Misogynistic lines/attitudes from porn does it bother you ?

anonymous_joe

CDfm wrote: »

yes but Ive seen war movies and used firearms in sport.

but that doesnt make me go down the road and take over mcdonalds.

Young guys see movies -but I doubt very much that informs their views.

its like they have spent 17 or 18 years with their mother bringing them up - go to school with girls etc and suddenly when faced with sex turn into movie guy. thats stretching it.

some people might experiment with what they see in movies but i imagine -thats car chase movies

lets not forget its two concenting adults - so the likliehood of being told get oput of dodge if your partner doesnt like it is almost totally guaranteed

I didn't go to school with girls. :P

I think it's easy to dismiss the influence of these things when you yourself aren't influenced by it. I'm not going to treat a woman the way she'd be treated in a porn film because I know it's not going to be appreciated (unless that's the frame of mind that the pair of ya are trying to achieve) and I also don't find it insanely erotic to treat some poor girl as an object. (Curse my gentlemanly nature. ) Some people would find their manliness quotient/self-worth increased by this behaviour. That can to an extent be attributed to porn and culture in general. There's a lot of kudos invovled in getting as many partners as possible, and the general clichéd moniker lad culture is usually cited as the cause of all this. But some attitudes can't help but be encouraged by porn - because other than experimentation - where else will you see sex?

CDfm

anonymous_joe wrote: »

I didn't go to school with girls. :P

I'm not going to treat a woman the way she'd be treated in a porn film ...... Some people would find their manliness quotient/self-worth increased by this behaviour. That can to an extent be attributed to porn and culture in general. But some attitudes can't help but be encouraged by porn - because other than experimentation - where else will you see sex?

Well Joe the time has come to ask. Have you ever treated a woman like a porn actress?

Was it initiated by you or by her or was it mutual?

And I suppose the same question could be answered by anyone who feels like fessing up.

Me well its not my bag.

metrovelvet

anonymous_joe wrote: »

But some attitudes can't help but be encouraged by porn - because other than experimentation - where else will you see sex?

It's not the sex that makes a film pornographic, it's the attitude behind the lens.

You can see sex everywhere; a good place to start would be your imagination.

CDfm

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's not the sex that makes a film pornographic, it's the attitude behind the lens.

You can see sex everywhere; a good place to start would be your imagination.

what about the finished movie.

if it tittilates someone then is it porn?

Is its pornograshic content define by the viewer(audience) ie seeing a medical programm on sex - is it porn if it turns someone on?

metrovelvet

CDfm wrote: »

what about the finished movie.

if it tittilates someone then is it porn?

Is its pornograshic content define by the viewer(audience) ie seeing a medical programm on sex - is it porn if it turns someone on?

In my opinion, none of these things qualify something as pornographic. In my opinion, it is a directorial attitude which makes it so: the best definition of porn I have heard is "sex without emotion or responsibility."

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

Could it be perhaps that women are more influenced by image and advertising than you all want to admit.

Are you serious?

CDfm wrote: »

Women want to be cast in super lovely roles. I thought Nicole Kidman would be perfect as Mrs Goebbels.For most actresses taking on a role as an evil depraved woman would upset their financials. What they mean by an absence of good roles is sexy female godess roles. Take Farrah Fawcett - she played a battered housewife in a movie but in real life was prosecuted for battering her husband. There are plenty of lower budget crime movies that show women in less heroic lights - if they were willing to take the risk. Money is worth more than integrity methinks.

Are you serious? So women, who already get paid less than men in Hollywood, need to take pay cuts to get the roles with "integrity" in them. As if the big-budget roles for men have any integrity? The whole point is that these big roles do not exist in Hollywood for women - so in a way, you've proved my point. Thanks. And I'm not really sure what Farrah Fawcett's personal life has to do with this.

CDfm wrote: »

And come off it. Gymnastics - the demand is from women.Any guy watching them in a pub would be called a perve. There are enslaved kids in the middle east in camel racing.

