The Porn Princess Rant, Re-Written

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

i fully agree with you, Nigel.  it shouldn't be like that (and i take LMNO's word that it largely isn't like that in person).  I was just saying that it doesn't really surprise me, and that it is unlikely to be otherwise with the brigade of assholes that are always present on the intarwebs.
so.... normal, even if not acceptable.  it seems to me that the situation either requires 'handling', or abandoning.

just out of curiosity, have you ever tried treating the assholes as men that secretly with to be dominated by a female, but just need a little breaking in?  (as a troll, or sociololgical experiment to see how they react in that context)

just as a precaution, i'd like to say that i don't really have a dog in the fight, and i'm trying to be constructive, not argumentative here.  (i understand that i can come across as belligerent when i don't mean to, sometimes)

Nope, but if I hadn't gotten a lot of "I've seen you before and I know where to find you" type messages, that would have been a good angle to try. I'm not going back there for anything, not even to troll, though.

Lately I tend to watch mostly videos of guys jerking themselves off.

... you're not having trouble finding this type of content, are you?

No, that's why that's most of what I've been watching lately. It's content that I trust to be truly amateur and non-exploitative.

Although, Youporn changed its sorts and it doesn't have a category just for this anymore, which totally bums me out.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Nope, but if I hadn't gotten a lot of "I've seen you before and I know where to find you" type messages, that would have been a good angle to try. I'm not going back there for anything, not even to troll, though.

I ought to sign up as a female, using some woman's pic from the 60s or so, and see if they say the same thing.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nope, but if I hadn't gotten a lot of "I've seen you before and I know where to find you" type messages, that would have been a good angle to try. I'm not going back there for anything, not even to troll, though.

I ought to sign up as a female, using some woman's pic from the 60s or so, and see if they say the same thing.

DO IT!

[LMNO]

Nope, but if I hadn't gotten a lot of "I've seen you before and I know where to find you" type messages, that would have been a good angle to try. I'm not going back there for anything, not even to troll, though.

I ought to sign up as a female, using some woman's pic from the 60s or so, and see if they say the same thing.

I'm LMNO, and I approve of this message.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Nope, but if I hadn't gotten a lot of "I've seen you before and I know where to find you" type messages, that would have been a good angle to try. I'm not going back there for anything, not even to troll, though.

I ought to sign up as a female, using some woman's pic from the 60s or so, and see if they say the same thing.

I'm LMNO, and I approve of this message.

Tonight.

Screen shots will be provided.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nope, but if I hadn't gotten a lot of "I've seen you before and I know where to find you" type messages, that would have been a good angle to try. I'm not going back there for anything, not even to troll, though.

I ought to sign up as a female, using some woman's pic from the 60s or so, and see if they say the same thing.

I'm LMNO, and I approve of this message.

Tonight.

Screen shots will be provided.

EXCELLENT.

You may not, because I've been on dating sites for several years, which makes it both plausible that they've seen me elsewhere, and that much more creepy that they would just hint at it and not just say "I think I saw you on OK Cupid!" which is a bit of an internet faux pas but not alarming.

[Cain]

"Hey, I saw you on PD.com.  CHECK OUT MY PENIS MULTILATION PICS"

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

"Hey, I saw you on PD.com.  CHECK OUT MY PENIS MULTILATION PICS"

[Ayotollah of Ass]

I'd like to take this in a slightly different direction. My goal here is to make a better case for porno, or at least get you asking some questions about it and refining your position a bit.

Suppose we start out with Craigslist. Let's say you put out a casual encounter ad and you have some kind of exhibitionist kink in play and let's also switch genders from what we might imagine is typical: a woman wants to film random men masturbating to put on an amateur website, a wife wanted to film her husband with other women/men, a woman wants to film herself having sex, something along those lines. Contact is made, everyone wants to have sex, wants it filmed and some form of porno springs into the world. Everyone gets a copy. Is this non-exploitative? For clarity, let's specify that everyone involved was of legal consent, not involved in any coercion.

