Anselm_Weinberg wrote:I don't give a shit about whether there is piss or not, if it were up to me regular NHB without piss would mostly make me happy, though I am also cool with piss, but my modest point is that what is successful can and should not be reduced to what I personally like or dislike.
The point is that LP core studios became known for their hardcore anal gangbangs. This is what people come to see and this is what differentiates this site from the "normal" mainstream, and this is at its core what this site should remain.
Okay. But, if that's what "the site should remain," and then there's a facet of the site that indulges in another act that, by all intents and purposes, completely destroys that original objective, then ...
where does that leave pissing?Anselm_Weinberg wrote:Piss hasn't even entered the conversation at this point but it just happened to become extremely popular and it would be irresponsible to risk alienating customers who have come to expect this in their porn, which one can speculate, aside from short-term assured profits, is one of the reasons studios won't simply mess around and try go back to the old "glory days" without piss and what have you. And the latter would only make sense if there was some truth to your speculation about certain market dynamics, something that is more than doubtful.
So where does that leave pissing?
By all intents and purposes - as a completely different section of the site, no? As I originally stated. Create a "It's Raining Men" series - and even try to include your gangbangs into that if you want - but then
leave the other studios alone to achieve their original purpose.What's the problem? Will people suddenly not be interested in piss simply because it doesn't have the "Legalporno" moniker besides it? Even if it's made by the same people? And features all the same actresses who would be interested in doing such scenes? Why did the one half have to get sacrificed for the other?
It makes no sense. Business or otherwise. Because the people who didn't like pissing have
long gone for the most part. And what every studio is left with is a shuddered legacy where they desperately try to maintain a flow of models who are interested in performing the act for an audience that doesn't particularly hold them to any standards for beauty or originality or anything otherwise, so long as somebody's getting pee'd on.
So ... why did the one have to get sacrificed for the other? Why couldn't a new studio have been made that centered itself on pissing and let
actual dry scenes get produced elsewhere? Was there a magic fucking button that got pushed somewhere above Earth's atmosphere where suddenly
everybody lost interest in hardcore gangbangs and now, exclusively, needed to see people getting pissed on? That doesn't really add up ...
Right?Anselm_Weinberg wrote:The rest is just personal attacks so I respond in kind.
Neoliberalism, really?
Looking at most of your posts, it is you who wrongly counterpoint your petit bourgeois borderline incel views as though they were transtorical truths to neoliberalism when all you're doing is propping up an equally reactionary pseudo-idyllic sense of what normalcy entails, and it just so happens to be an idealisation of the good old stable days when women were docile birthmachines and readily and exclusively available for sex at your discretion.
Yeah ... nice try.
I would like to see some quotes of where I professed an "idealization of women being docile birth machines." That's cute - but completely contrary to anything I said.
I'll talk slower so you can maybe understand what was actually said.
I said that the
traditional structure of society is needed in order to maintain itself. And that - all things considered - this "traditional structure" actually gives enjoyment to the people who partake in it. Women suddenly don't become automatons devoid of input or action, relegated to a corner where they be demanded to shut up and keep the loom running. They actually, typically, find their life's calling when they are in a stable marriage, are raising
their children, and ensuring a healthy and prosperous future for not just themselves, but for their community, their city, and their nation.
You want to know what just happens to coincide with more women than ever finding themselves in sex work and stripping in front of cameras and creating parasitical relationships where the people they're with are more "friends" (re: disposable) "with benefits" (re: fucking being the beginning and end goal of the relationship) through their social media apps
rather than being in longer term relationships where the end goal is finding a partner to actually care about and love and carry together a life in which the other person is more than a disposable plaything? You know what happens to coincide with that? A wave of misery so profound amongst the female populace of Western nations, that the people charting it pretty much have to create new graphs because, technically, they never figured the happiness bar could go so low.
To keep this somewhat short, there largest folly in the argumentation that the Neoliberal order provides is that of "freedom." You have the "freedom" to choose what you desire. Yet - people, women in particular, seem to be pretty hardwired in wanting a societal configuration to their existence. A man can go off and live in a cave or a jungle alone - not that he wants to - but he can. Women on the other hand seemingly require and are drawn to both other people and larger groups. Probably a survival mechanism from the past - but, regardless of where it comes from - their happiness is tied to what others around them both feel and think.
And yet ... the life of distancing themselves from meaningful relationships and straightforward interactions with people ... instead relying on a machine algorithm to suggest both who they fuck and do business with, which, given how lacking of any meaning that whole set-up is, often just mingle into the same thing. "If I'm going to fuck some complete stranger - might as well make money off of it," right? Well - I dunno - but it seems to me that, of all the depressing, bleak, and completely empty existences one could strive for, that would rank pretty near the top. Interesting then that ... this is what
almost everyone decided to when given their "freedom." Almost as if - it was the illusion of freedom - and then they were given a very narrow and short environment in which to "make their free choices."
