This is a remake of a lost rant I wrote in response to someone saying porn was "empowering" to women. I can't find the original, so I'm re-writing it now.
The life-cycle of the average porn starlet.
Okay, so there's this 18 year old girl, fresh off the bus and ready for her new life in The City. She's hoping to land a job as a waitress or whatever, until she can get her first big break in modeling or film or whatever.
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.
But now she's no longer a fresh face. She's known, and her value starts to drop. So she has to do more and more bizarre things to get on camera. Starts with anal, goes downhill from there.
6 months later, she's thinking to herself, "If I let that guy piss on me and then drag me into the shower, I could make rent."
6 months after THAT, she's thinking a little differently. "If I let those guys choke me out and put their cigs out on my back, I might get enough to score." By this point she looks 40, and her skin looks like that of a cadaver. Her eyes are dead, like two burned out light bulbs.
A few weeks later, she's been sold to a pimp for her drug debts, and she's hooking to score. Statistically speaking, she's dead in 3 years, tossed in a convenient dumpster.
Then there's the next 18 year old girl, fresh off the bus and ready for her new life in The City. She's hoping to land a job as a waitress or whatever, until she can get her first big break in modeling or film or whatever.
Rinse, repeat.
So when you feel the need to tell me porn is "empowering" to women, take a moment instead to SHUT UP. What porn IS, is turning a human being into a commodity. It is trading in human misery. It is about as "empowering" to the woman as being enslaved was "empowering" to the Black population of the 1800s America. It's sordid, when you look at it that way, and about as sexy as watching monsters waterboard people at Gitmo.
That's all I have to say.
I believe that your original of this was the essay that changed my mind about sex work and empowerment. It was the part about the commodification of the human body... it gave me a lot to think about, and I ultimately did a 180 in my views on it.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 04:44:05 PM
I believe that your original of this was the essay that changed my mind about sex work and empowerment. It was the part about the commodification of the human body... it gave me a lot to think about, and I ultimately did a 180 in my views on it.
As I once told you, I came in contact with that world about 7 years ago. It's pretty sleazy. There's nothing good to be said about it. The guys are mostly the very bottom of the barrel (personalities like crocodiles), the women are as described, and life is even shittier for the fluffers. And EVERYONE has herpes at least (Seth warned me about that...As if I would be remotely interested in anyone there).
It's not fit for humans.
Ignore the emo music and check out the causes of death: "self-inflicted gunshot wound", "AIDS", "overdose", etc., and the sheer numbers.
There's a part 2, as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0q_VGacfNk
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 06:17:50 PM
Ignore the emo music and check out the causes of death: "self-inflicted gunshot wound", "AIDS", "overdose", etc., and the sheer numbers.
There's a part 2, as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0q_VGacfNk
Will check this out at home.
Incidentally 2 of the 3 people who said they wanted to read this rant have read it but not commented.
Apparently, I have offended their sensibilities in the Properthink™ thread, because they haven't spoken to me since.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 06:40:51 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 06:17:50 PM
Ignore the emo music and check out the causes of death: "self-inflicted gunshot wound", "AIDS", "overdose", etc., and the sheer numbers.
There's a part 2, as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0q_VGacfNk
Will check this out at home.
Incidentally 2 of the 3 people who said they wanted to read this rant have read it but not commented.
Apparently, I have offended their sensibilities in the Properthink™ thread, because they haven't spoken to me since.
Or they just don't want to feel guilty about purchasing porn.
You know, because it's really safe and everybody gets checked and the actors like their jobs. :x
Nail on the head there, TGRFC.
I spent six months in that line of work, seven years ago. That was about six months too many.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 06:43:25 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 06:40:51 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 06:17:50 PM
Ignore the emo music and check out the causes of death: "self-inflicted gunshot wound", "AIDS", "overdose", etc., and the sheer numbers.
There's a part 2, as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0q_VGacfNk
Will check this out at home.
Incidentally 2 of the 3 people who said they wanted to read this rant have read it but not commented.
Apparently, I have offended their sensibilities in the Properthink™ thread, because they haven't spoken to me since.
Or they just don't want to feel guilty about purchasing porn.
You know, because it's really safe and everybody gets checked and the actors like their jobs. :x
No, I don't think the people I'm talking about buy porn. Or maybe they buy WAY TOO MUCH, come to think of it.
I wills state that this is the last time I'll ever do this for those 2 people.
Pixie gets a pass, of course, on account of not being here.
The vast, vast majority of porn, I 100% agree, because it is degrading and vile and dehumanizing, reducing people to yeah, shells that only superficially resemble who they used to be and using naive young women. I can't get behind pro or amateur porn (because it's impossible to tell who is doing it because they want to and who is being posted there by a vengeful, scumbag ex).
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
The vast, vast majority of porn, I 100% agree, because it is degrading and vile and dehumanizing, reducing people to yeah, shells that only superficially resemble who they used to be and using naive young women. I can't get behind pro or amateur porn (because it's impossible to tell who is doing it because they want to and who is being posted there by a vengeful, scumbag ex).
Um. Other than pro or amateur, what else is there? I'm pretty sure that covers all the bases.
Let me clarify that by "porn", I don't mean images of people, but rather movies, pics, etc of people engaging in some form of sex.
Playboy magazine is fairly harmless stuff, and seems to be marketed as educational materials for 16 year olds. The most they're guilty of is setting an impossible standard with photoshop.
I'm talking about porn movies, which are an entirely different ballgame.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 06:55:04 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 06:52:16 PM
The vast, vast majority of porn, I 100% agree, because it is degrading and vile and dehumanizing, reducing people to yeah, shells that only superficially resemble who they used to be and using naive young women. I can't get behind pro or amateur porn (because it's impossible to tell who is doing it because they want to and who is being posted there by a vengeful, scumbag ex).
Um. Other than pro or amateur, what else is there? I'm pretty sure that covers all the bases.
Random outliers; exceptions.
Certain subgenres of erotica, because they don't use actual people. The rest of it - photography, film, etc. - I don't know enough to say whether or not there's porn princesses in there.Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 06:57:41 PM
Let me clarify that by "porn", I don't mean images of people, but rather movies, pics, etc of people engaging in some form of sex.
Playboy magazine is fairly harmless stuff, and seems to be marketed as educational materials for 16 year olds. The most they're guilty of is setting an impossible standard with photoshop.
I'm talking about porn movies, which are an entirely different ballgame.
Then see Nigel's comment, although I'd add the feminist porn companies, the few of them that do exist.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 07:05:07 PM
Certain subgenres of erotica, because they don't use actual people. The rest of it - photography, film, etc. - I don't know enough to say whether or not there's porn princesses in there.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 06:57:41 PM
Let me clarify that by "porn", I don't mean images of people, but rather movies, pics, etc of people engaging in some form of sex.
Playboy magazine is fairly harmless stuff, and seems to be marketed as educational materials for 16 year olds. The most they're guilty of is setting an impossible standard with photoshop.
I'm talking about porn movies, which are an entirely different ballgame.
Then see Nigel's comment, although I'd add the feminist porn companies, the few of them that do exist.
Is that sorta like a feminist house of ill repute? Does the brand name "feminist" make it somehow okay?
I do not understand.
WTF, Garbo?
Not sure what "feminist" porn IS...lesbians? Dom women kicking men around? It's still porn... :x
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 07:15:31 PM
WTF, Garbo?
Not sure what "feminist" porn IS...lesbians? Dom women kicking men around? It's still porn... :x
It has the right label on the box, maybe? :?
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 07:16:51 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 07:15:31 PM
WTF, Garbo?
Not sure what "feminist" porn IS...lesbians? Dom women kicking men around? It's still porn... :x
It has the right label on the box, maybe? :?
And words like "EMPOWERING". :|
I don't understand how porn is entertaining, to be honest. I've tried it. It does nothing for me, except make me wonder about what those people do when the cameras aren't rolling. And my imagination is a lot like the OP. Porn is a circus of suffering, where slaves are whipped (and worse!), and part of their job is to pretend they like it. Ugh.
From Feministe (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/23/feminist-porn-sex-consent-and-getting-off/):
QuoteFeminist porn is out there. In my opinion, feminist porn represents a diverse cross-section of people and is woman-friendly, queer-friendly, open to many interpretations of beauty, and is, at best, political and woman-owned.
I'll expand, if you want, when I'm not in class.
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:20:40 PM
I don't understand how porn is entertaining, to be honest. I've tried it. It does nothing for me, except make me wonder about what those people do when the cameras aren't rolling. And my imagination is a lot like the OP. Porn is a circus of suffering, where slaves are whipped (and worse!), and part of their job is to pretend they like it. Ugh.
This. I can't think of anybody who got into it for any reason other than necessity except Traci Lords. And she was about fourteen and didn't know her ass from a hole in the ground yet.
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:20:40 PM
I don't understand how porn is entertaining, to be honest. I've tried it. It does nothing for me, except make me wonder about what those people do when the cameras aren't rolling. And my imagination is a lot like the OP. Porn is a circus of suffering, where slaves are whipped (and worse!), and part of their job is to pretend they like it. Ugh.
I'm not visually geared. It does about as much for me as watching two lions on The Animal Channel (ie, nothing at all), only the lions are doing it for free, and the humans are doing it for bad drugs.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 07:21:23 PM
From Feministe (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/23/feminist-porn-sex-consent-and-getting-off/):
QuoteFeminist porn is out there. In my opinion, feminist porn represents a diverse cross-section of people and is woman-friendly, queer-friendly, open to many interpretations of beauty, and is, at best, political and woman-owned.
I'll expand, if you want, when I'm not in class.
Can't see the link.
I don't give a shit who owns the company, or what they call what it is they are doing. They are still making a commodity of human beings...And that ALONE is enough to make it degrading.
Feminist porn is where young, naive guys end up strung out on meth?
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 07:05:07 PM
Certain subgenres of erotica, because they don't use actual people. The rest of it - photography, film, etc. - I don't know enough to say whether or not there's porn princesses in there.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 06:57:41 PM
Let me clarify that by "porn", I don't mean images of people, but rather movies, pics, etc of people engaging in some form of sex.
Playboy magazine is fairly harmless stuff, and seems to be marketed as educational materials for 16 year olds. The most they're guilty of is setting an impossible standard with photoshop.
I'm talking about porn movies, which are an entirely different ballgame.
Then see Nigel's comment, although I'd add the feminist porn companies, the few of them that do exist.
As far as I'm aware "feminist porn" is both an oxymoron and a marketing gimmick.
There is "less exploitative porn" but that's still in the "kinder master" territory as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 07:21:23 PM
From Feministe (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/23/feminist-porn-sex-consent-and-getting-off/):
QuoteFeminist porn is out there. In my opinion, feminist porn represents a diverse cross-section of people and is woman-friendly, queer-friendly, open to many interpretations of beauty, and is, at best, political and woman-owned.
I'll expand, if you want, when I'm not in class.
Equal opportunity slavery, IOW. Employs gay people, overweight people, homely people and amputees. Profits go to scummy women instead of scummy men.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 17, 2012, 07:25:28 PM
Feminist porn is where young, naive guys end up strung out on meth?
Apparently, it's okay if the person who owns the company is a woman. And uses all sorts of different people in the movies.
"Uses" being the correct term.
Unless they're using animatronic dummies, like they did with the horses in
Braveheart, I'm 169% sure that they can't put the "No Humans Were Degraded In This Film" label on it.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 17, 2012, 07:25:28 PM
Feminist porn is where young, naive guys end up strung out on meth?
They can do that in regular porn.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 07:27:10 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 07:05:07 PM
Certain subgenres of erotica, because they don't use actual people. The rest of it - photography, film, etc. - I don't know enough to say whether or not there's porn princesses in there.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 06:57:41 PM
Let me clarify that by "porn", I don't mean images of people, but rather movies, pics, etc of people engaging in some form of sex.
Playboy magazine is fairly harmless stuff, and seems to be marketed as educational materials for 16 year olds. The most they're guilty of is setting an impossible standard with photoshop.
I'm talking about porn movies, which are an entirely different ballgame.
Then see Nigel's comment, although I'd add the feminist porn companies, the few of them that do exist.
As far as I'm aware "feminist porn" is both an oxymoron and a marketing gimmick.
There is "less exploitative porn" but that's still in the "kinder master" territory as far as I'm concerned.
:mittens:
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 07:27:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 07:21:23 PM
From Feministe (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/23/feminist-porn-sex-consent-and-getting-off/):
QuoteFeminist porn is out there. In my opinion, feminist porn represents a diverse cross-section of people and is woman-friendly, queer-friendly, open to many interpretations of beauty, and is, at best, political and woman-owned.
I'll expand, if you want, when I'm not in class.
Equal opportunity slavery, IOW. Employs gay people, overweight people, homely people and amputees. Profits go to scummy women instead of scummy men.
This feminist porn seems a whole lot like the regular kind of porn.
There's the political bit, though. If an actor screams "DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY" when he/she gets off, it's okay?
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 07:29:56 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 07:27:29 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 07:21:23 PM
From Feministe (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/23/feminist-porn-sex-consent-and-getting-off/):
QuoteFeminist porn is out there. In my opinion, feminist porn represents a diverse cross-section of people and is woman-friendly, queer-friendly, open to many interpretations of beauty, and is, at best, political and woman-owned.
I'll expand, if you want, when I'm not in class.
Equal opportunity slavery, IOW. Employs gay people, overweight people, homely people and amputees. Profits go to scummy women instead of scummy men.
This feminist porn seems a whole lot like the regular kind of porn.
There's the political bit, though. If an actor screams "DOWN WITH THE PATRIARCHY" when he/she gets off, it's okay?
:lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 07:21:23 PM
From Feministe (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/23/feminist-porn-sex-consent-and-getting-off/):
QuoteFeminist porn is out there. In my opinion, feminist porn represents a diverse cross-section of people and is woman-friendly, queer-friendly, open to many interpretations of beauty, and is, at best, political and woman-owned.
I'll expand, if you want, when I'm not in class.
The author falls into the common trap of conflating defending the rights of sex workers with celebrating female sexuality.
QuoteLong story short is that I became passionate about the rights of sex workers and people that work in the sex/adult industry and began a more intelligent and articulate study of why I felt so compelled to defend pornography, prostitution, women's sexual pleasure, and my own sexual desires.
It really, really disturbs me when people group things like pornography, prostitution, and women's sexuality together, as if they are about the same things.
From the blog:
VegPorn
One of my fav's with models of all shapes and sizes. This site features only vegetarian and vegan models and is very inclusive of gender and sexual diversity including queer and trans models. It's also woman-owned. I've thought of applying to model here, but am somewhat afraid of losing my job or causing a local scandal...which is usually a sign that you should not do something!
Oh wow.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 07:32:39 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 07:21:23 PM
From Feministe (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/23/feminist-porn-sex-consent-and-getting-off/):
QuoteFeminist porn is out there. In my opinion, feminist porn represents a diverse cross-section of people and is woman-friendly, queer-friendly, open to many interpretations of beauty, and is, at best, political and woman-owned.
I'll expand, if you want, when I'm not in class.
The author falls into the common trap of conflating defending the rights of sex workers with celebrating female sexuality.
QuoteLong story short is that I became passionate about the rights of sex workers and people that work in the sex/adult industry and began a more intelligent and articulate study of why I felt so compelled to defend pornography, prostitution, women's sexual pleasure, and my own sexual desires.
It really, really disturbs me when people group things like pornography, prostitution, and women's sexuality together, as if they are about the same things.
And that's it in a nutshell. Conflating degradation such as prostitution & porn with "sexual pleasure and desire" is kind of a naive mistake. I've known prostitutes. They don't "desire" any part of their job. It's just how they pay for their kids' food (at best), or their next fix (the usual case).
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on September 17, 2012, 07:34:28 PM
From the blog:
VegPorn
One of my fav's with models of all shapes and sizes. This site features only vegetarian and vegan models and is very inclusive of gender and sexual diversity including queer and trans models. It's also woman-owned. I've thought of applying to model here, but am somewhat afraid of losing my job or causing a local scandal...which is usually a sign that you should not do something!
Oh wow.
There's so much cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy here that I don't know where to begin.
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on September 17, 2012, 07:34:28 PM
From the blog:
VegPorn
One of my fav's with models of all shapes and sizes. This site features only vegetarian and vegan models and is very inclusive of gender and sexual diversity including queer and trans models. It's also woman-owned. I've thought of applying to model here, but am somewhat afraid of losing my job or causing a local scandal...which is usually a sign that you should not do something!
Oh wow.
There's a VEG FETISH? :horrormirth:
Porn with a veneer of "I'd like to teach the world to sing" strikes me as SLIMIER than straight-up, "we're gonna use you like a jack rag" porn.
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
I'm guessing it becomes degrading when money changes hands. You're not doing it because it's your thing anymore. You're doing it because you need money.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 07:38:33 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on September 17, 2012, 07:34:28 PM
From the blog:
VegPorn
One of my fav's with models of all shapes and sizes. This site features only vegetarian and vegan models and is very inclusive of gender and sexual diversity including queer and trans models. It's also woman-owned. I've thought of applying to model here, but am somewhat afraid of losing my job or causing a local scandal...which is usually a sign that you should not do something!
Oh wow.
There's a VEG FETISH? :horrormirth:
Porn with a veneer of "I'd like to teach the world to sing" strikes me as SLIMIER than straight-up, "we're gonna use you like a jack rag" porn.
Disneyporn. :vom:
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
As Nigel said, outliers exist. But they're really rare.
You get a couple that are exhibitionists, for example. They get a huge boot out of filming themselves in the act and posting it. Nobody has been exploited.
But what percentage of porn fits that bill?
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 07:42:25 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 07:38:33 PM
Quote from: Waffles, The Iron on September 17, 2012, 07:34:28 PM
From the blog:
VegPorn
One of my fav's with models of all shapes and sizes. This site features only vegetarian and vegan models and is very inclusive of gender and sexual diversity including queer and trans models. It's also woman-owned. I've thought of applying to model here, but am somewhat afraid of losing my job or causing a local scandal...which is usually a sign that you should not do something!
Oh wow.
There's a VEG FETISH? :horrormirth:
Porn with a veneer of "I'd like to teach the world to sing" strikes me as SLIMIER than straight-up, "we're gonna use you like a jack rag" porn.
Disneyporn. :vom:
The blog header alone is creepy as fuck:
(http://imageshack.us/a/img266/2503/captureyye.jpg)
Feministe got into a hilarious spat with Sadly, No! a couple of years ago, when the latter had the temerity to make a fat joke.
No, wait, I tell a lie: two fat jokes.
It nearly caused the entire US liberal blogosophere to go into a meltdown.
Like any blog with multiple authors, there are some really good writers there. But, by and large, it's the kind of place where "being offended" is the chief barometer of morality, along with the identity politics sort of stuff that suggests the authors went to University in the 1980s, did Literary Theory and then never moved on.
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
It is absolutely possible. The problem is attaining that goal in a market-driven society in which women and women's sexuality are objectified.
The Joy of Sex has its own issues as a product of it's time, but its intention as an erotic celebration of mutually fulfilling sexual interaction shines in both its text and in its beautiful, graphic illustrations.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
As Nigel said, outliers exist. But they're really rare.
You get a couple that are exhibitionists, for example. They get a huge boot out of filming themselves in the act and posting it. Nobody has been exploited.
But what percentage of porn fits that bill?
I am a highly visual person and I masturbate to porn. For personal ethical reasons, the porn I choose is exhibitionist amateur male masturbation video. It's free, and if I'm lucky I can get it directly from the source, eliminating any concerns about it being a product or byproduct of commercial exploitation.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 08:19:51 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
It is absolutely possible. The problem is attaining that goal in a market-driven society in which women and women's sexuality are objectified.
The Joy of Sex has its own issues as a product of it's time, but its intention as an erotic celebration of mutually fulfilling sexual interaction shines in both its text and in its beautiful, graphic illustrations.
I've got to correct myself there. It's not just women's sexuality, but sex-as-commodity. I've seen gay porn that is every bit as objectifying and dehumanizing.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 08:22:56 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
As Nigel said, outliers exist. But they're really rare.
You get a couple that are exhibitionists, for example. They get a huge boot out of filming themselves in the act and posting it. Nobody has been exploited.
But what percentage of porn fits that bill?
I am a highly visual person and I masturbate to porn. For personal ethical reasons, the porn I choose is exhibitionist amateur male masturbation video. It's free, and if I'm lucky I can get it directly from the source, eliminating any concerns about it being a product or byproduct of commercial exploitation.
I'm more tactile & olfactory. Maybe not so much "olfactory" as "helpless in the face of pheremones". In fact, no actual person in the room with me = no arousal at all.
This is reminding me that one of the theories I've been developing about the differences in the expression of male and female sexuality in our culture is directly related to how males are also harmed by patriarchy. I have a long way to go on this, but I suspect that men in our culture start using sex for self-soothing at a very early age because many of the methods of self-soothing women rely on are not considered appropriate for men. This compounds any number of problems.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 08:22:56 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
As Nigel said, outliers exist. But they're really rare.
You get a couple that are exhibitionists, for example. They get a huge boot out of filming themselves in the act and posting it. Nobody has been exploited.
But what percentage of porn fits that bill?
I am a highly visual person and I masturbate to porn. For personal ethical reasons, the porn I choose is exhibitionist amateur male masturbation video. It's free, and if I'm lucky I can get it directly from the source, eliminating any concerns about it being a product or byproduct of commercial exploitation.
I'm more tactile & olfactory. Maybe not so much "olfactory" as "helpless in the face of pheremones". In fact, no actual person in the room with me = no arousal at all.
Wow, I wish I was more like that!
I mean, an actual person makes all the difference in the world, but I am very capable of being helplessly tormented by nothing more than my own visual imagination, or a picture of a naked guy.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 08:32:36 PM
This is reminding me that one of the theories I've been developing about the differences in the expression of male and female sexuality in our culture is directly related to how males are also harmed by patriarchy. I have a long way to go on this, but I suspect that men in our culture start using sex for self-soothing at a very early age because many of the methods of self-soothing women rely on are not considered appropriate for men. This compounds any number of problems.
This is ringing true for me. As an obvious example I have often thought about how nice it might be to go for a day at a spa or something with the massage and the mud bath and all that. It never goes past the idea stage, because I think everyone at a placelike that would think I was there just to hangout around the women. I am also half sure they wouldjust tell me to go away because they don't serve men at all.
While we are on to this topic.
I recently heard some good stuff about Make Love, Not Porn.
Does anyone here know about it, and if it's a good thing?
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 08:33:52 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 08:22:56 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
As Nigel said, outliers exist. But they're really rare.
You get a couple that are exhibitionists, for example. They get a huge boot out of filming themselves in the act and posting it. Nobody has been exploited.
But what percentage of porn fits that bill?
I am a highly visual person and I masturbate to porn. For personal ethical reasons, the porn I choose is exhibitionist amateur male masturbation video. It's free, and if I'm lucky I can get it directly from the source, eliminating any concerns about it being a product or byproduct of commercial exploitation.
I'm more tactile & olfactory. Maybe not so much "olfactory" as "helpless in the face of pheremones". In fact, no actual person in the room with me = no arousal at all.
Wow, I wish I was more like that!
I mean, an actual person makes all the difference in the world, but I am very capable of being helplessly tormented by nothing more than my own visual imagination, or a picture of a naked guy.
I'm the same as Nigel in this case.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 17, 2012, 08:54:59 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 08:33:52 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 08:22:56 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
As Nigel said, outliers exist. But they're really rare.
You get a couple that are exhibitionists, for example. They get a huge boot out of filming themselves in the act and posting it. Nobody has been exploited.
But what percentage of porn fits that bill?
I am a highly visual person and I masturbate to porn. For personal ethical reasons, the porn I choose is exhibitionist amateur male masturbation video. It's free, and if I'm lucky I can get it directly from the source, eliminating any concerns about it being a product or byproduct of commercial exploitation.
I'm more tactile & olfactory. Maybe not so much "olfactory" as "helpless in the face of pheremones". In fact, no actual person in the room with me = no arousal at all.
Wow, I wish I was more like that!
I mean, an actual person makes all the difference in the world, but I am very capable of being helplessly tormented by nothing more than my own visual imagination, or a picture of a naked guy.
