Messages

One good thing is that the US military brass don't seem too keen on autonomy - it's the scientists and engineers who are pushing it.

US military brass probably still remembers Vietnam, where greater soldier autonomy turned out to be a great way to get shot in the back. It's probably not much better when its algorithms.

Your last point is right on. If it can be done, it will be done.

This is awesome.

[It's like you do the inverse of the principle of charity, rendering the worst interpretation or making up something whole-cloth, and then you attack that - while adding in a side dish of scorn and derision.]

Waitwaitwait. Is part of your hostility  toward me based in you being offended because I referred to you as "that asshole guy" and variations thereof?

Not at all. And, if you think about that fact and the rest of your comment, you can see the problem. It's like you do the inverse of the principle of charity, rendering the worst interpretation or making up something whole-cloth, and then you attack that - while adding in a side dish of scorn and derision. But, I did a bit of that myself. It is an "inflammatory topic", after all. And, in the end, my thinking ended up in a better place. So, really, there's no room to bitch about it, and it's probably just a sign I need thicker skin.

I am not sure what you mean by this. I re-read the rest of my comment, and can't figure out what you're referring to with this. Can you please be more specific? Here's the post again.

Waitwaitwait. Is part of your hostility  toward me based in you being offended because I referred to you as "that asshole guy" and variations thereof?

Dude, just to point out, I don't know about other people but the reason I was calling you "that asshole guy" because ASSHOLE WAS IN YOUR USERNAME. Your username was long and I couldn't remember exactly what it was so I just pulled a memorable piece out and used it for shorthand. Sort of like someone might call me "that monkey guy" if they couldn't remember my username off the top of their head.

If you don't like it when people to call you "Asshole", perhaps it would be wise to not make it your NAME.

As far as picking and choosing who to listen to based on their assessed credibility, it's actually a very important skill; not for confirmation bias purposes, but for gleaning the information that is most likely to be accurate. When there's money involved, it's important to look at who is making the money and where it's coming from. If you are trying to assess whether a product is safe, and you have three studies in front of you, one funded by the maker of the product, one funded by a competitor of the product, and one from an objective third party, when you assess the credibility of the three studies, how do you weight them?

I did not, previously, even as a former sex worker, have the opinions I have today about the sex trade. As a matter of fact, I didn't have these opinions when I came to this board. Changing my mind took a combination of compelling arguments from people here, notably Roger, and of doing additional research that included weeding out, or at least viewing with a high degree of skepticism, opinions from parties who have religious moralistic reasons to denounce the sex trade, and opinions from parties who stand to profit from sex trade. Both have insurmountable biases, in my assessment.

Sure. You went with an interpretation, "This guy is complaining about being called an asshole." And then, spend two paragraphs pointed out how absurd that is, given my name. The absurdity was definitely a sign, but was it a sign that I was complaining about something I essentially do to myself or that the interpretation wasn't quite right? In the end, it's hard to accept the logic of a position while reading and responding to people who are saying they think you're not worth talking to, compare your position to stomping on puppies, so forth and so on, which was my point.

The second half is valid. I brought in the porn star's blog as a weak counter-example and because I thought it was interesting. But, your subsequent commentary focused on me - your perceptions of my ability to evaluate evidence, things I might need to learn, etc. - rather than what you see as the problems of the counter-example. This came across as condescending in the context of the larger discussion, but reading it again now and taking it on its own, it's innocuous.

Waitwaitwait. Is part of your hostility  toward me based in you being offended because I referred to you as "that asshole guy" and variations thereof?

Not at all. And, if you think about that fact and the rest of your comment, you can see the problem. It's like you do the inverse of the principle of charity, rendering the worst interpretation or making up something whole-cloth, and then you attack that - while adding in a side dish of scorn and derision. But, I did a bit of that myself. It is an "inflammatory topic", after all. And, in the end, my thinking ended up in a better place. So, really, there's no room to bitch about it, and it's probably just a sign I need thicker skin.

Has the Ayotollah seen the light? Or does he have his tail between his legs now? Is all sex-work significantly worse in terms of psychological damage to the worker than all other varieties of work (I think I did mention soldiering??? No responses? Prison wardens, doctors, I mean particularly doctors practicing in areas with totally inadquate welfare resources? Obstetricians? Subsistence farmers under increasingly desert-like conditions?). Or is it more the case that the nature of sex-work provides a unique leverage for exploitation partly because sex is, well, sex (though the commercialisation aspect runs deep, did you know that chimps exchange meat for sex? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7988169.stm), and partially because of this particular society's hang-ups about sex are so atrocious?