Seriously, I can't even keep up with the random tangents you're taking this discussion. Camels in the Middle East..?? In my house, we watched all the sports, especially the diving and the gymnastics because of the sheer skill of it. I didn't find it pervy for my dad, boyfriend or brother to be watching, just as it wasn't pervy for me to be watching the 14-year old Tom Daley of the UK compete. Oh but wait, is it only men that can be pervy? Again, I think you're projecting your own opinion.

CDfm wrote: »

Mayo isnt a guy food. Plenty of gay themes are used by guinness from time to time -those ads dont get pulled. You must be aware of the advertising push on laxatives to women. You cant be that isolated. Its fairly gross if you ask me. Theres not even warnings- like use laxatives sensibly.

CDfm wrote: »

There is a lot of stereotyping on how bad it is to be a man. Men cant cook blah blah blah. I can shop better than most women.

Er...so you say that mayo isn't a guy food and then complain about bad male stereotyping?? Really don't know what to say there.

CDfm wrote: »

but misogynist attitudes in porn affecting attitudes to women- nah...women have changed in all kinds of ways and want the world to change totally for them...its like saying we work on building sites now so we want them swear free and pc -so they want to integrate into what they percieve is a manworld but pretty it all up

I have had strange men walk up to me in bars and say things like "great tits", as if I would be honoured by the compliment. The effect is there, that some men think it's acceptable to speak to women as if they're in a porn movie.

There was a case in the news yesterday of a male construction worker being sexually harassed on a building site. Do you think this is acceptable? Or is it just OK to harass women because they happen to work in a male-dominated work environment? Your "put up or shut up" attitude is quite disgraceful. I really think your comments about women wanting to change the world totally for them are quite silly. You're really starting to show your sexist attitudes now.

CDfm wrote: »

its also like saying that women arent involved in the porn industry and benefit financialy - or even own or run it.

Now hang on, a while ago you were saying that women run the porn industry (but have yet to provide any proof of this NWO of the porn world) and now you're suggesting people say that women aren't involved in porn or benefit financially-no one here has said that.

Zulu

I think want this boils down to is:
1) Do you believe media influences people?
2) To what extent does media influence people??

I'm of the opinion that media can, to a very limited sence, influence us. I believe the first time I saw an add for coco-pops, I wanted to try them out. Rice chrispies + chocolate = sounds ggggrrrreeeaaattt! (Sorry Tony)
However, Robocop came out in 1987 when I was 9 and I got the video for my birthday. I watched it about 4/5 times that weekend and loved it. Did I want to be Robocop - sure. Do I want to kill people - no. The simple fact of the matter is, I'm human, and I've the ability to consider my actions. I can restrict my impulses.

As for porn, I think I was around 11 when I first came across it. It was rife in my secondary school, and naturally since the internet I've seen quite a volume of it. Has it affected my interactions/opinions of women? Absolutely not. It's acting (sic). It's not real.

I wonder, if some posters here examined their own prejudices a little more closely, would they find that there fear stems from a lack of respect for young men? A belief that men can't really distinguish the difference and worry about the impact?

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

I have had strange men walk up to me in bars and say things like "great tits", as if I would be honoured by the compliment. The effect is there, that some men think it's acceptable to speak to women as if they're in a porn movie.

But is that because of the porn movie or the asshole? Maybe you have got great tits.
Lets face it, that the porn out of the equation and a random man in a pub is still likely to say that. I don't blame porn for getting the odd pinch/smack on the ass.

Macha

Zulu wrote: »

But is that because of the porn movie or the asshole? Maybe you have got great tits.
Lets face it, that the porn out of the equation and a random man in a pub is still likely to say that. I don't blame porn for getting the odd pinch/smack on the ass.

I just gave it as one example-I could give many more personaly experiences, experiences of friends and there have been many examples given here of porn entering the mainstream and its effects - the quality of my breasts are not the issue.