I'm the same as Nigel in this case.
All this is just the opposite of some articles I've seen that say men are RILLY RILLY VISUAL and women aren't.
I get a reflex reaction to visual stuff sometimes, but it's like when the cat jumps on your lap and brushes your nipple, the nipple stands up but you don't want to do stuff with the cat.
It's complex for me. I have to be attracted to somebody. I don't necessarily need to be in the room with them, thought can do it, but my head has to be in that space. If I'm not attracted to anybody I don't even think about sex.
I don't even know half the shit my head does when it comes to attraction and sex. Where I work for example there are a multitude of attractive women. I appreciate that they are attractive and I even catch myself eyeing their shapes, but I don't gawk at them, and I don't even feel like I'm sexually attracted to them. It's beauty in form, like a classical statue or something. I guess I lack the "dog sees steak" instinct/reaction society tells me I'm supposed to have. Thank god.
I've always thought the "dog sees steak" thing was demeaning and insulting.
If there's no emotion, I can't get into it. I find that that's much easier to portray in in fiction (and also it's cruelty free) so I stick with that.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 07:15:31 PM
WTF, Garbo?
Not sure what "feminist" porn IS...lesbians? Dom women kicking men around? It's still porn... :x
Feminist porn (and I'm willing to acknowledge Nigel's point on a "kinder master" - I hadn't thought about that, tbh)
should be inclusive (all genders, all sexes, all body types, etc.), respectful of the actors and audience, no one should be strung out on drugs, and everyone who is involved should be there because they
chose to be there (and there are people who do choose porn because that's what they want to do, although they're practically unicorns). Not because economic pressure made it the best or only option, or other coercion forced them into it.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 09:43:16 PM
I've always thought the "dog sees steak" thing was demeaning and insulting.
Yes, I agree...Men are more complex than dogs.
QuoteFeminist porn (and I'm willing to acknowledge Nigel's point on a "kinder master" - I hadn't thought about that, tbh) should be inclusive (all genders, all sexes, all body types, etc.), respectful of the actors and audience, no one should be strung out on drugs, and everyone who is involved should be there because they chose to be there (and there are people who do choose porn because that's what they want to do, although they're practically unicorns). Not because economic pressure made it the best or only option, or other coercion forced them into it.
And how do we know "feminist porn" producers follow these guidelines?
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:26:38 PM
I don't even know half the shit my head does when it comes to attraction and sex. Where I work for example there are a multitude of attractive women. I appreciate that they are attractive and I even catch myself eyeing their shapes, but I don't gawk at them, and I don't even feel like I'm sexually attracted to them. It's beauty in form, like a classical statue or something. I guess I lack the "dog sees steak" instinct/reaction society tells me I'm supposed to have. Thank god.
Agree, admiration =/= attraction/horniness.
A lot of guys look good, maybe I'm repressing something on some level (for good reason, like survival) but that alone doesn't get me attracted. I don't know enough about them. Or I do, and they've been ruled out for some reason. Hell, I look at
women, but it's more "I wonder if I could get my shit to look like that?" and working out the clothing/makeup/exericise routine. Or just thinking she'd be great in a certain style of painting or photo.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 09:43:16 PM
I've always thought the "dog sees steak" thing was demeaning and insulting.
If there's no emotion, I can't get into it. I find that that's much easier to portray in in fiction (and also it's cruelty free) so I stick with that.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 07:15:31 PM
WTF, Garbo?
Not sure what "feminist" porn IS...lesbians? Dom women kicking men around? It's still porn... :x
Feminist porn (and I'm willing to acknowledge Nigel's point on a "kinder master" - I hadn't thought about that, tbh) should be inclusive (all genders, all sexes, all body types, etc.), respectful of the actors and audience, no one should be strung out on drugs, and everyone who is involved should be there because they chose to be there (and there are people who do choose porn because that's what they want to do, although they're practically unicorns). Not because economic pressure made it the best or only option, or other coercion forced them into it.
I'd be interested to know how they rule out people who are doing it out of economic necessity. "Sign this paper that says you weren't coerced or financilly desperate, and won't say at any point that you were, if you want to get paid"?
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 09:49:22 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:26:38 PM
I don't even know half the shit my head does when it comes to attraction and sex. Where I work for example there are a multitude of attractive women. I appreciate that they are attractive and I even catch myself eyeing their shapes, but I don't gawk at them, and I don't even feel like I'm sexually attracted to them. It's beauty in form, like a classical statue or something. I guess I lack the "dog sees steak" instinct/reaction society tells me I'm supposed to have. Thank god.
Agree, admiration =/= attraction/horniness.
A lot of guys look good, maybe I'm repressing something on some level (for good reason, like survival) but that alone doesn't get me attracted. I don't know enough about them. Or I do, and they've been ruled out for some reason. Hell, I look at women, but it's more "I wonder if I could get my shit to look like that?" and working out the clothing/makeup/exericise routine. Or just thinking she'd be great in a certain style of painting or photo.
I can look at some women and appreciate that they're pretty. There's no lust, just an admiration for a pleasing form.
On the other hand, a certain type of woman can walk behind me at the mall or whatever, I don't even SEE her, and BAM! Mr Happy is wondering where the party's at.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 09:46:11 PM
QuoteFeminist porn (and I'm willing to acknowledge Nigel's point on a "kinder master" - I hadn't thought about that, tbh) should be inclusive (all genders, all sexes, all body types, etc.), respectful of the actors and audience, no one should be strung out on drugs, and everyone who is involved should be there because they chose to be there (and there are people who do choose porn because that's what they want to do, although they're practically unicorns). Not because economic pressure made it the best or only option, or other coercion forced them into it.
And how do we know "feminist porn" producers follow these guidelines?
The last part, about coercion, is harder to pin down (which is bad enough I'm having second thoughts about the whole deal), but the way the film treats the actors is obvious (particularly women and queers, who are degraded to a nauseating degree in traditional porn), inclusivity is obvious, and I'm pretty sure you can tell when someone's strung out.
It seems to me that "feminist porn" in the best possible sense is still tragic, because the only healthy thing it satisfies is a gaping hole in human sexual expression that only exists because of fucked up puritanical social taboos that say sex is dirty and should be something to hide. In a better society, everything a person might gain from "feminist porn" would be more easily gained from real human interaction, through a less restrictive cultural definition of sexuality.
As it is now, I can't help but wonder if formulating an "ethically acceptable" form of pornography isn't actually counterproductive to forming that kind of culture, because it allows a person to engage in "cleaner" pornography but completely avoid the question of why pornography is necessary at all.
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
It seems to me that "feminist porn" in the best possible sense is still tragic,
You could have stopped right there.
"Still/solo" images aside (that's a whole other argument), if
at it's best it's still turning an actual human into a commidty, it's wrong.
There's only a varying degree of fucked-up behavior.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 09:57:47 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
It seems to me that "feminist porn" in the best possible sense is still tragic,
You could have stopped right there.
"Still/solo" images aside (that's a whole other argument), if at it's best it's still turning an actual human into a commidty, it's wrong.
There's only a varying degree of fucked-up behavior.
That's true, but I can't resist a good opportunity to insult Christianity.
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
It seems to me that "feminist porn" in the best possible sense is still tragic, because the only healthy thing it satisfies is a gaping hole in human sexual expression that only exists because of fucked up puritanical social taboos that say sex is dirty and should be something to hide. In a better society, everything a person might gain from "feminist porn" would be more easily gained from real human interaction, through a less restrictive cultural definition of sexuality.
As it is now, I can't help but wonder if formulating an "ethically acceptable" form of pornography isn't actually counterproductive to forming that kind of culture, because it allows a person to engage in "cleaner" pornography but completely avoid the question of why pornography is necessary at all.
I'm going to point out that some people
choose porn. Maybe their partner(s) is unwilling to play along with one of their kinks. Maybe their partner(s) isn't available at the time. Maybe they're newly single and don't want a one night stand or a fling. Maybe they're a voyeur and can't set up an IRL situation for it. Maybe they don't feel like having sex with other people right now.
I don't think there's necessarily a problem with enjoying watching/reading about people having sex. I think there's a problem with exploiting other humans for your own pleasure.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 09:55:40 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 09:54:24 PM
and I'm pretty sure you can tell when someone's strung out.
Nope.
I'll keep that in mind.
I mean, I knew models can hide it pretty easy, as they're not really encouraged to have actual facial expressions, but porn is rather more engaged than standing around and being told to pretend you're a Greek statue or something.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 10:03:19 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
It seems to me that "feminist porn" in the best possible sense is still tragic, because the only healthy thing it satisfies is a gaping hole in human sexual expression that only exists because of fucked up puritanical social taboos that say sex is dirty and should be something to hide. In a better society, everything a person might gain from "feminist porn" would be more easily gained from real human interaction, through a less restrictive cultural definition of sexuality.
As it is now, I can't help but wonder if formulating an "ethically acceptable" form of pornography isn't actually counterproductive to forming that kind of culture, because it allows a person to engage in "cleaner" pornography but completely avoid the question of why pornography is necessary at all.
I'm going to point out that some people choose porn. Maybe their partner(s) is unwilling to play along with one of their kinks. Maybe their partner(s) isn't available at the time. Maybe they're newly single and don't want a one night stand or a fling. Maybe they're a voyeur and can't set up an IRL situation for it. Maybe they don't feel like having sex with other people right now.
I don't think there's necessarily a problem with enjoying watching/reading about people having sex. I think there's a problem with exploiting other humans for your own pleasure.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 09:55:40 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 09:54:24 PM
and I'm pretty sure you can tell when someone's strung out.
Nope.
I'll keep that in mind.
I guess some people could be that naive and stupid, expecially considering that the porn industry is looking for 17 year olds. But once they get into it and see what it's like, they can't get out. They need the money, then they need drugs to keep doing it, then they need more money.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 10:04:20 PM
I mean, I knew models can hide it pretty easy, as they're not really encouraged to have actual facial expressions, but porn is rather more engaged than standing around and being told to pretend you're a Greek statue or something.
I wouldn't call making moan faces complex acting.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 10:03:19 PM
I'm going to point out that some people choose porn.
But that's not how you bet.
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 10:04:20 PM
I mean, I knew models can hide it pretty easy, as they're not really encouraged to have actual facial expressions, but porn is rather more engaged than standing around and being told to pretend you're a Greek statue or something.
Ever SEE a porn film? The facial expressions are RIDICULOUS. If I had a partner start acting like that, I'd hop out of the bed and call an ambulance.
And Garbo, do you really think the industry caters to the ACTORS kinks?
Girl on girl, cheap money. Gang rape, better money. Three ring circus of abuse and humiliation, top money.
The way I solved the porn problem was to get my girlfriend's unequivocal consent to be filmed while we get down. Besides knowing that she was not faking it, DIY porn has the added amusement of being able to observe your own facial expressions and whatnot.
But one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do was to delete our home made pornos after our relationship was over.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 10:04:20 PM
I mean, I knew models can hide it pretty easy, as they're not really encouraged to have actual facial expressions, but porn is rather more engaged than standing around and being told to pretend you're a Greek statue or something.
Ever SEE a porn film? The facial expressions are RIDICULOUS. If I had a partner start acting like that, I'd hop out of the bed and call an ambulance.
:mittens: :lulz: :lulz: :lulz:
When I said that, I meant they choose to watch porn, instead of having sex with other people IRL. I should have been more clear in my wording.
It's still more than looking blank or fax-sultry, although point taken.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 10:04:20 PM
I mean, I knew models can hide it pretty easy, as they're not really encouraged to have actual facial expressions, but porn is rather more engaged than standing around and being told to pretend you're a Greek statue or something.
Ever SEE a porn film? The facial expressions are RIDICULOUS. If I had a partner start acting like that, I'd hop out of the bed and call an ambulance.
:lulz: I saw a snippet of some lesbian porn, while in a porn shop about five years ago or so. They had that creepy-leery thing going on.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 10:13:14 PM
And Garbo, do you really think the industry caters to the ACTORS kinks?
Girl on girl, cheap money. Gang rape, better money. Three ring circus of abuse and humiliation, top money.
*sigh* I thought the wording was clear enough in my post to Vex, but apparently not. I know they don't cater to the actors. They cater to the audience.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 10:04:20 PM
I mean, I knew models can hide it pretty easy, as they're not really encouraged to have actual facial expressions, but porn is rather more engaged than standing around and being told to pretend you're a Greek statue or something.
Ever SEE a porn film? The facial expressions are RIDICULOUS. If I had a partner start acting like that, I'd hop out of the bed and call an ambulance.
Have you ever seen your own facial expressions while you're having sex?
I know for a fact that MINE are definitely ridiculous.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 10:13:14 PM
And Garbo, do you really think the industry caters to the ACTORS kinks?
From what I saw of the industry? Sadly, no.
It's "GET THE FUCK IN THERE, BABE, JOHNNY WOSSNAME FINALLY GOT HARD. HERE, TAKE A HIT, NOW GET THE HELL IN THERE."
The submissive one is lucky if he/she are told WHAT'S gonna happen. The idea that they get a say in it is ridiculous.
And until I see proof otherwise, I am assuming "feminist porn" is run the same way. There is no reason at all that a woman can't be every bit as evil and exploitive as a man is capable of being.
Makes GREAT ad copy, though, doesn't it?
"Here at Femme Porn™, we treat our stars as people, and pay them in unicorn poop!"
Reality: "GET THE FUCK IN THERE, BABE, JOHNNY WOSSNAME FINALLY GOT HARD. HERE, TAKE A HIT, NOW GET THE HELL IN THERE."
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 10:15:41 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 10:04:20 PM
I mean, I knew models can hide it pretty easy, as they're not really encouraged to have actual facial expressions, but porn is rather more engaged than standing around and being told to pretend you're a Greek statue or something.
Ever SEE a porn film? The facial expressions are RIDICULOUS. If I had a partner start acting like that, I'd hop out of the bed and call an ambulance.
Have you ever seen your own facial expressions while you're having sex?
I know for a fact that MINE are definitely ridiculous.
No idea. I'm not paying attention to me.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:17:39 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 17, 2012, 10:13:14 PM
And Garbo, do you really think the industry caters to the ACTORS kinks?
From what I saw of the industry? Sadly, no.
It's "GET THE FUCK IN THERE, BABE, JOHNNY WOSSNAME FINALLY GOT HARD. HERE, TAKE A HIT, NOW GET THE HELL IN THERE."
The submissive one is lucky if he/she are told WHAT'S gonna happen. The idea that they get a say in it is ridiculous.
And until I see proof otherwise, I am assuming "feminist porn" is run the same way. There is no reason at all that a woman can't be every bit as evil and exploitive as a man is capable of being.
Makes GREAT ad copy, though, doesn't it?
"Here at Femme Porn™, we treat our stars as people, and pay them in unicorn poop!"
Reality: "GET THE FUCK IN THERE, BABE, JOHNNY WOSSNAME FINALLY GOT HARD. HERE, TAKE A HIT, NOW GET THE HELL IN THERE."
Fair enough.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:18:26 PM
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 10:15:41 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 10:04:20 PM
I mean, I knew models can hide it pretty easy, as they're not really encouraged to have actual facial expressions, but porn is rather more engaged than standing around and being told to pretend you're a Greek statue or something.
Ever SEE a porn film? The facial expressions are RIDICULOUS. If I had a partner start acting like that, I'd hop out of the bed and call an ambulance.
Have you ever seen your own facial expressions while you're having sex?
I know for a fact that MINE are definitely ridiculous.
No idea. I'm not paying attention to me.
If you ever record yourself you can't help but notice, at least in my experience.
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 10:13:49 PM
The way I solved the porn problem was to get my girlfriend's unequivocal consent to be filmed while we get down. Besides knowing that she was not faking it, DIY porn has the added amusement of being able to observe your own facial expressions and whatnot.
But one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do was to delete our home made pornos after our relationship was over.
Never.
I'd never be able to have sex without giggling, ever again.
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 10:23:18 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:18:26 PM
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 10:15:41 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:11:43 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 10:04:20 PM
I mean, I knew models can hide it pretty easy, as they're not really encouraged to have actual facial expressions, but porn is rather more engaged than standing around and being told to pretend you're a Greek statue or something.
Ever SEE a porn film? The facial expressions are RIDICULOUS. If I had a partner start acting like that, I'd hop out of the bed and call an ambulance.
Have you ever seen your own facial expressions while you're having sex?
I know for a fact that MINE are definitely ridiculous.
No idea. I'm not paying attention to me.
If you ever record yourself you can't help but notice, at least in my experience.
See my above post.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 10:13:49 PM
The way I solved the porn problem was to get my girlfriend's unequivocal consent to be filmed while we get down. Besides knowing that she was not faking it, DIY porn has the added amusement of being able to observe your own facial expressions and whatnot.
But one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do was to delete our home made pornos after our relationship was over.
Never.
I'd never be able to have sex without giggling, ever again.
:lol:
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 10:26:43 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 10:13:49 PM
The way I solved the porn problem was to get my girlfriend's unequivocal consent to be filmed while we get down. Besides knowing that she was not faking it, DIY porn has the added amusement of being able to observe your own facial expressions and whatnot.
But one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do was to delete our home made pornos after our relationship was over.
Never.
I'd never be able to have sex without giggling, ever again.
:lol:
You have to remember that I am old. Old people are not sexy while in the act. No. There are fresh fears inscribed on horror's scrolls, and any decent country would outlaw the very
idea.
I once made a podcast about this very thing, that made my point admirably.
The OP is a nicely written piece, but it's painted with a pretty broad brush, and the brush seems pretty old to me. Are people used up by the porn industry? Some are, mostly fringe elements on both ends (production and talent), but that also sadly happens in "legitimate entertainment", which is a funny term. The big companies now sign pretty fair deals with most of the girls, and a large portion of them own and operate their own (popular) websites in exchange for promotion of the company's site and material. Also, girls (not just stars) are paid a LOT more than Roger mentioned for a single 4 hour filming session, and can and do bang out 2 or 3 a day then take months at a time off. Do some of the talent use drugs? yes, but so do some of the regular population of planet earth, soo-prise. It's not, however, the coke-addled industry the movies might have you believe. It WAS, in the late 70s, but again, so was the rest of the world.
In addition to all of THAT, the talent make the majority of their income touring strip clubs - where they make 100% of what they earn, and brother they earn big. It is not at all uncommon for girls in the industry to retire after 5 or so years, wealthy, owning things like computer or marketing companies. Some marry rich Saudi businessmen... and some end up drug-addled prostitutes, but then that happens all around too.
Is porn exploitive, yes. Is it as bad as it was? Nope. Is it as bad as Roger painted? Not really.
That's my 2 cents.
Quote from: Hoopla on September 17, 2012, 10:46:05 PM
The OP is a nicely written piece, but it's painted with a pretty broad brush, and the brush seems pretty old to me. Are people used up by the porn industry? Some are, mostly fringe elements on both ends (production and talent), but that also sadly happens in "legitimate entertainment", which is a funny term. The big companies now sign pretty fair deals with most of the girls, and a large portion of them own and operate their own (popular) websites in exchange for promotion of the company's site and material. Also, girls (not just stars) are paid a LOT more than Roger mentioned for a single 4 hour filming session, and can and do bang out 2 or 3 a day then take months at a time off. Do some of the talent use drugs? yes, but so do some of the regular population of planet earth, soo-prise. It's not, however, the coke-addled industry the movies might have you believe. It WAS, in the late 70s, but again, so was the rest of the world.
In addition to all of THAT, the talent make the majority of their income touring strip clubs - where they make 100% of what they earn, and brother they earn big. It is not at all uncommon for girls in the industry to retire after 5 or so years, wealthy, owning things like computer or marketing companies. Some marry rich Saudi businessmen... and some end up drug-addled prostitutes, but then that happens all around too.
Is porn exploitive, yes. Is it as bad as it was? Nope. Is it as bad as Roger painted? Not really.
That's my 2 cents.
I can only speak from my own experience, Hoops. You may well be right, if you're talking about big names.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:53:06 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 17, 2012, 10:46:05 PM
The OP is a nicely written piece, but it's painted with a pretty broad brush, and the brush seems pretty old to me. Are people used up by the porn industry? Some are, mostly fringe elements on both ends (production and talent), but that also sadly happens in "legitimate entertainment", which is a funny term. The big companies now sign pretty fair deals with most of the girls, and a large portion of them own and operate their own (popular) websites in exchange for promotion of the company's site and material. Also, girls (not just stars) are paid a LOT more than Roger mentioned for a single 4 hour filming session, and can and do bang out 2 or 3 a day then take months at a time off. Do some of the talent use drugs? yes, but so do some of the regular population of planet earth, soo-prise. It's not, however, the coke-addled industry the movies might have you believe. It WAS, in the late 70s, but again, so was the rest of the world.
In addition to all of THAT, the talent make the majority of their income touring strip clubs - where they make 100% of what they earn, and brother they earn big. It is not at all uncommon for girls in the industry to retire after 5 or so years, wealthy, owning things like computer or marketing companies. Some marry rich Saudi businessmen... and some end up drug-addled prostitutes, but then that happens all around too.
Is porn exploitive, yes. Is it as bad as it was? Nope. Is it as bad as Roger painted? Not really.
That's my 2 cents.
I can only speak from my own experience, Hoops. You may well be right, if you're talking about big names.
What you said certainly WAS completely true, before internet age. That changed everything. And still can happen, but I don't think it's the rule.
ALSO, I should point out that what I stated only really applies in North America... in eastern Europe it can be really really fucking vile.
Quote from: Hoopla on September 17, 2012, 10:54:42 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:53:06 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 17, 2012, 10:46:05 PM
The OP is a nicely written piece, but it's painted with a pretty broad brush, and the brush seems pretty old to me. Are people used up by the porn industry? Some are, mostly fringe elements on both ends (production and talent), but that also sadly happens in "legitimate entertainment", which is a funny term. The big companies now sign pretty fair deals with most of the girls, and a large portion of them own and operate their own (popular) websites in exchange for promotion of the company's site and material. Also, girls (not just stars) are paid a LOT more than Roger mentioned for a single 4 hour filming session, and can and do bang out 2 or 3 a day then take months at a time off. Do some of the talent use drugs? yes, but so do some of the regular population of planet earth, soo-prise. It's not, however, the coke-addled industry the movies might have you believe. It WAS, in the late 70s, but again, so was the rest of the world.
In addition to all of THAT, the talent make the majority of their income touring strip clubs - where they make 100% of what they earn, and brother they earn big. It is not at all uncommon for girls in the industry to retire after 5 or so years, wealthy, owning things like computer or marketing companies. Some marry rich Saudi businessmen... and some end up drug-addled prostitutes, but then that happens all around too.
Is porn exploitive, yes. Is it as bad as it was? Nope. Is it as bad as Roger painted? Not really.
That's my 2 cents.
I can only speak from my own experience, Hoops. You may well be right, if you're talking about big names.
What you said certainly WAS completely true, before internet age. That changed everything. And still can happen, but I don't think it's the rule.
ALSO, I should point out that what I stated only really applies in North America... in eastern Europe it can be really really fucking vile.
I'm talking about your low-end shit, here. Filmed in shitty motels who only say "don't clog up the drains".
Pretty much all European pornography has close ties to sex trafficking and the drug trade. It became an open part of the American entertainment industry, over here it's still taboo and as such has not been looked at closely enough.
U.S Porn stars are closer to celebrities now then anything else and as such the money surrounding the production companies has to be clean, and the drugs are downplayed if not low in general.
Over here, in the big companies, the performers are screened for both STDs and drugs. They don't want the "talent" high any more than any company does.
Also, AFAIK, there really isn't any such thing as a fluffer anymore.
Quote from: Hoopla on September 17, 2012, 11:14:37 PM
Over here, in the big companies, the performers are screened for both STDs and drugs. They don't want the "talent" high any more than any company does.
Also, AFAIK, there really isn't any such thing as a fluffer anymore.
Again, I can only speak to what I've seen with my own eyes.
So, assuming your thinking about the state of the porn industry open to revision based on a current worker's experience, do you think there is redeemability in the porn industry?
