Sorting Videos By Styles

pissant194 · 29-07-09 20:33:52

Any thoughts about adding a sort field that would make it possible to look up videos by the way a woman masturbates. Standing up-with clothes on-kneeling position-on a chair. my favorit are standing and the qsuirting orgasms. the use of pillows are also up there with favorites.

ashmedi1 · 30-07-09 00:07:01

Too much work and too many variables for an old going blind guy

But when you get it finished somebody will probably thank you

jeffo · 30-07-09 08:28:57

Sounds like you want more attributes, in addition to SoftnSexy, Blushalicious etc. So you probably need to make a detailed suggestion and try and persuade someone it's a good idea...

hyperballad · 31-07-09 00:59:35

Everytime we get asked to further catergorise/label films here my instant reaction is resistance...

I'm still not 100% sure why, but I really like that we're not sorting our ladies into 'styles' 'types' etc.

I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to do so, but when I pop up on free streaming sites (before Richard gets his fists of fury into 'em and makes them take our films down) I seldom, if ever, like the way I've been catergozised or labelled. It makes me feel not so good, thus I think where my aversion to further or more detailed categories here...

It's also another thing that drew me into contributing here, I didn't have to worry about a label being attached to me, my body type, style, technique etc etc. I think making a film here is a deeply personal experience and I wouldn't like to be put into the (for instance) 'fingers on clit/lying down' category.

It may also add a sense of premeditation or forethought to how I'm (or others are) going to wank in my film, if I was aware there were certain techniques divided up into sections, rather than me just coming in and doing what I usually do to get off. Also what if someone came to contribute that didn't fit into any of the existing attributes? They may feel pressured to conform... Ladies that do do things a little differently already sometimes get a bit embarrassed or worried about their style.

Not sure how other ladies from IFM feel, but I think further categorising the films takes away from the experience some, makes it a little bit impersonal and may impact negatively on the contributor and the actual content produced.

Just my 2 cents though

Last edited by hyperballad (31-07-09 01:04:46)

ashmedi1 · 31-07-09 03:34:40

Very eloquently stated Hyperballad

jeffo · 31-07-09 05:36:45

Yes, very eloquent hyperballad, but...

The problem is, that whatever you may think, this site is just a small part of the worldwide porn industry. When you put your images on this site they straight away become available to every person on the planet who has an internet connection, forever. And they're going to get categorised every which way.

I'm sure Richard works very hard to take down videos from free streaming sites, but I'm also sure he's fighting a battle he's never going to win. Any bozo with a legit or not credit card can instantly get access to your videos and download gigs of them then do whatever they want with them, they're not even watermarked.

hyperballad · 31-07-09 06:22:50

Thanks Ashmedi, trying my hardest to articulate my feelings accurately into words. It's something I'm working on improving at.

Jeffo - I understand that and accept that it's something that is out of my control. What ever films we do find, we take down and I agree we will never reach or know about all of them. It does not mean that I have to like it though.

You seem to perhaps think I'm a little naive in respect to the wider world of pornography...? I have actually done a fair bit of work over the years outside of the feck realm and I'm well aware of how the industry works, possibly even more so than a consumer, as I have experienced it first hand.

The comments I've made in my previous post were really mostly directed at further categorising films here, on this site, where I do, in fact, have some input.

Last edited by hyperballad (31-07-09 06:24:06)

jeffo · 31-07-09 08:39:24

hyperballad wrote:

You seem to perhaps think I'm a little naive in respect to the wider world of pornography...? I have actually done a fair bit of work over the years outside of the feck realm and I'm well aware of how the industry works, possibly even more so than a consumer, as I have experienced it first hand.

I think sometimes people at IFM live in the bubble of the forums, where most of the people are OK and sensible, but this ignores the great unwashed who are probably a significant percentage of the paying punters. This is a public site and anyone can sign up to it. Maybe you should consider making it invitation only?

hyperballad · 31-07-09 09:03:12

I really don't think that's necessary and I'm pretty sure how the site in functioning at the moment is working out just fine. There is a very small minority of people who express massive disatisfaction and if you are so dissatisfied, perhaps another site will cater to your needs/wants better...

