things, and they want this stuff because they've been taught to want it, not because that is the way their sexuality will inevitably be. But the general view of women in the patriarchy makes it a logical step: if men are taught to hate women they will be more likely to want to express that through violent porn.

I think it has spread due to our permissive society, which was encouraged by the progressives and liberals. Mary Whitehouse knew what would happen and fought against it. George Bush and the Christian right were against it, the Church is against it, so I don't think it is about men trying to stop women advancing.

It is a deliberate policy by certain elements to undermine society, as Mary Whitehouse was aware. It is the same as the extreme horror films which now proliferate and the glamourisation of drugs, violence and prostitution that we see on our TVs, in music videos and Hollywood movies.