I'm not disrespecting anyone by saying people are influenced by what they see. I'm talking about men and women. All those girls wearing skirts up their arses and tottering around in high heels - even on Junior Cert results nights?? I'm not leaving girls out of the equation at all!

Bottom line: if advertising didn't influence, companies wouldn't spend the billions on it that they do. I suggest anyone interested in this read "Blink" by Malcom Gladwell. Great book. For example, the company 7 Up decided to change the colour of their can to make it more yellow. A few days later, they start getting calls from people complaining about the company changing the recipe for the drink and now it's too lemony. They hadn't changed the recipe at all!! Do I think these people are stupid? No. Advertising plays on our subconsciousness. Do I think these people were affected by a change in advertising? Yes.

BTW Zulu, did you have a look at the website?

Zulu

taconnol wrote: »

BTW Zulu, did you have a look at the website?

I did. I was great.
Honestly though, I just couldn't take it seriously. I really got the impression it was a joke to provoke controversy. It is fairly sad, but it didn't really bother me too much. I wouldn't say it would negativity impact my opinion of women. I took it all tongue-in-cheek.


...and boy, would I like to have gotten my tounge into some of those cheeks!

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

Are you serious? So women, who already get paid less than men in Hollywood, need to take pay cuts to get the roles with "integrity" in them. As if the big-budget roles for men have any integrity? The whole point is that these big roles do not exist in Hollywood for women - so in a way, you've proved my point. Thanks. And I'm not really sure what Farrah Fawcett's personal life has to do with this.

Actors draw more money. It's not a line, or a made up stat, it's simply that films with male leads will draw more money than films with female leads. In Hollywood you payment is represented by how much money you can pull in. There lists of "value" on actors and actress is very interesting, it shows how much money the pull in per dollar paid. It's not a case of female actors getting paid less, if it was then all male actors would be paid more than all female actors. This is not the case.

Getting paid in Hollywood is not even about your ability to act. The majority of years, the top ten paid male and females actors will not hold an Oscar between them, maybe not even a nomination.

It's all about the draw.

Galvasean

To further Dragan's point, Forbes recently did a list of Hollywood's top 10 most overpaid actors (ie: those who consistently bring in the least amount of money per film in comparison to how much they got paid) recently. Turns out statistically speaking Nicole Kidman (a woman shock horror) is the most overpaid A lister.
Source:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26660981/

Other females on the list: Jennifer Garner, Cameron Diaz, Jennifer Lopez, Drew Barrymore, Cate Blanchett.
For the record the men who made the list were: Jim Carrey, Tom Cruise, Nic Cage, Will Ferrell.
Source

So can we finally put to rest this outdated notion that female actors arent paid enough?
How much can a female A lister earn?

Galvasean

taconnol wrote: »

Are you serious? So women, who already get paid less than men in Hollywood, need to take pay cuts to get the roles with "integrity" in them. As if the big-budget roles for men have any integrity?

Don't be so harsh on the men. Take Christian Bale for example who frequently takes pay cuts to pursue roles of integrity. The Machinist being one example. It didn't exactly make him look like a heartthrob, but it sure did stretch his abilities. Johnny Depp is also prone to taking pay cuts to take on less glamorous roles.

Dragan

Galvasean wrote: »

Don't be so harsh on the men. Take Christian Bale for example who frequently takes pay cuts to pursue roles of integrity. The Machinist being one example. It didn't exactly make him look like a heartthrob, but it sure did stretch his abilities. Johnny Depp is also prone to taking pay cuts to take on less glamorous roles.

Throw in Jason Patrick and Ray Liota, who both worked on Narc for free because they believed in the film and the producers didn't have the budget to pay them.

Jeff Bridges worked for a pittance to make The Big Lebowski.

The precident is there for plenty of actors who take a step down in pay to do a role that they really want to do.