I really think you're casting some major aspersions on the 'unwashed' for the purpose of your argument. Also who are you to defame the vast majority of our 'punters' as being incapable of being sensible and okay? You're making making massive generalisations based on your assumptions about our members.

aven frey · 31-07-09 09:19:42

Jeffo, how on earth does that relate to what Hyperballad has written here?
Just because for the most part of the rest of the porn industry is often boring, sexist, stupid, ugly, possibly unethical, did I mention boring, doesn't mean the small part we have a bit of control over here should be also. No one here actually thinks that everyone who subscribes to our websites are as lovely as Ashmedi, Blissed, Niphaud, I could go on, you know who you are, but why would we let people bahave badly here just because this is the porn industry. Nor do we actually know that most people are not either, just because this is the porn industry. Why is it that representations of sexuality, even if it is for the purpose sexual titillation should not be held to "terribly high ideals" as you stated in another post.
Dude we wank so that you wank and we aren't that stupid we don't know that's what happens, perhaps for some of us we choose to not think about it all that much, for others it's part of the fun and for me personally I wank for this site because for once it's on my own terms and if you think it's pretentious then whatever, I couldn't give a fuck, but since you've come to the forums with your great generous nuggets of reality to disperse amongst the bubbled I'm happy to tell you that it seems to me that the reality you have displayed here is really small. Have you ever wondered perhaps that YOU live in the bubble.

jeffo · 31-07-09 09:26:50

Why all the aggression? Maybe I get uncomfortably close to the truth?

aven frey · 31-07-09 09:34:30

Yes Jeffo, the truth is out there.
Just to clarify I don't feel aggressive but I'd be happy to engage in a debate but from what I can tell you tend to seem to disapear pretty quickly though. I can refrain from swearing if that upsets you.

jeffo · 31-07-09 09:37:19

I'm substantial and sitting at my computer 5 days a week, so unlikely to disappear, much as some people might want me to :-)

aven frey · 31-07-09 09:47:57

Well lets go then, would you like to actually address any of the points Hyperballad and I have made?

jeffo · 31-07-09 09:57:49

I'm sorry, I probably frame my arguments badly. I actually really like this site, but I think sometimes it takes itself too seriously and maybe tries to ignore the fact that it survives by selling sexual images of women and doesn't control who it sells those to.

Hell, I just keep getting further off subject.

aven frey · 31-07-09 10:28:24

I see how you would think we take ourselves to seriously, we are pretty earnest, that's probably a reactionary effect of trying to make stuff we're proud of. I read a great piece of writing by Martin Amis which I can't quote directly because I've loaned the book to someone but it went along the lines of porn being really quite funny but at the same time utterly humorless. I guess we're trying to address the funny part of porn as that's the part that has pool cleaners, stilettoes, no aesthetics and low standards. How does one address the humorless while maintaining the sexiness? That's a whole lot trickier.

I don't like to make assumptions but from what you've written you seem to associate the selling of sexual images with a negative? This is something I tend to dispute because I see that as part of a paradigm that disregards the importance of sexuality. It's part of the paradigm that makes laws that subjugate all representations of sex but not of violence and other far more obnoxious media like Australian/American/British Idol type television and the Herald Sun. Sure the industry has a lot of issues and I see the value in being apprehensive about it but I don't see the value in taring everything with the same brush.

Why would we want to control who see's this site? As long as they're willing to pay for something that has cost (time, money, ideas etc) to produce (the intellectual property rights piracy thing is a whole different discussion). Do you think that given the choice Wim Wenders would say that only people with degrees in Cinematic studies can see his films so that he doesn't get have people say they don't get Paris, Texas, that they thought it was too slow, pretentious etc. I'm not comparing us to Paris, Texas but we want as many people to see this site as possible, not just so that we make money and keep in business but because we really like what we're making. And pretentious or not we do actually want to make some changes to an industry that is at times is a total pile of shit.

jeffo · 31-07-09 10:42:16

I went off Martin Amis a bit after his comments about Moslems.

I don't think it's a negative per se to sell sexual images, but it does tend to acquaint you with some fairly grubby bedfellows and probably does involve you in some moral dilemmas.

aven frey · 31-07-09 11:02:22

What kind of moral dilemmas?

I don't know but it seems to me what you are saying works on the same predudicial level as Amis's anti Islamic rhetoric.

Btw I personally believe grubby bedfellows are everywhere, usually most grubby in the cleanest of places, and who we percieve as grubby is not always the whole truth.

blissed · 31-07-09 11:54:28

Yeah I'll agree with that!

Jeffo music has different markets and tastes why shouldn't porn.

