A small rant about BBC

[ostermanblue2]

It's striking that people who think words do not matter will write pages and pages of words. Or how people who are supposedly above being triggered, when confronted with a particular topic about which they ostensibly do not care, will react defensively.

You truly protest too much.

[wqslave]

It's striking that people who think words do not matter will write pages and pages of words. Or how people who are supposedly above being triggered, when confronted with a particular topic about which they ostensibly do not care, will react defensively.

You truly protest too much.

I'm a genderqueer as fuck SJW type and I'll also say that you're way off base on this one.

She's talking about the contact theory of racism which has been disavowed by mainstream sociology because it only applies to groups that already are similar to your own and ultimately is just a form of continuing existing bias. The theory originated to explain how the Irish Catholic population integrated into American culture over time from the staggering xenophobia of the 1850's Know Nothing movement, to today. It falls apart for IE conservative and orthodox Jews, Muslims, Hmong, ect. with distinct cultures because guess what, some cultures are different and we don't want to be part of your melting pot and homogenize, we WANT TO KEEP OUR CULTURE. It's a repulsive theory that is now in 2021 only believed by the most privileged, white-cis people of society to make themselves feel better about destroying the history and cultural heritage of millions by claiming they are fighting racism in the process because THEY feel better by MAKING OTHER CULTURES LIKE THEIR OWN.

And no, you shouldn't actively try to go on dates with people you don't feel attracted to so you can experiment and learn, that's fucking cruel to those people. I usually like Lindsey's videos but what she suggests in that one was just inhuman, selfish and mean. She's suggesting to fetishize people and try them out like it's food at a buffet, not human beings whose lives you are fucking with. Humans and races and cultures are not boxes you check-off on a list of things you've tried fucking. Figure that out without hurting people.

And yes, not everyone has to be attracted to everyone else. It's entitlement to say "you have to be attracted to me." Being a straight cis male doesn't mean you need to be attracted to every woman, being a gay cis male doesn't mean you need to be attracted to every man, being pansexual doesn't mean you are obligated to show interest in anyone who shows it in you ect. Saying otherwise is entitlement and disgusting. You can't walk up to someone and tell them they are obligated to date or have sex with you because your identity matches their stated orientation.

"BBC fetish" is racist as fuck though and I agree with everything the OP said.

[spaisin]

In honor of wqslave coming in from a decade-long hiatus, I'll promise to take this somewhat seriously for this single post. And while I instinctively recoil at "SJW type", I have to say I mostly agree with the sentiment in your latter two paragraphs, the second to last just has a, krhm, tad more hyperbole than I would've used. And I have pretty much zero clue about the contact theory stuff, so I'm not saying anything on that.

My honest question for the people who are against the BBC fetish would be as simple as this:

How would you solve it?

A) Telling people to stop? It isn't going to change anything. Literally. The people making the teases aren't aware of the discussion, much less care.

B) Ban it on the site? That sounds impractical; I don't think anyone would dare suggest banning black male actors from the site, nor "cock worship content" or any other such category that could cover it? So, at best, the creators would end up just using euphemisms. While it might be interesting to see; I'd rather they stick to the known ones, that way people won't have to run into it by accident.

C) Actually try to generate and enforce a rule around "racism"? That's ... going to be quite subjective. Impossible to draw lines to and enforce.

This may sound like "it's too hard to do, so why bother trying", and to be fair, that's a part of it. I'm of the type that rather errs on the side of freedom, so, that's a big part of it as well.

Even if I saw the fetish as "bad enough to be banned", I just can't imagine an effective way of achieving it.

Of course it might help if people could filter out things themselves; as in "never show me this kind of content". That's sort of the way I'd handle filtering social media as well, but it seems none of them are really willing to implement such, so it would be quite the tall ask for a site as small as our dear milovana.

[someone43]

It's striking that people who think words do not matter will write pages and pages of words. Or how people who are supposedly above being triggered, when confronted with a particular topic about which they ostensibly do not care, will react defensively.

You truly protest too much.