I see the light. I think the exploitation/wage slavery lens makes this topic much more difficult to understand - or at least opens the door for vigorous rationalization. Part of the problem with this lens is that it treats sex as if it were an economic transaction. While economics may figure into it, sex is never only about economics (if I recall correctly, even Marx identifies capitalism as social relations), and when you make it only about economics, you are blinding yourself to other important issues and treating it as merely an economics transaction is part of the violence of it.

Even if you want to go the comparative exploitation route, what is the difference between a soldier going to war and killing themselves after because they would rather not live with the things they have done, and a sex industry performer doing sex industry porn and then doing the same? Or, let's imagine that individual soldiers had soldier cams. What kind of person would watch these war cams? Maybe there is a case for getting information about facts on the ground, but what kind of person enjoys it?

Another important point, since we are using the economic lens, is that there are ready substitutes. Real sexual relationships, erotica, reflections on pass experience, or whatever. It is an act of commission that is completely optional.

It is possible to could go round and round on this topic. But, I find the argument above convincing. In order to attack it, you would have to argue that sex industry porn is not harmful mentally, emotionally or physically to the performers, and while there may not be definitive studies on the matter, to take a phrase from Roger, the fact that it is harmful is how you bet. And the whole thing turns on that point. Whether it is as harmful as being in a war zone, a prison, an area of subsistence farming, etc., who cares?

Anyway, everyone has rightly moved on. I just wanted to address a few loose ends since I dropped out of the conversation. Thanks to everyone who helped change my mind.

You are missing my point, if I understand your other thread correctly. That was only the surface, since your argument against Nigel seemed to be that because that porn star used the word "fun" that she: A) legitimately enjoyed her experience overall, 2) is not mentally, emotionally, or physically harmed in some way, or will end up as such if she continues in the industry, or iii) that she isn't forced to give a positive statement because doing otherwise would cause her more problems. Now, staying away from the credibility issue at this point, and looking just at the context, unless I missed something, she does not say that working in the porn industry has been a fun, positive experience for her, but rather relates an anecdote about a particular experience. I'm not saying that she wouldn't say that, nor that she wouldn't legitimately feel that way, but when working with textual accounts with little or no context like this, the specific use of language is the ONLY means we have to draw conclusions from., and it seems to me that you drew a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence, on this one.

To add another point: Have you ever noticed that most of the time, emotionally damaged people, don't realize/admit that they are emotionally damaged? Even if they do, do you think that a person who saw no way out of the porn industry would bad mouth it publicly?

In retrospect, I think the two major problems, at least for me, in Nigel's and Roger's arguments against sex industry produced porn is that it seemed they were over-stating the case for exploitation, commodification and what not and there was a disconnect between that issue and the viewer. Maybe its I just wasn't seeing it.

But, if we take the points you made, I do see it. If we lay it out like this:

1. Most performers in sex industry produced porn are not enjoying what they are doing, e.g., the doing it for money argument.
2. It seems likely that performing in sex industry produced porn is mentally, emotionally, or physically damaging in some way.
3. On some level, performers are being coerced into giving false witness against 1. and 2., i.e., give some kind of indication that they like it and everything is a-okay, partly to make it okay to watch what they are doing.

If you accept 1-3, and I do, then the watching of industry produced porn is basically watching someone harm themselves and getting off on it. And looking at it that way, it is horrifying.

Ok, against my better judgment, here it goes.

To show sincerity, though, I will give you an example: I noted that the word fun was used as an adjective for the sex itself (i.e. that sex without a condom is more "fun" than sex with a condom), or in cases like when they looked at each other's genitals "for fun", which doesn't necessarily that it was actually a fun experience, but that they were doing it despite the fact they really didn't have the ability to identify signs of STDs unless it was something obvious, to stave off boredom while they waited for the shoot to begin.

It's an interesting point. I'm going to start a new thread called "Soft paternalism, linguistic parsing and exploitation" using not porn examples (since we don't need a Porn Princess thread #3), and see if there is an interest in what I see as a categorical problem. If you want to talk about this specific example, I suppose it makes sense to do that here.

