Definition of "Fetish Video"

[Alex Bettinger]

So to continue from a very interesting discussion on another thread, I thought I'd open one more thread here, on the topic of what the definition might be of "fetish video." Since there seemed to be some remarkable differences of opinion expressed on that other thread.

In fact, one of the most astonishing theories proposed there--astonishing because it's so extraordinarily unsophisticated and naïve--was the theory that a fetish video is ONLY a fetish video IF the producer of the video labels it as such. And that if a producer makes a movie, and decides that his movie is a mainstream movie, then it's a mainstream movie, regardless of the content, or how it's marketed, or who buys it.

By this logic, a producer could shoot a video which shows nothing but a bikini-clad woman being punched in the stomach over and over and over, i.e., clearly a belly-punching fetish video, and then market that video to belly punching fans, and sell it exclusively to belly punching fans, and STILL be able to claim that the video is NOT a fetish video. Because it's only a fetish video if the producer says it is.

Naturally this theory is the height of foolishness. If the makers of "Deep Throat" insisted that their movie was a mainstream PG romantic comedy, we'd all laugh at them and tell them No, you're WRONG. "Deep Throat" is a porno.

But if this theory is so silly, then why would anyone cling to it? I think I have the answer.

We can easily imagine a film where it's truly not clear if it's a fetish video or not. A movie with a fully developed storyline, with plenty of content that has nothing to do with anything fetishy, but maybe a few scenes that ARE very fetishy and maybe drag on a little too long, etc.

In that case, we might truly not know for sure whether it's a fetish video or not. We might even say it's up to the viewer to decide. But only a fool would conclude from this that therefore ALL films are a matter of subjective perception. Only a fool would conclude from this that the question of whether any film is or is not a fetish movie is totally undecideable, or, even worse, that it's entirely up to the producer to make that decision. It's clearly NOT up to the producer. There are objective facts about most films that make them OBVIOUSLY porn movies, or fetish videos, or not. And no amount of protestations from the producer will change that fact.

Unfortunately, people make this foolish move all the time. Like the high school sophomore who realizes that a poem can mean different things to different readers, and so then leaps to the absurd conclusion that therefore the poem means whatever you want it to mean, there is no good or bad readings, there is nothing objective in the poem at all, it's all just "perception," it's whatever you want it to be. Which of course is nonsense. There are plenty of TERRIBLE readings of poems.

HeroineAddict made a very valuable point that illustrates this same point from the perspective of law. He wrote:

"Just try hiring someone aged under 18 to star in one of your blatant fetish videos and see what happens."

As an attorney myself, I can tell you that HeroineAddict is absolutely right. It makes absolutely NO difference what the producer intends when he's shooting someone underage. It makes NO difference whether he "intends" to make a mainstream movie or a fetish video. IF a prosecutor catches wind of the video, and decides he wants to prosecute the producer for making child pornography, on the grounds that the prosecutor thinks the movie IS a fetish video, then the opinion of the producer is 100% IRRELEVANT in the eyes of the law.

Instead, the jury--or the judge in the case of a bench trial--will make that decision. And if the court indeed finds that the video qualifies as a fetish video, then the producer will be going to JAIL for a very long time. The producer can insist all he wants that HE should get to label his movie however he wants--he would be wrong. In the eyes of the law, as well as in the eyes of any even remotely sophisticated aesthetic theory, he'd be wrong.

So then, what would a GOOD definition of a fetish video be? I have suggested, not as a necessary condition, but as a SUFFICIENT condition, that if a video is made to a very large extent according the specifications of fetish fans, and is marketed heavily to those fetish fans, and is not marketed heavily to anyone else, and makes the overwhelming majority of its sales to fetish fans, then that video is clearly a fetish video.

However, this is not an exhaustive definition of "fetish video," since these features are not NECESSARY for a video to qualify as a fetish video.

I wonder if anyone has any thoughts on what else might be part of a good, robust definition of fetish video? I know that some fans really are invested in the idea that the peril videos they watch are not porn of any kind, fetish or otherwise. I'd actually be especially interested to hear from you. What is it that you think distinguishes the superheroine in peril videos you like from a properly "fetish" video?

What is a fetish video anyway?

[decendingskulls]

You tend to get into a gray area here sometimes. Like the phrase "when a line is crossed" except that the line is kind of blurry.

For instance for me, strangulation is a turn on (one of many ). You could film any old action movie that has a brief strangulation scene, and no one would say it was a fetish scene.

But when you draw the scene out and film it in a certain way with close ups and the heroine moving and making sounds in an erotic way, most anyone would start to get a funny feeling about that scene past a certain point and say to themselves "Hey! Something funny about this scene I think..." Because the production had crossed that line somewhere along the way.

So I guess what I'm saying is that when you incorporate "fetishes" that could in other contexts be normal fight scene moves, it comes down to your intention when filming it, and that intention is usually revealed in the finished product. If you intend for the strangulation to be sexual, it will be filmed and acted out in a specific way. If you don't intend for it to be sexual, the strangulation will be more straight to business. That's my take on it anyway.