I'm not saying words don't matter, I'm saying they don't cause harm in this context. You're the one who called for a conversation, you know... with words. You can keep replying back with quips rather than addressing the counterpoints to yours, but you're just coming off as a triggered snowflake. "They disagreed with my points using logic and reality, I'm even more triggered and will deflect and attack the fact they are posting at all!"

I am defending the right for people not to be kink shamed on a kink site or be censored. My view has nothing to do with BBC itself, since I find it annoying (not harmful) and avoid clicking on them the same way I do disjointed teases which use inconsistent pictures that break the flow of the story. I have a preference and I take responsibility for what I view and do not view rather than taking up crusades others do to make "everywhere a safe space (where the harm is only in their own head)" or "moderate what others are allowed to see and enjoy through censorship".

[Xardas]

It's striking that people who think words do not matter will write pages and pages of words. Or how people who are supposedly above being triggered, when confronted with a particular topic about which they ostensibly do not care, will react defensively.

You truly protest too much.

Oh, boy, let's play a game of "count the logical fallacies", shall we?

It's striking that people who think words do not matter will write pages and pages of words.

Moving the goalpost and strawman in one neat package. Nobody said this. You are making up an inherently flawed and easily debunkable point and then associate it with your opponent in the debate, most likely because you do not have any ACTUAL way to counter their points and at the same time are too ideologically driven to even consider being wrong.

As for moving the goalpost, basically you are implying that even addressing your post is a proof that you are right, to preemptively counter any further counterpoints to your opinion.

Or how people who are supposedly above being triggered, when confronted with a particular topic about which they ostensibly do not care, will react defensively.

We care about the topic and its possible impact (eg. censorship being introduced to the site), what we don't particularly care about is your personal concerns and crusade. Also, most of the answers were level headed and quite reasonable, so I don't know about triggered. Oh, and that also a thinly veiled ad hominem, since you are clearly implying deception and malice, suggesting that our opinion isn't worth considering, since we are clearly engaging you in bad faith. Which is... projecting pretty hard, since it's not us who refuse to address the opposing points with anything resembling a logical argument and rely on throwing shades, hoping for a cheap gotcha moment.

[Banquo]

Please try to keep the discussion civil.

May I draw everyone’s attention to our terms of services with regards to user submissions. In particular section C:

In connection with User Submissions, you further agree that you will not: (i) submit material that is copyrighted, protected by trade secret or otherwise subject to third party proprietary rights, including privacy and publicity rights, unless you are the owner of such rights or have permission from their rightful owner to post the material and to grant Milovana all of the license rights granted herein; (ii) publish falsehoods or misrepresentations that could damage Milovana or any third party; (iii) submit material that is unlawful, obscene, defamatory, libelous, threatening, harassing, hateful, racially or ethnically offensive, or encourages conduct that would be considered a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability, violate any law, or is otherwise inappropriate; (iv) post advertisements or solicitations of business: (v) impersonate another person.

Many fetishes and kinks like to push the boundaries of what’s socially acceptable, and stray into taboo subjects.

This is welcomed here, to a point.

If you find the content of a webtease crosses a line, please use the report function and an admin will look at it and make a decision.

[ostermanblue2]

She's talking about the contact theory of racism which has been disavowed by mainstream sociology because it only applies to groups that already are similar to your own and ultimately is just a form of continuing existing bias. The theory originated to explain how the Irish Catholic population integrated into American culture over time from the staggering xenophobia of the 1850's Know Nothing movement, to today. It falls apart for IE conservative and orthodox Jews, Muslims, Hmong, ect. with distinct cultures because guess what, some cultures are different and we don't want to be part of your melting pot and homogenize, we WANT TO KEEP OUR CULTURE. It's a repulsive theory that is now in 2021 only believed by the most privileged, white-cis people of society to make themselves feel better about destroying the history and cultural heritage of millions by claiming they are fighting racism in the process because THEY feel better by MAKING OTHER CULTURES LIKE THEIR OWN.