You are missing my point, if I understand your other thread correctly. That was only the surface, since your argument against Nigel seemed to be that because that porn star used the word "fun" that she: A) legitimately enjoyed her experience overall, 2) is not mentally, emotionally, or physically harmed in some way, or will end up as such if she continues in the industry, or iii) that she isn't forced to give a positive statement because doing otherwise would cause her more problems. Now, staying away from the credibility issue at this point, and looking just at the context, unless I missed something, she does not say that working in the porn industry has been a fun, positive experience for her, but rather relates an anecdote about a particular experience. I'm not saying that she wouldn't say that, nor that she wouldn't legitimately feel that way, but when working with textual accounts with little or no context like this, the specific use of language is the ONLY means we have to draw conclusions from., and it seems to me that you drew a conclusion that is not supported by the evidence, on this one.

To add another point: Have you ever noticed that most of the time, emotionally damaged people, don't realize/admit that they are emotionally damaged? Even if they do, do you think that a person who saw no way out of the porn industry would bad mouth it publicly?

My point was that she's not painting the same chamber of horrors as Roger. And to play devil's advocate for a moment, what are the consequences when we start picking and choosing what we decide to believe of what someone else says based on our beliefs, filtered through our amateur psychological assessments of people and let our ideas about exploitation and the long term impact of sex work determine what is true or not? We probably end up seeing what we want to see.

Every point you make here are all good and valid points. And for the record, I don't really think you can argue against any of them. Porn can't be anybody's dream job. It has to have long term negative effects on people. And, there has to be an element of coercion going on here. These points alone make for a pretty good anti-porn argument - all by themselves.

And now, I'm going to go think about it, without the benefit of someone calling me an asshole because I'm not on the same page as them yet. And, thanks. This comment was a kindness.

So, if someone has a "real, legitimate need" to slap people around, that's okay?  I mean, I'm just trying to understand where ONE PERSON'S needs suddenly justificate exploitation of OTHER peoples' bodies.

Also, I have made a real effort to be civil with you, but you are being deliberately insulting and dismissive...talking about the constant reitteration of "You People claim to seek reality, but".  I think I'm done being civil, now.  Enough is enough.

Is there no relevant difference between slapping someone and watching a masturbation video?

The second is a valid point. It's hard not to slip into a deliberately insulting and dismissive mode when I'm having my ass constantly chapped for nonsense, such as the unfair comparison above, supposedly not reading posts, etc., etc. But, you are right. I need to do a better job of keeping it out or not get involved here. In any event, only reentered this discussion for Phox, and I guess that was a mistake. So, moving along.

I have no idea where this should go or whether its even appropriate for the board. Thought that came to me as part of another thread, and I figured I'd just put it out there and step in the poop.

==

Thought experiment: Suppose you are a fly on the wall, and you hear a member of the Church of Scientology's Sea Organization say something along these lines to a new recruit coming in for training:

"I believe, 'We Come Back'. We are part of an ancient organization that once tried to save the Earth and failed, and I think we are going to play an important role in the eventual redemption of humanity."

We know certain things about this organization. We know there are billion year contracts, low wages, various forms of social control, etc. There are many accounts of ex-members in the Church and ex-Sea Org members like Paul Haggis, John Brousseau, and others, that suggest it's an exploitative situation, and it's an exploitative organization. There is also evidence that any opinions counter to the organization's views can have very real negative consequences for people in the organization (and without) that express them. There is also the context here where we would probably assume that part of what the person saying this is trying to do is convince the new recruit. In short, we have a lot of reason to doubt the person believes what they are saying.

But, let's also assume they mean it. They may be living in a socially constructed reality and effectively brainwashed. But, they believe the Church of Scientology's teachings. They found that it helped them recover from some horrors that happened to them before convertion to the religion/cult, or they just accepted what they have been told from birth, maybe because they don't know any better. Maybe it is Stockholm syndrome.

Does there come a point where levels of exploitation get so high that it is impossible to believe the person being exploited anymore - where the observers perception of reality trumps the experience and the attitudes of the person actually having the experience? How far do you take it? For example:

1. How far do we linguistically parse what they are saying so that we can convince ourselves that, deep down, they agree with us about their situation, despite what it looks what they are saying on the surface is in direct opposition to our view?

2. What happens when we start lowering down the exploitation, say to the level of Jehovah's Witnesses, AAA baseball or any other example you care to think of?

Note: Please exclude porn from this discussion, since turning this thread into Porn Princess thread #3 is not my intent, and it's best if we just keep that as explicitly off-topic. If you want to talk porn, you know where to find those threads.

3. How do we avoid the trap of soft paternalism - which means, to me, basically believing that our opinions about reality are better than other people's opinions without having a real basis for making that claim? At the extremes, it is the difference between this Sea Org example (which, at least, is defensible) and say, people asserting that all liberals/conservatives are ignorant fucktards deluded by MSM or Fox News (which mostly, isn't).