Macha

Look, last year Russel Crowe was the most overpaid actor in Hollywood. So if we were having this convseration last year, the facts would be different. Sorry, I'd look at those sort of stats long term, not year-to-year. One bad flop and you can be at the top of the list - good film (American Gangster in the case of Crowe) and you're out of the woods.

But if it were a long-term trend I'd be willing to accept it. But it would raise issues about the quality of the scripts for actresses imo.

Galvasean

I'm sorry taconnel but I can't figure out your angle on this. Are you seriously trying to tell me women don't get paid enough in the film industry? Utter nonsense. Glancing back over the last decade female actors are commanding huge salaries for their work. They can earn $20million dollars for one film. Sure Will Smith is the highest earning actor currently, but his films make a big return on investment so the companies see him as a sound investment.

I just don't see why you are trying to make such a big deal out of nothing. The world didn't out to get you.

Macha

Galvasean, I didn't even bring this subject up and it's a complete tangent to the points I am trying to make so no I don't think the world is out to get me. You point to Johnny Depp as taking lower paid roles to ensure his credibility yet it may come as a surprise to find he's actually the 2nd highest paid actor in Hollywood, after Will Smith. This whole hollywood thing is getting away from the actually quite interesting discussion we were having.

Dragan

taconnol wrote: »

Look, last year Russel Crowe was the most overpaid actor in Hollywood. So if we were having this convseration last year, the facts would be different. Sorry, I'd look at those sort of stats long term, not year-to-year. One bad flop and you can be at the top of the list - good film (American Gangster in the case of Crowe) and you're out of the woods.

But if it were a long-term trend I'd be willing to accept it. But it would raise issues about the quality of the scripts for actresses imo.

Indeed, but that would largely mean that Russel Crowe as an actor was overpaid for his work that year, not that all men are bad actors or that they are overpaid.

The same applies to Nicole Kidman, overpaid for her work that year, not meaning she his a bad actress or all women are overpaid in films.

It's also pointless to look at such things long term in an individual basis because actors don't have a salary. Money earned will be negotiated when they sign on for the film and it will vary from film to film depending on that budget. As such, you would be lacking a foundation metric to work from, would need to clash salary versus box office takings and apply the mean of all that actor or actresses salaries over the course of the time frame you are looking at.

By and large it will come back that it's a different person each year, that it can be male or female and i would hazard a guess that it is a pretty even split year on year.

No market is more fickle that movie audiences after all.

As for script quality, once again the main issue here is the draw. There are small and independant films with amazing roles for female actresses, there roles and films often end up being the break out film for the lead and the director involved.

The simple fact though is that no actress ever wants to touch them because they feel they will not get paid enough. Thats grand, but lending their name and star power would do great things for that film and most likely would allow them to command a much larger salary for their next studio piece.

As for scripts for big studios, as already said, they normally work to formula, certain things make money, other things don't and most Studio's are in the business of making money, it just so happens to be through film.

If the scripts are weak, or if the positions are not there, then you simply ask where are all the female script writers, actresses, producers, directors etc that are working on projects that will create strong roles for a female lead?

The answer is they are not working on them because the market is not there to sell them.

If the issue is with anyone it is with the cinema going audience.

This then begs the question of why the audience does not like to see strong female leads? Maybe they are just boring, poorly written, maybe the cinema going audience is predominantly attracted to action films that would traditionally star males leads? I have no idea.

The interesting thing, and the tie in to all this, is that in porn it is the women who get paid. Not the men.

Galvasean

taconnol wrote: »

You point to Johnny Depp as taking lower paid roles to ensure his credibility yet it may come as a surprise to find he's actually the 2nd highest paid actor in Hollywood

No surprise really. A lot of actors use smaller more challenging roles as a platform to showcase their talents which in turn gets them the megabucks offers. Even Nicole Kidman does it too (looking back I may have come across as being harsh on her in my earlier post). It's good business as well as being fulfilling for them.