This is an interesting thought, and I didn't know that history, so thanks. I agree that it's not a healthy notion to date people you're not attracted to. However, if you find yourself not attracted to an entire group of people along racial lines, it's probably good to at least be consciously aware of that, and be curious about where the bias comes from, even if as I agree there's no particular need to reverse it or reorient your tastes. Lindsey does suggest experimentally dating people you're not otherwise into, and I think that advice is more applicable to people her own age or younger for whom dating has very low stakes. It's interesting to hear how that argument sounds to you though.

I'm not saying words don't matter, I'm saying they don't cause harm in this context. You're the one who called for a conversation, you know... with words. You can keep replying back with quips rather than addressing the counterpoints to yours, but you're just coming off as a triggered snowflake. "They disagreed with my points using logic and reality, I'm even more triggered and will deflect and attack the fact they are posting at all!"

I shared my point of view, and some people either mocked me or responded by "proving" they don't need to even think about anything differently, There is no good faith there. I don't feel a need to respond earnestly to people trying to poke holes in my opinion. If it's news to folks that the BBC stuff is racist, I don't need to point it out gently. The rhetorical stuff is bait I'm not taking.

I posted my previous post because I was ticked off. I regret that it was uncivil, and I presented an unfairly exaggerated characterization of your reply.

I am defending the right for people not to be kink shamed on a kink site or be censored. My view has nothing to do with BBC itself, since I find it annoying (not harmful) and avoid clicking on them the same way I do disjointed teases which use inconsistent pictures that break the flow of the story. I have a preference and I take responsibility for what I view and do not view rather than taking up crusades others do to make "everywhere a safe space (where the harm is only in their own head)" or "moderate what others are allowed to see and enjoy through censorship".

I am not kink shaming. BBC fetish is unlike other taboo fetishes in that it is usually presented as a cuckold fetish, not as a race play fetish. In other words, racist ideas are assumed to be true, and then cuckolding is the fetish. I have nothing against the cucks. I get off on that too. I have something against racism. I am stating the obvious, and I do not need to build a clever case for this and then debate it with anyone.

I have not advocated for censorship in this thread in the sense of asking people to delete content that I don't like. I suggested an expanded range of content tagging as one concept that could allow people to self-moderate more easily. I am asking people to be more self-aware, think critically about what they're doing, and have a conversation about how to mitigate unintended effects of their behavior. Just because I'm being a buzz kill doesn't mean I'm asking for censoring, canceling, etc etc.

How would you solve it?

Thank you at least for the serious answer. I would not suggest any of A, B, or C. This is, as you point out, a small website that isn't going in the direction of strong content moderation, nor should it. I would not enjoy a version of this website in which any taboo fetishes were not allowed, because I enjoy several taboo fetishes of my own. This is a small enough pool of active users that there doesn't need to be a response by some authority.

I'm optimistic enough to think that a majority of people who are posting BBC-related stuff or enjoy it as a sexual fetish are also mature enough not to engage in racist behavior in everyday life. They may be so immersed in the way that BBC tends to be presented online that they haven't observed that it's a taboo fetish to most people or that the presentation is problematic. Along comes a thread in which someone complains about racism. Maybe the authors would come up with their own way of mitigating that issue, such as by tagging the triggering content (which both helps people look elsewhere, and acknowledges what is taboo about the subject).

If the website itself were to change maybe a few additional, more accurate tags could be added to the search engine for people's use when they post teases. This would also have the benefit of making race play fetish easier to search for for people who want to enjoy it, or for the rest of us to filter it out.

Edited for grammar.

[fapnip]

In other words, racist ideas are assumed to be true, and then cuckolding is the fetish.

I think this is no more true than it is for "petite Asians" and the like. See also: large breasted blonds, small dick looser, etc. These all could be seen as re-enforcing a stereotype of some sort, but, in the context of the teases I've glanced through, not in a particularly negative way -- at least not any more so than any other fetish does.

As with everything, it's all about context and intent, and I really don't see BBC teases in an intentionally racist context -- though I don't go out of my why to look for them.

From my perspective, this appears to be born of a hypersensitivity towards anything to do with race, similar to claims of "cultural appropriation" when the white chef of a restaurant adds pot stickers and pho to the menu. It does nothing but divide, and is counter-productive in the fight against racism.