Ok, against my better judgment, here it goes.

To show sincerity, though, I will give you an example: I noted that the word fun was used as an adjective for the sex itself (i.e. that sex without a condom is more "fun" than sex with a condom), or in cases like when they looked at each other's genitals "for fun", which doesn't necessarily that it was actually a fun experience, but that they were doing it despite the fact they really didn't have the ability to identify signs of STDs unless it was something obvious, to stave off boredom while they waited for the shoot to begin.

It's an interesting point. I'm going to start a new thread called "Soft paternalism, linguistic parsing and exploitation" using not porn examples (since we don't need a Porn Princess thread #3), and see if there is an interest in what I see as a categorical problem. If you want to talk about this specific example, I suppose it makes sense to do that here.

AA, I am still wondering what the point of quoting that account of "STD inspection" was. I am not saying that it was irrelevant, I am ASKING WHAT POINT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE, because as far as I can tell it is not a very good counterpoint, and in fact reinforces the impression of pornography as a terribly unsafe venture, health-wise. I am also hoping that you realize that what I mean by "horrifying" is that a visual inspection of the genitals, even by a medical expert, is completely inadequate as a screening for STDs. I mean, absolutely completely. It's somewhat analogous to looking at a person's tonsils to determine whether they have heart disease. The article itself comments on that.

So, what point, exactly, were you attempting to reinforce by quoting that excerpt? It seems to be a condemnation of the porn industry. Is that what you meant it to be?

I think it is a counter-example to Roger's OP's ideas of exploitation. As I said:

I think what I found even more interesting given the context of this PD discussion is how often she uses the word "fun", four times. It doesn't negate was is being said here, but it is definitely a very different picture of working conditions and exploitation than what Roger's OP was painting.

It's not just visual inspection. It's also blood tests. And, the process at least gives the appearance that there is concern from the people producing/directing that the people involved in the scene are all okay with what they are doing. Is it adequate, or more to the point, would I be comfortable with risking my health in this way? No. But, then again, I'm not the one whose ass is on the line. If they choose it to do it, why shouldn't someone else watch it?

And I think what bothers me most about this discussion is that many of you seem to be making moral claims about what people should or should not be doing, but at the same time, want to absolve yourself from the consequences that taking those positions might have outside your personal situation.

Let me be slightly unfair here. It's like saying: Hey, I don't think you should be hiring 6 year olds to work 16 hour days in a sweat shop to make clothing for The Gap. I don't buy clothes from Gap, and because practically every other apparel retailer out there might have sweat shop produced clothes from 6 year olds (let's assume its the industry standard or just acknowledge that there is no way to exclude the possibility), I don't feel comfortable buying clothes and personally have been making all of my clothes by hand using a spinning wheel. It's more "natural" for people to make their own clothes anyway.

I could get more ridiculous, but you see where I'm going with this line. Despite claims of reality, you seem to be dismissive of the real, legitimate needs for sex/sexual aids of real people. And some of it is also implausible, relative to a Playboy (which got a free pass) how much more exploitative are industry produced masturbation shots relative to the amateur created exhibitionist ones (which also got a free pass)? Are masturbation videos a gateway drug? All of which gets to what I have been trying to bring up from post one about levels of exploitation, defining what constitutes porn (where somewhere along this thread someone even tried to exclude exhibitionist stuff as "not porn"), etc. It all starts getting into some real nebulous stuff, real quick, and the temptation is to go with the easy answer, to just say no to all of it, just like we can all use the spinning wheel. But, it doesn't change the fact its either a cop-out or displays a surprising lack of sensitivity for the whole range of situations people can find themselves in during the course of their lives.

From the context, I am thinking "Has this motherfucker ever had an online discussion in his fucking life?" and also "is this really the only point he was capable of making after quoting a mile of previous conversation, then quoting an unrelated yet entirely horrifying account of a completely inadequate "health inspection" from the porn industry?"

I've gone through the Porn Princess thread up until the point you make this comment:

You clearly either missed a lot of posts, or don't understand what social theory is. There was an extensive conversation about it earlier in the thread.

Re-reading it, my sense of it is that you all were having a pretty nice circle-jerk, with an occasional counter-point from Hoopla and a few others to keep it, you know, reasonable, and then some fucking n00b (me) came in with his "special snowflake" commentary, followed by holist taking one minor point and running with it to maximum stupid, and then, the merits of anything I might be saying become more or less irrelevant. My points must be as stupid as what holist's, and who does this n00b think he is anyway?