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
It seems to me that "feminist porn" in the best possible sense is still tragic, because the only healthy thing it satisfies is a gaping hole in human sexual expression that only exists because of fucked up puritanical social taboos that say sex is dirty and should be something to hide. In a better society, everything a person might gain from "feminist porn" would be more easily gained from real human interaction, through a less restrictive cultural definition of sexuality.
As it is now, I can't help but wonder if formulating an "ethically acceptable" form of pornography isn't actually counterproductive to forming that kind of culture, because it allows a person to engage in "cleaner" pornography but completely avoid the question of why pornography is necessary at all.
Good points.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:32:25 PM
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 10:26:43 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Net on September 17, 2012, 10:13:49 PM
The way I solved the porn problem was to get my girlfriend's unequivocal consent to be filmed while we get down. Besides knowing that she was not faking it, DIY porn has the added amusement of being able to observe your own facial expressions and whatnot.
But one of the most difficult things I've ever had to do was to delete our home made pornos after our relationship was over.
Never.
I'd never be able to have sex without giggling, ever again.
:lol:
You have to remember that I am old. Old people are not sexy while in the act. No. There are fresh fears inscribed on horror's scrolls, and any decent country would outlaw the very idea.
I once made a podcast about this very thing, that made my point admirably.
I had a thought regarding this the other night, considered writing a story about it for the good folks at FizzyGrizzly, and then laughed myself to sleep.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 18, 2012, 12:11:27 AM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
It seems to me that "feminist porn" in the best possible sense is still tragic, because the only healthy thing it satisfies is a gaping hole in human sexual expression that only exists because of fucked up puritanical social taboos that say sex is dirty and should be something to hide. In a better society, everything a person might gain from "feminist porn" would be more easily gained from real human interaction, through a less restrictive cultural definition of sexuality.
As it is now, I can't help but wonder if formulating an "ethically acceptable" form of pornography isn't actually counterproductive to forming that kind of culture, because it allows a person to engage in "cleaner" pornography but completely avoid the question of why pornography is necessary at all.
Good points.
Im inclined to disagree. If we're considering best case scenario I think porn won't be needed but it would be wanted. You might even see some complex themes and character development made by individuals who like to make their coin through being filmed having sex.
So I don't think that pornography would still be terrible in an ideal world.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on September 17, 2012, 11:34:32 PM
So, assuming your thinking about the state of the porn industry open to revision based on a current worker's experience, do you think there is redeemability in the porn industry?
No. It's still making people a commodity.
However, I am against outlawing it, for reasons which should be pretty fucking obvious, the first of which is I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL CONSENTING ADULTS WHAT THEY CAN'T DO.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 18, 2012, 12:44:46 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 18, 2012, 12:11:27 AM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
It seems to me that "feminist porn" in the best possible sense is still tragic, because the only healthy thing it satisfies is a gaping hole in human sexual expression that only exists because of fucked up puritanical social taboos that say sex is dirty and should be something to hide. In a better society, everything a person might gain from "feminist porn" would be more easily gained from real human interaction, through a less restrictive cultural definition of sexuality.
As it is now, I can't help but wonder if formulating an "ethically acceptable" form of pornography isn't actually counterproductive to forming that kind of culture, because it allows a person to engage in "cleaner" pornography but completely avoid the question of why pornography is necessary at all.
Good points.
Im inclined to disagree. If we're considering best case scenario I think porn won't be needed but it would be wanted. You might even see some complex themes and character development made by individuals who like to make their coin through being filmed having sex.
So I don't think that pornography would still be terrible in an ideal world.
But we don't live in an ideal world, Dingo.
Quote from: Hoopla on September 17, 2012, 10:46:05 PM
The OP is a nicely written piece, but it's painted with a pretty broad brush, and the brush seems pretty old to me. Are people used up by the porn industry? Some are, mostly fringe elements on both ends (production and talent), but that also sadly happens in "legitimate entertainment", which is a funny term. The big companies now sign pretty fair deals with most of the girls, and a large portion of them own and operate their own (popular) websites in exchange for promotion of the company's site and material. Also, girls (not just stars) are paid a LOT more than Roger mentioned for a single 4 hour filming session, and can and do bang out 2 or 3 a day then take months at a time off. Do some of the talent use drugs? yes, but so do some of the regular population of planet earth, soo-prise. It's not, however, the coke-addled industry the movies might have you believe. It WAS, in the late 70s, but again, so was the rest of the world.
In addition to all of THAT, the talent make the majority of their income touring strip clubs - where they make 100% of what they earn, and brother they earn big. It is not at all uncommon for girls in the industry to retire after 5 or so years, wealthy, owning things like computer or marketing companies. Some marry rich Saudi businessmen... and some end up drug-addled prostitutes, but then that happens all around too.
Is porn exploitive, yes. Is it as bad as it was? Nope. Is it as bad as Roger painted? Not really.
That's my 2 cents.
Make good money. Get tested for STD's. Be regarded in this light (http://othersideofporn.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/where-is-the-respect/).
A few choice comments (more at the link):
"haha looks fade and her pussy cant stay tight forever but w/e might as well enjoy her until she becomes a total washed up whore"
"I like seeing her get violated" (5 thumbs up, by the way)
"yeah, its a fact that most pornstars have an IQ of 23″
"Do you think she became a pornstar because her daddy told her to do so? lol, she's dumb as fuck"
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on September 17, 2012, 11:34:32 PM
So, assuming your thinking about the state of the porn industry open to revision based on a current worker's experience, do you think there is redeemability in the porn industry?
I don't personally think that there is, because it's an industry based on the commodification of sex.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 18, 2012, 01:06:29 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on September 17, 2012, 11:34:32 PM
So, assuming your thinking about the state of the porn industry open to revision based on a current worker's experience, do you think there is redeemability in the porn industry?
No. It's still making people a commodity.
However, I am against outlawing it, for reasons which should be pretty fucking obvious, the first of which is I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL CONSENTING ADULTS WHAT THEY CAN'T DO.
And that, too. I don't think outlawing it would do anything but make things worse for the actors.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 18, 2012, 01:07:17 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 18, 2012, 12:44:46 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 18, 2012, 12:11:27 AM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
It seems to me that "feminist porn" in the best possible sense is still tragic, because the only healthy thing it satisfies is a gaping hole in human sexual expression that only exists because of fucked up puritanical social taboos that say sex is dirty and should be something to hide. In a better society, everything a person might gain from "feminist porn" would be more easily gained from real human interaction, through a less restrictive cultural definition of sexuality.
As it is now, I can't help but wonder if formulating an "ethically acceptable" form of pornography isn't actually counterproductive to forming that kind of culture, because it allows a person to engage in "cleaner" pornography but completely avoid the question of why pornography is necessary at all.
Good points.
Im inclined to disagree. If we're considering best case scenario I think porn won't be needed but it would be wanted. You might even see some complex themes and character development made by individuals who like to make their coin through being filmed having sex.
So I don't think that pornography would still be terrible in an ideal world.
But we don't live in an ideal world, Dingo.
Yeah. Specifically I was taking to Vexs point that even in an ideal world it would be a terrible thing.
Time frame is well past the 1970's...How accurate is this?
http://www.shelleylubben.com/porn-industry
"Out of about 1,500 performers working in California, 41 people that we know of died from AIDS, suicide, homicide and drug related deaths between 2007 and 2011...
"When the deaths of 129 porn performers over a period of roughly 20 years were analyzed it was discovered that were an unusually large number of premature deaths from such causes as drugs, suicide, murder, alcohol abuse, accidental death, and disease. It was also discovered that the average life expectancy of a porn performer is only 37.43 years whereas the average life expectancy of an American is 78.1 years"
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 18, 2012, 01:51:47 AM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 18, 2012, 01:07:17 AM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 18, 2012, 12:44:46 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 18, 2012, 12:11:27 AM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
It seems to me that "feminist porn" in the best possible sense is still tragic, because the only healthy thing it satisfies is a gaping hole in human sexual expression that only exists because of fucked up puritanical social taboos that say sex is dirty and should be something to hide. In a better society, everything a person might gain from "feminist porn" would be more easily gained from real human interaction, through a less restrictive cultural definition of sexuality.
As it is now, I can't help but wonder if formulating an "ethically acceptable" form of pornography isn't actually counterproductive to forming that kind of culture, because it allows a person to engage in "cleaner" pornography but completely avoid the question of why pornography is necessary at all.
Good points.
Im inclined to disagree. If we're considering best case scenario I think porn won't be needed but it would be wanted. You might even see some complex themes and character development made by individuals who like to make their coin through being filmed having sex.
So I don't think that pornography would still be terrible in an ideal world.
But we don't live in an ideal world, Dingo.
Yeah. Specifically I was taking to Vexs point that even in an ideal world it would be a terrible thing.
I thought that his point was that in an ideal world it would be mostly unwanted and unnecessary.
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 09:54:34 PM
It seems to me that "feminist porn" in the best possible sense is still tragic, because the only healthy thing it satisfies is a gaping hole in human sexual expression that only exists because of fucked up puritanical social taboos that say sex is dirty and should be something to hide. In a better society, everything a person might gain from "feminist porn" would be more easily gained from real human interaction, through a less restrictive cultural definition of sexuality.
As it is now, I can't help but wonder if formulating an "ethically acceptable" form of pornography isn't actually counterproductive to forming that kind of culture, because it allows a person to engage in "cleaner" pornography but completely avoid the question of why pornography is necessary at all.
Thank you, V3x. This is just so.
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Not throwing down the gauntlet, just trying to comprehend (and for the record, I'm not in favor of outlawing porn).
People can "get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person" by simply masturbating, not sure why porn is necessary for that.
Erotic art isn't porn.
I know next to nothing about gay porn, so I'm staying out of that one.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:08:55 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Not throwing down the gauntlet, just trying to comprehend (and for the record, I'm not in favor of outlawing porn).
People can "get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person" by simply masturbating, not sure why porn is necessary for that.
Erotic art isn't porn.
I know next to nothing about gay porn, so I'm staying out of that one.
Of course erotic art is porn. And when did "necessary" come into it? Popcorn isn't necessary to watch a movie, but it's nice.
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:11:55 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:08:55 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Not throwing down the gauntlet, just trying to comprehend (and for the record, I'm not in favor of outlawing porn).
People can "get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person" by simply masturbating, not sure why porn is necessary for that.
Erotic art isn't porn.
I know next to nothing about gay porn, so I'm staying out of that one.
Of course erotic art is porn. And when did "necessary" come into it? Popcorn isn't necessary to watch a movie, but it's nice.
Art is paint, or ink, nobody had to perform anything. I guess technically you're right, "Hentai porn" is porn, but the general usage refers to real people.
Not sure I would call Hentai "art", though. :lol: But that's subjective.
And popcorn is nice, but if somebody had to get bukaki-ed to make my popcorn, I'd pass.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:20:44 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:11:55 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:08:55 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Not throwing down the gauntlet, just trying to comprehend (and for the record, I'm not in favor of outlawing porn).
People can "get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person" by simply masturbating, not sure why porn is necessary for that.
Erotic art isn't porn.
I know next to nothing about gay porn, so I'm staying out of that one.
Of course erotic art is porn. And when did "necessary" come into it? Popcorn isn't necessary to watch a movie, but it's nice.
Art is paint, or ink, nobody had to perform anything. I guess technically you're right, "Hentai porn" is porn, but the general usage refers to real people.
Not sure I would call Hentai "art", though. :lol: But that's subjective.
And popcorn is nice, but if somebody had to get bukaki-ed to make my popcorn, I'd pass.
Well that's what I'm talking about - taking the "victim" out of the supposed porn. So, take a Cherry Poptart comic instead (google if you don't know what it is, but warning NSFW)... it's pen and ink, but its definitely porn. Is someone going to tell me this is wrong? If so, we heartily disagree with one another.
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
This is all true and I'm having a hard time adequately expressing what I my point was. It isn't that porn is "wrong," though. I just think that modern porn, whether it's exploitative or purely consensual, and whether it's for profit or for fun, is a "secret habit" that people generally use to satisfy sexual frustrations instead of enhance sexual experiences. Those frustrations are the problem, as symptoms of an unhealthy puritanism. It isn't that porn is to blame or some kind of scourge that should be eliminated, just that it's a less than adequate solution to society's sexual hang-ups, and potentially damaging just because it
generally doesn't serve to eliminate the root problem, but to help people avoid solving it.
If that makes sense.
Quote from: v3x on September 18, 2012, 03:27:36 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
This is all true and I'm having a hard time adequately expressing what I my point was. It isn't that porn is "wrong," though. I just think that modern porn, whether it's exploitative or purely consensual, and whether it's for profit or for fun, is a "secret habit" that people generally use to satisfy sexual frustrations instead of enhance sexual experiences. Those frustrations are the problem, as symptoms of an unhealthy puritanism. It isn't that porn is to blame or some kind of scourge that should be eliminated, just that it's a less than adequate solution to society's sexual hang-ups, and potentially damaging just because it generally doesn't serve to eliminate the root problem, but to help people avoid solving it.
If that makes sense.
Alright, I think I can get behind that.
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:29:22 AM
Quote from: v3x on September 18, 2012, 03:27:36 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
This is all true and I'm having a hard time adequately expressing what I my point was. It isn't that porn is "wrong," though. I just think that modern porn, whether it's exploitative or purely consensual, and whether it's for profit or for fun, is a "secret habit" that people generally use to satisfy sexual frustrations instead of enhance sexual experiences. Those frustrations are the problem, as symptoms of an unhealthy puritanism. It isn't that porn is to blame or some kind of scourge that should be eliminated, just that it's a less than adequate solution to society's sexual hang-ups, and potentially damaging just because it generally doesn't serve to eliminate the root problem, but to help people avoid solving it.
If that makes sense.
Alright, I think I can get behind that.
What an unfortunate phrase to use in a thread about porn.
:lmnuendo:
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:26:54 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:20:44 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:11:55 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:08:55 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Not throwing down the gauntlet, just trying to comprehend (and for the record, I'm not in favor of outlawing porn).
People can "get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person" by simply masturbating, not sure why porn is necessary for that.
Erotic art isn't porn.
I know next to nothing about gay porn, so I'm staying out of that one.
Of course erotic art is porn. And when did "necessary" come into it? Popcorn isn't necessary to watch a movie, but it's nice.
Art is paint, or ink, nobody had to perform anything. I guess technically you're right, "Hentai porn" is porn, but the general usage refers to real people.
Not sure I would call Hentai "art", though. :lol: But that's subjective.
And popcorn is nice, but if somebody had to get bukaki-ed to make my popcorn, I'd pass.
Well that's what I'm talking about - taking the "victim" out of the supposed porn. So, take a Cherry Poptart comic instead (google if you don't know what it is, but warning NSFW)... it's pen and ink, but its definitely porn. Is someone going to tell me this is wrong? If so, we heartily disagree with one another.
We're on the same page, then. And yeah, I know Cherry Poptart. Legendary stuff! :)
Quote from: v3x on September 18, 2012, 03:27:36 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
This is all true and I'm having a hard time adequately expressing what I my point was. It isn't that porn is "wrong," though. I just think that modern porn, whether it's exploitative or purely consensual, and whether it's for profit or for fun, is a "secret habit" that people generally use to satisfy sexual frustrations instead of enhance sexual experiences. Those frustrations are the problem, as symptoms of an unhealthy puritanism. It isn't that porn is to blame or some kind of scourge that should be eliminated, just that it's a less than adequate solution to society's sexual hang-ups, and potentially damaging just because it generally doesn't serve to eliminate the root problem, but to help people avoid solving it.
If that makes sense.
Yeah, it makes perfect sense, and I think I agree.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-oc_988uY-h8/UAit_EB6EaI/AAAAAAAAAMY/hw1I3Zg07wc/s1600/Success.jpg)
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Really? I remember the Louis Theroux documentary about the guys in porn and how a lot of the guys in the gay porn business are only there because of the pay, the guy he was talking to was deeply disturbed by any questions on his sexuality, he solidly affirmed he was straight although that hardly stands for much if he is getting fucked up the ass by some guy every other day for work.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 06:50:06 PM
I wills state that this is the last time I'll ever do this for those 2 people.
Pixie gets a pass, of course, on account of not being here.
I've seen it, and thanks for reposting... I will be going through the thread and responding as the urge takes me.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 07:28:36 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 07:27:10 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 07:05:07 PM
Certain subgenres of erotica, because they don't use actual people. The rest of it - photography, film, etc. - I don't know enough to say whether or not there's porn princesses in there.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 06:57:41 PM
Let me clarify that by "porn", I don't mean images of people, but rather movies, pics, etc of people engaging in some form of sex.
Playboy magazine is fairly harmless stuff, and seems to be marketed as educational materials for 16 year olds. The most they're guilty of is setting an impossible standard with photoshop.
I'm talking about porn movies, which are an entirely different ballgame.
Then see Nigel's comment, although I'd add the feminist porn companies, the few of them that do exist.
As far as I'm aware "feminist porn" is both an oxymoron and a marketing gimmick.
There is "less exploitative porn" but that's still in the "kinder master" territory as far as I'm concerned.
:mittens:
SO MUCH THIS! I mean there are Unicorn-type outliers in the porn/exploitation spectrum, but you can never be sure, so I never use the stuff any more.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 07:32:39 PM
Quote from: Secret Agent GARBO on September 17, 2012, 07:21:23 PM
From Feministe (http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2008/07/23/feminist-porn-sex-consent-and-getting-off/):
QuoteFeminist porn is out there. In my opinion, feminist porn represents a diverse cross-section of people and is woman-friendly, queer-friendly, open to many interpretations of beauty, and is, at best, political and woman-owned.
I'll expand, if you want, when I'm not in class.
The author falls into the common trap of conflating defending the rights of sex workers with celebrating female sexuality.
QuoteLong story short is that I became passionate about the rights of sex workers and people that work in the sex/adult industry and began a more intelligent and articulate study of why I felt so compelled to defend pornography, prostitution, women's sexual pleasure, and my own sexual desires.
It really, really disturbs me when people group things like pornography, prostitution, and women's sexuality together, as if they are about the same things.
Yep. it's probably a assload better than mainstream porn, I think I looked into a queer porn (real lesbians doing real lesbians that allegedly were in relationships with each other) called the Crash Pad series, back when I desperately wanted to attempt ethical fapping materials, but I didn't have the money to pay for the site... If you check out Violet Blue's blog there was some controversy about the Feminist Porn Awards (not concerning the Crash Pad series) the last go round...
I generally treat feminist porn as an oxymoron, unicorn, or pipe dream... If I could get it, I would love to see people who are genuinely into each other doing it from an Enthusiastic Consent model of sex, with no scripts, discussions of boundaries beforehand (especially if it was BDSM stuffs), safewords, ect.. I'd see that as educational rather than porn really, although it would be hella hawt. It would mean no faking it, no wincing at the screen and showing how to do buttsex properly without tearing and using a rubber, barrier methods for ALL THE THINGS ALL THE TIME!
The main thing I am really into kink wise I can't even find written erotica for... Temperature play is never on the list. :(
If I want pron I'll write it for myself, because of this. It's hawt and has the added bonus of being able to share fantasies with your partner... I'd consider filming my own with me in it, but I don't think I'd do it without a LEGAL CONTRACT that anything filmed would be disposed of at the end up a relationship and NEVAR end up online.... It was bad enough retrieving the polaroids when my bf died when I was 21..
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
The educational model I made a case for would totally stand up IMHO. You'd have to have a fuckton of prelude building up to the sexytiems though, and I don't think it would really get made, which is sad.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 08:33:52 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 17, 2012, 08:22:56 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 17, 2012, 07:39:34 PM
So the next question would be
Is it possible to celebrate and publish Human Sexuality in a way that is not degrading to anyone, or are all real depicted sexual images and acts inherently degrading?
As Nigel said, outliers exist. But they're really rare.
You get a couple that are exhibitionists, for example. They get a huge boot out of filming themselves in the act and posting it. Nobody has been exploited.
But what percentage of porn fits that bill?
I am a highly visual person and I masturbate to porn. For personal ethical reasons, the porn I choose is exhibitionist amateur male masturbation video. It's free, and if I'm lucky I can get it directly from the source, eliminating any concerns about it being a product or byproduct of commercial exploitation.
I'm more tactile & olfactory. Maybe not so much "olfactory" as "helpless in the face of pheremones". In fact, no actual person in the room with me = no arousal at all.
Wow, I wish I was more like that!
I mean, an actual person makes all the difference in the world, but I am very capable of being helplessly tormented by nothing more than my own visual imagination, or a picture of a naked guy.
I have to have an intellectual connection with someone these days. Smell and emotions have a part to play as well, but if someone can take me round an art gallery and have a decent conversation about Art History I'm totally there....
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 11:04:04 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 17, 2012, 10:54:42 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 10:53:06 PM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 17, 2012, 10:46:05 PM
The OP is a nicely written piece, but it's painted with a pretty broad brush, and the brush seems pretty old to me. Are people used up by the porn industry? Some are, mostly fringe elements on both ends (production and talent), but that also sadly happens in "legitimate entertainment", which is a funny term. The big companies now sign pretty fair deals with most of the girls, and a large portion of them own and operate their own (popular) websites in exchange for promotion of the company's site and material. Also, girls (not just stars) are paid a LOT more than Roger mentioned for a single 4 hour filming session, and can and do bang out 2 or 3 a day then take months at a time off. Do some of the talent use drugs? yes, but so do some of the regular population of planet earth, soo-prise. It's not, however, the coke-addled industry the movies might have you believe. It WAS, in the late 70s, but again, so was the rest of the world.
In addition to all of THAT, the talent make the majority of their income touring strip clubs - where they make 100% of what they earn, and brother they earn big. It is not at all uncommon for girls in the industry to retire after 5 or so years, wealthy, owning things like computer or marketing companies. Some marry rich Saudi businessmen... and some end up drug-addled prostitutes, but then that happens all around too.
Is porn exploitive, yes. Is it as bad as it was? Nope. Is it as bad as Roger painted? Not really.
That's my 2 cents.
I can only speak from my own experience, Hoops. You may well be right, if you're talking about big names.
What you said certainly WAS completely true, before internet age. That changed everything. And still can happen, but I don't think it's the rule.
ALSO, I should point out that what I stated only really applies in North America... in eastern Europe it can be really really fucking vile.
I'm talking about your low-end shit, here. Filmed in shitty motels who only say "don't clog up the drains".
Louis Theroux (from the BBC) explored how the internet and file-sharing was causing most female porn stars to supplement their income via prostitution.. As someone who supports the Nordic Model (where the johns get busted and charged, named and shamed and fined, and the women in sex work don't get legal hassles) of dealing with prostitution Hoopla's business model (and the one from the BBC series) still squicks me the hell out.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 01:08:25 AM
Make good money. Get tested for STD's. Be regarded in this light (http://othersideofporn.wordpress.com/2011/06/19/where-is-the-respect/).
A few choice comments (more at the link):
"haha looks fade and her pussy cant stay tight forever but w/e might as well enjoy her until she becomes a total washed up whore"
"I like seeing her get violated" (5 thumbs up, by the way)
"yeah, its a fact that most pornstars have an IQ of 23″
"Do you think she became a pornstar because her daddy told her to do so? lol, she's dumb as fuck"
SQUICK SQUICK SQUICK SQUICK! :mad: :box: :pissed: :facepalm: :kingmeh: Also where the fuck did the cock punch smiley go?
Thanks for the link, Stella.. I shall be bookmarking that and showing it to my feminist group...
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 18, 2012, 01:24:42 AM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 18, 2012, 01:06:29 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on September 17, 2012, 11:34:32 PM
So, assuming your thinking about the state of the porn industry open to revision based on a current worker's experience, do you think there is redeemability in the porn industry?
No. It's still making people a commodity.
However, I am against outlawing it, for reasons which should be pretty fucking obvious, the first of which is I DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL CONSENTING ADULTS WHAT THEY CAN'T DO.
And that, too. I don't think outlawing it would do anything but make things worse for the actors.
Agreed...
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 02:13:44 AM
Time frame is well past the 1970's...How accurate is this?
http://www.shelleylubben.com/porn-industry
"Out of about 1,500 performers working in California, 41 people that we know of died from AIDS, suicide, homicide and drug related deaths between 2007 and 2011...