[ostermanblue2]

I think this is no more true than it is for "petite Asians" and the like. See also: large breasted blonds, small dick looser, etc. These all could be seen as re-enforcing a stereotype of some sort, but, in the context of the teases I've glanced through, not in a particularly negative way -- at least not any more so than any other fetish does.

As with everything, it's all about context and intent, and I really don't see BBC teases in an intentionally racist context -- though I don't go out of my why to look for them.

From my perspective, this appears to be born of a hypersensitivity towards anything to do with race, similar to claims of "cultural appropriation" when the white chef of a restaurant adds pot stickers and pho to the menu. It does nothing but divide, and is counter-productive in the fight against racism.

Statements like "what about racism against white people?" and appeals for colorblindness and less sensitivity are counterproductive in the fight against racism.

[fapnip]

Statements like "what about racism against white people?" and appeals for colorblindness

Intentionally misrepresenting my position shows you are trying to sow divisiveness, and proves my point about hypersensitivity.

Read my previous post over again... then again. Then one last time with the realization that I'm not white.

[ostermanblue2]

Statements like "what about racism against white people?" and appeals for colorblindness

Intentionally misrepresenting my position shows you are trying to sow divisiveness, and proves my point about hypersensitivity.

Read my previous post over again... then again. Then one last time with the realization that I'm not white.

With my comment I was referring to your reference to blondes amid a laundry list of other appearances. I had no particular thought about what race you might be, and I didn't mean any insult or misrepresentation...I don't know where that's coming from. I felt a need to respond to a statement I saw as problematic.

Here's an article that has an interesting main story, and also peripherally describes interracial porn in the context of the porn industry. I'm sure someone is anxious to fact check it, but what I found interesting about it was the description of how the economics of intentionally demeaning people for their blackness is an integral part of how this porn is produced, and what the producers expect about the porn's audience (i.e. what the appeal is supposed to be).
https://www.vice.com/en/article/594yxd/ ... urity-race

[spaisin]

Well, it's a Vice article; whether I'd fact-check it to a tee or just call it a Vice article, is going to elicit the same response from everyone involved; some will count it out automatically and some will just call me racist. There are other reactions too, sure, but Vice has a really divided reputation.

I'll call myself cynical and I call them both rage-boner vendors; Dogfart is focusing more on the boner part, while Vice concentrates the rage. (the 'on' isn't missing by mistake.) I'll keep calling myself cynical, and point out that Dogfart getting their free advertisement as "the worst shit in the industry" on Vice, is smack dab in the middle of both of the publishers' interests. I'm not making a claim that Vice realized what they're doing, but to assume otherwise doesn't really reflect well on the abilities of the writer(s). As for Dogfart, they probably would've paid decent money to get that published.

So, am I going to draw any conclusions from that? No. A group of essentially self-avowed racists are making racist porn. Great. And..?

I have been thinking about this site for a bit lately, inspired by this, trying to figure out if I find something about it wrong. You can call this whataboutism if you wish.

An obvious problem here is copyright; luckily I don't see the concept as useful, so that part doesn't bother me a bit. And sure, the site is filling its legal requirements, but I'd bet the reliance is more on the under-the-radar and not-exactly-worth-the-chase part of the law.

BBC fetish stuff? Tapping into the stereotypes of black men to instantly portray a male as aggressive, strong, dangerous and capable... for ease of storytelling it's a match made in heaven for sexual stuff, the only bad part is the racism of the invoked stereotype. It's a power fantasy, made easy by "thug life". As per the Vice article. It's maybe a little icky, but it's here to stay.

Anything else? Well, if I were to describe the site as "posting pictures of naked women, without their consent, while painting them as sadistic violent bitches, outright criminals, cumhungry sluts and anything in between", I think I might have an argument that might actually get to me. Sure, it is no-one's intent here, but I'm not entirely sure if an author's intent is an overriding factor when it comes to consent for sexual exploitation. "I made a cutesy photoshoot with flowers and all, does that give them the right to turn me into a domina?"