But certainly your other point about who it's marketed to and how it's marketed says a lot about the productions intention as well. For instance as you pointed out, surveying a fetish board and listing the releases fetish interest points seems to clearly point to the intention of those moves being filmed for fetish enjoyment.

I sometimes wonder if we're getting a little lost in semantics though.

For me what it comes down to is - some people get it. They get what I get. We are on the same wavelength. Those are the people I support. I want to see more from them because they speak my language. This is true with mainstream stuff too. For instance I love Darren Aronofsky.

[unmasked05]

If you take the definition of a fetish "a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc." Now I believe there is a universally accepted understanding of what normal sex acts include. I am not going to debate what normal sex acts are either. If you a well adjusted human being you know what a partner will accept without having to ask. Once you have to start asking permission to perform an act that you "get off on" you are now entering fetish territory.

Now I personally think every video marketed on this forum would be defined as fetish videos. Each person is different and their reason for watching these videos will all be different in some way, but they are here because they have a SHIP fetish. Now I am talking about SHIP videos in general terms because there a whole bunch of sub-fetishes to our main fetish and that will always differ from person to person. I think some producers such as you Alex understand without a doubt you are producing fetish videos and you expect the people that are watching your videos are buying them for sexual gratification. Other producers whether naive or not believe they are producing a regular video and no matter what you or anyone else says that producer will not change his mind.

Only an individual person can know if they define their behavior as fetishistic. Now where I personally label all these videos as fetish without a doubt is marketing and price. You can join Reality Kings for $9.99 a month and get access to close to 1000 if not more full porno videos. However we all pay up to on average from $20-$60 for a single SHIP video. We do this because we have a fetish to see these videos and get our sexual gratification from them. Producers can say whatever they want, but the audience that these videos are marketed to and the prices charged make these videos for lack of a better word "special." To me the audience will always determine what your video is regardless of what label the producer wants to put on it. To me I feel we should all as the SHIP community embrace what we have here. We have an overload of great content ranging from PG to X rated and some great producers that are creating these videos and looking for ways to improve this wonderful FETISH!

[Dragon1]

That Defention was written when Oral and anal sex were considered abnormal sex acts.

[unmasked05]

No matter when it was written the definition still holds for what a fetish is. This definition is not excluding or including any acts. It is a general definition of the word fetish.

[Dragon1]

The term "fetishism" was coined in the late 1800s. It originates from the Portuguese word feitico, which means "obsessive fascination". There is a degree of fetishistic arousal in most normal individuals who find particular bodily features attractive. However, fetishistic arousal is generally considered a problem when it interferes with normal sexual or social functioning and where sexual arousal is impossible without the fetish object.

[unmasked05]

@Dragon I have no idea what point your trying to get across in your posts. I offered an accepted definition of the word fetish to begin illustrating my point on what a fetish video means to me. If you disagree with what I have said please let me know what you are disagreeing with. The definition I offered does not include or exclude acts or that sexual arousal is impossible without said fetish involved. Let me know what definition you would use to define fetish and we can debate from there.

[Dragon1]

The term I was disagreeing with word "abnormal" which comes from an age that did not understand sexuality even of it's time. This is before master and johnson and Kinsey as well. I was showing the clinical term of when it becomes abnormal and "There is a degree of fetishistic arousal in most normal individuals who find particular bodily features attractive." Meaning Fetishes are normal.

[unmasked05]

Fair enough. I used an accepted definition I most closely associated with to get into my viewpoint on fetish videos. While I find having fetishes normal there is still a huge majority that does not understand them. Also for me personally I find my unmasking fetish to be abnormal, but does not impact my life in one way or the other. I just cannot articulate why I get so much sexual gratification from seeing the heroine unmasked. I do not see the word abnormal as being a negative label as it used to be. I am outside the norm when it comes to my preferences. Anyway thanks for clearing up what you disagreed with. Fetish is different for each individual person and it is a great thing to have a forum like this to discuss it. I am on East Coast time so time to say goodnight.

[Dragon1]

Maybe it is the way a women is forced to reveal her true self to you as to why that entices you. Unmasking to reveal who it truly is.

[Alex Bettinger]

You know, reading the exchange between you two just now, I had a bit of an epiphany.

Unmasked05 said, " I just cannot articulate why I get so much sexual gratification from seeing the heroine unmasked." I think this basic sentiment is something everyone with a fetish completely understands, this whole "I don't know why I like this so much" feeling. What's interesting is that Dragon1 then offers a (perfectly plausible) explanation:

"Maybe it is the way a women is forced to reveal her true self to you as to why that entices you. Unmasking to reveal who it truly is."

What I find very interesting about Dragon1's response, is that it's not really an answer to the question, WHY. It's really still much more the WHAT. Because lets say Dragon1 is correct, that the "reason" Unmasked05 likes unmasking is because of the idea of the woman being revealed in some way. That doesn't really explain WHY he likes it--it really just clarifies (assuming it were true) WHAT he likes. Namely, he likes the revelation of the woman, the exposing of her true self, etc.

But the question of WHY would only reemerge here: But WHY do you like this revelation so much?