"When the deaths of 129 porn performers over a period of roughly 20 years were analyzed it was discovered that were an unusually large number of premature deaths from such causes as drugs, suicide, murder, alcohol abuse, accidental death, and disease. It was also discovered that the average life expectancy of a porn performer is only 37.43 years whereas the average life expectancy of an American is 78.1 years"
Shelly Lubben does good work, although it's very much so of an Evangelical Christian model. Her own story is heartbreaking. She got Herpes, and insists prayer made it inert. All of the ex-porn workers on her sites find God and end up in the Pink Cross (her organisation) PSA's.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:20:44 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:11:55 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:08:55 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Not throwing down the gauntlet, just trying to comprehend (and for the record, I'm not in favor of outlawing porn).
People can "get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person" by simply masturbating, not sure why porn is necessary for that.
Erotic art isn't porn.
I know next to nothing about gay porn, so I'm staying out of that one.
Of course erotic art is porn. And when did "necessary" come into it? Popcorn isn't necessary to watch a movie, but it's nice.
Art is paint, or ink, nobody had to perform anything. I guess technically you're right, "Hentai porn" is porn, but the general usage refers to real people.
Not sure I would call Hentai "art", though. :lol: But that's subjective.
And popcorn is nice, but if somebody had to get bukaki-ed to make my popcorn, I'd pass.
A lot of written erotica and Hentai feature tropes and themes that I find somewhat disturbing. Rapey stuff that isn't explicitly laid out as a consensual FANTASY makes me want to puke.
Post clean up bump.
Quote from: Pixie on September 18, 2012, 02:51:57 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:20:44 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:11:55 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:08:55 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Not throwing down the gauntlet, just trying to comprehend (and for the record, I'm not in favor of outlawing porn).
People can "get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person" by simply masturbating, not sure why porn is necessary for that.
Erotic art isn't porn.
I know next to nothing about gay porn, so I'm staying out of that one.
Of course erotic art is porn. And when did "necessary" come into it? Popcorn isn't necessary to watch a movie, but it's nice.
Art is paint, or ink, nobody had to perform anything. I guess technically you're right, "Hentai porn" is porn, but the general usage refers to real people.
Not sure I would call Hentai "art", though. :lol: But that's subjective.
And popcorn is nice, but if somebody had to get bukaki-ed to make my popcorn, I'd pass.
A lot of written erotica and Hentai feature tropes and themes that I find somewhat disturbing. Rapey stuff that isn't explicitly laid out as a consensual FANTASY makes me want to puke.
Yes, it does. But the alternative would be censoring art.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: Pixie on September 18, 2012, 02:51:57 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:20:44 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:11:55 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:08:55 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Not throwing down the gauntlet, just trying to comprehend (and for the record, I'm not in favor of outlawing porn).
People can "get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person" by simply masturbating, not sure why porn is necessary for that.
Erotic art isn't porn.
I know next to nothing about gay porn, so I'm staying out of that one.
Of course erotic art is porn. And when did "necessary" come into it? Popcorn isn't necessary to watch a movie, but it's nice.
Art is paint, or ink, nobody had to perform anything. I guess technically you're right, "Hentai porn" is porn, but the general usage refers to real people.
Not sure I would call Hentai "art", though. :lol: But that's subjective.
And popcorn is nice, but if somebody had to get bukaki-ed to make my popcorn, I'd pass.
A lot of written erotica and Hentai feature tropes and themes that I find somewhat disturbing. Rapey stuff that isn't explicitly laid out as a consensual FANTASY makes me want to puke.
Yes, it does. But the alternative would be censoring art.
I wasn't advocating censorship at all... How did you parse that from that sentence? I just don't like or use the stuff that squicks me out is all..
Quote from: Pixie on September 18, 2012, 05:37:46 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: Pixie on September 18, 2012, 02:51:57 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:20:44 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:11:55 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:08:55 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Not throwing down the gauntlet, just trying to comprehend (and for the record, I'm not in favor of outlawing porn).
People can "get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person" by simply masturbating, not sure why porn is necessary for that.
Erotic art isn't porn.
I know next to nothing about gay porn, so I'm staying out of that one.
Of course erotic art is porn. And when did "necessary" come into it? Popcorn isn't necessary to watch a movie, but it's nice.
Art is paint, or ink, nobody had to perform anything. I guess technically you're right, "Hentai porn" is porn, but the general usage refers to real people.
Not sure I would call Hentai "art", though. :lol: But that's subjective.
And popcorn is nice, but if somebody had to get bukaki-ed to make my popcorn, I'd pass.
A lot of written erotica and Hentai feature tropes and themes that I find somewhat disturbing. Rapey stuff that isn't explicitly laid out as a consensual FANTASY makes me want to puke.
Yes, it does. But the alternative would be censoring art.
I wasn't advocating censorship at all... How did you parse that from that sentence? I just don't like or use the stuff that squicks me out is all..
I didn't parse that, I know you wouldn't advocate that. A lot of people would, though. Over the years I've seen people bitching about a lot of art. That's what the repubs played on when they cut funding for the arts here in the 90's" "Mapplethorp put a CRUCIFIX in a jar of PISS, this is what your TAX DOLLARS are paying for!!!!!"
Yeah, so. I like porn. I suppose that's no surprise. I've watched a lot of it, and a lot of different kinds.
These kinds of threads make me uncomfortable, which means I've got some thinking to do.
I'm going to admit that I'm most likely deluding myself, but there are a few actresses who really, really give off the impression that they're reasonably happy about their choice of careers. There are also those who are directing themselves in their scenes, which gives them some control about what they're doing. I'm thinking about people like Bobbi Starr, Belladonna, and Joanna Angel.
I know there's a huge amount of porn where both actors are completely dead behind the eyes, and a disturbingly large amount of it is explicitly violent towards women, and there's quite a bit that's more or less geared towards non-consent (they film her saying she's willing, and then do their hardest to make her tap out and quit). But let me be clear, that doesn't turn me on.
I realize that this is an area where my pride of being a rationalist is threatened; reason would dictate that even if sex-positive pornography existed, it would be a very very small portion of an industry that harms almost everyone who participates in it. And yet, I watch.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 18, 2012, 06:04:16 PM
Yeah, so. I like porn. I suppose that's no surprise. I've watched a lot of it, and a lot of different kinds.
These kinds of threads make me uncomfortable, which means I've got some thinking to do.
I'm going to admit that I'm most likely deluding myself, but there are a few actresses who really, really give off the impression that they're reasonably happy about their choice of careers. There are also those who are directing themselves in their scenes, which gives them some control about what they're doing. I'm thinking about people like Bobbi Starr, Belladonna, and Joanna Angel.
I know there's a huge amount of porn where both actors are completely dead behind the eyes, and a disturbingly large amount of it is explicitly violent towards women, and there's quite a bit that's more or less geared towards non-consent (they film her saying she's willing, and then do their hardest to make her tap out and quit). But let me be clear, that doesn't turn me on.
I realize that this is an area where my pride of being a rationalist is threatened; reason would dictate that even if sex-positive pornography existed, it would be a very very small portion of an industry that harms almost everyone who participates in it. And yet, I watch.
The ones who direct themselves have to start at the bottom, though, don't they?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belladonna_(actress)
For the most part, yes.
I realize this won't and can't stand up to scrutiny.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 18, 2012, 06:26:28 PM
For the most part, yes.
I realize this won't and can't stand up to scrutiny.
Also realize that nobody is suddenly going to think you're an asshole over this, for the same reason that I don't think you're an asshole for posting that using a piece of electronics made by slave labor.
At least I hope nobody is. I know I don't.
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 05:46:43 PM
Quote from: Pixie on September 18, 2012, 05:37:46 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: Pixie on September 18, 2012, 02:51:57 PM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:20:44 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:11:55 AM
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 03:08:55 AM
Quote from: Hoopla on September 18, 2012, 03:05:11 AM
Sometimes people just want to get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person. I'm all behind the idea that people shouldn't be subjugated into situations they don't want to be in, but I will not get behind the idea that pornography in and of itself is wrong.
Erotic art goes back to cave drawings, are you considering all of that inherently wrong? We haven't brought up gay porn, which I doubt anyone would seriously argue exploits anyone, unless they were vastly out of touch with the genre. Also wrong?
Not throwing down the gauntlet, just trying to comprehend (and for the record, I'm not in favor of outlawing porn).
People can "get off without all the mumbo jumbo that comes with interacting with another person" by simply masturbating, not sure why porn is necessary for that.
Erotic art isn't porn.
I know next to nothing about gay porn, so I'm staying out of that one.
Of course erotic art is porn. And when did "necessary" come into it? Popcorn isn't necessary to watch a movie, but it's nice.
Art is paint, or ink, nobody had to perform anything. I guess technically you're right, "Hentai porn" is porn, but the general usage refers to real people.
Not sure I would call Hentai "art", though. :lol: But that's subjective.
And popcorn is nice, but if somebody had to get bukaki-ed to make my popcorn, I'd pass.
A lot of written erotica and Hentai feature tropes and themes that I find somewhat disturbing. Rapey stuff that isn't explicitly laid out as a consensual FANTASY makes me want to puke.
Yes, it does. But the alternative would be censoring art.
I wasn't advocating censorship at all... How did you parse that from that sentence? I just don't like or use the stuff that squicks me out is all..
I didn't parse that, I know you wouldn't advocate that. A lot of people would, though. Over the years I've seen people bitching about a lot of art. That's what the repubs played on when they cut funding for the arts here in the 90's" "Mapplethorp put a CRUCIFIX in a jar of PISS, this is what your TAX DOLLARS are paying for!!!!!"
Yup. In a capitalist system, the best way to deal with that shit is not spend money on it or let it earn money through your actions.. Unfortunately the exploitation cycle is unavoidable if you want to survive in Western society. The media I consume is one of the few things I do have a say over though...
I hate it when religious conservatives and RadFems club together and work on censorship vis a vis porn, I truly fucking do... It's like they totally forget the whole bodily autonomy and right to choose and it's a slap in the face to the rest of us feminists. But that's getting into thread drift territory. (although I will say that me, Signora Paesior, Nigel and Garbo look like meek pussycats compared with that lot..)
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 18, 2012, 06:04:16 PM
Yeah, so. I like porn. I suppose that's no surprise. I've watched a lot of it, and a lot of different kinds.
These kinds of threads make me uncomfortable, which means I've got some thinking to do.
I'm going to admit that I'm most likely deluding myself, but there are a few actresses who really, really give off the impression that they're reasonably happy about their choice of careers. There are also those who are directing themselves in their scenes, which gives them some control about what they're doing. I'm thinking about people like Bobbi Starr, Belladonna, and Joanna Angel.
I know there's a huge amount of porn where both actors are completely dead behind the eyes, and a disturbingly large amount of it is explicitly violent towards women, and there's quite a bit that's more or less geared towards non-consent (they film her saying she's willing, and then do their hardest to make her tap out and quit). But let me be clear, that doesn't turn me on.
I realize that this is an area where my pride of being a rationalist is threatened; reason would dictate that even if sex-positive pornography existed, it would be a very very small portion of an industry that harms almost everyone who participates in it. And yet, I watch.
I struggled for about 6 months on that shit, and I will say that initially my sex-drive suffered. In the end I didn't want to be complicit in it or use porn at all, because not being entirely sure bothers me immensely I think Dan Savage has plugged a project where you can submit a film with a consent form, and it will be shown at series of events, then destroyed, so it never ends up on teh intarwebs. That's geared towards people who get off on being exhibitionist and are sensible about damage limitation when it comes to careers and loved ones, and theoretically would only really be done by people who have the financial means and inclination.... It's better, but not perfect by any means, and does fuck all good if you don't live within a decent distance of Seattle and want to watch it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 18, 2012, 06:26:28 PM
For the most part, yes.
I realize this won't and can't stand up to scrutiny.
It's hard to change the habits of half a lifetime, and oftentimes in our society we consume without thinking of the ripple effects of out collective minor actions.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 18, 2012, 06:30:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 18, 2012, 06:26:28 PM
For the most part, yes.
I realize this won't and can't stand up to scrutiny.
Also realize that nobody is suddenly going to think you're an asshole over this, for the same reason that I don't think you're an asshole for posting that using a piece of electronics made by slave labor.
At least I hope nobody is. I know I don't.
I won't. Being aware of the damage is a step further than a lot of people even think about.
As much as I'm loving the conversation I'm going to have to head on out now and I have Important Shit To Be Getting On With tomorrow, so I shall catch you spags later..
Porn comes to us via exploitation and misery. So does most manufactured goods nowadays. The gas that goes in our cars comes via bombing women and children. Drugs come via organised crime but most people are comfortable with that. Pron, however is worse because it's to do with sex and catholic guilt and badwrong.
I'm not saying most porn isn't unethical what I'm saying is, in my mind at least, it's no more unethical than most of the other shit we consume, once you don't have a bug in your ass aboout sex.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 18, 2012, 07:00:19 PM
Porn comes to us via exploitation and misery. So does most manufactured goods nowadays. The gas that goes in our cars comes via bombing women and children. Drugs come via organised crime but most people are comfortable with that. Pron, however is worse because it's to do with sex and catholic guilt and badwrong.
I'm not saying most porn isn't unethical what I'm saying is, in my mind at least, it's no more unethical than most of the other shit we consume, once you don't have a bug in your ass aboout sex.
A point I'd like to consider before response.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 18, 2012, 06:30:49 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 18, 2012, 06:26:28 PM
For the most part, yes.
I realize this won't and can't stand up to scrutiny.
Also realize that nobody is suddenly going to think you're an asshole over this, for the same reason that I don't think you're an asshole for posting that using a piece of electronics made by slave labor.
At least I hope nobody is. I know I don't.
Of course not. LMNO rawks.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 18, 2012, 07:01:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 18, 2012, 07:00:19 PM
Porn comes to us via exploitation and misery. So does most manufactured goods nowadays. The gas that goes in our cars comes via bombing women and children. Drugs come via organised crime but most people are comfortable with that. Pron, however is worse because it's to do with sex and catholic guilt and badwrong.
I'm not saying most porn isn't unethical what I'm saying is, in my mind at least, it's no more unethical than most of the other shit we consume, once you don't have a bug in your ass aboout sex.
A point I'd like to consider before response.
It's easier not to purchase porn than to avoid things like cheap shit from China, though.
I've never bought porn. It's media. I don't buy media, I steal it. Most of it is pretty gross, tho, obviously stung out chicks, being forced to choke on cock, doesn't do it for me. I prefer reading about it on sites like Literotica but I'm some kind of weird pervert. I wouldn't grudge anyone who lacks the necessary imaginative faculty (or basic literacy skills) the right to watch a fuck movie when they feel the need to get off, much like I wouldn't grudge anyone the right to buy iPhones or drive a car.
Okay, thought about it.
There's a few realities in play, here:
1. You CAN'T avoid using goods that were connected to slave labor.
2. You CAN avoid buying (or stealing) porn.
3. The two above examples demonstrate that "living by principle" is damn near impossible, these days.
4. That doesn't mean you don't try.
P3nt brings up an excellent point, of course. Which is more odious? Watching a film that makes a commodity out of what is presumably a consenting adult, or using an iPhone that was made by slave children? Or, for that matter, wearing clothing made by slave children?
On the other hand, saying "I can therefore enjoy my porn because worse things were done to create the TV I'm watching it on" is kind of a fucked up line of thinking.
A is bad.
B is worse.
A+B is worse than A or B.
A does not excuse B, nor does B excuse A.
Pretty much sums it up. Question is - how much can your conscience bear?
In this day and age it helps if the answer to that question is - a hell of a lot
First of all, Roger, in case I was one of the two spags who wanted this and didn't respond (since I recall asking for a link to the original) – sorry, just took me a while to get to it. It was my "read this thread next" all day today, but I got sidetracked watching the fun with Holist in other threads.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 18, 2012, 06:04:16 PM
Yeah, so. I like porn. I suppose that's no surprise. I've watched a lot of it, and a lot of different kinds.
These kinds of threads make me uncomfortable, which means I've got some thinking to do.
I'm going to admit that I'm most likely deluding myself, but there are a few actresses who really, really give off the impression that they're reasonably happy about their choice of careers. There are also those who are directing themselves in their scenes, which gives them some control about what they're doing. I'm thinking about people like Bobbi Starr, Belladonna, and Joanna Angel.
I know there's a huge amount of porn where both actors are completely dead behind the eyes, and a disturbingly large amount of it is explicitly violent towards women, and there's quite a bit that's more or less geared towards non-consent (they film her saying she's willing, and then do their hardest to make her tap out and quit). But let me be clear, that doesn't turn me on.
I realize that this is an area where my pride of being a rationalist is threatened; reason would dictate that even if sex-positive pornography existed, it would be a very very small portion of an industry that harms almost everyone who participates in it. And yet, I watch.
Apart from details this post basically said what I would have wanted to say for myself. I have to think about this more and I'm glad for this thread, but where I am right now seems to be almost exactly where LMNO is.
I want to add that aside from having had some ads shown to me, and maybe clicking on one or two as a teenager, I have never in any way given money to the porn industry. I can see how even consuming free porn is a form of participating in demand and sustaining the industry, but the degree to which I have an effect on this seems very, very marginal compared to more direct consumer choice in which money is involved.
Also, personally, I'm very much a visual type, in all kinds of ways. And I look at women, all the time, can hardly help it most of the time (though I've reduced the length of staring and cut down on eye contact since reading in some other thread here about how just being stared at can drive some women to serious fear.) It's not just an admiring-their-shape thing, it's definitely a wanting-sex-with-their-body thing, but not to the degree that I get random hardons. (I've only had that in situations where there's prolonged physical contact or closeness involved together with communication and eye contact.) Sometimes I can get off on imagination alone, but having real visuals in front of me is a totally different ball-park. It's just gotten more and more difficult to find something that doesn't disgust me as my sensitivity to the actors' possible situations has grown.
Vex's point about porn consumption being a symptom of a problem is food for real thought, but unfortunately not something I'm comfortable getting into right now (but I'll definitely be thinking about it.)
Quote from: TEXAS FAIRIES FOR ALL YOU SPAGS on September 18, 2012, 02:13:44 AM
Time frame is well past the 1970's...How accurate is this?
http://www.shelleylubben.com/porn-industry
"Out of about 1,500 performers working in California, 41 people that we know of died from AIDS, suicide, homicide and drug related deaths between 2007 and 2011...
"When the deaths of 129 porn performers over a period of roughly 20 years were analyzed it was discovered that were an unusually large number of premature deaths from such causes as drugs, suicide, murder, alcohol abuse, accidental death, and disease. It was also discovered that the average life expectancy of a porn performer is only 37.43 years whereas the average life expectancy of an American is 78.1 years"
The life expectancy detail really gave me pause, but I don't see a source there so I'm a bit suspicious. Does anyone know where the data is from?
I'm probably gonna lurk this thread more than participate, but thanks for starting it, Roger.
ETA: weirdly missing function words
Quote from: VERBL on September 18, 2012, 09:02:18 PM
First of all, Roger, in case I was one of the two spags who wanted this and didn't respond (since I recall asking for a link to the original) – sorry, just took me a while to get to it. It was my "read this thread next" all day today, but I got sidetracked watching the fun with Holist in other threads.
No worries. I was just being irritable.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 18, 2012, 08:16:19 PM
Okay, thought about it.
There's a few realities in play, here:
1. You CAN'T avoid using goods that were connected to slave labor.
2. You CAN avoid buying (or stealing) porn.
3. The two above examples demonstrate that "living by principle" is damn near impossible, these days.
4. That doesn't mean you don't try.
P3nt brings up an excellent point, of course. Which is more odious? Watching a film that makes a commodity out of what is presumably a consenting adult, or using an iPhone that was made by slave children? Or, for that matter, wearing clothing made by slave children?
On the other hand, saying "I can therefore enjoy my porn because worse things were done to create the TV I'm watching it on" is kind of a fucked up line of thinking.
A is bad.
B is worse.
A+B is worse than A or B.
A does not excuse B, nor does B excuse A.
Amen.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 18, 2012, 07:01:22 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 18, 2012, 07:00:19 PM
Porn comes to us via exploitation and misery. So does most manufactured goods nowadays. The gas that goes in our cars comes via bombing women and children. Drugs come via organised crime but most people are comfortable with that. Pron, however is worse because it's to do with sex and catholic guilt and badwrong.
I'm not saying most porn isn't unethical what I'm saying is, in my mind at least, it's no more unethical than most of the other shit we consume, once you don't have a bug in your ass aboout sex.
A point I'd like to consider before response.
It's pretty much the Dawkins Fallacy. Like you said above, "A does not excuse B, nor does B excuse A"; 'greater' evils don't excuse 'lesser' evils. They're all shitty and worth changing.
Incidentally, I kind of want to start a thread about Male Gaze, but I don't want to start the whole thing up again if there's still hard feelings and stuff. Thoughts?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2012, 12:31:32 AM
Incidentally, I kind of want to start a thread about Male Gaze, but I don't want to start the whole thing up again if there's still hard feelings and stuff. Thoughts?
I'll join you.
I have a tendency to leer which I'd like to dissect.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2012, 12:31:32 AM
Incidentally, I kind of want to start a thread about Male Gaze, but I don't want to start the whole thing up again if there's still hard feelings and stuff. Thoughts?
Go ahead.
The Fetish-Facebook Fetlife offers access to user submitted videos, which, tend to be amature produced if you purchase a paid account.
I have a feeling this is a more ethical alternative to free viewings that make companies a shittonne of money in advertising revenue.
I'm actually familiar with people who've done this because they disliked the level of violent mysogyny from free mainstream sites.
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 20, 2012, 11:50:49 AM
The Fetish-Facebook Fetlife offers access to user submitted videos, which, tend to be amature produced if you purchase a paid account.
I have a feeling this is a more ethical alternative to free viewings that make companies a shittonne of money in advertising revenue.
I'm actually familiar with people who've done this because they disliked the level of violent mysogyny from free mainstream sites.
The problem with Fetlife is that it is an EXTREMELY female-hostile environment, in my experience.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 20, 2012, 08:21:30 PM
Quote from: Placid Dingo on September 20, 2012, 11:50:49 AM
The Fetish-Facebook Fetlife offers access to user submitted videos, which, tend to be amature produced if you purchase a paid account.
I have a feeling this is a more ethical alternative to free viewings that make companies a shittonne of money in advertising revenue.
I'm actually familiar with people who've done this because they disliked the level of violent mysogyny from free mainstream sites.
The problem with Fetlife is that it is an EXTREMELY female-hostile environment, in my experience.
I don't find that particularly hard to believe.
So, although i haven't gone there myself yet, i've heard from a handful of people that fetlife is great and they recommended it.
4 of the 5 people that i'm thinking of are women, and well adjusted in my opinion.
I'll sign up tonight and check it out, but what, in your experience is it that makes it female-hostile?
i mean, it seems that M/f is significantly more prevalent than F/m, so it would stand to reason that there is a flow of dominance in that direction, but is there something other than that which gives the impression that women are disrespected beyond the scene of play?
We're new to the exploration of D/s and i appreciate hearing various views, as it seems a complex and subtle subject.
ok. so i made a fetlife acct. to see what the deal was.
i thought i was familiar with the large majority of kinks.
i clicked on the first add i saw and was directed to a page that offered to sell me:
a silicone cum-thru barbell penis plug!
:lol:
i love being surprised by depravity!
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on September 21, 2012, 03:03:59 AM
ok. so i made a fetlife acct. to see what the deal was.
i thought i was familiar with the large majority of kinks.
i clicked on the first add i saw and was directed to a page that offered to sell me:
a silicone cum-thru barbell penis plug!
:lol:
i love being surprised by depravity!
Oh, they're gonna LOVE this at the meetrack. :lulz:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on September 21, 2012, 03:03:59 AM
ok. so i made a fetlife acct. to see what the deal was.
i thought i was familiar with the large majority of kinks.
i clicked on the first add i saw and was directed to a page that offered to sell me:
a silicone cum-thru barbell penis plug!
:lol:
i love being surprised by depravity!
The mental image I'm getting is painful... :horrormirth:
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on September 20, 2012, 10:20:35 PM
So, although i haven't gone there myself yet, i've heard from a handful of people that fetlife is great and they recommended it.