[Xardas]

Here's an article that has an interesting main story, and also peripherally describes interracial porn in the context of the porn industry. I'm sure someone is anxious to fact check it, but what I found interesting about it was the description of how the economics of intentionally demeaning people for their blackness is an integral part of how this porn is produced, and what the producers expect about the porn's audience (i.e. what the appeal is supposed to be).
https://www.vice.com/en/article/594yxd/ ... urity-race

Well... I'll be honest, I take Vice about as seriously and as much of a reliable source of... anything than The Onion. They are about as ideologically driven as you can get and have been infamous for basically ragebaiting. So, that being the sole cited source for your argument really compels me to just consider them invalid, but that would be unfair, regardless of my... distaste for that rag. So, here we go. I'm making these quotes and answers as I read through the article.

Okay, so this Dogfart site (call me childish, but I can't help but giggle at that name, who the hell names their pornsite as dogfart?) shot a porn movie where consent was ignored. This is... unfortunately common. One of the main reasons I have a hard time finding "normal" porn enticing and consuming mainly hentai as fap-meterial. Pretty much every major porn producer had at least one scandal about ignoring consent. The problem here is that the need to respect sex workers consent is... not politically popular. There's a general stigma on them that, "they are whores, they should be treated as such", which means that in... polite society, so to speak, most people find it uncomfortable to talk about porn and how it is made, which makes it easier to sweep all these consent issues under the rag. Sometimes a case like this gets to courts, but a lot of times the victims have no resources to be litigious or are afraid of putting their non-porn name out in the public, and production studios abuse the hell out of this. Porn is a dirty business, in more ways than one. Racism can be a part of this, but by no means it is the main part.

It is also a vivid example of the ways in which porn has been instrumentalized as a socially acceptable space for racist white fantasies to be projected onto and enacted upon Black bodies—and the very real implications of that.]

And here we go, didn't take long for Vice to show their intellectual ass... This is one hell of a reach. Like, first of all, why are we singling out blacks here as victims? These typical cuckold videos with the white couple and a black stud portray white men as limp dicked, incompetent, weak and inferior, the white women as callous cock-hungry sluts and the black guy as strong, wild alpha male. This is overtly racist towards everyone involved. Which, considering that this is ultimately roleplay, would not be a problem for me, as long as the actor's consent is respected. It wasn't here, which is the problem. Also, they extrapolated one case where a minor production company was racist (because, let's be real, who even heard of dogfart before this case?) into porn is used as a thinly veiled cover for anti-black racism in general. On the same level of bullshit than the often quoted 1 in 4 women is raped statistic of feminist speakers, which was extrapolated from a local, if memory serves well, undergrad study with less than 100 participants and dubious methodology to a worldwide stat. If making widely generalizing and stigmatizing claim based on a single experience is accepted, then by the same logic, it's perfectly legit and non-problematic to say that all black people are thugs if I can point out a single black person who is.

In many similar videos, the camera pans over to the white partner who is often either masturbating by himself and enjoying the encounter or observing miserably—decentered, but still ultimately the dictator of the sexual gaze.

And in many videos, this does not happen, but let's just ignore those pesky facts when they get into the way of our ideological push, amiright? Also, wtf is "dictator of sexual gaze" even is?

She also objects to the fact that production companies, as opposed to performers themselves, get to create the context for sexual interaction in these scenes.

Uhm... that's how filming anything works. Unless the actor is an A-list superstar whom the production cannot afford to lose, they have no say in how the film is cut, edited, advertised, presented, etc. That's what production companies are for. And as such she is know working of porn films and with production companies she finds the best for herself. I don't see anything in here. This is just fishing for content.

“It’s easiest to think of the interracial rate practice as hazardous duty pay without any hazardous duty to the worker,” Knight wrote to me. “It’s extra pay simply because your coworker is Black.”

Oh, hey, we are halfway through the article and the first actual point emerges! While I agree that the origins of this practice is racist, I disagree with the "without any hazardous duty" part. Yes, the average penis size of black men are about the same as white men. BUT not for porn actors. Since the whole point of this genre is fetishizing BBC, the black guy performing tend to be way, WAY over the average size. To put it bluntly, you can't shoot a BBC video without BBC. Which DOES increase the risk of tearing, especially with anal, considering that these scenes tend to be... aggressive.