I'm going to assume that the above is a non-exploitative scenario. Which immediately brings us to real interesting territory because we now have to ask ourselves about porn as a commodity. But, what is the commodity? Are these people being turned into a commodity by the initial agreement? By the filming of their sex act? By an uninvolved third person watching this film and masturbating to it? If porn is commodifying people and sex, what are the necessary conditions? When I try to come up with any, they all ultimately seem to reduce to a question of exploitation. So, let's move to that.

Which of these condition flips this scenario to exploitative?

1. One person owns the intellectual property, in the end. You agree to be in this film and I'll do what I want with it. If the non-owner/participant agrees to this (perhaps with the idea that it might get wide distribution and there might be many people masturbating to them every day), is it a problem?
2. Money changes hands. Does the amount of money matter? If you paid $1 as a token and it was accepted? $100? $1000? $10,000? $100,000? $1,000,000? Does there come a point where it moves from exploitative to decent work? Does the underlying need matter, e.g., a $500 a day cocaine habit? Three babies to feed and its the best "work" available?
3. Are there other elements in play here? The control of the film and the money issue seem central to the claims being made, but I may be missing something crucial.

Now, let's move on to some of the OPs observations and those from the thread.

At some point, she meets someone who says they can get her some big money NOW, making "adult" films.  Then he names a figure.

Next thing you know, she's dragging down $600 a scene, pulling in several thousand a month.  Not bad money for a girl with no marketable skills in a town where a pretty face and $4 will get you a cup of coffee.

But it turns out that to make that much money, she needs to make a LOT of films.  So in her first year, she burns through a hundred low-rent flicks, easy.  This wears you down.  It's hard to get into it.  So she gets a little something to help her along.  Might be coke, more probably meth...

The obvious problem with the OPs narrative is that this is a classic slippery slope argument. The woman chooses to accept cash in exchange for being filmed having sex. She chooses to use drugs. She chooses to do more extreme scenes. None of the progression is inevitable. Or, to take it the other direction, perhaps it is inevitable that this woman would make many of these choices even if there were no porn industry (no viewers, hence there was no market for it - which seems to be what is being advocated for here).

But, let's assume that the porn industry is influencing these young women down this road. No doubt she is surrounded by scumbags that are using every trick in the book to get her to do what they want. But, how is the viewer of the resulting sex scenes culpable for that? Because money is being funneled into a fundamentally exploitative industry? Well, there's a slippery slope for that argument too, which we get to when we bring up the electronics, clothing, illegal immigrant and all the various and sundry forms of exploitation that goes on to support out American lifestyle. Why does this get special treatment? It gets special treatment because its about sex.

And then there are other comments that illustrate this puritan bias, and not out there in mainstream society but right in PD.com. Do you really think men would masturbate less if going to spas were a more accepted cultural norm? Or, even better, why is it necessary at all? You may not find it necessary. But, there's a whole world of situations out there where it might be the best option, e.g., wife has ovarian cancer, husband can no longer get it up, or (horrors!) some people just might like getting off watching other people get off (or being watched by other people while they get off) but don't want those other people in their homes with their kids or have to bother navigating the STD minefield.

The OP ends it all with, "What porn IS, is turning a human being into a commodity.  It is trading in human misery." While I can agree with the idea that the porn industry is festering boil of an environment, this can be addressed without necessarily demonizing porn or the people that like to watch it.

[Verbal Mike]

Ayotollah, have you read the whole thread? Because much of what you're writing seems to rehash the argument that spanned most of the thread, from where I'm sitting. I take the argument to be rather that it's very difficult to find non-exploitative porn, because the vast majority of it is made under commercial, exploitative conditions, not that porn is per se exploitative, and definitely not that anyone's a bad person for masturbating and/or consuming porn.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The obvious problem with the OPs narrative is that this is a classic slippery slope argument. The woman chooses to accept cash in exchange for being filmed having sex. She chooses to use drugs. She chooses to do more extreme scenes. None of the progression is inevitable.