So you see, offering an "explanation" like this really doesn't answer the question of why someone has a fetish for something. It only clarifies WHAT it is he likes.

To use me as an example, you might say that I have a fetish for heroic female characters being defeated, etc. But why? Well, I might say something like, "Because I love the way the character who was once strong is rendered completely helpless, I love the contrast between the two states." But of course, this hasn't answered the why question at all, because the next obvious question is "But why do you like that contrast so much?"

So here is the epiphany. WHY questions are probably just not really useful when discussing fetishes. Maybe, when talking about our fetishes, it's more productive, more accurate, more honest to just stick with WHAT questions.

WHY questions are what therapists and feminists and moral conservatives want to ask. Why do you like that?! It's because you are sick, or because you hate women, or because you are depraved, etc. But really, that's mostly nonsense. There probably IS NO WHY. They get started for completely random reasons, because it just so happened that you saw a certain image at a certain moment in your development, and it happened to stick with you.

So maybe we should leave the WHY questions to the quacks and the moralists. Maybe we should just stick with the WHAT questions.

[Dragon1]

Alex You are correct that the what here is more important then the why. but for a person who is questioning if he is normal then the way is just as important for him. Also if I was correct and that was his why his next why wold be to complex for a forum.

[swampy170]

I would suggest that the way the video is marketed also has a heavy bearing on whether a video is classified as fetish.

Essentially if you market your vid to fetish fans, it's obvious you understand as a producer that your vids are, or can be convcieved as, fetish vids.

Totally different thing if your vid ends up being discussed on a fetish board.

But directly marketing to fetish fans is blatantly going to sway the view of any jury, and indeed I would suggest any judge. Therefore it needs to be considered as part of the definition.

[swampy170]

Having said that - is this an international definition?

Here in the UK, films that are deemed to have artistic merit can be given numerous exceptions - films discussed on a different thread would be borderline in my opinion.

I would suggest if a producer really wants to avoid a fetish stigma they should submit their videos for official classification. Therefore it's all in writing officially.

[theScribbler]

What is a fetish video anyway?

If it's advertised by the producer or distributor in the 'Latest Superheroine Releases' forum here, then it's a superheroine-in-peril fetish video. I say this based on just scanning the threads in there and not finding a single non-fetish video.

[kingles]

In that case, we might truly not know for sure whether it's a fetish video or not. We might even say it's up to the viewer to decide. But only a fool would conclude from this that therefore ALL films are a matter of subjective perception. Only a fool would conclude from this that the question of whether any film is or is not a fetish movie is totally undecideable, or, even worse, that it's entirely up to the producer to make that decision. It's clearly NOT up to the producer. There are objective facts about most films that make them OBVIOUSLY porn movies, or fetish videos, or not. And no amount of protestations from the producer will change that fact.

Unfortunately, people make this foolish move all the time. Like the high school sophomore who realizes that a poem can mean different things to different readers, and so then leaps to the absurd conclusion that therefore the poem means whatever you want it to mean, there is no good or bad readings, there is nothing objective in the poem at all, it's all just "perception," it's whatever you want it to be. Which of course is nonsense. There are plenty of TERRIBLE readings of poems.

Couldn't it be a matter of perception whether a specific video, or group of videos, are or are not fetish videos though? While I am generally in agreement with your viewpoint on this issue...I'm not sure if that isn't only because we are looking at this with at least a similar fetish savvy 'eye'. Would an average man or woman really SEE the fetish content like WE would?...Or would they just see a throat lift or low blow as simply part of a fight scene? To borrow your example...I'm not really much for poetry. Would I really be able to discern a terrible poetry reading from a good one? I'm kind of skeptical about that. Someone who was more knowledgeable about poetry would probably notice right away though.

[Imagineer]

HeroineAddict made a very valuable point that illustrates this same point from the perspective of law. He wrote:

"Just try hiring someone aged under 18 to star in one of your blatant fetish videos and see what happens."

As an attorney myself, I can tell you that HeroineAddict is absolutely right. It makes absolutely NO difference what the producer intends when he's shooting someone underage. It makes NO difference whether he "intends" to make a mainstream movie or a fetish video. IF a prosecutor catches wind of the video, and decides he wants to prosecute the producer for making child pornography, on the grounds that the prosecutor thinks the movie IS a fetish video, then the opinion of the producer is 100% IRRELEVANT in the eyes of the law.

Instead, the jury--or the judge in the case of a bench trial--will make that decision. And if the court indeed finds that the video qualifies as a fetish video, then the producer will be going to JAIL for a very long time. The producer can insist all he wants that HE should get to label his movie however he wants--he would be wrong. In the eyes of the law, as well as in the eyes of any even remotely sophisticated aesthetic theory, he'd be wrong.

Title 2257 is specific to sexually explicit conduct.

[Heroine Addict]

Title 2257 is specific to sexually explicit conduct.

I very much doubt that some of the supposedly "non-fetish" videos with repeated and excessive "low blows" to the genital area could ever be made with minors. So right there we have an example of something which a producer may disingenuously claim is not sexually explicit, but is clearly so overtly sexual that anyone who made such a video with a minor would be looking at serious jail time.