The entire specialty market for racist cuckolding videos exists because of hungry production companies eager to exploit any manner of consumer demand

Welcome to capitalism! If there's a demand, there's going to be someone to fulfill said demand for money. If there's no demand, someone will try to make some. Kinda cute that the author thinks that this problem is specific to porn...

As for the rest of the article, it's reaching and projecting hard. Basically it implies that the people enjoying BBC or any other form of race play are the same racist pigs who march on the streets chanting overtly racist slogens and setting shit on fire. That people enjoy these videos because they are horrible racist scum irl too. It completely disregards the possibility that for a lot of people watching these porn videos, the humiliation and submissive aspect is the key thing, the race-play is whatever. Or that fantasy and reality are completely different things. Just because someone has BBC fantasies, it doesn't mean they are racist irl. You can't control your sexual fantasies. Blaming people for them is just wrong.

As an example: a lot of submissives have rape-fantasies. If we employ Vice's logic in there, then should they get raped, it's okay, since they clearly wanted it anyway. Or on a more personal level, you can claim that sadists are evil fucks who fetishizes human suffering and torture. This view is what a sex-ed book held that I got from school sex-ed when I was 13. It completely distorted my self-image and spiraled into suicidal depression where I firmly believed that I'm a complete monster for it. So, frankly, fuck Vice and their agenda pushing reductionism.

Well, if I were to describe the site as "posting pictures of naked women, without their consent, while painting them as sadistic violent bitches, outright criminals, cumhungry sluts and anything in between", I think I might have an argument that might actually get to me. Sure, it is no-one's intent here, but I'm not entirely sure if an author's intent is an overriding factor when it comes to consent for sexual exploitation. "I made a cutesy photoshoot with flowers and all, does that give them the right to turn me into a domina?"

Yeah, that's why I avoid non-nude teases like the plague as far as I'm concerned. it makes me... very uncomfortable for this exact reason. Porn images is fair game, cause they were made with the intent to be fap-material. Well, theoretically fair game, because of course then we come back to the... flawed respect for consent in the porn industry...

[fapnip]

referring to your reference to blondes [...] I had no particular thought about what race you might be [...] I felt a need to respond to a statement I saw as problematic.

Apparently the reason you felt a need to respond in the way you did is because you took one part out of context -- a context that just so happened to point out that context is everything. You then excused your response by appealing to "colorblindness", after accusing me of the same.

This drive to find racism everywhere, when there often isn't really any issue, is patronizing, divisive, and counterproductive. (That's not to say there isn't systemic racism abound, just that not everything you think is a problem actually is.)

[GodDragon]

This drive to find racism everywhere, when there often isn't really any issue, is patronizing, divisive, and counterproductive. (That's not to say there isn't systemic racism abound, just that not everything you think is a problem actually is.)

+1

I haven't read the past few very long posts but here is my take on it:
There are a lot of fetishes out there that might not be political correct. And when we are talking about racism we have to deal with any type of skin colour. Which means "small dick white loser" is as bad as "alpha with a big black cock".
The term BBC has been around for quite some time outside of the kink business. It's a common tag on other sites to categorize porn. I don't see how the term big black cock in itself is racist in any way. That's just the description of an object and no stereotype in itself.
Saying that every black male has a big cock, well that might be stereotypical, maybe even racist to some people, but especially within the bounds of fetish content I see no harm done to anyone. Having a big cock is usually a positive thing to most people and thus I wouldn't say it does people reading the tease any harm. Fetish content has always to be consumed with a grain of salt since it obviously is a fantasy and can hurt the psyche of people if taken too serious. Of course humiliation and stuff like that is dangerous in itself but should it be banned just because there are a few people that can't properly deal with that? No.
Same goes for people that can't properly educate themselves and make up racist theories from fetish content.

And here is my personal take on that: If someone would tell me he heard every white male has a big cock I would just laugh it off and take it as a sort of compliment. I think we have much bigger issues with racism to deal with than some positive stereotypes about cocks. If it was something like: "All black people have big cocks but no brain" I'd be onboard with it being racist. However this way I simply have to agree with most people here.