4 of the 5 people that i'm thinking of are women, and well adjusted in my opinion.
I'll sign up tonight and check it out, but what, in your experience is it that makes it female-hostile?
i mean, it seems that M/f is significantly more prevalent than F/m, so it would stand to reason that there is a flow of dominance in that direction, but is there something other than that which gives the impression that women are disrespected beyond the scene of play?
We're new to the exploration of D/s and i appreciate hearing various views, as it seems a complex and subtle subject.
As a single woman on that site, I received a seemingly unending stream of abusive messages from male members, and the discussion forums tend to be profoundly misogynistic, particularly if anyone brings up a topic like feeling harassed as a woman. I have never participated in the discussion forums, only read them. They scare me.
Quote from: Luna on September 21, 2012, 01:45:01 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 08:13:48 AM
They scare me.
If they scare NIGEL, that's my cue to not bother.
if Nigel goes to somewhere and says it is scary, or horribly squicky, I agree with Luna.. NOT GOING THERE!
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 08:13:48 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on September 20, 2012, 10:20:35 PM
So, although i haven't gone there myself yet, i've heard from a handful of people that fetlife is great and they recommended it.
4 of the 5 people that i'm thinking of are women, and well adjusted in my opinion.
I'll sign up tonight and check it out, but what, in your experience is it that makes it female-hostile?
i mean, it seems that M/f is significantly more prevalent than F/m, so it would stand to reason that there is a flow of dominance in that direction, but is there something other than that which gives the impression that women are disrespected beyond the scene of play?
We're new to the exploration of D/s and i appreciate hearing various views, as it seems a complex and subtle subject.
As a single woman on that site, I received a seemingly unending stream of abusive messages from male members, and the discussion forums tend to be profoundly misogynistic, particularly if anyone brings up a topic like feeling harassed as a woman. I have never participated in the discussion forums, only read them. They scare me.
That really sucks. I've heard the female members get a lot of messages, never that theyre abusive.
Theres maybe two discussion groups I interact with. I joined a politics group and it was all like "fuck you assface, George Zimmerman was within his rights". I didn't bother after that.
Bypassing the social aspects, I do still wonder if that user produced content from exhibitionists is a model for ' ethical pornography'. Certainly the emphasis on inforned consent tends to be there.
Considering though that the model is only possible because of the social design, maybe it's not possible to bypass the social aspect at all.
Quote from: Pixie on September 21, 2012, 02:51:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on September 21, 2012, 01:45:01 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 08:13:48 AM
They scare me.
If they scare NIGEL, that's my cue to not bother.
if Nigel goes to somewhere and says it is scary, or horribly squicky, I agree with Luna.. NOT GOING THERE!
Thanks guys.
It's the kind of place where the squick/creep/stalker factor is WAY WAY HIGHER than average. Regardless of what my profile actually said I was looking for, I got a lot lot lot of messages from men who seemed to think that they could verbally abuse/intimidate me into being sub, and a LOT of messages from men implying that they knew how to find me offsite. CREEP FACTOR RED ALERT. I think that kind of site just attracts the hell out of fucked up and/or abusive men who are looking for women they can intimidate and treat like objects. The women who are "owned" by another man on the site seem to be treated better, from what I gather, than single unattached women... which is a whole other level of squick factor.
Actually, I take back what I said about not participating in the discussion forums... I did post in two discussions, and received a stream of abuse in return.
There might be a lot of good people there, but there are a lot of not-good people, too.
In my experience, BDSM communities work much better IRL than online, because in order to make a relationship work, there must be respect, even in D/s relationships. But online, it's the "Internet + Anonymity = Asshole" principle, writ large. The creep who would be tossed from the Fetish Club can simply log on to the website.
why does one need to bypass the social aspect in order to evaluate the model?
there's certainly more than one community that includes user produced content.
if the BDSM community (online) involves a social aspect that is unpalatable, i know that there is plenty of user content tossed around in the swinger community that is not misogynistic, as it is a frequent refrain that the women run that show and call all the shots. (at least the majority of the stable couples adhere to this, ime)
furthermore, i would think that the douche contingent is going to be more vocal in the majority of platforms because their nozzles aren't calibrated properly. does the fact that the discussion forums tend toward distaste invalidate the sharing of content?
I'm wondering how large bandwidth improvements and deployment is going to affect pornography, as i think couples using webcam could likely become significantly more prominent. there is interaction, and, although it is not quite the same as same-room play, that certainly adds an element that traditional smut can't compete with.
To quote Ghostbusters, don't cross the streams.
It's very, very difficult to negotiate a path of being a Dom/S male who's interested in Sub/M females and *not* look like a misogynistic douchebag. Simply saying "go to a swinger site instead" wont cut it, because the swinger community, by and large, doesn't buy in to BDSM.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 21, 2012, 05:51:53 PM
In my experience, BDSM communities work much better IRL than online, because in order to make a relationship work, there must be respect, even in D/s relationships. But online, it's the "Internet + Anonymity = Asshole" principle, writ large. The creep who would be tossed from the Fetish Club can simply log on to the website.
And apparently, does.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 21, 2012, 06:00:50 PM
To quote Ghostbusters, don't cross the streams.
It's very, very difficult to negotiate a path of being a Dom/S male who's interested in Sub/M females and *not* look like a misogynistic douchebag. Simply saying "go to a swinger site instead" wont cut it, because the swinger community, by and large, doesn't buy in to BDSM.
Not to mention that plenty of people who are into BDSM are not at all into the swinging scene.
I have seen a fair bit of homemade swinger porn, but I haven't yet seen any that didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. A straight-up exhibitionist site might be good though.
oh, certainly, LMNO.
i agree. if you're looking for BDSM content as a female, then i would think you are going to have to handle male dominants by either ignoring them or asserting your own dominance. (just guessing here, i'm not well versed) Unless, of course, you are submissive.
i was just suggesting swinger content for those that are looking to analyze user created content as a workable model rather than traditional smut which is unacceptable in the context of this discussion...
I figured that's where you were heading, I just wanted to clarify.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 06:06:23 PM
I have seen a fair bit of homemade swinger porn, but I haven't yet seen any that didn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. A straight-up exhibitionist site might be good though.
i would think that, due to the vast diversity of sexuality interests, attitudes, and appearances, that you would get a bad taste in your mouth from
any venue where it is all on display en mass, no? I could see straight-up exhibitionist sites having just as much creep in it.
This might have been addressed before, but what sort of thing are you interested in watching, Nigel?
BTW:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2012, 12:31:32 AM
Incidentally, I kind of want to start a thread about Male Gaze, but I don't want to start the whole thing up again if there's still hard feelings and stuff. Thoughts?
WHERE IS THREAD?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on September 21, 2012, 06:07:26 PM
oh, certainly, LMNO.
i agree. if you're looking for BDSM content as a female, then i would think you are going to have to handle male dominants by either ignoring them or asserting your own dominance. (just guessing here, i'm not well versed) Unless, of course, you are submissive.
i was just suggesting swinger content for those that are looking to analyze user created content as a workable model rather than traditional smut which is unacceptable in the context of this discussion...
A woman who doesn't bill herself as a submissive should have to "handle" male dominants at all, any more than male dominants should have to "handle" female dominants, and the notion that it's somehow normal and acceptable for "dom" men (I doubt they're actually doms, I think they're just assholes looking for an excuse to harrass women, because real doms don't bother people who aren't looking for them) to try to browbeat dominant women into being submissive is part of what perpetuates the problem.
As for swinger content, I don't find it any less produced or any less full of the same problems that I've seen on any amateur website, and a lot of it seems to be produced as advertising for clubs. Plenty of pitfalls there, and the thing is, the pitfalls reflect the problems in our society, and always will.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 06:19:07 PM
(I doubt they're actually doms, I think they're just assholes looking for an excuse to harrass women, because real doms don't bother people who aren't looking for them)
This. That place is utterly bankrupt. Why bother, unless you're trolling?
Quote from: VERBL on September 21, 2012, 06:16:20 PM
BTW:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2012, 12:31:32 AM
Incidentally, I kind of want to start a thread about Male Gaze, but I don't want to start the whole thing up again if there's still hard feelings and stuff. Thoughts?
WHERE IS THREAD?
Apologies. I'm taking time to get the terms right. There's a nuance between the theory and how it's used in common parlance.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 21, 2012, 06:14:40 PM
This might have been addressed before, but what sort of thing are you interested in watching, Nigel?
Straight guy penis is mostly what I look for. I've seen a few couple videos that were good, that were more like real people who are into each other having fun fucking and less all that fake extended blowjob remix bullshit. Unfortunately, most couple videos look fake.
Lately I tend to watch mostly videos of guys jerking themselves off.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 21, 2012, 06:20:35 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 06:19:07 PM
(I doubt they're actually doms, I think they're just assholes looking for an excuse to harrass women, because real doms don't bother people who aren't looking for them)
This. That place is utterly bankrupt. Why bother, unless you're trolling?
Trolling is what got me there in the first place. My profile was utterly absurd; my kink was "hardcore vanilla" and monogamy was my biggest turn-on. I then laced that with all kinds of completely weird fetishes that I made up while acting like they were straight out of the Mormon marriage handbook.
There are other things that I enjoy watching, but mostly don't because it's almost impossible to find videos that don't have so much commercial/exploitative vibe that it totally turns me off. Like, female on male strap-on penetration, chicks with dicks, MMF, partial exposure, CFNM, and sex in public/risky locations.
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)
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 06:24:01 PM
Lately I tend to watch mostly videos of guys jerking themselves off.
... you're not having trouble finding this type of content, are you?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 21, 2012, 06:22:32 PM
Quote from: VERBL on September 21, 2012, 06:16:20 PM
BTW:
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 19, 2012, 12:31:32 AM
Incidentally, I kind of want to start a thread about Male Gaze, but I don't want to start the whole thing up again if there's still hard feelings and stuff. Thoughts?
WHERE IS THREAD?
Apologies. I'm taking time to get the terms right. There's a nuance between the theory and how it's used in common parlance.
Okay, just wanted to make sure it's still coming. :)
Also, I've now googled "Male Gaze" and found out it's not what I thought, but also something I'm very interested in. :)
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on September 21, 2012, 06:34:10 PM
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.
Quote
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 06:24:01 PM
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.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 06:48:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 21, 2012, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 06:48:15 PM
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!
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 21, 2012, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 06:48:15 PM
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.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 21, 2012, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 21, 2012, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 06:48:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 21, 2012, 07:13:46 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 21, 2012, 07:13:16 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 21, 2012, 06:51:19 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 06:48:15 PM
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.
"Hey, I saw you on PD.com. CHECK OUT MY PENIS MULTILATION PICS"
Quote from: Cain on September 21, 2012, 11:03:13 PM
"Hey, I saw you on PD.com. CHECK OUT MY PENIS MULTILATION PICS"
:horrormirth: :horrormirth: :horrormirth:
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.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 04:15:46 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 02:17:52 PM
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.
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 02:28:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 02:47:16 PM
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.
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 02:28:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 02:17:52 PM
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.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 17, 2012, 04:15:46 PM
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?
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 03:03:44 PM
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.
Quote from: Pixie on September 24, 2012, 03:11:02 PM
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.
What is also unicorn-like are these kinds of requirements for exploitation, and what makes it special is its sex. Are you as concerned about your local corporation's management serious lack of focus on their employees enjoying their work? Probably not, because sex work is different. Are you as concerned about health care providers, law enforcement, etc. getting HIV through needlestick injuries - and have this same standard that this should NEVER happen? It wouldn't make sense. But, why does it make sense here rather than some basic common sense protocol for preventing transmission? No, instead, the solution is how about we just try abstinence. You don't really NEED to have sex, after all. That dog's not going to hunt.
The bottom line is that human sexuality is filled with all kinds of dark, horry desires. And while there's a place for feminist critique, the place for it isn't in evaluating other people's kink or trying to fence it in so that its safe. It's never going to be safe.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 24, 2012, 03:23:46 PMSo you're only going to address the individual components, and ignore the social aspects entirely?
If you want to offer up a social theory about the negative effects of pornography, I'm all ears. But, this thread thus far, unless I missed something, didn't have much of one. I think my comment above gets to my first thoughts on the matter. Social control of an individual's sexuality, beyond the kinds of obvious things such as consent and getting more into the realm of feminist critique of allowing or disallowing certain desires as approved or not approved, is not generally something I'd want to endorse.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 03:25:22 PM
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.
As long as it isn't something "special", then that's great. One of my objections here is that it often is treated as special. Commodify a woman's work at the check out counter? Great. As soon as she decides to make some money by lifting her skirt and making her vagina the center of her work rather than her arms, then it's all sisters of the world unite. Maybe this is right, but I'm not a woman. So, maybe there's a lot going on here I don't understand.
Ayotollah, let me state that to my ears you sound like sense.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 03:25:22 PM
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.
As a prostitute (a frontal lobe prostitute, FLP for short) I protest. We never sell our persons, only capacities, competencies, and our time.
The people who sell their persons are the persons who are taken in by pernicious ideology (there's a great variety of flavours on offer) and decide to let go of their lives so that others may take hold of it for them. You know the old adage about giving up freedom for security and not deserving either? That's selling your person. A bit of honest prostitution is not.
I'd just like to point out that non-sexual employment tends to be vastly different than sexual employment, not just because of social mores; there are fundamentally different physical and chemical forces at play, because of the biology of sex. Sex as a job simply doesn't equate to installing kitchens or entering data as a job, because of the endocrine cascade that sex produces.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 07:49:21 PM
As a prostitute (a frontal lobe prostitute, FLP for short) I protest.
A what?
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
I'd just like to point out that non-sexual employment tends to be vastly different than sexual employment, not just because of social mores; there are fundamentally different physical and chemical forces at play, because of the biology of sex. Sex as a job simply doesn't equate to installing kitchens or entering data as a job, because of the endocrine cascade that sex produces.
Yes, but on the other hand it is not fundamentally different (in that way, I mean) to acting or dancing or the circus or making music (the performing arts) as forms of earning money: all of those, if they are any good, involve tremendous hormonal cascades in the performer as well.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
I'd just like to point out that non-sexual employment tends to be vastly different than sexual employment, not just because of social mores; there are fundamentally different physical and chemical forces at play, because of the biology of sex. Sex as a job simply doesn't equate to installing kitchens or entering data as a job, because of the endocrine cascade that sex produces.
THIS.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:02:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
I'd just like to point out that non-sexual employment tends to be vastly different than sexual employment, not just because of social mores; there are fundamentally different physical and chemical forces at play, because of the biology of sex. Sex as a job simply doesn't equate to installing kitchens or entering data as a job, because of the endocrine cascade that sex produces.
Yes, but on the other hand it is not fundamentally different (in that way, I mean) to acting or dancing or the circus or making music (the performing arts) as forms of earning money: all of those, if they are any good, involve tremendous hormonal cascades in the performer as well.
So, wait. A musician and a prostitute have the same job stress?
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:02:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
I'd just like to point out that non-sexual employment tends to be vastly different than sexual employment, not just because of social mores; there are fundamentally different physical and chemical forces at play, because of the biology of sex. Sex as a job simply doesn't equate to installing kitchens or entering data as a job, because of the endocrine cascade that sex produces.
Yes, but on the other hand it is not fundamentally different (in that way, I mean) to acting or dancing or the circus or making music (the performing arts) as forms of earning money: all of those, if they are any good, involve tremendous hormonal cascades in the performer as well.
Um. No. I mean, yes there are emotions generated during performance, but no, you can't compare it to sex.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:01:34 PM
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 07:49:21 PM
As a prostitute (a frontal lobe prostitute, FLP for short) I protest.
A what?
Well I'm a freelance translator. Anyone, provided they pay appropriately, can push their shit through my brain. If they push English, it comes out Hungarian. If they push Hungarian, it comes out in English. Some (few) kinks, such as Heavy Legal
TM, and Ultra Heavy Science
TM and anything written by a handful of Hungarian celebs/politicos I don't do, but sufficient reward will tempt me to research new areas of kink in order to be able to work them. I say that's prostitution. And genitals may get called private parts, but the brain is actually closer to the core of the individual, I think.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:07:36 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:01:34 PM
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 07:49:21 PM
As a prostitute (a frontal lobe prostitute, FLP for short) I protest.
A what?
Well I'm a freelance translator. Anyone, provided they pay appropriately, can push their shit through my brain. If they push English, it comes out Hungarian. If they push Hungarian, it comes out in English. Some (few) kinks, such as Heavy LegalTM, and Ultra Heavy ScienceTM and anything written by a handful of Hungarian celebs/politicos I don't do, but sufficient reward will tempt me to research new areas of kink in order to be able to work them. I say that's prostitution. And genitals may get called private parts, but the brain is actually closer to the core of the individual, I think.
And you are equating this with a job requiring you to have sex with people that disgust you?
Very nice.
I've worked in translation, and I find the comparison offensive in its tastelessness and trivialization of something you and I have not personally experienced, holist.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:04:08 PM
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:02:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
I'd just like to point out that non-sexual employment tends to be vastly different than sexual employment, not just because of social mores; there are fundamentally different physical and chemical forces at play, because of the biology of sex. Sex as a job simply doesn't equate to installing kitchens or entering data as a job, because of the endocrine cascade that sex produces.
Yes, but on the other hand it is not fundamentally different (in that way, I mean) to acting or dancing or the circus or making music (the performing arts) as forms of earning money: all of those, if they are any good, involve tremendous hormonal cascades in the performer as well.
So, wait. A musician and a prostitute have the same job stress?
Well that's I think an overly simplistic question and of course I am not saying that. But I think there is overlap. And I am pretty certain that some prostitutes (I've known a few, not as a punter I hasten to add) and some porn actresses (a few years after we split up, my first ever girlfriend dabbled for a few months, got out of the financial tight spot and quit, said she knew many others who did this) have significantly less job stress than many working musicians. I am also (just to make it clear) totally clear on the fact the exploitation in the sex industry can be quite heavy. Though I am sure you can think of examples of exploitation in the music business being also quite brutal.
So, aiding communication between parties who would otherwise be unable to trade ideas = selling yourself as a dildo / fleshlight.
Wow. Great job, skippy.
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 08:09:32 PM
I've worked in translation, and I find the comparison offensive in its tastelessness and trivialization of something you and I have not personally experienced, holist.
Have you made a living and supported a large family on translation for seventeen years without any even marginally better possibilities, offers? I am sorry to have caused offence. And of course it is entirely possible to work in translation without it being prostitution. The way I am in this business, is nothing short of hiring out a precious body part to any solvent dick I don't find TOO offensive.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:12:35 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:04:08 PM
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:02:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
I'd just like to point out that non-sexual employment tends to be vastly different than sexual employment, not just because of social mores; there are fundamentally different physical and chemical forces at play, because of the biology of sex. Sex as a job simply doesn't equate to installing kitchens or entering data as a job, because of the endocrine cascade that sex produces.
Yes, but on the other hand it is not fundamentally different (in that way, I mean) to acting or dancing or the circus or making music (the performing arts) as forms of earning money: all of those, if they are any good, involve tremendous hormonal cascades in the performer as well.
So, wait. A musician and a prostitute have the same job stress?
Well that's I think an overly simplistic question and of course I am not saying that. But I think there is overlap. And I am pretty certain that some prostitutes (I've known a few, not as a punter I hasten to add) and some porn actresses (a few years after we split up, my first ever girlfriend dabbled for a few months, got out of the financial tight spot and quit, said she knew many others who did this) have significantly less job stress than many working musicians. I am also (just to make it clear) totally clear on the fact the exploitation in the sex industry can be quite heavy. Though I am sure you can think of examples of exploitation in the music business being also quite brutal.
I dunno. Whenever I think about all of the awful, abusive things I've seen almost every fucking time I looked for porn I can enjoy, and the sheer ration of awful-to-nice that I've experienced on every single site, I can definitely say I don't think musicians and other non-sexual performers have it
nearly as bad. Absolutely fucking awful seems to be the norm in mainstream porn.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:13:38 PM
So, aiding communication between parties who would otherwise be unable to trade ideas = selling yourself as a dildo / fleshlight.
Wow. Great job, skippy.
Well I don't see that much of a difference: they could learn languages, they could hire in-house translators (the really demanding people, for whom quality is paramount, often do, but that's a very small slice of the market). Apart from that, aiding parties in obtaining sexual gratification who would otherwise be unable to get off... so diff'rent?
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
Absolutely!
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:14:54 PM
The way I am in this business, is nothing short of hiring out a precious body part to any solvent dick I don't find TOO offensive.
Then you're one step up, aren't you?
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 08:16:22 PM
Absolutely fucking awful seems to be the norm in mainstream porn.
Whereas of course absolutely fucking awful is not the norm in popular music and the popular movie industry?
They make what people buy. There are actually many "behind the scenes" movies that seem entirely uncontrived, and which seem to indicate that people in porn have a lot of laughs, don't take themselves very seriously, and work in an atmosphere of entrepreneurial camaraderie quite reminiscent of smaller graphics studios of software houses, only they have their privates out a lot and also use them. This makes for staid, unpassionate, boring porn. Much like the music industry and the movie industry makes for staid, unpassionate, boring content, most of the time.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
pfff, come off it :lulz:
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:14:54 PM
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 08:09:32 PM
I've worked in translation, and I find the comparison offensive in its tastelessness and trivialization of something you and I have not personally experienced, holist.
Have you made a living and supported a large family on translation for seventeen years without any even marginally better possibilities, offers? I am sorry to have caused offence. And of course it is entirely possible to work in translation without it being prostitution. The way I am in this business, is nothing short of hiring out a precious body part to any solvent dick I don't find TOO offensive.
My mother has lived primarily off of translation for well over a decade (but she's so fast, good, and professional, that she's usually been able to choose what jobs she does) and a good friend of mine here has been living off of more take-what-you-can-get kind of translations for a similar period of time, supporting a family on her own.
I'm unfortunately too young to have had that kind of experience, and have so far been fortunate not to work in anything seriously exploitative or awful so far.
Nonetheless, both you and I have not actually worked as female prostitutes or porn stars, and cannot claim to have experienced that, and you seem to be ignoring a very concrete reality of that kind of work.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:21:12 PM
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 08:16:22 PM
Absolutely fucking awful seems to be the norm in mainstream porn.
Whereas of course absolutely fucking awful is not the norm in popular music and the popular movie industry?
Really? How long does a recording artist's ass bleed after a session in the studio?
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:22:00 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
pfff, come off it :lulz:
Yeah, you're right. Prostitutes are all just those happy hookers, who do it for the love of the job. And there are no pimps.
In related news, bankers are honest, politicians aren't thieves, and that nice man in the alley really just wants to know what time it is.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
Also, while you happily misrepresent my views, I do know a great many self-employed translators, and they do get into some twisted shit to make enough in a very competitive market with very many customers whose only requirement is low price... serial-allnighting, speed abuse, major painkillers for the headaches plus bribery and manipulative crap to pull jobs - it's all there for those with the stomach for it. So no, the jobs are not identical, but they share some characteristics. More than you'd think.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:20:11 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
Absolutely!
Not to mention the diseases you can catch while translating. Move over AIDS! Here comes dry mouth!
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:25:17 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
Also, while you happily misrepresent my views, I do know a great many self-employed translators, and they do get into some twisted shit to make enough in a very competitive market with very many customers whose only requirement is low price... serial-allnighting, speed abuse, major painkillers for the headaches plus bribery and manipulative crap to pull jobs - it's all there for those with the stomach for it. So no, the jobs are not identical, but they share some characteristics. More than you'd think.
Really? And just how much experience do you have with the prostitution trade, from any pov?
Holist, I think you may need to step away and think about what you're actually saying.
And not in some higher-plane metaphysical/philosophical discussion where existence is utility-based and interchangable. Think about what you're saying in the real world. Really strive to make your thoughts live as if they were right in front of you.
Because, dude, you're sounding like a sociopathic dick right now.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:20:11 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
Absolutely!
Not to mention the diseases you can catch while translating. Move over AIDS! Here comes dry mouth!
Hey, translating is HARD WORK. Sometimes the johns beat you up or stab you and throw you in a dumpster.
Holist is the REAL victim, here.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 08:26:50 PM
Holist, I think you may need to step away and think about what you're actually saying.