In that instance, wouldn't the lack of 2257 compliance mean that something deemed by a court to be sexually explicit would lead to a much harsher sentence for the producer? Not only would that producer have hired an underage actress for a fetish video, but they would also have bypassed the one law which would have protected them from hiring a minor in the first place.

[Imagineer]

I am not a lawyer. I just read stuff. Child pornography law concerns sexually explicit conduct, not overtly sexual or fetish content. 2257 refers to the definition in 2256. Sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals of pubic area of any person. It doesn't further define those terms, that's probably up to case law. We could speculate about whether the content of the producer under attack here for which they claim they're free to hire workers under 18 qualifies as sadistic or masochistic abuse, but ignorant of case law what's the use.

Anyway, while there's famous legal wishy-washy associated with pornography in obscenity laws vs first amendment, and we consider sexual fetish pornographic, and there's a lot of fear about the reach of the law wrt child pornography, 2257 (child protection and record-keeping) is more specific.

I'd expect producers consult with lawyers to avoid legal exposure.

[edit] I notice you edited your original reply to be less expansive about prosecuting fetish video and focus on sexually explicit since I started this reply, but I hope the above still addresses the revised questions.

[edit]Maybe not entirely. "Not only would that producer have hired an underage actress for a fetish video," -- it's not about making a fetish video, it's about depictions of sexually explicit conduct.

I'm just glad I'm not a video producer.

[Alex Bettinger]

I am not a lawyer. I just read stuff. Child pornography law concerns sexually explicit conduct, not overtly sexual or fetish content. 2257 refers to the definition in 2256. Sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals of pubic area of any person. It doesn't further define those terms, that's probably up to case law. We could speculate about whether the content of the producer under attack here for which they claim they're free to hire workers under 18 qualifies as sadistic or masochistic abuse, but ignorant of case law what's the use.

So, the case law actually IS very explicit that, when dealing with "child pornography," there does NOT need to be anything explicit at all. People have gone to jail for a very long time for producing material that has no sex, no nudity even. The court simply found the work to be too sexually suggestive. And a video, say, of an underage girl in a very scanty outfit being punched repeatedly, say, in the crotch by an evil villain, being knocked out, then tied up and punched some more, etc.--well, that is most definitely NOT a risk that I would ever take. I can tell you from having read the case law--because it's a very important part of First Amendment jurisprudence--that such a video would almost certainly be found to be impermissible. And that's the point--it's not up to the producer to "decide" that his video is mainstream. If the producer were to say to the judge, "But your honor, there's no sexually explicit conduct in this movie, it's just a racy mainstream superheroine movie!", the judge would say, "Thanks for your opinion. We'll see you on Monday for sentencing."

Furthermore, the notion of "sadistic or masochistic abuse", while not developed as much in the case law, clearly has as expansive a reach as what prosecutors feel like going after. The language in the statutes makes it clear that the conduct in question can be simulated. So a fetish video of a woman actually being whipped will definitely qualify. But a video simulating a woman being whipped is also clearly within the reach of the law. It's really up to the prosecutor. And then up to the jury and the court. It's NOT up to the producer.

[unmasked05]

@Dragon while your hypothesis is sound it is definitely not my "why" reason for my unmasking fetish. Again truth be told I am not sure why and honestly I wouldn't want to dive so much into the psychology of the situation to take away from the enjoyment of the videos I prefer. I will offer and this is more my origin of my fetish and can in simplistic terms be the "why" and that would be because of Batgirl from the Adam West Batman series. I remember watching re-runs of the show between ages 8-10 before really knowing about arousal, masturbation etc and just feeling a certain way that stayed with me. She was never unmasked on the show but my mind would fantasize about the possibilities of what the unmasking would do to the heroine. Her fear, humiliation, realizing her career would be over etc all excited me.

Again as I grew older these thoughts would turn to sexual arousal and then once the internet started there was a whole new world open to me. SHIP is a huge fetish, but for me personally the unmasking is the holy grail of moments in a video. Alex did a video "Wonderdame vs the Wolf" and it is one of his rare unmasking videos and I loved it. The unmasking itself is acted differently then the rest of the video you see the fear the heroine is portraying begging not to be revealed. Today Rye released his new video dealing with unmasking/secret identity and I cannot wait to download it tonight.

I do agree with Alex the "what" to me is more interesting then the "why" but also I totally accept my fetish as normal to me. For others who don't feel normal about their fetish this is a great forum to share or read comments for the most part from open-minded, healthy, non-judmental people with a similar fetish.

[Alex Bettinger]

Couldn't it be a matter of perception whether a specific video, or group of videos, are or are not fetish videos though? While I am generally in agreement with your viewpoint on this issue...I'm not sure if that isn't only because we are looking at this with at least a similar fetish savvy 'eye'. Would an average man or woman really SEE the fetish content like WE would?...Or would they just see a throat lift or low blow as simply part of a fight scene? To borrow your example...I'm not really much for poetry. Would I really be able to discern a terrible poetry reading from a good one? I'm kind of skeptical about that. Someone who was more knowledgeable about poetry would probably notice right away though.