I'm not going to reveal where you live but from your ISP address unless you use a proxy server looks like your smack in the middle of Catholic macho meditaranian culture I think it's easier for me here in England to lose the notion that being in and making sexual images is shameful, but if you could do that it's so much nicer and you can really enjoy the work of people who are really proud of what they do.

P.S. if you do live where I think you do it's really beautiful btw

.

jeffo · 31-07-09 12:09:21

What I mean about the moral dilemmas is that there are sections of the porn industry that do exploit women and by being part of that industry it could be felt that you're contributing to the exploitation of women.

blissed, there are very few Catholics where I live, most of the buggers are Orthodox. I, however, am Anglo Saxon and very liberal. I don't think making sexual images is shameful at all, as long as it's done well.

blissed · 31-07-09 13:02:43

I know people who've contributed to Feck (the company that makes IFM) I think they enjoyed it, seemed to enjoy the attention and received all the help they could to make them look great and they were paid too. I don't think there's exploitation there. Though I agree that with porn receiving so much negative press can make it hard to believe that working for a porn site can be a good experience but it can.

We keep coming back to the question of exploitation in the negative sense, If you yourself wanted to take pictures of someone naked you'd have to pay them well, they wouldn't do it for nothing. the same as if you wanted a plumber to fix your washing machine, though I think plumbers charge extra to perform in sexual scenarios and if you paid them extra, you wouldn't be exploiting them.
Judging by your last response I think if you paid someone to model for you you'd treat them well.

.

aven frey · 31-07-09 13:18:18

It's not shameful to exploit women? Because that's what you just said, or you are contradicting yourself, or we're not on the same semantic page with the word image.

Just for clarification I assumed when you originally used the word image you were referring to the content on this site (as that's what we were speaking about) and so I have been using it in that context.

Anyway's firstly what does this make you then, the ethically minded porn consumer? The very same critique should also be leveled at you, without you there would be no us.

I would also argue although there are parts of the industry I'm sure that do exploit women, as well as men and children but this is inherently a problem with regulation and law. As human beings have proven to be quite shit in general anything that is not properly regulated usually results in some sort of exploitation. Actually when I think about it even stuff that is regulated does, fuck we're just shit. However back on topic, to say this is indicative of an industry and that everything in that industry is morally problematic does nothing to fix the problem. You thinking about the kind of porn you consume and us creating an alternative for both you and the contributor does.

This generalisation also positions women in this industry as victims, that there is another whole other discussion. I guess it all depends on what you think exploitation is. I do know that on a personal level, having worked in a few different parts of this industry I always have and still find it horribly patronising when someone suggests that I am exploited. It's stupid at best and sexist at worst and if anything contributes to the problem rather then does anything to challenge it.

jeffo · 31-07-09 13:20:28

blissed

I'm not for a second saying that IFM exploits its contributors, I've read the blurb and they seem very fair. All I'm saying is that the industry that they are unfortunately grouped with do have a bad record for exploiting women.

Also, you can't really make the point that just because someone gets paid, they're not exploited. Most prostitutes get paid, but I think you'd agree that many of them are exploited.

Last edited by jeffo (31-07-09 13:22:38)

jeffo · 31-07-09 13:24:37

bobby

I think you've decided you don't like me and so you'll misinterpret anything I say.

aven frey · 31-07-09 13:28:07

As it happens I just had a plumber come through my house, so I did some reseach... nah I didn't really, would have been a bit weird, what if he'd said yes.

#1 29-07-09 20:33:52

Sorting Videos By Styles

#2 30-07-09 00:07:01

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#3 30-07-09 08:28:57

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#4 31-07-09 00:59:35

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#5 31-07-09 03:34:40

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#6 31-07-09 05:36:45

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#7 31-07-09 06:22:50

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#8 31-07-09 08:39:24

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#9 31-07-09 09:03:12

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#10 31-07-09 09:19:42

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#11 31-07-09 09:26:50

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#12 31-07-09 09:34:30

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#13 31-07-09 09:37:19

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#14 31-07-09 09:47:57

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#15 31-07-09 09:57:49

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#16 31-07-09 10:28:24

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#17 31-07-09 10:42:16

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#18 31-07-09 11:02:22

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#19 31-07-09 11:54:28

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#20 31-07-09 12:09:21

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#21 31-07-09 13:02:43

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#22 31-07-09 13:18:18

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#23 31-07-09 13:20:28

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#24 31-07-09 13:24:37

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

#25 31-07-09 13:28:07

Re: Sorting Videos By Styles

Board footer