"Kids in Africa don't have it as bad as translators." :sad:
I think on an intellectual level you can equate anything to anything if you build the right metaphors. That doesn't change that there is n honest comparison of porn and freelance writing. You can find yourself forced to write something or for someone you hate, but that isn't the same as being unable to claw your way out of a profession where the person you hate is physically violating you. The gist of this thread was how porn starts as a last resort and becomes a trap with diminishing returns. That can be said of many jobs, but most of the other jobs do not also involve your body becoming a literal commodity for use in the most depraved physical acts, with or without your agreement.
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:20:11 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
Absolutely!
Not to mention the diseases you can catch while translating. Move over AIDS! Here comes dry mouth!
Well, and chronic carpal tunnel syndrome (because why not work 15 hours a day for a few weeks if I can pull a decent load), chronic back-pain (because buying decent office furniture for the home office somehow tends to slide down the list of priorities), a variety of eye problems from looking at a screen for far too long, irritability, headaches, spontaneous translation (happens after long symultaneous interpretation gigs). There's nothing to match AIDS, for sure, but there are plenty of opportunities to get crippled. I am not in any way trying to belittle the plight of exploited porn-stars and prostitutes. Exploitation is terrible. But I agree with the Ayotollah: there is some undeclared bias here due to the sex thing. And I know that there exist (not a majority, but by no means unicorns) people who spend a year or two in the sex business, save up and lie back while they figure out what to do with their lives afterwards. They may discover, even years later, that they had bitten off more than they could chew... but that's not necessarily the case.
V3x and alphapance have the right of it in honesty.
Fidel has the right of it in mockery.
I give up.
Someone else can deal with the unicorn poomp.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:31:40 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:20:11 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
Absolutely!
Not to mention the diseases you can catch while translating. Move over AIDS! Here comes dry mouth!
Well, and chronic carpal tunnel syndrome (because why not work 15 hours a day for a few weeks if I can pull a decent load), chronic back-pain (because buying decent office furniture for the home office somehow tends to slide down the list of priorities), a variety of eye problems from looking at a screen for far too long, irritability, headaches, spontaneous translation (happens after long symultaneous interpretation gigs). There's nothing to match AIDS, for sure, but there are plenty of opportunities to get crippled. I am not in any way trying to belittle the plight of exploited porn-stars and prostitutes. Exploitation is terrible. But I agree with the Ayotollah: there is some undeclared bias here due to the sex thing. And I know that there exist (not a majority, but by no means unicorns) people who spend a year or two in the sex business, save up and lie back while they figure out what to do with their lives afterwards. They may discover, even years later, that they had bitten off more than they could chew... but that's not necessarily the case.
I advise you to step back, and reevaluate your position, maybe with a dash of human compassion thrown in. You know, just in case we are talking about real people.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:31:40 PM
Well, and chronic carpal tunnel syndrome (because why not work 15 hours a day for a few weeks if I can pull a decent load), chronic back-pain (because buying decent office furniture for the home office somehow tends to slide down the list of priorities), a variety of eye problems from looking at a screen for far too long, irritability, headaches, spontaneous translation (happens after long symultaneous interpretation gigs). There's nothing to match AIDS, for sure, but there are plenty of opportunities to get crippled. I am not in any way trying to belittle the plight of exploited porn-stars and prostitutes. Exploitation is terrible. But I agree with the Ayotollah: there is some undeclared bias here due to the sex thing. And I know that there exist (not a majority, but by no means unicorns) people who spend a year or two in the sex business, save up and lie back while they figure out what to do with their lives afterwards. They may discover, even years later, that they had bitten off more than they could chew... but that's not necessarily the case.
You can get very usable dictation software for peanuts relative to the carpal-tunnel healthcare you save by it (my mother did this) and you can go out and buy ergonomic furniture if you need it. Both are one-time, moderate-price purchases that seriously alleviate the (very real) physical problems you mentioned. No such possibility exists for porn work, AFAIK.
That said:
Quote from: v3x on September 24, 2012, 08:35:54 PM
I advise you to step back, and reevaluate your position, maybe with a dash of human compassion thrown in. You know, just in case we are talking about real people.
THIS.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:31:40 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:20:11 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
Absolutely!
Not to mention the diseases you can catch while translating. Move over AIDS! Here comes dry mouth!
Well, and chronic carpal tunnel syndrome (because why not work 15 hours a day for a few weeks if I can pull a decent load), chronic back-pain (because buying decent office furniture for the home office somehow tends to slide down the list of priorities), a variety of eye problems from looking at a screen for far too long, irritability, headaches, spontaneous translation (happens after long symultaneous interpretation gigs). There's nothing to match AIDS, for sure, but there are plenty of opportunities to get crippled. I am not in any way trying to belittle the plight of exploited porn-stars and prostitutes. Exploitation is terrible. But I agree with the Ayotollah: there is some undeclared bias here due to the sex thing. And I know that there exist (not a majority, but by no means unicorns) people who spend a year or two in the sex business, save up and lie back while they figure out what to do with their lives afterwards. They may discover, even years later, that they had bitten off more than they could chew... but that's not necessarily the case.
Oh my God, you've just described all the health hazards of working in an office in any kind of profession.
POOR FUCKING YOU, YOU POOR PROSTITUTE.
Quote from: v3x on September 24, 2012, 08:35:54 PM
I advise you to step back, and reevaluate your position, maybe with a dash of human compassion thrown in. You know, just in case we are talking about real people.
Okay, thanks for that advice. I don't want it to go that way again.
I am fully aware that brutal exploitation is frequent in the sex industry, both prostitution and porn. I am fully aware that this industry also ties in to slavery, human trafficking. I am not condoning those things at all, I am not saying they are not terrible, because they are. But I don't agree that this is the prevalent model. This is the extreme of exploitation. I think the run-of-the-mill exploitation that does go on (remember, Hungary is a superpower in porn terms, it does go on a lot here, both the post-produced, glitzy and the rough, more perverted varieties) is also disgraceful, shouldn't-happen-at-all-in-an-ideal world sort of thing, but there is a whole scale. And there is also significant self-exploitation. I also think that there is something about the sex-thing that makes this kind of exploitation a special case... but I don't think that has been sufficiently understood ITT.
The thing about being a frontal lobe prostitute cuts both ways: I actually like the fact that I get to decide whether I take every single job or not, and (after a good many years of learning how to do this), I think I am now avoiding the extremes of self-exploitation.
As for what experience, from any pov, I think I have already answered that question.
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 08:36:37 PM
You can get very usable dictation software for peanuts relative to the carpal-tunnel healthcare you save by it (my mother did this) and you can go out and buy ergonomic furniture if you need it. Both are one-time, moderate-price purchases that seriously alleviate the (very real) physical problems you mentioned.
NOT ATTEMPTING TO CONVINCE ANYONE THAT TRANSLATION IS A WORSE JOB THAN WHORING, JUST ANSWERING SOME FRIENDLY ADVICE:
Dictation software: NOT moderately priced by my standards, AND I tried it (dragonspeak, they were the best in the field at the time), didn't work with my accent/language pair.
Ergonomic furniture being moderate priced: you are kidding. Home modding is what I get by on. I can't afford to pay 400 dollars for a chair.
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 08:36:37 PM
No such possibility exists for porn work, AFAIK.
But it does! The obvious parallel is not doing too much of it, only working with respectful professionals and avoiding the crocodiles that Roger mentioned. He seems to think that this is impossible or well-nigh-impossible. My experience (ex-girlfriend doing porn for about a year in London, other short-term girlfriend actually doing free-lance BDSM prostitution to recover from costly divorce, (now a successful therapist, after the courses she paid for with the money she made). And no, I don't think I just happened to get to meet two unicorns.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:48:52 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 24, 2012, 08:35:54 PM
I advise you to step back, and reevaluate your position, maybe with a dash of human compassion thrown in. You know, just in case we are talking about real people.
Okay, thanks for that advice. I don't want it to go that way again.
I am fully aware that brutal exploitation is frequent in the sex industry, both prostitution and porn. I am fully aware that this industry also ties in to slavery, human trafficking. I am not condoning those things at all, I am not saying they are not terrible, because they are. But I don't agree that this is the prevalent model. This is the extreme of exploitation. I think the run-of-the-mill exploitation that does go on (remember, Hungary is a superpower in porn terms, it does go on a lot here, both the post-produced, glitzy and the rough, more perverted varieties) is also disgraceful, shouldn't-happen-at-all-in-an-ideal world sort of thing, but there is a whole scale. And there is also significant self-exploitation. I also think that there is something about the sex-thing that makes this kind of exploitation a special case... but I don't think that has been sufficiently understood ITT.
The thing about being a frontal lobe prostitute cuts both ways: I actually like the fact that I get to decide whether I take every single job or not, and (after a good many years of learning how to do this), I think I am now avoiding the extremes of self-exploitation.
As for what experience, from any pov, I think I have already answered that question.
Right, except working in porn features all the same stressors that your job features - deciding which jobs to do, selling your abilities, aligning yourself with the right people, and taking the right kind of risks. These are equal, sure. But
on top of all that, when you work in porn, you
also have to have your body used like a cheap toy from Hong Kong. Your body, which is for all intents an purposes
you yourself -- your mortal coil -- the very tie that binds you to this plane of existence -- in a very real sense everything you have and, in porn, everything you
are. That seems to me like it would hit much closer to home, and be that much more intense, than getting a wrist cramp or pining over writing an uncomfortable kind of propaganda. You can identify with all the business aspects of working as a porn star maybe, but business ain't the
half of it.
Quote from: v3x on September 24, 2012, 08:57:33 PM
But on top of all that, when you work in porn, you also have to have your body used like a cheap toy from Hong Kong.
Okay, let me try to make my point precisely: I fully agree that this happens a great deal. It results in, firstly, heavily exploitative, and, incidentally, also boring porn (often both at the same time). But I disagree that you
have to have your body used like that, and I disagree that it happens
practically all the time. With the advance of the internet, many prostitutes have found ways to work for themselves, on their own terms. Some porn companies believe in investing in and protecting talent and not strip-mining it (bad pun, sorry). Incidentally (and this is the honest truth), some years ago I translated for a German guy, called himself a "hacker-hunter", who said that Europol is having a serious problem with pedofile rings as well: at a fairly exclusive conference on internet security for bankers, he claimed that in over half the cases, the pics of nude children found on the computers of twisted old men are manufactured by groups of people who are all minors... so, after a costly operation, there's noone to prosecute on the production side.
What I find somewhat disturbing right now that practically all of this has been said ITT by others. But it did not provoke this reaction.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 09:08:20 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 24, 2012, 08:57:33 PM
But on top of all that, when you work in porn, you also have to have your body used like a cheap toy from Hong Kong.
Okay, let me try to make my point precisely: I fully agree that this happens a great deal. It results in, firstly, heavily exploitative, and, incidentally, also boring porn (often both at the same time). But I disagree that you have to have your body used like that, and I disagree that it happens practically all the time. With the advance of the internet, many prostitutes have found ways to work for themselves, on their own terms. Some porn companies believe in investing in and protecting talent and not strip-mining it (bad pun, sorry). Incidentally (and this is the honest truth), some years ago I translated for a German guy, called himself a "hacker-hunter", who said that Europol is having a serious problem with pedofile rings as well: at a fairly exclusive conference on internet security for bankers, he claimed that in over half the cases, the pics of nude children found on the computers of twisted old men are manufactured by groups of people who are all minors... so, after a costly operation, there's noone to prosecute on the production side.
What I find somewhat disturbing right now that practically all of this has been said ITT by others. But it did not provoke this reaction.
I think it's because it sounds like you're saying a writing career that goes south is more or less equal to a porn career that goes south, which is not true.
Quote from: v3x on September 24, 2012, 08:57:33 PM
Right, except working in porn features all the same stressors that your job features - deciding which jobs to do, selling your abilities, aligning yourself with the right people, and taking the right kind of risks. These are equal, sure. But on top of all that, when you work in porn, you also have to have your body used like a cheap toy from Hong Kong. Your body, which is for all intents an purposes you yourself -- your mortal coil -- the very tie that binds you to this plane of existence -- in a very real sense everything you have and, in porn, everything you are. That seems to me like it would hit much closer to home, and be that much more intense, than getting a wrist cramp or pining over writing an uncomfortable kind of propaganda. You can identify with all the business aspects of working as a porn star maybe, but business ain't the half of it.
This.
And also this:
You mention social biases regarding sex. They affect the people working in it, not only those discussing it. And the way these biases work, in all cases I'm familiar with, is that they are jarringly unbalanced in their treatment of men and women. In the specific context of mainstream porn, they are at their highest potential: the women are literally selling their body for money and having sex with multiple strangers, opening them up to all sorts of abuse just for the fact of doing what they, while the men are doing the same thing, which perversely puts them in a position of power and envy. And if that imbalance were to come to the fore, and a male performer were to get abusive with his partner, even if "only" on camera, "only" as an act, the female performer is required to act like she's enjoying the shit out of it. At that point the exploitation specific to that line of work meets the normal exploitation involved in all paid work – she has to do her job to have money for her basic needs (including self-realization, which I'm glad to hear you know people who found after working in porn.) And unlike most other professions, there is hardly a single other industry in which she can later sport her hard work on a resume.
I'm not saying – and I don't hear almost anyone here saying, but correct me if I'm wrong – that all porn work is necessarily worse than all other work. It's more that taken as a whole, the reality of porn work is awful in a whole other way, in a significant proportion of cases.
Quote from: v3x on September 24, 2012, 09:11:26 PM
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 09:08:20 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 24, 2012, 08:57:33 PM
But on top of all that, when you work in porn, you also have to have your body used like a cheap toy from Hong Kong.
Okay, let me try to make my point precisely: I fully agree that this happens a great deal. It results in, firstly, heavily exploitative, and, incidentally, also boring porn (often both at the same time). But I disagree that you have to have your body used like that, and I disagree that it happens practically all the time. With the advance of the internet, many prostitutes have found ways to work for themselves, on their own terms. Some porn companies believe in investing in and protecting talent and not strip-mining it (bad pun, sorry). Incidentally (and this is the honest truth), some years ago I translated for a German guy, called himself a "hacker-hunter", who said that Europol is having a serious problem with pedofile rings as well: at a fairly exclusive conference on internet security for bankers, he claimed that in over half the cases, the pics of nude children found on the computers of twisted old men are manufactured by groups of people who are all minors... so, after a costly operation, there's noone to prosecute on the production side.
What I find somewhat disturbing right now that practically all of this has been said ITT by others. But it did not provoke this reaction.
I think it's because it sounds like you're saying a writing career that goes south is more or less equal to a porn career that goes south, which is not true.
Well, I am very sorry, I did not mean to make that impression. I am fully aware that:
1. sex-work careers go south with much greater frequency than translation (and other FLP) careers.
2. sex-work careers can go south spectacularly, in a terrible, awful, soul-destroying manner, and do so with very much greater frequency than FLP careers.
But: I am also saying that FLP careers do go south. And (very clearly much less frequently, but still) they can go spectacularly south, with initial self-exploitation with add-on exploitation and existential pressure leading to accepting a level of stress (and working hours) that most people in jobs with set working hours have no idea about. All the way to suicide, mental illness, destruction of families and social ties, etc.
And I am saying that the reason the sex-worker field is so high-risk is probably to do with the fact that as a culture we are seriously hung-up about sex, meaning that sexually entirely healthy and well-adjusted individuals are few and far between. So I see the solution as two-fold: reform sex-education and attitudes to sex (will take bloody ages, Wilhelm Reich is turning in his grave), and in the meantime, come down on the crocodiles with the full force of the law, as hard as it gets (I'm all in favour of that). But I can imagine a less sexually-hung-up culture still with room for sex-work, which does not inherently need to be exploitative, even if most of it is, right now. (See this for instance: http://www.metafilter.com/119869/I-really-value-that-experience-because-it-gave-me-confidence-to-then-pursue-other-relationships (http://www.metafilter.com/119869/I-really-value-that-experience-because-it-gave-me-confidence-to-then-pursue-other-relationships))
Ok, I think I'm getting it. In a strictly theoretical sense, there shouldn't be anything intrinsically worse between doing porn and working a shitty office job; and its the societal sex-negativity that stigmatizes pornstars.
And in fact, there are indeed small niche markets that feature sex or other adult behavior at a level of consent more or less consistent with the level of consent of working at a shitty office job.
People who are interested in these niche markets are in luck in the UNLIMITED DATA age-- there seems to be more of it around, more then ever. You might even get the impression that the industry is changing, and TGRRs scenario is now the exception, rather than the norm.
But in truth, just as the niche market has grown, the industry has exploded in size. And while the theory is nice, the actual majority of the industry is still pretty horrible. Otherwise, the average pornstar wouldn't have a lower life expectancy than the shitty office worker.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 09:23:19 PM
Ok, I think I'm getting it. In a strictly theoretical sense, there shouldn't be anything intrinsically worse between doing porn and working a shitty office job; and its the societal sex-negativity that stigmatizes pornstars.
And in fact, there are indeed small niche markets that feature sex or other adult behavior at a level of consent more or less consistent with the level of consent of working at a shitty office job.
People who are interested in these niche markets are in luck in the UNLIMITED DATA age-- there seems to be more of it around, more then ever. You might even get the impression that the industry is changing, and TGRRs scenario is now the exception, rather than the norm.
But in truth, just as the niche market has grown, the industry has exploded in size. And while the theory is nice, the actual majority of the industry is still pretty horrible. Otherwise, the average pornstar wouldn't have a lower life expectancy than the shitty office worker.
THIS.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 09:23:19 PM
But in truth, just as the niche market has grown, the industry has exploded in size. And while the theory is nice, the actual majority of the industry is still pretty horrible. Otherwise, the average pornstar wouldn't have a lower life expectancy than the shitty office worker.
For every porn company that actually has policies for HIV testing (ineffectual, reactive ones at that) and drug use, there are a dozen using "burners" (cheap apartments/hotel rooms) in which conditions and behavior can get very, very bad indeed.
But it's not as bad as, say, translating or stenography.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 09:23:19 PM
Ok, I think I'm getting it. In a strictly theoretical sense, there shouldn't be anything intrinsically worse between doing porn and working a shitty office job; and its the societal sex-negativity that stigmatizes pornstars.
And in fact, there are indeed small niche markets that feature sex or other adult behavior at a level of consent more or less consistent with the level of consent of working at a shitty office job.
People who are interested in these niche markets are in luck in the UNLIMITED DATA age-- there seems to be more of it around, more then ever. You might even get the impression that the industry is changing, and TGRRs scenario is now the exception, rather than the norm.
But in truth, just as the niche market has grown, the industry has exploded in size. And while the theory is nice, the actual majority of the industry is still pretty horrible. Otherwise, the average pornstar wouldn't have a lower life expectancy than the shitty office worker.
As I said:
"And I am saying that the reason the sex-worker field is so high-risk is probably to do with the fact that as a culture we are seriously hung-up about sex, meaning that sexually entirely healthy and well-adjusted individuals are few and far between. So I see the solution as two-fold: reform sex-education and attitudes to sex (will take bloody ages, Wilhelm Reich is turning in his grave), and in the meantime, come down on the crocodiles with the full force of the law, as hard as it gets (I'm all in favour of that).
But I can imagine a less sexually-hung-up culture still with room for sex-work, which does not inherently need to be exploitative, even if most of it is, right now."
And thank you.
Also: where do you get those life-expectancy figures? And how?
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 09:31:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 09:23:19 PM
Ok, I think I'm getting it. In a strictly theoretical sense, there shouldn't be anything intrinsically worse between doing porn and working a shitty office job; and its the societal sex-negativity that stigmatizes pornstars.
And in fact, there are indeed small niche markets that feature sex or other adult behavior at a level of consent more or less consistent with the level of consent of working at a shitty office job.
People who are interested in these niche markets are in luck in the UNLIMITED DATA age-- there seems to be more of it around, more then ever. You might even get the impression that the industry is changing, and TGRRs scenario is now the exception, rather than the norm.
But in truth, just as the niche market has grown, the industry has exploded in size. And while the theory is nice, the actual majority of the industry is still pretty horrible. Otherwise, the average pornstar wouldn't have a lower life expectancy than the shitty office worker.
As I said:
"And I am saying that the reason the sex-worker field is so high-risk is probably to do with the fact that as a culture we are seriously hung-up about sex, meaning that sexually entirely healthy and well-adjusted individuals are few and far between. So I see the solution as two-fold: reform sex-education and attitudes to sex (will take bloody ages, Wilhelm Reich is turning in his grave), and in the meantime, come down on the crocodiles with the full force of the law, as hard as it gets (I'm all in favour of that). But I can imagine a less sexually-hung-up culture still with room for sex-work, which does not inherently need to be exploitative, even if most of it is, right now.
And thank you.
Yeah, all we need is to, you know, UTTERLY CHANGE HUMAN NATURE WORLD-WIDE, and things will be just peachy.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 09:27:16 PM
But it's not as bad as, say, translating or stenography.
Exactly. Or Discordianism.
:lulz:
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 09:32:55 PM
Yeah, all we need is to, you know, UTTERLY CHANGE HUMAN NATURE WORLD-WIDE, and things will be just peachy.
Well did you not know this? Why bother then? And it can be peachy before then, only you need to be kind of secretive and cautious about it.
Seriously now, for the record, though:
Being the fucking hippy that I am, I pretty much let the six kids I take care of roam free. There is one rule I am trying to get across, it's
"Use your head!"
On the rare occasions that they request elucidation, it tends to go like this:
"Coercion is bad. Exploitation is bad. Cooperation is good. Use of force is last resort. Talk about your shit with people you trust. Consider your options. Sleep enough. Eat some greens, for fuck's sake. Do some washing up, please."
So I am sorry to let on, I am not racist, not sexist and not agist. I am on the other hand, a guitarist, a pianist and a cyclist. Show decorum.
:lulz:
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 09:31:30 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 09:23:19 PM
Ok, I think I'm getting it. In a strictly theoretical sense, there shouldn't be anything intrinsically worse between doing porn and working a shitty office job; and its the societal sex-negativity that stigmatizes pornstars.
And in fact, there are indeed small niche markets that feature sex or other adult behavior at a level of consent more or less consistent with the level of consent of working at a shitty office job.
People who are interested in these niche markets are in luck in the UNLIMITED DATA age-- there seems to be more of it around, more then ever. You might even get the impression that the industry is changing, and TGRRs scenario is now the exception, rather than the norm.
But in truth, just as the niche market has grown, the industry has exploded in size. And while the theory is nice, the actual majority of the industry is still pretty horrible. Otherwise, the average pornstar wouldn't have a lower life expectancy than the shitty office worker.
As I said:
"And I am saying that the reason the sex-worker field is so high-risk is probably to do with the fact that as a culture we are seriously hung-up about sex, meaning that sexually entirely healthy and well-adjusted individuals are few and far between. So I see the solution as two-fold: reform sex-education and attitudes to sex (will take bloody ages, Wilhelm Reich is turning in his grave), and in the meantime, come down on the crocodiles with the full force of the law, as hard as it gets (I'm all in favour of that). But I can imagine a less sexually-hung-up culture still with room for sex-work, which does not inherently need to be exploitative, even if most of it is, right now."
And thank you.
Also: where do you get those life-expectancy figures? And how?
Please tell me you didn't just say, "Things would be better if everyone was nicer to each other."
And the life expectancy stats are upthread.
[edit: upon further review (a quick google search), the stats upthread may be biased. Full disclosure.]
Life expectancy rates are always fucked up because of infant mortality rates.
I believe I shall go in the other room and scream for a bit.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 09:43:54 PM
Please tell me you didn't just say, "Things would be better if everyone was nicer to each other."
Of course not! I was talking, very specifically about sexual hang-ups (social ones and individual ones). There is variation in this across cultures and across individuals, so there is clearly room for non-utopistic improvement: after all, we are now considerably less hung up about sex than say when it was completely taboo during the rule of Catholicism, no?
You do realize that every time you refer to your job as "prostitution" or "FLP," your credibility circles the bowl another time, right?
Unless your back problems are caused by being bent over a desk and used however your client likes it while you're working, it's not even close.
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: Pixie on September 24, 2012, 03:11:02 PM
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.