I think it's absolutely true that not all viewers will be able to recognize a fetish video for what it is. But that does NOT mean that the video ceases to be a fetish video.

For example: there is a huge smoking fetish. Smoking fetishists like to watch videos of women smoking. No nudity, nothing really suggestive, just long videos focusing on them smoking, the smoking coming out of their mouths, the cigarette between their lips, etc.

Now, someone ignorant of fetish, and of smoking fetish in particular, might see a video like this and think, "Man, what stupid artsy fartsy movie this is." And have NO idea whatsoever that the movie is a fetish video.

But that viewer's ignorance does NOT mean that the movie is, therefore, NOT a fetish video. Know what I mean?

A judge, too, might have no idea what a fetish movie is. But if a prosecutor were to file criminal charges against someone for including an underage actress in a superheroine in peril video, a video with NO nudity or anything sexually explicit at all, just a long beatdown scene, then the prosecutor would simply provide evidence during the trial of what fetish videos are. He might provide evidence, for example, of the producer advertising the video on fetish websites, etc. The judge or the jury would then make their own decisions. The opinion of the producer isn't going to mean much.

So while there might indeed be cases where it's fuzzy...you really aren't sure...there also are cases where you're going to be pretty damn sure that, once you look at the objective evidence, the video in question if a fetish video.

[Heroine Addict]

@Dragon while your hypothesis is sound it is definitely not my "why" reason for my unmasking fetish. Again truth be told I am not sure why and honestly I wouldn't want to dive so much into the psychology of the situation to take away from the enjoyment of the videos I prefer. I will offer and this is more my origin of my fetish and can in simplistic terms be the "why" and that would be because of Batgirl from the Adam West Batman series. I remember watching re-runs of the show between ages 8-10 before really knowing about arousal, masturbation etc and just feeling a certain way that stayed with me. She was never unmasked on the show but my mind would fantasize about the possibilities of what the unmasking would do to the heroine. Her fear, humiliation, realizing her career would be over etc all excited me.

Again as I grew older these thoughts would turn to sexual arousal and then once the internet started there was a whole new world open to me. SHIP is a huge fetish, but for me personally the unmasking is the holy grail of moments in a video. Alex did a video "Wonderdame vs the Wolf" and it is one of his rare unmasking videos and I loved it. The unmasking itself is acted differently then the rest of the video you see the fear the heroine is portraying begging not to be revealed. Today Rye released his new video dealing with unmasking/secret identity and I cannot wait to download it tonight.

I do agree with Alex the "what" to me is more interesting then the "why" but also I totally accept my fetish as normal to me. For others who don't feel normal about their fetish this is a great forum to share or read comments for the most part from open-minded, healthy, non-judmental people with a similar fetish.

My unmasking fetish stems from the same fantasies of seeing Batgirl unmasked. I have no idea "why" it excited me so much, but "what" excited me was the thought that once Batgirl had been captured, it would be so easy for a villain to destroy her with the removal of a single item.

Rationally, such a fate would destroy the character. (Although the same series did do a "cop-out" resolution to King Tut revealing Batman's identity.) But, in my young head, it just seemed ridiculous that no villain ever unmasked Batgirl. I just couldn't fathom the thought processes of the villains and henchmen who had a helpless Batgirl in their grasp, yet somehow made a conscious decision not to unmask her.

[Imagineer]

Rationally, such a fate would destroy the character. (Although the same series did do a "cop-out" resolution to King Tut revealing Batman's identity.) But, in my young head, it just seemed ridiculous that no villain ever unmasked Batgirl. I just couldn't fathom the thought processes of the villains and henchmen who had a helpless Batgirl in their grasp, yet somehow made a conscious decision not to unmask her.

The villains and henchmen had a heroine fetish, and feared that once they unmasked Batgirl they'd never see her the same way again -- the fantasy would be ruined. And in that world, Batgirl was it, so, better not to take any chances -- nobody was producing new costumed heroines every month

[Dragon1]

So Heroine Add what you are saying is you want to see a heroine destroyed but in a non violent way.

[Heroine Addict]

So Heroine Add what you are saying is you want to see a heroine destroyed but in a non violent way.

Possibly, yes. It was really the anticipation more than anything, the oft-promised "THE WORST IS YET TO COME!"

The thought of victorious villains looming over Batgirl in full costume except for the mask and wig fascinated me. What would Barbara's facial expression be like? What would she say? And, possibly the biggest question, would she act like Batgirl or Barbara?

[Imagineer]

The thought of victorious villains looming over Batgirl in full costume except for the mask and wig fascinated me. What would Barbara's facial expression be like? What would she say? And, possibly the biggest question, would she act like Batgirl or Barbara?

Identity is such a fascinating thing, isn't it?

So in the fetish videos of Batgirl being unmasked that you've found, what's your favorite reaction, and was she Batgirl or Barbara?

[Heroine Addict]

Without being too critical of producers, the problem I find in videos is that the Barbara Gordon side of the character has never been established enough for me to see the character as anything other than Batgirl without a mask. (Of course, Yvonne Craig had really put in the hours as Barbara.)