- last thing I say about Hollywood. Can we agree that many actors (male and female) are in fact overpaid for their work?

Nevyn

So can the same be said about porn, main stream porn ?
They work to a formula with clear genderised roles prepetuating what we see in hollywood ?
Which considering how many Frank Miller movies these days by hollywood means there is a pretty low standard to begin with.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well, no. They are paid based on market rates for their services and their supposed box office draw. It's all completely above board and legitamite.

Galvasean

Thaedydal wrote: »

So can the same be said about porn, main stream porn ?
They work to a formula with clear genderised roles prepetuating what we see in hollywood ?

It is an interesting point. Usually in movie (as in Hollywood mainstream) sex scenes it is the woman we see crying out with orgasms of desire while the guy 'does' her. Generally you have to look to the more arty/fringe films to see a sex scene where the man isn't calling the shots so to speak.

edit: was that Frank Miller bit an edit?

Dragan

Thaedydal wrote: »

So can the same be said about porn, main stream porn ?
They work to a formula with clear genderised roles prepetuating what we see in hollywood ?
Which considering how many Frank Miller movies these days by hollywood means there is a pretty low standard to begin with.

Exactly! It's all just done to formula. Setting = bedroom, office, living room. **** dialogue, blow job, he goes down on her, uses fingers, she says "oh god, uuuuuuuh, oh god", penetration, missionary, he says "oh yeah baby, you like that", she says "yaaaaah, yaaaaaah" ( it's never "yeah" ), her on top, doggy style, maybe anal, back to blow job, male finishes up whilst female tells him how much she wants it on her face.....end.

Why? Because it sells. And until it doesn't sell they will not be forced to change the formula.

Macha

Galvasean wrote: »

- last thing I say about Hollywood. Can we agree that many actors (male and female) are in fact overpaid for their work?

Yes! definitely. And Dragan may be right that the issue is with the audience, not the people who run Hollywood.

Edit: I have to say, I never realised how much they were all getting paid until now. Looking at those figures on the Forbes website is a bit sickening.

Galvasean

Oh it's definately the audience. The producers could care less what kind of films they throw out as long as people keep paying to see it. :mad:

edit: the smiley isn't directed at anyone. Click him to discover the cause of his anguish.

Macha

Well I suppose it's like Britney Spears: just because it sells well, doesn't mean it's any good.

Nevyn

Thing is unless they have the option to pay for something else they will pay for what there is.

Yes the miller bit was an edit.

Macha

I suppose the other point to make is just because women want one thing in their sex lives, doesn't mean they want it in, say their work life. I'm sure some women love being ordered around the bedroom by their partner but that doesn't mean they want a controlling boss (be they male or female).

And guys who like being dominated in the bedroom, same thing.

anonymous_joe

CDfm wrote: »

Well Joe the time has come to ask. Have you ever treated a woman like a porn actress?

Was it initiated by you or by her or was it mutual?

And I suppose the same question could be answered by anyone who feels like fessing up.

Me well its not my bag.

Well I've never video'd someone and then paid them before marketing it.

And actually that type of sex was mutual, but something we'd talked about previously (sometimes a bit of planning's fun ) and she'd suggested it.

metrovelvet wrote: »

It's not the sex that makes a film pornographic, it's the attitude behind the lens.

You can see sex everywhere; a good place to start would be your imagination.

Sure you can see sex in your imagination, what I mean is, take your average 15 or 16 year old, other than porn or their imagination, where are they going to see sex? I had far more sex education regarding STI's than I did about the actual deed itself. Bad side of Catholic education, but seriously, where else are young people's views going to be formed?

Oh and regarding all the people who talked about actor's and actresses - pornography is a business. They want to make pots and pots of money. Thus, they'll make what they know people want and will consume. Until demand changes, supply will remain the same.

Galvasean

Thaedydal wrote: »

Thing is unless they have the option to pay for something else they will pay for what there is.

Assuming we're still talking about porn, trust me there are options..