Much like the men cranking it to porn. If you asked most men what they would rather have - a stable lifestyle - with a caring loving wife - and a family - he would be hard pressed to turn that down. Especially when the other option is a box of kleenex, a glowing screen, and some hand lotion. Yet, much like women, he makes do with the selections he's been given.
There will always be outliers to the norm. People who just gravitate towards the different, or the extreme. Likewise a survival mechanism for the species as a whole. Everyone might be having a grand ol' time planting crops in the valley, but when the gigantic flood comes, it's the few people who decided to live way up high in the treacherous mountains that survive. There will always be people going against the grain.
And
that is what this lifestyle is. It's the
extreme. It's the far end of the spectrum that, due to it being really the
only option for so many, has "become the new normal." But - that doesn't
make it normal. That doesn't make it preferred. Most men - and most women - would most likely rather have stable lives raising children, so to assure the survival of both their lineage and their species. Would make sense that that shit is
hard-wired into us, right? It isn't by accident that we're all here.
So - this isn't so much a judgment - or the other side of the "Neo-liberal" coin as you put it. It's just a basic look at the functional reality that exists both despite and all around this reality we've been handed as "inevitable" by our Neo-liberal masters.
So, if a girl growing up in a traditional, stable environment decides, "Hey, you know, this life seems great and all, but I really just want to get rammed by as many well hung black dudes at the same time as I possibly can," then the truth is, she'll probably have a great time exploring that lifestyle. Or, at the very least, she won't feel a societal pressure in order to acclimatize herself to something she otherwise wouldn't have really sought out, and then has to make peace with on a constant basis as it erodes her sense of self-worth. Just like there would be some guys who would be like, "You know, a family sounds great and all, but honestly, I really like spending time with myself, and if I had a choice, I would honestly just watch videos of the most beautiful women out there getting vigorously fucked whilst pleasuring myself." It's like - okay - sure. Buddy had both options at his disposal - and a system in place that would accept either of those decisions as rational and limited. Both from a legal standpoint, but more importantly, from a societal one.
And it's that societal stand-point that has been purposefully geared to encourage women to "express their freedom" by "fucking a whole bunch of randoms" and "maybe make a little money off of it on the side." For these same women to then discover that, hey, they don't like being treated like a piece of meat, and their own sense of self-worth has gone down now that they've been passed around like the Olympic torch between whoever out there had an internet connection. Or, at least,
that's what all the statistics seem to point towards. That all these women while being more "free" and "liberated" than ever before - are actually the more miserable because of it.
And that's
not because they're not all at home and baking cookies for their twelve kids, as you would presumptively suggest my knuckle-dragging world view is, but because the Neoliberal system which ensured this outcome wasn't "free" or "liberated" in much as it was "deliberate" and "single-minded" in it's objective (to reduce the world population - which is one of their openly stated goals).
So ... no.
None of this is normal.
But - that doesn't mean that none of this is art. It is artistic. And as far as that goes - the art and delivered purpose of the product got hurt by pissing.
Which
isn't normal - as it isn't congruent to the true act of sex - which is what this is supposed to represent on some form and level. The truth is - watching people perform the act - has a whole litany of subtexts and subconscious allegories and meanings associated with it. Most that are attuned to procreation - which is
the ultimate meaning of the act itself. Meaning that -
not everything is relevant to it.Two guys could, in the midst of fucking a girl, decide to stick a ping pong paddle up both their asses, and then start having an actual game of ping-pong in the middle of fucking the girl. They would call it "Ponging." Oh man! Did you see that one dude? He stuck
two paddles up his ass. Fucking amazing, huh? He totally had that other guy beat. Oh yeah - and then at the end of the Ponging match - they jizzed on the girl's face.
Which is ... alright. Sound kind of stupid? Sound like it takes away from the very purpose of why you were supposed to be watching the act in the first place? Like, the part of yourself that receives and achieves some form of completion by doing it? It does, right? Sounds pretty fucking dumb, right? Well ...
Ponging = Pissing.
And no matter how much you might want to make the argument for Ponging being "totally normal" and "just a preference like any other" - it betrays the very act of what the original purpose of the act was. Which - is a perfect symptom of Neo-liberalism.
Like, if you want to act and believe things like some kind of Neoliberal fem-boy, that, regardless of what
actual reality is, that anything can actually be anything else, and everything thereby suffers from lack of definition (or any real meaning) then, sure. Go ahead. You do you.
But when you come out to the public square - and you play that game of chess with someone else - don't be surprised when they tell you that, "No, you can't move the King piece to any square on the board at any time you want." And when you act indignant, like a prissy little Neolib would, and ask, "Why not?" The answer would come back, "Because, we're playing
chess, not checkers."
In other words, don't pee on my leg and tell me it's "normal."