So this is an area in which the fetish simulacrum can try to deliver the unmasking I had always been denied by the authentic version. However, it's usually as part of a drastically cut-down narrative. What's missing is the context (seeing Barbara in everyday life) which originally made me wonder which side of her personality we would see when the boundary between the two is torn away? I get to see the act of unmasking, but some of the reason why I craved that act is lost.

An unmasking in the Jim Weathers and Angela Sommers Batgirl series would be good because Angela has established both sides of the character with clear differences in the way she moves and speaks.

If I ever get together the money to fund a really big Batgirl custom, the entire first scene would be the villainess versus librarian Barbara Gordon, before we even see Batgirl.

[unmasked05]

My two favorite Batgirl Unmasked videos are first Candle Box did a video as Batgirl with Christina Carter as Catwoman. Second was a Hypnotic World video with Tracy Jordan as Batgirl and Kym Jane as the villain. She was unconscious for the unmasking but Kym Jane took photos of her to add to her humiliation which I enjoy when unmaskings are involved.

I have to agree with Heroine Addict if I could ever get the money for a really good custom I would love to shoot a script I already wrote centered around the heroine being unmasked. As much as I love Batgirl at this point I would use the Queen of Swords as the character. The lacy mask is awesome and there are quite a few ways to play with the mask before it actually comes off. A lot of what I like is the Heroine knowing it is coming and there is nothing she can do to stop it. Reactions by the actress are very important and unfortunately there are not a lot of videos that portray great unmasking scenes.

[Heroine Addict]

Callie Calypso did a very good Batgirl video for Primal, even though the mask she wore was the same crappy version used recently by Coco in Superheroine League. Callie really sold the unmasking as Batgirl's worst nightmare. Plus there's a noticeable change in her character when the strong heroine's facade is ripped away to reveal the Commissioner's librarian daughter.

Despite Callie's excellent performance, this version of Barbara still doesn't seem like a fully-formed character in her own right. In my mind, I still haven't seen enough of (this side of) the character for the reveal to be completely satisfying. I guess that's the thing with fetishes; I'll probably never see a "perfect" Batgirl unmasking with all the elements to my satisfaction. I'll just keep buying them, hoping each next one with be the Holy Grail of unmasking videos.

There's also a Young Knightwoman video due anytime now from Mighty Hypnotic with Callie unmasked again. That may be the one...

[unmasked05]

I have that Callie Batgirl video and I enjoyed it but was not one of my favorites. The new video with her as young Knightwoman I am looking forward to as well. Hopefully it will get released this month.

A great video Primal did was their latest Silver Staff video. The actress really sold the submission to do what the villain wanted as long as she wasn't unmasked. This is one of my favorites of the year and would have probably been my favorite if they actually unmasked her. The video just played up the whole concept of what the heroine was willing to do to keep her identity which I really enjoyed.

[Alex Bettinger]

So Helstar has privately proposed to me the view, which I am very interested in, that no video can ever be porn, not even fetish porn, unless there is nudity or sex in it. I have invited him to explain his position here. I hope he will, not least because I find that view to be unsupportable (as even a cursory perusal of the offerings at Clips4Sale should make clear).

But if anyone shares this view, I humbly ask that you please offer a defense of it here. I promise I will be nice! I really want to understand how someone could possibly believe that, say, a 30-minute video of Cali Logan in a bikini being punched in the stomach, or tied up and having her feet tickled, cannot possibly be fetish porn since there is no nudity and no sex.

Does anyone share this view that fetish and porn are two radically and absolutely distinct categories?

[theScribbler]

dhc-Batgirl-unmasked.png (138.46 KiB) Viewed 6986 times

I've been thinking about unmasking cause of the above discussion.

If forced stripping a girl is a fetish or kink, I'm sure I have that.

If unmasking is part of stripping the heroine, then I do get a sexual charge from it.

If unmasking is just unmasking for identity reveal, and not stripping the rest of her clothes, then while I like it as a damsel-in-distress event or plot point, the charge I get from it is not sexual, it's just exciting drama.

[Henchman]

Alex, here in the UK the powers that be have already answered your question; we have a legal definition of what constitutes pornography. This was necessary in our country to enable our moral betters and guardians to throw us into jail should we possess a picture or movie depicting something they find offensive.

It is quite simple and as follows (quoted directly from Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) -

"An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."

So according to that definition, if a producer could demonstrate that they did indeed have a "mainstream" audience then surely it would be perfectly reasonable for them to claim their work was not pornographic.

Interestingly, again here in the UK, a Femdom website has recently challenged our government regulator which was attempting to shut them down by claiming that their product was art and not porn and that just because a large number of people may well have enjoyed it as such does not change the fact that it is art. They won. See here - http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... mment-form

I quote below one section of the artists letter to the regulator for ease of reference and because it is particularly pertinent to this discussion.