I tried to be reasonable. Even packed off quite a bit, because there are a lot of good ideas here. But unfortunately, there is also a lot of sloppy thinking that is being justified by Discordian tropes, like "A conclusion is just where you stopped thinking," which I take to mean you should always try to take a fresh look rather than hey, let's come up with whatever bullshit we like and go with that.

And I know reading comprehension is a bit difficult, but I'm not Roger.

That Assholist guy did the same thing.... quoted Roger, and then to show where Roger was being inconsistent he quoted me as we were the same person. 

And in the one place where I pushed back even a little bit, you have Roger coming to your aid, "oh, watch it now!" and even when I quote you back to Roger, it becomes I'm conflating the two of you. You might want to re-read your posts and see how much you are doing the same with me and holist, because it's a lot.

But, the first comment quoted above is where I'd like to stop. Rather than acknowledge that hey, I read that wrong, you went straight onto the attack again. There's a person describing their situation and using words like "fun" and because you find it to be an "entirely horrifying account" it is irrelevant, even though it is a interesting counter-example. So, your commentary is an example of:

"Obviously, the faster we process information, the more rich and complex our models or glosses — our reality-tunnels — will become. Resistance to new information, however, has a strong neurological foundation in all animals, as indicated by studies of imprinting and conditioning. Most animals, including most domesticated primates (humans) show a truly staggering ability to "ignore" certain kinds of information — that which does not "fit" their imprinted/conditioned reality-tunnel." -RAW

So, you'll pardon me while I go look at some of the other threads on PD.com. There's a lot of excellent stuff here, some of which you've written, which I'd like to read. And, there's very little value to be had in continuing discussion here.

Er, thanks.  That's somehow creepy that you looked it up for me, but thanks.

I used to be a reference librarian. I remembered you were in Tuscan from when you messaged. The rest was as natural to me as breathing. But, yeah, probably a little creepy if you didn't know that.

As a starting point, you could do a lot worse than Robert Cialdini. It's also useful if you are trying to avoid common tricks, e.g., it gives you good reason to never fill out a survey.

http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Business-Essentials/dp/006124189X

I haven't read this one, but I imagine it is further amplification of the theme.

http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Science-Practice-5th-Edition/dp/0205609996

Both are available at Pima County Public Library: Call Number: 153.852 C48i 2007 & 153.852 C48i 2009.

Obligatory --> 'Discordian' anagrams to: Add Incisor

Also, Ayatollah, you seem to be arguing a definition that involves "obscenity" standards.  While this is a worthy subject of debate, it isn't the actual topic here.  What we've been discussing is the exploitive nature of the sex industry.

I think a lot of the discussion is just talking past one another. I understand this thread, or at least the previous one this was part of, was on exploitation in the sex industry. I have been trying to get at the issue of what this means for a consumer/viewer of porn, as a practical guideline for life - which is what I take to be part of the point of asking this question in the first place. However, depending on your perspective, this issue might be off-topic.

I have not been trying to make any kind of obscenity claims, or to claim any particular person is a prude or people holding an anti-sex industry position are prudes or some of the other things being ascribed to me. Although, I did say that we need to be careful about our sex baggage we smuggle in and rationalize - which applies to everyone. For example, if porn doesn't do anything for you, then you're going to view it differently than someone who regularly watches it with their spouse/lover/whatever before having sex with them.

In any event, I think the best course for me at this point is to just shut up. I'll read the thread through, if I think I was out of line, I'll post one more time to say so. Cheers!   

[I actually never suggested people read a blog to get perspective on it.]

No real understanding of the reality of sex work?

There are a metric boatload of blogs and testimonies from ex-prostitutes and porn stars, they aren't that hard to find.

I just think you don't WANT to see the reality of the situation.

How easy is it to see the parts of porn that are alright when you are viewing it through a "metric boatload of blogs and testimonies from ex-prostitutes and porn stars"? Ever read a "I dabbled in porn and it didn't leave me irrevocably damaged" blog? How about the "I worked in a strip club to pay for college" blog? Because the now successful lawyers and moms want to highlight this information in a world that would stigmatize them if they were to find out about this part of their lives?

As I mentioned before, in apparently yet another portion of the thread you couldn't be bothered to read, I don't need to read such a blog, particularly, because I did that myself. And dated a stripper. And know people in sex work. Furthermore I am extremely sex-positive, as are most of my friends who have worked/still work in the sex industry. I'm not exactly a "Virtuous Woman™", although I am a woman of many virtues.