What is also unicorn-like are these kinds of requirements for exploitation, and what makes it special is its sex. Are you as concerned about your local corporation's management serious lack of focus on their employees enjoying their work? Probably not, because sex work is different. Are you as concerned about health care providers, law enforcement, etc. getting HIV through needlestick injuries - and have this same standard that this should NEVER happen? It wouldn't make sense. But, why does it make sense here rather than some basic common sense protocol for preventing transmission? No, instead, the solution is how about we just try abstinence. You don't really NEED to have sex, after all. That dog's not going to hunt.
The bottom line is that human sexuality is filled with all kinds of dark, horry desires. And while there's a place for feminist critique, the place for it isn't in evaluating other people's kink or trying to fence it in so that its safe. It's never going to be safe.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 24, 2012, 03:23:46 PMSo you're only going to address the individual components, and ignore the social aspects entirely?
If you want to offer up a social theory about the negative effects of pornography, I'm all ears. But, this thread thus far, unless I missed something, didn't have much of one. I think my comment above gets to my first thoughts on the matter. Social control of an individual's sexuality, beyond the kinds of obvious things such as consent and getting more into the realm of feminist critique of allowing or disallowing certain desires as approved or not approved, is not generally something I'd want to endorse.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 03:25:22 PM
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.
As long as it isn't something "special", then that's great. One of my objections here is that it often is treated as special. Commodify a woman's work at the check out counter? Great. As soon as she decides to make some money by lifting her skirt and making her vagina the center of her work rather than her arms, then it's all sisters of the world unite. Maybe this is right, but I'm not a woman. So, maybe there's a lot going on here I don't understand.
I think your view is pretty simplistic. Me and Nigel are by no means sex-negative about people's kinks, or taking a puritan standpoint. There's a large quantity of porn that is violent or racist, showing unsafe practices that those who use it as a primary source of sex-ed is endangering the health of both the people creating or consuming porn. NO LUBE AND PRACTICE BEFORE WHOLE COCK GOES INTO BUTTHOLE! THAT'S FINE! PUTTING SAID UNCONDOM-ED POOP-FLAVOURED COCK INTO MOUTH OR PUSSY! THAT'S ALSO FINE! All of these activities carry a really high risk factor. if porn took it's educational potential seriously, maybe we'd HAVE a better attitude towards sex. This is probably linked to society's poor attitude towards sex, and YMMV, pretty fucking degrading. The time balance given to showing certain sexual acts, for instance.. dollars to fucking donuts your' lucky if a cunnilingus scene lasts a fifth of the blowjob scenes, (and to me they look fucking incompetent!) a lot of the positions, from a woman's perspective, seemingly are just strenuous and don't really look like they'd do much for a woman. There are sites called things like "18 and Abused", and those young women do not look like they are enjoying themselves, quite the opposite. Mainstream porn in it's presentation is very unbalanced, and mostly gives women a raw deal.
Maybe you don't understand agency or enthusiastic consent, wanting to expect a decent health and safety procedure at work is something we all get. Why is it different for porn? If a person worked in a lab and was stuck with a diseased needle, they would get some kind of compensation, maybe, and won't be told that you let a couple of dudes stick their cocks up your ass and that your a slut who deserved it. The gulf in attitudes is immense, and due to the fact that a lot of troubled or poor young women make up the vast majority of those in the sex industries and get there because of a lack of other options, then yes, a feminist critique of the industry IS needed.
In the world outside sex work, you can't put sex-work on your cv or resume, thus leaving a lot of people at a disadvantage, and stuck in the industry. I'm not approving or disapproving of people fucking on camera. I'm not disapproving of people having power play scenarios, if both people are into it and proper concern for health and well-being are taken into consideration.
Quote from: Luna on September 24, 2012, 10:18:05 PM
You do realize that every time you refer to your job as "prostitution" or "FLP," your credibility circles the bowl another time, right?
No. Does it? I mean, I described the similarities I see, I also made it very clear that I don't see them as identical, far from it... so why? The essence of prostitution, for me (and I am very willing to use a different word for this, only I haven't found one) is doing something purely because someone will pay for it. Not because I enjoy it, not because it interests me, not because I think I may learn from it, not because I am doing it as a favour for someone else... purely, and simply, because someone will give me money for it and I need money to survive.
What would you call that?
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Luna on September 24, 2012, 10:18:05 PM
You do realize that every time you refer to your job as "prostitution" or "FLP," your credibility circles the bowl another time, right?
No. Does it? I mean, I described the similarities I see, I also made it very clear that I don't see them as identical, far from it... so why? The essence of prostitution, for me (and I am very willing to use a different word for this, only I haven't found one) is doing something purely because someone will pay for it. Not because I enjoy it, not because it interests me, not because I think I may learn from it, not because I am doing it as a favour for someone else... purely, and simply, because someone will give me money for it and I need money to survive.
What would you call that?
I'd call it a "job." Or "work."
Quote from: Luna on September 24, 2012, 10:50:00 PM
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Luna on September 24, 2012, 10:18:05 PM
You do realize that every time you refer to your job as "prostitution" or "FLP," your credibility circles the bowl another time, right?
No. Does it? I mean, I described the similarities I see, I also made it very clear that I don't see them as identical, far from it... so why? The essence of prostitution, for me (and I am very willing to use a different word for this, only I haven't found one) is doing something purely because someone will pay for it. Not because I enjoy it, not because it interests me, not because I think I may learn from it, not because I am doing it as a favour for someone else... purely, and simply, because someone will give me money for it and I need money to survive.
What would you call that?
I'd call it a "job." Or "work."
Which is totally the same as prostitution, because there's no room at all between "fucking off all day with no responsibilities" and "sucking dick in the alley behind the neighborhood bar".
Rule no1: human beings have an utterly retarded attitude toward fucking. It's ingrained, probably hardwired into our DNA by now, from millenia of being retarded about fucking and passing the whole retarded thing onto their progeny.
Rule no2: (similar to Godwins law) As a conversation (on the interwebs or IRL) about fucking continues, the probability of it becoming retarded approaches 1
I get what you're saying, Hollis. I think a couple of of us do but the problem is that your position will never be accepted, given that, in the real world, the one in which your argument is framed, most human beings (even the enlightened ones on this forum, have a fucking retarded, superstitious, every time I masturbate god kills a puppy - attitude toward sex. It might not be in the forefront of your mind but the chances are it's niggling away in the background somewhere, elevating sex to something different in principle to eating, shitting or scratching your back.
The retarded attitude is why the sex industry, any attempt at a sex industry is all full of abuse and shit and venom and shredded lives. Any argument about how this shouldn't be the case is pretty much moot. Give it up.
As fascinating as the translating vs. porn discussion is, you'll pardon me if I ignore it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
I'd just like to point out that non-sexual employment tends to be vastly different than sexual employment, not just because of social mores; there are fundamentally different physical and chemical forces at play, because of the biology of sex. Sex as a job simply doesn't equate to installing kitchens or entering data as a job, because of the endocrine cascade that sex produces.
"...not just because of social mores..." Ok, this is sensible. There feels like there should be a difference, but there's a very real possibility that as soon as you go this route, it gives you license to load up the topic with all your sex baggage. And it really is a nice way to smuggle in your social mores, feminist agenda or anything else you'd like. It also cries out to explain how this adds to the exploitation, which gets back to my questions about what constitutes exploitation. So maybe...
3. Differences in porn and/or sex work that make it different from other work.
If you could make a convincing argument here, then you could move to saying that porn is inherently exploitative. However, this brings me back to the first scenario. Or do you want to say the first scenario was also exploitative - even though no one got paid, everyone agreed, and in the end their was porn. It's an interesting question.
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 08:16:22 PM
I dunno. Whenever I think about all of the awful, abusive things I've seen almost every fucking time I looked for porn I can enjoy, and the sheer ration of awful-to-nice that I've experienced on every single site, I can definitely say I don't think musicians and other non-sexual performers have it nearly as bad. Absolutely fucking awful seems to be the norm in mainstream porn.
This is true. But, the central issue is that this may be a problem with human sexuality, and not porn.
Quote from: v3x on September 24, 2012, 08:29:50 PM
I think on an intellectual level you can equate anything to anything if you build the right metaphors. That doesn't change that there is n honest comparison of porn and freelance writing. You can find yourself forced to write something or for someone you hate, but that isn't the same as being unable to claw your way out of a profession where the person you hate is physically violating you. The gist of this thread was how porn starts as a last resort and becomes a trap with diminishing returns. That can be said of many jobs, but most of the other jobs do not also involve your body becoming a literal commodity for use in the most depraved physical acts, with or without your agreement.
Don't porn star have access to police to address problems of sexual assault? Much of the discussion here is making assumptions like this one. I don't have any first-hand experience, but I don't know how much is going on without people's agreement. It may be police wouldn't really address that kind of charge, but by the same token, why would you go back to work someplace you have been sexually assaulted?
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 09:45:32 PM
Life expectancy rates are always fucked up because of infant mortality rates.
I didn't look at the study, but one objection is that correlation doesn't equal causation. The central question is would their life expectancy be lower, even if the porn industry didn't exist? You are assuming it would be higher and these folks wouldn't engage in other, just as risky lines of work/lifestyles - perhaps prostitution. I'm not so sure we can say that.
Quote from: Pixie on September 24, 2012, 10:21:02 PM
I think your view is pretty simplistic.
Let me see if I can reduce it to your core points and respond to each:
1. There's a large quantity of porn that is violent or racist.
Again, is it porn, or is it the fact that human sexuality is depraved that bothers you?
2. It's used as a sex ed tool, and it is not a good one.
Agreed. But, it isn't a sex ed tool, and while you might like to make it into one, it's not the point.
3. Society's poor attitude towards sex.
Agreed. But, I find most feminist ideas about how to change it is in some kind of deep denial about sexuality, particularly male sexuality. 50 Shades of Grey is a bestseller, but put that to film and watch the poop fly. (Although, I only have the vaguest idea of what is in 50 Shades, going off what I have gotten from ambient discussion, but you can pick you female wank erotica/romance novels of your choice.)
4. The time balance...
It's not made for woman. I don't complain about the time balance for men in romance novels. I understand this is flippant, but I'm just trying to point to the issue, and there's no good way to do it.
5. ...a feminist critique of the industry IS needed...
Absolutely, of the industry. But, much of your discussion focuses on the product, which has all the problems I point to above.
6. "In the world outside sex work, you can't put sex-work on your cv or resume, thus leaving a lot of people at a disadvantage, and stuck in the industry."
It's a choice. There may be a whole host of reasons to make it, but this notion that people have no other options is a bullshit copout.
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 11:08:08 PM
It's a choice. There may be a whole host of reasons to make it, but this notion that people have no other options is a bullshit copout.
I am interested to know what expertise you are speaking from.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 11:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 11:08:08 PM
It's a choice. There may be a whole host of reasons to make it, but this notion that people have no other options is a bullshit copout.
I am interested to know what expertise you are speaking from.
Are you seriously suggesting that people have no other option than porn? Really? U.S. military? Temp work? Minimum wage employment of choice, e.g., grocery stores, fast food, etc.? Since we're going to be cute, let me add in being homeless and going to prison. Porn may be people's best option, given their preferences, but it ain't the only one.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 07:49:21 PM
Ayotollah, let me state that to my ears you sound like sense.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 03:25:22 PM
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.
As a prostitute (a frontal lobe prostitute, FLP for short) I protest. We never sell our persons, only capacities, competencies, and our time.
The people who sell their persons are the persons who are taken in by pernicious ideology (there's a great variety of flavours on offer) and decide to let go of their lives so that others may take hold of it for them. You know the old adage about giving up freedom for security and not deserving either? That's selling your person. A bit of honest prostitution is not.
How many years of experience in selling your body for sex are you speaking from, to be able to make that comparison with such certainty?
Have you studied the effects of prostitution on the psyche? Have you studied the conditions of prostitution within the societies that exist (as opposed to fictional or ideal societies)?
I feel like you and that new guy are coming from deeply uninformed perspectives, in which you are giving an ideal reality which doesn't exist the same weight and value as the actual reality which does exist.
I am not saying that we shouldn't work to change the actual reality; I am saying that in order to do so, we first must recognize it.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
I'd just like to point out that non-sexual employment tends to be vastly different than sexual employment, not just because of social mores; there are fundamentally different physical and chemical forces at play, because of the biology of sex. Sex as a job simply doesn't equate to installing kitchens or entering data as a job, because of the endocrine cascade that sex produces.
Thanks for bringing this up, LMNO.
Saying that sex work is no different from, say, masonry, completely disregards neuroscience. It is like saying that having babies and selling them for a living has no different effect on a person's psyche than washing dishes for a living.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:02:36 PM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
I'd just like to point out that non-sexual employment tends to be vastly different than sexual employment, not just because of social mores; there are fundamentally different physical and chemical forces at play, because of the biology of sex. Sex as a job simply doesn't equate to installing kitchens or entering data as a job, because of the endocrine cascade that sex produces.
Yes, but on the other hand it is not fundamentally different (in that way, I mean) to acting or dancing or the circus or making music (the performing arts) as forms of earning money: all of those, if they are any good, involve tremendous hormonal cascades in the performer as well.
Yes, it is. Please do some research on this so that you can understand how laughable your claim that performing arts trigger the same endocrine reaction as sex. They share some of the same endocrine reactions (and so does pooping, FFS), but they are not the same.
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 11:59:18 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 11:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 11:08:08 PM
It's a choice. There may be a whole host of reasons to make it, but this notion that people have no other options is a bullshit copout.
I am interested to know what expertise you are speaking from.
Are you seriously suggesting that people have no other option than porn? Really? U.S. military? Temp work? Minimum wage employment of choice, e.g., grocery stores, fast food, etc.? Since we're going to be cute, let me add in being homeless and going to prison. Porn may be people's best option, given their preferences, but it ain't the only one.
Dude, like it was mentioned before, you can only put sex work on a resume for more sex work, unlike temp work, or the military. In fact, having military in your resume is usually seen as a positive thing.
ALSO
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 25, 2012, 12:37:29 AM
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 24, 2012, 07:54:52 PM
I'd just like to point out that non-sexual employment tends to be vastly different than sexual employment, not just because of social mores; there are fundamentally different physical and chemical forces at play, because of the biology of sex. Sex as a job simply doesn't equate to installing kitchens or entering data as a job, because of the endocrine cascade that sex produces.
Thanks for bringing this up, LMNO.
Saying that sex work is no different from, say, masonry, completely disregards neuroscience. It is like saying that having babies and selling them for a living has no different effect on a person's psyche than washing dishes for a living.
THIS
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 05:51:29 PM
Quote from: Pixie on September 24, 2012, 03:11:02 PM
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.
What is also unicorn-like are these kinds of requirements for exploitation, and what makes it special is its sex. Are you as concerned about your local corporation's management serious lack of focus on their employees enjoying their work? Probably not, because sex work is different. Are you as concerned about health care providers, law enforcement, etc. getting HIV through needlestick injuries - and have this same standard that this should NEVER happen? It wouldn't make sense. But, why does it make sense here rather than some basic common sense protocol for preventing transmission? No, instead, the solution is how about we just try abstinence. You don't really NEED to have sex, after all. That dog's not going to hunt.
The bottom line is that human sexuality is filled with all kinds of dark, horry desires. And while there's a place for feminist critique, the place for it isn't in evaluating other people's kink or trying to fence it in so that its safe. It's never going to be safe.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 24, 2012, 03:23:46 PMSo you're only going to address the individual components, and ignore the social aspects entirely?
If you want to offer up a social theory about the negative effects of pornography, I'm all ears. But, this thread thus far, unless I missed something, didn't have much of one. I think my comment above gets to my first thoughts on the matter. Social control of an individual's sexuality, beyond the kinds of obvious things such as consent and getting more into the realm of feminist critique of allowing or disallowing certain desires as approved or not approved, is not generally something I'd want to endorse.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 03:25:22 PM
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.
As long as it isn't something "special", then that's great. One of my objections here is that it often is treated as special. Commodify a woman's work at the check out counter? Great. As soon as she decides to make some money by lifting her skirt and making her vagina the center of her work rather than her arms, then it's all sisters of the world unite. Maybe this is right, but I'm not a woman. So, maybe there's a lot going on here I don't understand.
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.
Quote from: v3x on September 24, 2012, 08:35:54 PM
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:31:40 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:25:35 PM
Quote from: Freeky Queen of DERP on September 24, 2012, 08:20:11 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 08:19:04 PM
So, Holist doesn't do enough translating business today. His pimp comes by and chokes him out, kicks him around a little, and then rents him out to rough trade for a week.
Yeah, the two jobs are identical.
Absolutely!
Not to mention the diseases you can catch while translating. Move over AIDS! Here comes dry mouth!
Well, and chronic carpal tunnel syndrome (because why not work 15 hours a day for a few weeks if I can pull a decent load), chronic back-pain (because buying decent office furniture for the home office somehow tends to slide down the list of priorities), a variety of eye problems from looking at a screen for far too long, irritability, headaches, spontaneous translation (happens after long symultaneous interpretation gigs). There's nothing to match AIDS, for sure, but there are plenty of opportunities to get crippled. I am not in any way trying to belittle the plight of exploited porn-stars and prostitutes. Exploitation is terrible. But I agree with the Ayotollah: there is some undeclared bias here due to the sex thing. And I know that there exist (not a majority, but by no means unicorns) people who spend a year or two in the sex business, save up and lie back while they figure out what to do with their lives afterwards. They may discover, even years later, that they had bitten off more than they could chew... but that's not necessarily the case.
I advise you to step back, and reevaluate your position, maybe with a dash of human compassion thrown in. You know, just in case we are talking about real people.
This right here. LMNO said it too. They are both right.
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 09:13:43 PM
Quote from: v3x on September 24, 2012, 08:57:33 PM
Right, except working in porn features all the same stressors that your job features - deciding which jobs to do, selling your abilities, aligning yourself with the right people, and taking the right kind of risks. These are equal, sure. But on top of all that, when you work in porn, you also have to have your body used like a cheap toy from Hong Kong. Your body, which is for all intents an purposes you yourself -- your mortal coil -- the very tie that binds you to this plane of existence -- in a very real sense everything you have and, in porn, everything you are. That seems to me like it would hit much closer to home, and be that much more intense, than getting a wrist cramp or pining over writing an uncomfortable kind of propaganda. You can identify with all the business aspects of working as a porn star maybe, but business ain't the half of it.
This.
And also this:
You mention social biases regarding sex. They affect the people working in it, not only those discussing it. And the way these biases work, in all cases I'm familiar with, is that they are jarringly unbalanced in their treatment of men and women. In the specific context of mainstream porn, they are at their highest potential: the women are literally selling their body for money and having sex with multiple strangers, opening them up to all sorts of abuse just for the fact of doing what they, while the men are doing the same thing, which perversely puts them in a position of power and envy. And if that imbalance were to come to the fore, and a male performer were to get abusive with his partner, even if "only" on camera, "only" as an act, the female performer is required to act like she's enjoying the shit out of it. At that point the exploitation specific to that line of work meets the normal exploitation involved in all paid work – she has to do her job to have money for her basic needs (including self-realization, which I'm glad to hear you know people who found after working in porn.) And unlike most other professions, there is hardly a single other industry in which she can later sport her hard work on a resume.
I'm not saying – and I don't hear almost anyone here saying, but correct me if I'm wrong – that all porn work is necessarily worse than all other work. It's more that taken as a whole, the reality of porn work is awful in a whole other way, in a significant proportion of cases.
And this, also.
Man, I think that pretty much everything I wanted to say has already been covered by you, Castro, LMNO, v3x and Freeky.
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Luna on September 24, 2012, 10:18:05 PM
You do realize that every time you refer to your job as "prostitution" or "FLP," your credibility circles the bowl another time, right?
No. Does it? I mean, I described the similarities I see, I also made it very clear that I don't see them as identical, far from it... so why? The essence of prostitution, for me (and I am very willing to use a different word for this, only I haven't found one) is doing something purely because someone will pay for it. Not because I enjoy it, not because it interests me, not because I think I may learn from it, not because I am doing it as a favour for someone else... purely, and simply, because someone will give me money for it and I need money to survive.
What would you call that?
There are similarities between every job, but that doesn't justify playing fast and loose with the definition of "prostitution". That's sort of up there with playing fast and loose with the definition of "rape", which is another thing that people seem to like to do.
Jobs that are not prostitution may be exploitative. That does not make them "prostitution". They may be degrading. That does not make them "prostitution". Arguing that the fact that something has things in common with something else actually makes it a subset of the other thing is fallacious thinking; it's false equivalency. It's like saying that since washing dishes involves getting wet, and ocean biology involves getting wet, washing dishes is a type of ocean biology.
Prostitution
has a definition. Here it is:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prostitution
QuoteDefinition of PROSTITUTION
1
: the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money
2
: the state of being prostituted : debasement
Quote from: Guru Qu1x073 on September 25, 2012, 12:39:59 AM
Dude, like it was mentioned before, you can only put sex work on a resume for more sex work, unlike temp work, or the military. In fact, having military in your resume is usually seen as a positive thing.
The question was what other options do porn actors have. I was suggesting the military as one option, partly because it is resume building and is often the option of choice among those with few options.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 25, 2012, 12:41:17 AM
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.
Well, I'll say it is difficult to respond to a claim that it was all covered before and I missed it and/or I'm ignorant of social theory. I may have or may be, but unless you or someone makes it clear what you are talking about, it's difficult to respond to and I'm not particularly interested in re-reading and trying to guess.
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 11:59:18 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 11:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 11:08:08 PM
It's a choice. There may be a whole host of reasons to make it, but this notion that people have no other options is a bullshit copout.
I am interested to know what expertise you are speaking from.
Are you seriously suggesting that people have no other option than porn? Really? U.S. military? Temp work? Minimum wage employment of choice, e.g., grocery stores, fast food, etc.? Since we're going to be cute, let me add in being homeless and going to prison. Porn may be people's best option, given their preferences, but it ain't the only one.
Sorry, I was talking about prostitution. There are two conversations going on, it seems.
I'm sort of stunned that someone is actually equating sex work (and yes, I include pornography in that; you're being payed, to have sex with someone, whether or not it is on camera is irrelevant) with translation services. It's pure idiocy.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on September 25, 2012, 03:21:16 AM
I'm sort of stunned that someone is actually equating sex work (and yes, I include pornography in that; you're being payed, to have sex with someone, whether or not it is on camera is irrelevant) with translation services. It's pure idiocy.
It's the first world, come to tell you how rough things can be on a guy, you know?
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: Pixie on September 21, 2012, 02:51:37 PM
Quote from: Luna on September 21, 2012, 01:45:01 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 21, 2012, 08:13:48 AM
They scare me.
If they scare NIGEL, that's my cue to not bother.
if Nigel goes to somewhere and says it is scary, or horribly squicky, I agree with Luna.. NOT GOING THERE!
Thanks guys.
It's the kind of place where the squick/creep/stalker factor is WAY WAY HIGHER than average. Regardless of what my profile actually said I was looking for, I got a lot lot lot of messages from men who seemed to think that they could verbally abuse/intimidate me into being sub, and a LOT of messages from men implying that they knew how to find me offsite. CREEP FACTOR RED ALERT. I think that kind of site just attracts the hell out of fucked up and/or abusive men who are looking for women they can intimidate and treat like objects. The women who are "owned" by another man on the site seem to be treated better, from what I gather, than single unattached women... which is a whole other level of squick factor.
Ew. Sounds like prison stories: "Big Moe won't let those guys get ya..." :x
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on September 25, 2012, 03:21:16 AM
I'm sort of stunned that someone is actually equating sex work (and yes, I include pornography in that; you're being payed, to have sex with someone, whether or not it is on camera is irrelevant) with translation services. It's pure idiocy.
Idiocy? This thread just took a hard right into Derpville.
It sure is a good thing everyone who has ever been in porn is also qualified to join the US military, where they would have a greater chance of being raped than being killed by enemy fire in a certain combat operation zone. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/09/rape-us-military).
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 24, 2012, 11:03:15 PM
Rule no1: human beings have an utterly retarded attitude toward fucking. It's ingrained, probably hardwired into our DNA by now, from millenia of being retarded about fucking and passing the whole retarded thing onto their progeny.