" With all this, I am only replying to your suggestion that there is only one use and purpose to my UC-SC project, the erotic, and that it invalidates any other purposes, intentions or discourses in it. I am very proud of my project, precisely because it works at many levels and I dispute that the possibility that it might be sexually arousing for some viewers, invalidates its artistic purpose or value. The history of art is full of pieces that were considered too sexually explicit or erotic for public view and as we know, what constitutes pornographic is firmly tied to its time, place and specific culture.

It is with sadness that I must turn to more mundane matters. My principal purpose is NOT the provision of programmes. It is to showcase artistic talent, within a distinct political orientation. Now that the technology to both create and distribute videos has democratised conveying artistic concepts for sharing and exchange within communities of interest as Recital 21 puts it, representing this through online videos is a natural way to give expression to these artistic talents. It is why YouTube is so successful. After artistic & political motives, the provision of programmes is merely a means to an end, and certainly not my principal purpose."

So it would appear, at least here in the UK (and note that the UK's legislation against anything remotely un-pc is pretty draconian) that it is entirely possible for a producer to claim their work is not a fetish video, even when lots of people buy it and use it as such.

[Alex Bettinger]

Thank you so much for that link, Henchman! I have followed with interest, if also from afar, the doings of UK legislators who have made it a crime even to possess certain S&M material. Draconian indeed.

The definition of pornography you cited, of course, is extremely vague--and it's not clear to me that the existence of a mainstream audience would necessarily absolve one of the label of "pornography." After all, when "Deep Throat" came out, TONS of people went to see it in the theaters, people with NO intention to masturbate or get off on it or be sexually aroused by it. Literally millions of movie-goers were going to theaters--many of which were NOT adult theaters--to see "Deep Throat." Why? partly out of curiosity, partly because it was just so sensationalized, etc. But it was a huge thing with a huge mainstream audience. And of course, it was still quite obviously porn.

The example you cited--the absolutely brilliant UC-SC project--has actually rather little to do with any of this, and for two reasons.

First: If you read carefully the article you linked, you will see that the material in question absolutely IS porn. The makers of the material themselves ACKNOWLEDGE that it's porn. They also insist that, while it's porn, it is ALSO art. It's what you call "relational" or "participatory" art. So, like Duchamp's famous urinal, which was both a real actual urinal and ALSO art, the UC-SC project is really porn and ALSO art. It's participating in the very thing it critiques--a gesture that has a very fine provenance in both artistic production and in aesthetic theory. The videos in question include a video in which nothing happens really other than a man being hung by an anal hook. There is no question that it's porn. It's just that it's ALSO art, which is a conclusion that seems pretty justified since the makers of the UC-SC project have a very clear and well-defined feminist conceptual motivation behind their works.

And for the record, I think plenty of porn is also art. In fact, in my opinion, ALL porn is art--at least if you take a generic definition of "art" as, say, any communicative work the primary purpose of which is to convey non-conceptual, non-discursive meaning. Which, at least as far as the First Amendment goes, I think would be a very handy definition.

Second: The Ofcom decision you cited has virtually nothing to do with whether the UC-SC project is porn or art. Rather, it had to do with whether or not the material was sufficiently like a traditional television "program" to be subjected to the regulations that apply to ordinary tv programs. On appeal, it was found that the material is NOT sufficiently like an ordinary television program to be subject to such regulations. It doesn't have a schedule, it's not linear, the videos are all much shorter than ordinary tv, etc. That's it. That's what the case was about. There was no determination that the material was, or was not, porn, since, after all, everyone agrees that it IS porn, even the people making the material.

But it's a fascinating case, and I urge everyone to read the article and the decision it refers to.

I do sometimes wish we had a regulatory agency that we could in fact submit our works to, say, to ensure that a given work is or is not "obscene". Just for the sake of clarity. Then again, that would probably create far more problems than solutions....

Alex, here in the UK the powers that be have already answered your question; we have a legal definition of what constitutes pornography. This was necessary in our country to enable our moral betters and guardians to throw us into jail should we possess a picture or movie depicting something they find offensive.

It is quite simple and as follows (quoted directly from Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008) -

"An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal."

So according to that definition, if a producer could demonstrate that they did indeed have a "mainstream" audience then surely it would be perfectly reasonable for them to claim their work was not pornographic.

Interestingly, again here in the UK, a Femdom website has recently challenged our government regulator which was attempting to shut them down by claiming that their product was art and not porn and that just because a large number of people may well have enjoyed it as such does not change the fact that it is art. They won. See here - http://obscenitylawyer.blogspot.co.uk/2 ... mment-form

I quote below one section of the artists letter to the regulator for ease of reference and because it is particularly pertinent to this discussion.

" With all this, I am only replying to your suggestion that there is only one use and purpose to my UC-SC project, the erotic, and that it invalidates any other purposes, intentions or discourses in it. I am very proud of my project, precisely because it works at many levels and I dispute that the possibility that it might be sexually arousing for some viewers, invalidates its artistic purpose or value. The history of art is full of pieces that were considered too sexually explicit or erotic for public view and as we know, what constitutes pornographic is firmly tied to its time, place and specific culture.