So wait, what was your point?

So, your experience and circle of friends is all the anecdotal evidence anyone could ever need and maybe you could just issue proclamations on the topic? Why didn't you just say so?

One word I think is really significant when we're talking about the sex industry is the word "industry".

If people make a video for their own exhibitionist pleasure and post it online, if it's not about profit, there's no industry. Just exhibitionism. When I get bored taking the train downtown I send upskirt shots to my boy du jour. Not industry. Just sex. Not relevant to this conversation, any more than a woman making love to her husband in the privacy of their bedroom is relevant to this conversation.

I'm just hoping that nobody else will bring up that particular red herring AGAIN.

Speaking of red herrings, I thought the topic was porn, not the sex industry. But, hey, since I don't have my Discordian topic secret decoder ring yet, I'll take your word for it.

Thanks for being dismissive about my perspective coming from the exact angle you suggested people read a blog to get perspective on.

And no, the topic, originally, was prostitution, and this thread split, specifically, includes "wage" in the title. This topic is about sex for money, not sex for fun. Pornography can be fun, both in the making and the consuming, and it can be non-exploitative in reality as well as in theory. The porn INDUSTRY is a subset of pornography, and that's the one people are talking about here, which is why the alienation and wage slave sub-topic came up.

I still don't believe you read the early pages of the other thread, because all of this was spelled out quite clearly there.

I actually never suggested people read a blog to get perspective on it. I was critical of that point. But, you are right that I shouldn't be dismissive, but from my view, I'm giving a little of what you are giving me.

You didn't? What did you mean when you said the bolded, below?

No real understanding of the reality of sex work?

There are a metric boatload of blogs and testimonies from ex-prostitutes and porn stars, they aren't that hard to find.

I just think you don't WANT to see the reality of the situation.

How easy is it to see the parts of porn that are alright when you are viewing it through a "metric boatload of blogs and testimonies from ex-prostitutes and porn stars"? Ever read a "I dabbled in porn and it didn't leave me irrevocably damaged" blog? How about the "I worked in a strip club to pay for college" blog? Because the now successful lawyers and moms want to highlight this information in a world that would stigmatize them if they were to find out about this part of their lives?

I replied to the bolded by saying that I don't really feel I need to read someone else's blog, since that was my own experience and it, naturally, helps inform my perspective.

As was pointed out, it is questionable whether there really is something different going on here, and I have proceeded as if there isn't. Maybe I'm wrong, yet again.

I'll read the whole OP thread again. I don't have time at the moment, but in the next few days. I had read the first few pages and than continued reading the thread a few days later, so maybe it all become a jumbled mess in my mind. If I missed as badly as you say, I'll be embarrassed and apologize. Fair enough?

Sure. But when I suggested you do this before, in the other thread, while it was still fairly manageably small, you got snarky on me, so I'm skeptical now.

From the context, I think it is clear that I'm saying these blogs don't actually exist partly because of the danger to the author's reputation, pointing to a selection bias and only getting one part of the story? Maybe not.

I serendipitously came across this yesterday, which I thought would be interesting to add:

"The production manager printed out a copy of each performer's page in the APHSS database. I signed my own copy and James's, indicating that my results were mine and accurate and that I had seen James's and was comfortable working with him and his clean test which had been taken less than 14 days prior. He did the same. Then the production manager performed an inspection. He looked in our mouths, at both sides of our hands, and at our genitals to make sure there were no visible sores or open wounds. There was another paper to sign stating that we have no sores or open wounds on or in our mouths, hands, and genitals and had been inspected. We also looked at each others genitals, mostly for fun but if either of us had seen (or smelled) something odd we would have called off the scene ourselves...We were able to have fun, uninhibited sex with each other without a condom because we both knew that the chances of either of us being infected with an STD are very low. Far lower than, say, a stranger at a bar or a person who hasn't been tested in a year or more. Our frequent STD testing, the APHSS database (and AIM before them), and the skin inspections are self-imposed."

http://stoya.tumblr.com/post/32205235912/testing-vs-condoms-in-pornography

I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with a visual inspection and sniff test, but then again, I probably couldn't tell a herpes lesion from an ass pimple anyway (sheltered life, I guess). I think what I found even more interesting given the context of this PD discussion is how often she uses the word "fun", four times. It doesn't negate was is being said here, but it is definitely a very different picture of working conditions and exploitation than what Roger's OP was painting.