But that's how you bet, at least here.

Hoops, who works in the post-production side of things, argues that the porn industry HE sees (ie, ones that bother with post-production) aren't like that.  I don't know.

And who is demonizing people who view porn?  LMNO stated that he views porn...He wasn't crucified.

[Ayotollah of Ass]

Ayotollah, have you read the whole thread? Because much of what you're writing seems to rehash the argument that spanned most of the thread, from where I'm sitting. I take the argument to be rather that it's very difficult to find non-exploitative porn, because the vast majority of it is made under commercial, exploitative conditions, not that porn is per se exploitative, and definitely not that anyone's a bad person for masturbating and/or consuming porn.

I did read the whole thread. The OP is claiming that porn turns people into a commodity. Others make claims around the area that porn is some kind of maladaptive sexuality. Even the people arguing for it are conflicted about it.

There are some arguing that "it's very difficult to find non-exploitative porn" (which is to say, porn they can be 100% sure of according to some definition of non-exploitative). But, it's not the only position out there. And even that one left me with questions: What are the necessary conditions for exploitative? For example, is it when any money change hands? Or how much money that is being paid? What culpability does a viewer have in the choices made by a porn actress and the porn industry in producing the "product"?

So, I just want to go through and tie it together as best I can. Brevity, unfortunately, is not my strong suit.

Hoops, who works in the post-production side of things, argues that the porn industry HE sees (ie, ones that bother with post-production) aren't like that.  I don't know.

And who is demonizing people who view porn?  LMNO stated that he views porn...He wasn't crucified.

Perhaps demonizing is overwrought. Your OP was focused on the fallacy that somehow porn is, in the main, liberating for women. Agree with you that it isn't. And, maybe I'm reading in what isn't there, but arguing that porn turns people into a commodity is a pretty strong position, unless I'm assuming you're using hyperbole for a bit of a rhetorical flourish.

[Pope Pixie Pickle]

Ayotollah, have you read the whole thread? Because much of what you're writing seems to rehash the argument that spanned most of the thread, from where I'm sitting. I take the argument to be rather that it's very difficult to find non-exploitative porn, because the vast majority of it is made under commercial, exploitative conditions, not that porn is per se exploitative, and definitely not that anyone's a bad person for masturbating and/or consuming porn.

Also those of us that stated that we do not use porn for ethical reasons stated that we (or in this case, I, ) do so because we cannot be entirely sure that what is commonly available is safe, sane and consensual. I know people who don't use porn because they find it boring, and not because of any ethical concerns.

Mine is not a puritan bias at all, and more of a socialist worker's rights bias, and a feminist bias. If there is no dire financial need, someone is a hardcore exhibitionist and really wants to film themselves fucking and has agency to do this or anything else to make money, then I'm cool with it. I'm just pretty sure this example is pretty unicorn-like, and do not wish for my money or revenue generated from advertising related to my usage of free sites to further the exploitative parts of the industry.  If I ever watch anything like that I want to be 100% sure that the performers have agency and that there is genuine enthusiastic consent. If you add to the serious lack of focus on genuine female pleasure in a majority of porn to the too often racist and misogynistic attitudes in the films then I'm out.

What I don't want to be complicit in is this kind of event. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Roxx, who in a double anal scene caught HIV after being in porn for 2 months.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'd like to take this in a slightly different direction. My goal here is to make a better case for porno, or at least get you asking some questions about it and refining your position a bit.

Suppose we start out with Craigslist. Let's say you put out a casual encounter ad and you have some kind of exhibitionist kink in play and let's also switch genders from what we might imagine is typical: a woman wants to film random men masturbating to put on an amateur website, a wife wanted to film her husband with other women/men, a woman wants to film herself having sex, something along those lines. Contact is made, everyone wants to have sex, wants it filmed and some form of porno springs into the world. Everyone gets a copy. Is this non-exploitative? For clarity, let's specify that everyone involved was of legal consent, not involved in any coercion.