It is with sadness that I must turn to more mundane matters. My principal purpose is NOT the provision of programmes. It is to showcase artistic talent, within a distinct political orientation. Now that the technology to both create and distribute videos has democratised conveying artistic concepts for sharing and exchange within communities of interest as Recital 21 puts it, representing this through online videos is a natural way to give expression to these artistic talents. It is why YouTube is so successful. After artistic & political motives, the provision of programmes is merely a means to an end, and certainly not my principal purpose."

So it would appear, at least here in the UK (and note that the UK's legislation against anything remotely un-pc is pretty draconian) that it is entirely possible for a producer to claim their work is not a fetish video, even when lots of people buy it and use it as such.

[Henchman]

Alex - you're absolutely right - earlier I couldn't find the Ofcom decision (link on the site above didn't work) and completely got the wrong end of the stick from the material presented above. Apologies for the bum steer.

In case anyone is interested, Ofcom's decision can be found here - http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/binari ... s/ucsc.pdf

It seems to me this actually proves your point in that (apart from the scheduling issue you mentioned) it was found that the material on the website was sufficiently different to "mainstream" TV so as not to fall under the regulator's remit at all.

They therefore concluded that these fetish videos do not equal mainstream TV material.

EDIT - here is a quote from Ofcom about why the material wasn't considered comparable to broadcast TV -

In its assessment of the video content, Ofcom noted various elements of the videos which were indicative that they had been made with a limited production budget. For example, the majority of videos available on the UCSC service were filmed in one location and
many appeared unscripted and lacked any narrative conceit. In addition, audio had not been recorded using professional equipment, there was no music to accompany the scenes, the videos did not appear professionally lit and the content appeared to have been filmed using basic, consumer -grade cameras. The production values of the material presented on the UCSC Service were accordingly not closely
comparable to professional content broadcast on linear services.

Given the above, I wonder what they would have thought of some of the better producers material in our niche, which absolutely does mimic broadcast shows as closely as possible?

The reason I thought it was a relevant example was the view of the owner of the site who seems to consider their work to be art and having a higher purpose than porn. (I don't share that view myself but in light of the discussion here lately I thought it might be of interest).

EDIT 2 - BACK ON TOPIC

Regarding the definition of pornography I gave above (and all fetish videos are pornography first and foremost, just porn that concentrates on a particular element), I think it's perfectly serviceable actually. Putting aside for a moment that it had to be vague enough to catch anything they decide they want to prosecute, it seems to me that it sums things up pretty well and concisely.

The various posts about what does or doesn't constitute a fetish video have posed some examples to make the point i.e. lady smoking, lady getting pummelled for the entire run time. The problem with these is they are kind of extreme cases and easily defined as fetish.

How about some closer to the edge?

Is Batgirl Spoiled a fetish vid? - -It could surely have been marketed on this site.

How about Space Girl? -

Or Batman vs Deadpool? -

Sorry for the length of the post; I find this a fascinating question, not least because the most important thing to me in buying a fetish video is that it must absolutely NOT look like a fetish video. I want them to be almost indistinguishable from the old TV shows, but still fetishy, and that's a bit paradoxical isn't it?

[Alex Bettinger]

EDIT 2 - BACK ON TOPIC

Regarding the definition of pornography I gave above (and all fetish videos are pornography first and foremost, just porn that concentrates on a particular element), I think it's perfectly serviceable actually. Putting aside for a moment that it had to be vague enough to catch anything they decide they want to prosecute, it seems to me that it sums things up pretty well and concisely.

The various posts about what does or doesn't constitute a fetish video have posed some examples to make the point i.e. lady smoking, lady getting pummelled for the entire run time. The problem with these is they are kind of extreme cases and easily defined as fetish.

How about some closer to the edge?

Is Batgirl Spoiled a fetish vid? - -It could surely have been marketed on this site.

How about Space Girl? -

Or Batman vs Deadpool? -

Sorry for the length of the post; I find this a fascinating question, not least because the most important thing to me in buying a fetish video is that it must absolutely NOT look like a fetish video. I want them to be almost indistinguishable from the old TV shows, but still fetishy, and that's a bit paradoxical isn't it?

So I haven't seen any of the examples you cited, and so can't really offer an opinion on them; BUT I think we would all agree, even just as a matter of principle, that there can definitely be cases where it really is uncertain whether a video is a fetish video or not. No doubt about it.

We just have to avoid the conceptual trap that sometimes fools people into reaching unjustified conclusions. Specifically: Just because there are problematic instances does NOT mean that, therefore, EVERYTHING is simply a matter of perception, or subjective judgment, etc. Because it's clearly not. Some videos are clearly fetish videos. Some are clearly not. And sometimes it's not easy to tell. The fact that it's not easy to tell sometimes is something to be expected when dealing with almost any generic category.

But that doesn't mean that everything is subjective or a matter of perception, or that "fetish" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, etc.

Oh and let me be clear that I'm NOT attributing that sort of faulty conclusion to Henchman here; he's a sharp cookie, lol. I just wanted to make this point because it's the problematic examples like the ones he cited (assuming they are problematic; I haven't seen them) that do sometimes lead the less sophisticated into logically unjustified territory.