I'm going to assume that the above is a non-exploitative scenario. Which immediately brings us to real interesting territory because we now have to ask ourselves about porn as a commodity. But, what is the commodity? Are these people being turned into a commodity by the initial agreement? By the filming of their sex act? By an uninvolved third person watching this film and masturbating to it? If porn is commodifying people and sex, what are the necessary conditions? When I try to come up with any, they all ultimately seem to reduce to a question of exploitation. So, let's move to that.

Which of these condition flips this scenario to exploitative?

1. One person owns the intellectual property, in the end. You agree to be in this film and I'll do what I want with it. If the non-owner/participant agrees to this (perhaps with the idea that it might get wide distribution and there might be many people masturbating to them every day), is it a problem?
2. Money changes hands. Does the amount of money matter? If you paid $1 as a token and it was accepted? $100? $1000? $10,000? $100,000? $1,000,000? Does there come a point where it moves from exploitative to decent work? Does the underlying need matter, e.g., a $500 a day cocaine habit? Three babies to feed and its the best "work" available?
3. Are there other elements in play here? The control of the film and the money issue seem central to the claims being made, but I may be missing something crucial.

Now, let's move on to some of the OPs observations and those from the thread.

At some point, she meets someone who says they can get her some big money NOW, making "adult" films.  Then he names a figure.

Next thing you know, she's dragging down $600 a scene, pulling in several thousand a month.  Not bad money for a girl with no marketable skills in a town where a pretty face and $4 will get you a cup of coffee.

But it turns out that to make that much money, she needs to make a LOT of films.  So in her first year, she burns through a hundred low-rent flicks, easy.  This wears you down.  It's hard to get into it.  So she gets a little something to help her along.  Might be coke, more probably meth...

The obvious problem with the OPs narrative is that this is a classic slippery slope argument. The woman chooses to accept cash in exchange for being filmed having sex. She chooses to use drugs. She chooses to do more extreme scenes. None of the progression is inevitable. Or, to take it the other direction, perhaps it is inevitable that this woman would make many of these choices even if there were no porn industry (no viewers, hence there was no market for it - which seems to be what is being advocated for here).

But, let's assume that the porn industry is influencing these young women down this road. No doubt she is surrounded by scumbags that are using every trick in the book to get her to do what they want. But, how is the viewer of the resulting sex scenes culpable for that? Because money is being funneled into a fundamentally exploitative industry? Well, there's a slippery slope for that argument too, which we get to when we bring up the electronics, clothing, illegal immigrant and all the various and sundry forms of exploitation that goes on to support out American lifestyle. Why does this get special treatment? It gets special treatment because its about sex.

And then there are other comments that illustrate this puritan bias, and not out there in mainstream society but right in PD.com. Do you really think men would masturbate less if going to spas were a more accepted cultural norm? Or, even better, why is it necessary at all? You may not find it necessary. But, there's a whole world of situations out there where it might be the best option, e.g., wife has ovarian cancer, husband can no longer get it up, or (horrors!) some people just might like getting off watching other people get off (or being watched by other people while they get off) but don't want those other people in their homes with their kids or have to bother navigating the STD minefield.

The OP ends it all with, "What porn IS, is turning a human being into a commodity.  It is trading in human misery." While I can agree with the idea that the porn industry is festering boil of an environment, this can be addressed without necessarily demonizing porn or the people that like to watch it.

So you're only going to address the individual components, and ignore the social aspects entirely?

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Perhaps demonizing is overwrought. Your OP was focused on the fallacy that somehow porn is, in the main, liberating for women. Agree with you that it isn't. And, maybe I'm reading in what isn't there, but arguing that porn turns people into a commodity is a pretty strong position, unless I'm assuming you're using hyperbole for a bit of a rhetorical flourish.

Everything turns some part of you into a commidity.  A carpenter sells his skills.  A scientist sells his knowledge.  Prostitutes and porn stars sell their own persons.