I disagree. While I can see how sex can be a difficult area to handle for any critter with self-awareness and structured, detailed memory of previous history, on the whole it seems that many cultures have handled it well. The current dominant culture (the western one, or the global-technological one, I don't mind what we call it) seems to have a particularly bad time handling it, on the whole. But hardwired into DNA? I don't think so.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 24, 2012, 11:03:15 PM
Rule no2: (similar to Godwins law) As a conversation (on the interwebs or IRL) about fucking continues, the probability of it becoming retarded approaches 1
I agree that this is the rule, but only in the sense of a heuristic. I have seen a handful of counterexamples.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on September 24, 2012, 11:03:15 PM
The retarded attitude is why the sex industry, any attempt at a sex industry is all full of abuse and shit and venom and shredded lives. Any argument about how this shouldn't be the case is pretty much moot. Give it up.
I'll have to, and soon, by the looks of it. But for now, I think you are right again, but I see the situation as less hopeless than you do (gross, largely totally deranged and shitful and venomous, let me repeat that again: but what has been called "unicorn cases" here seem more like a significant - and, thanks to the interwebs, growing - minority to my mind, though I take the point that the gross majority has also been growing explosively).
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 11:08:08 PM
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 08:16:22 PM
I dunno. Whenever I think about all of the awful, abusive things I've seen almost every fucking time I looked for porn I can enjoy, and the sheer ration of awful-to-nice that I've experienced on every single site, I can definitely say I don't think musicians and other non-sexual performers have it nearly as bad. Absolutely fucking awful seems to be the norm in mainstream porn.
This is true. But, the central issue is that this may be a problem with human sexuality, and not porn.
This. Is. A. Large. Part. Of. What. I. Have. Been. Trying. To. Say. Also.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 25, 2012, 12:39:31 AM
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:02:36 PM
Yes, but on the other hand it is not fundamentally different (in that way, I mean) to acting or dancing or the circus or making music (the performing arts) as forms of earning money: all of those, if they are any good, involve tremendous hormonal cascades in the performer as well.
Yes, it is. Please do some research on this so that you can understand how laughable your claim that performing arts trigger the same endocrine reaction as sex. They share some of the same endocrine reactions (and so does pooping, FFS), but they are not the same.
Nigel, please, how does "not fundamentally different" get twisted into "the same endocrine reactions"???
Of course it is different, but it is similar in the sense that performing art (done well) is putting yourself on the line, risking everything, tight-rope walking without a safety net, something very intimate and direct. The entire gamut of human emotion can be and I suppose should be involved. I think that interpreting a claim that "there are some similarities between the performing arts and sex-work" or "between work done purely for money" as saying that a Ukranian sex-slave in a London brothel has it better than a freelance translator in Hungary is not fair. It was not what I was saying.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 25, 2012, 12:59:20 AM
Prostitution has a definition. Here it is:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prostitution
QuoteDefinition of PROSTITUTION
1
: the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money
2
: the state of being prostituted : debasement
Prostitution has
several definitions. Here's another one (from here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prostitute):
prostitute
1. One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts.
2. One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.
Now I realise that those two things are different, I have stated what I think the differences are. But I don't think it's an accident that those two meanings share the same word.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on September 25, 2012, 03:21:16 AM
I'm sort of stunned that someone is actually equating sex work (and yes, I include pornography in that; you're being payed, to have sex with someone, whether or not it is on camera is irrelevant) with translation services. It's pure idiocy.
Not
equating at all. Noting similarities. Sorry.
Quote from: holist on September 25, 2012, 06:43:51 AM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 25, 2012, 12:39:31 AM
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 08:02:36 PM
Yes, but on the other hand it is not fundamentally different (in that way, I mean) to acting or dancing or the circus or making music (the performing arts) as forms of earning money: all of those, if they are any good, involve tremendous hormonal cascades in the performer as well.
Yes, it is. Please do some research on this so that you can understand how laughable your claim that performing arts trigger the same endocrine reaction as sex. They share some of the same endocrine reactions (and so does pooping, FFS), but they are not the same.
Nigel, please, how does "not fundamentally different" get twisted into "the same endocrine reactions"???
Of course it is different, but it is similar in the sense that performing art (done well) is putting yourself on the line, risking everything, tight-rope walking without a safety net, something very intimate and direct. The entire gamut of human emotion can be and I suppose should be involved. I think that interpreting a claim that "there are some similarities between the performing arts and sex-work" or "between work done purely for money" as saying that a Ukranian sex-slave in a London brothel has it better than a freelance translator in Hungary is not fair. It was not what I was saying.
Holist, because you said "hormonal cascade" which is the same thing as "endocrine reaction". Maybe if that's not what you meant, you shouldn't have said it.
Quote
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 25, 2012, 12:59:20 AM
Prostitution has a definition. Here it is:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prostitution
QuoteDefinition of PROSTITUTION
1
: the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money
2
: the state of being prostituted : debasement
Prostitution has several definitions. Here's another one (from here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/prostitute):
prostitute
1. One who solicits and accepts payment for sex acts.
2. One who sells one's abilities, talent, or name for an unworthy purpose.
Now I realise that those two things are different, I have stated what I think the differences are. But I don't think it's an accident that those two meanings share the same word.
For a moment disregarding the difference in credibility between the source of the definition I quoted and the source of the definition you quoted, perhaps you are familiar with the difference between "literal" and "figurative" speech.
Quote
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on September 25, 2012, 03:21:16 AM
I'm sort of stunned that someone is actually equating sex work (and yes, I include pornography in that; you're being payed, to have sex with someone, whether or not it is on camera is irrelevant) with translation services. It's pure idiocy.
Not equating at all. Noting similarities. Sorry.
This seems like a good time to mention "false equivalency" again.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 25, 2012, 07:36:57 AM
Holist, because you said "hormonal cascade" which is the same thing as "endocrine reaction". Maybe if that's not what you meant, you shouldn't have said it.
But endocrine reactions are varied? With a number of hormones and much of the brain involved in emotional experience and regulation? The similarity is that performing arts also go deep, and having that "'deep" exploited (it routinely is in the movie and music industries, though of course not with the same terrifying frequency and not to the same extent as it is in the sex industry) is evil.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 25, 2012, 07:36:57 AM
For a moment disregarding the difference in credibility between the source of the definition I quoted and the source of the definition you quoted, perhaps you are familiar with the difference between "literal" and "figurative" speech.
I think the figurative meaning is very likely to be there in several more reputable dictionaries as well. And yes, I am aware of the literal/figurative distinction, but there is a reason a particular figurative meaning gets attached to a certain literal one. In this instance, I think it is the "selling one's time and abilities for an unworthy cause" that allows the transition to be made. It is equally applicable to both things. And, I think, while by no means all of it, it is a significant, large part of the problem with the sex industry - and hence not sex-specific.
Quote from: ZL 'Kai' Burington, M.S. on September 25, 2012, 03:21:16 AM
I'm sort of stunned that someone is actually equating sex work (and yes, I include pornography in that; you're being payed, to have sex with someone, whether or not it is on camera is irrelevant) with translation services. It's pure idiocy.
To which I said:Not
equating at all. Noting similarities. Sorry.
And Nigel responded:This seems like a good time to mention "false equivalency" again.
To which I say:Again, I am not claiming equivalence at all. I am claiming that the similarities (between wage-slavery of any sort and wage-slavery in the sex industry) should not be overlooked, because they are important (while the differences are also important, but have already been discussed a great deal).
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 25, 2012, 12:59:20 AM
Quote from: holist on September 24, 2012, 10:23:44 PM
Quote from: Luna on September 24, 2012, 10:18:05 PM
You do realize that every time you refer to your job as "prostitution" or "FLP," your credibility circles the bowl another time, right?
No. Does it? I mean, I described the similarities I see, I also made it very clear that I don't see them as identical, far from it... so why? The essence of prostitution, for me (and I am very willing to use a different word for this, only I haven't found one) is doing something purely because someone will pay for it. Not because I enjoy it, not because it interests me, not because I think I may learn from it, not because I am doing it as a favour for someone else... purely, and simply, because someone will give me money for it and I need money to survive.
What would you call that?
There are similarities between every job, but that doesn't justify playing fast and loose with the definition of "prostitution". That's sort of up there with playing fast and loose with the definition of "rape", which is another thing that people seem to like to do.
Jobs that are not prostitution may be exploitative. That does not make them "prostitution". They may be degrading. That does not make them "prostitution". Arguing that the fact that something has things in common with something else actually makes it a subset of the other thing is fallacious thinking; it's false equivalency. It's like saying that since washing dishes involves getting wet, and ocean biology involves getting wet, washing dishes is a type of ocean biology.
Prostitution has a definition. Here it is:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prostitution
QuoteDefinition of PROSTITUTION
1
: the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money
2
: the state of being prostituted : debasement
Holist, did you read this post?
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on September 25, 2012, 08:18:56 AM
Holist, did you read this post?
Yes, I did, several times. I'm not clear on what you think I am not getting. My point is not that the similarities make non-sex wage slavery into "prostitution" in the literal sense. My point is that there is a wider meaning of prostitution (what you call the figurative meaning). That is certainly applicable to sex work (though it definitely does not tell the whole story, let me repeat that again), and it is also applicable to a great deal of other work (though by no means all, which is why Luna's suggestion of "job" or "work" as a name for doing something purely because someone will pay for it doesn't work for me). And I am saying that it would be worth figuring out how and to what extent that state of affairs (people doing something purely and exclusively because someone will pay them for it) is responsible for the icky feelings I actually share about the sex-industry. I'm sure it is not the entire explanation. I am also sure that it does figure in the explanation.
Quote from: holist on September 25, 2012, 06:43:51 AM
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 11:08:08 PM
Quote from: VERBL on September 24, 2012, 08:16:22 PM
I dunno. Whenever I think about all of the awful, abusive things I've seen almost every fucking time I looked for porn I can enjoy, and the sheer ration of awful-to-nice that I've experienced on every single site, I can definitely say I don't think musicians and other non-sexual performers have it nearly as bad. Absolutely fucking awful seems to be the norm in mainstream porn.
This is true. But, the central issue is that this may be a problem with human sexuality, and not porn.
This. Is. A. Large. Part. Of. What. I. Have. Been. Trying. To. Say. Also.
Yeah, okay. Obviously, porn wouldn't be so fucked up if the demand for fucked-up porn weren't there. OBVIOUSLY.
But what I've been concerned with, and what the thread as a whole seems concerned with, is first and foremost the factual reality of people making porn, i.e. how porn impacts people involved in making it. This then raises ethical questions on the one hand, but also raises questions of causation on the other hand, something that hasn't been the focus of this thread and doesn't seem as urgent a topic. IMHO, it matters a whole lot more
that porn abuses the people that make it, than
why, and the latter topic shouldn't obscure the former.
What I see you arguing, on the whole, is that actually, porn isn't that different than other industries, except that we're all caught up about sex so we notice the abuse in porn more. I'm pretty sure you're factually wrong on both counts (the abuse itself and the perception here.)
(I know you've
stated you see that porn is worse, but I see you arguing otherwise at the same time. Being inconsistent is not the end of the world, I'm just explaining why I'm still on about this.)
Quote from: VERBL on September 25, 2012, 08:54:33 AM
What I see you arguing, on the whole, is that actually, porn isn't that different than other industries, except that we're all caught up about sex so we notice the abuse in porn more. I'm pretty sure you're factually wrong on both counts (the abuse itself and the perception here.)
(I know you've stated you see that porn is worse, but I see you arguing otherwise at the same time. Being inconsistent is not the end of the world, I'm just explaining why I'm still on about this.)
I feel that I am being wilfully misinterpreted. I'm not wrong on those counts because I am not making those claims, despite the fact that you see me as making them. At this point I can only reiterate. When I say this:
"My point is not that the similarities make non-sex wage slavery into "prostitution" in the literal sense. My point is that there is a wider meaning of prostitution (what you call the figurative meaning). That is certainly applicable to sex work (though it definitely does not tell the whole story, let me repeat that again), and it is also applicable to a great deal of other work (though by no means all, which is why Luna's suggestion of "job" or "work" as a name for doing something purely because someone will pay for it doesn't work for me). And I am saying that it would be worth figuring out how and to what extent that state of affairs (people doing something purely and exclusively because someone will pay them for it) is responsible for the icky feelings I actually share about the sex-industry. I'm sure it is not the entire explanation. I am also sure that it does figure in the explanation."
I mean it. Without a hidden agenda, without belittling the terrible plight of poor young women being caught up in the worse part (and yes,
probably definitely the majority part) of the sex industry. Without secretly thinking that they deserve it. And I object to being cast in that light.
Okay, I guess I just don't see the sense of redefining "prostitution" to cover essentially what is covered by "wage labor", since some highly impressive minds have already done a pretty good job of illustrating how awful the latter is (at least as far back as Marx), all while the former adds on a couple special layers of awful that should be differentiated from the normal kind of awful.
And I'd wager that in any culture on earth, there's a basic difference between sex and other stuff, which you can notice with the next thought experiment: would you feel very weird about doing X for a friend in need, assuming you have the time and energy to do it and neither dearly love nor strongly dislike said friend? Substitute X with sex to their liking on the one hand, or any other activity (translation, writing, lifting furniture, etc.) on the other.
While cultural hang-ups regarding sex probably make the difference bigger than it has to be, I'm willing to bet there's a difference, universally, in every human culture that ever existed.
Gotta go now, catch ya later.
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 25, 2012, 02:11:01 AM
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 11:59:18 PM
Quote from: Fidel Castro on September 24, 2012, 11:38:45 PM
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 24, 2012, 11:08:08 PM
It's a choice. There may be a whole host of reasons to make it, but this notion that people have no other options is a bullshit copout.
I am interested to know what expertise you are speaking from.
Are you seriously suggesting that people have no other option than porn? Really? U.S. military? Temp work? Minimum wage employment of choice, e.g., grocery stores, fast food, etc.? Since we're going to be cute, let me add in being homeless and going to prison. Porn may be people's best option, given their preferences, but it ain't the only one.
Sorry, I was talking about prostitution. There are two conversations going on, it seems.
Yes, and the fact that people are choosing to explore, in-depth, whether there aren't relevant differences between translation services and porn (there are, obviously) rather than laying out a clear and concise argument about what qualities make porn exploitative to the point that there is moral obligation on the part of the consumer/viewer to not support it, speaks volumes.
Quote from: Cain on September 25, 2012, 06:32:36 AM
It sure is a good thing everyone who has ever been in porn is also qualified to join the US military, where they would have a greater chance of being raped than being killed by enemy fire in a certain combat operation zone. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/dec/09/rape-us-military).
I wouldn't have thought to do this, but since herpy-derpy comparisons and broad sweeping generalities are the order of the day, how does porn rank in exploitation relative to the other employment options for the "typical" person in porn? Let's leave aside the fact of people choosing porn for themselves and pretend that we are in charge of their lives for a moment (since we are assuming that in many of the arguments in this thread, why not continue the trend here, right?).
Is porn less exploitative than the U.S. military? Perhaps of the 300,000 women that have served in combat since 2001, the 150+ women that have died, the 700+ wounded, the untold numbers sexually assaulted, and those that have their sexuality warped by being in environments where men outnumbered them 10 to 1 would have had a better life in porn. Maybe we should be advocating for better porn conditions and perhaps even for better porn recruitment?
Even though this argument is patently absurd for a number of reasons, it brings up an important question about how porn stacks up, exploitation-wise, relative to other common options. Presumably, people working in porn know that there are dish-washing jobs, dependency situations where you can get taken out or help paying bills in exchange for sex, etc. and they chose porn. What do they do, if we imagine your porn is limited to X Discordian approved levels of exploitation, when these jobs don't exist? Dish-washing? If so, why don't they choose dish-washing now? Could it be they see porn as a better option? And when we think about that for a moment, doesn't a seem that a lot of this discussion is basically a soft form of paternalism. Hey kid, you're not smart enough to know what's best for you. Let *me* do your thinking for you. Are you folks comfortable with that?
Quote from: Ayotollah of Assehollah on September 25, 2012, 11:17:23 AM
Presumably, people working in porn know that there are dish-washing jobs, dependency situations where you can get taken out or help paying bills in exchange for sex, etc. and they chose porn. What do they do, if we imagine your porn is limited to X Discordian approved levels of exploitation, when these jobs don't exist? Dish-washing? If so, why don't they choose dish-washing now? Could it be they see porn as a better option? And when we think about that for a moment, doesn't a seem that a lot of this discussion is basically a soft form of paternalism. Hey kid, you're not smart enough to know what's best for you. Let *me* do your thinking for you. Are you folks comfortable with that?
Sex, even sex between two married, heterosexuals, is fucked up and perverted and evil and badwrong. Porn and/or prostitution is the ultimate expression of this kind of wrongness. It's like badwrong
2 It stands to reason that only fucked up, perverted, evil and badwrong people will seek work in this industry of vice and horror. People like that don't wash dishes for a living. People like that eat children and take drugs.
Quote from: holist on September 25, 2012, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: VERBL on September 25, 2012, 08:54:33 AM
What I see you arguing, on the whole, is that actually, porn isn't that different than other industries, except that we're all caught up about sex so we notice the abuse in porn more. I'm pretty sure you're factually wrong on both counts (the abuse itself and the perception here.)
(I know you've stated you see that porn is worse, but I see you arguing otherwise at the same time. Being inconsistent is not the end of the world, I'm just explaining why I'm still on about this.)
I feel that I am being wilfully misinterpreted. I'm not wrong on those counts because I am not making those claims, despite the fact that you see me as making them. At this point I can only reiterate. When I say this:
"My point is not that the similarities make non-sex wage slavery into "prostitution" in the literal sense. My point is that there is a wider meaning of prostitution (what you call the figurative meaning). That is certainly applicable to sex work (though it definitely does not tell the whole story, let me repeat that again), and it is also applicable to a great deal of other work (though by no means all, which is why Luna's suggestion of "job" or "work" as a name for doing something purely because someone will pay for it doesn't work for me). And I am saying that it would be worth figuring out how and to what extent that state of affairs (people doing something purely and exclusively because someone will pay them for it) is responsible for the icky feelings I actually share about the sex-industry. I'm sure it is not the entire explanation. I am also sure that it does figure in the explanation."
I mean it. Without a hidden agenda, without belittling the terrible plight of poor young women being caught up in the worse part (and yes, probably definitely the majority part) of the sex industry. Without secretly thinking that they deserve it. And I object to being cast in that light.
Babboonery, ITT.
Quote from: holist on September 25, 2012, 09:20:17 AM
My point is that there is a wider meaning of prostitution (what you call the figurative meaning).
And I am saying that it would be worth figuring out how and to what extent that state of affairs (people doing something purely and exclusively because someone will pay them for it) is responsible for the icky feelings I actually share about the sex-industry. I'm sure it is not the entire explanation. I am also sure that it does figure in the explanation."
Ok, I have a suggestion.
holist, you appear to be trying to start a discussion regarding the psychological/emotional effects of capitalism/wage slavery. This is a thread about the debilitating effects of pornography/prostitution.
Although a Venn diagram might have the two discussions overlapping, you're not going to get the discussion you want in this thread. Start another thread, and state your case
without using the words "prostitution" or "pornography", and do
not reference this thread in your new one.
Also, when people start poking you with sticks in the new thread, do not respond to them. Stay on topic. With luck, you'll get the discussion you're hoping for without an excess of shit-flinging.
Quote from: holist on September 25, 2012, 09:20:17 AM
Quote from: VERBL on September 25, 2012, 08:54:33 AM
What I see you arguing, on the whole, is that actually, porn isn't that different than other industries, except that we're all caught up about sex so we notice the abuse in porn more. I'm pretty sure you're factually wrong on both counts (the abuse itself and the perception here.)
(I know you've stated you see that porn is worse, but I see you arguing otherwise at the same time. Being inconsistent is not the end of the world, I'm just explaining why I'm still on about this.)
I feel that I am being wilfully misinterpreted. I'm not wrong on those counts because I am not making those claims, despite the fact that you see me as making them. At this point I can only reiterate. When I say this:
"My point is not that the similarities make non-sex wage slavery into "prostitution" in the literal sense. My point is that there is a wider meaning of prostitution (what you call the figurative meaning). That is certainly applicable to sex work (though it definitely does not tell the whole story, let me repeat that again), and it is also applicable to a great deal of other work (though by no means all, which is why Luna's suggestion of "job" or "work" as a name for doing something purely because someone will pay for it doesn't work for me). And I am saying that it would be worth figuring out how and to what extent that state of affairs (people doing something purely and exclusively because someone will pay them for it) is responsible for the icky feelings I actually share about the sex-industry. I'm sure it is not the entire explanation. I am also sure that it does figure in the explanation."
I mean it. Without a hidden agenda, without belittling the terrible plight of poor young women being caught up in the worse part (and yes, probably definitely the majority part) of the sex industry. Without secretly thinking that they deserve it. And I object to being cast in that light.
If you're NOT ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD,
WHY DON'T YOU QUIT TRYING TO HIJACK IT AND GO START YOUR OWN FUCKING THREAD.
This is not even "thread drift", it's you trying to shoehorn your pet topic into a completely different topic, and it's A. fucking rude, and B. absolutely guaranteed to create much misunderstanding and irritation, much as if I pranced into some thread about politics and started explaining that modern art is pretty similar so let's talk about that instead.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 25, 2012, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: holist on September 25, 2012, 09:20:17 AM
My point is that there is a wider meaning of prostitution (what you call the figurative meaning).
And I am saying that it would be worth figuring out how and to what extent that state of affairs (people doing something purely and exclusively because someone will pay them for it) is responsible for the icky feelings I actually share about the sex-industry. I'm sure it is not the entire explanation. I am also sure that it does figure in the explanation."
Ok, I have a suggestion.
holist, you appear to be trying to start a discussion regarding the psychological/emotional effects of capitalism/wage slavery. This is a thread about the debilitating effects of pornography/prostitution.
Although a Venn diagram might have the two discussions overlapping, you're not going to get the discussion you want in this thread. Start another thread, and state your case without using the words "prostitution" or "pornography", and do not reference this thread in your new one.
Also, when people start poking you with sticks in the new thread, do not respond to them. Stay on topic. With luck, you'll get the discussion you're hoping for without an excess of shit-flinging.
Or also this.
Your post had a better melody, though.
Quote from: LMNO, PhD (life continues) on September 25, 2012, 04:09:51 PM
Your post had a better melody, though.
It had a good beat, and I can dance to it.
I give it a 7.
:lulz:
:lulz:
Holist, that reads as a very well-thought out philosophical argument.
However, it really is miles away from the reality of the situation. You may want to read up on The Barstool Experiment (http://www.principiadiscordia.com/forum/index.php/topic,10125.0.html) for now. This board tends to deal with things in a pragmatic, rather than idealistic, way. If what you're proposing doesn't reflect the reality, all the reality of a situation, then you are mistaking the map for the territory.
Whoops, thread split. I'll repost when I find it.
I'm linking a lot (I have lots of marking to do, and an assignment, and am dealing with that by suddenly discovering Reddit) but here's another piece relevant to an ongoing discussion;
Breast Cancer charity is rejecting money raised from ''boobs'' videos on porn site. (http://feminspire.com/pornhubs-breast-cancer-donation-rejected-by-charity/)
Is prostitution a 'norm' though? I recall an experiment with primates focusing on the idea of money. The primates would complete a task and get tokens that could be exchanged for treats. The females were observed trading sex acts for tokens... No pimps, no corrupt industry, just primates, tokens, sex and bananas.
Hrmmm, Primates, Tokens, Sex and Bananas would be a good name for a band.
Quote from: 🐳🐙🐳🐙 on October 06, 2012, 07:46:11 AM
I'm linking a lot (I have lots of marking to do, and an assignment, and am dealing with that by suddenly discovering Reddit) but here's another piece relevant to an ongoing discussion;
Breast Cancer charity is rejecting money raised from ''boobs'' videos on porn site. (http://feminspire.com/pornhubs-breast-cancer-donation-rejected-by-charity/)
huh.
that's interesting. my reaction is that Komen is in the wrong. their views on pornography seems to be out of the scope of their mission...
the article gives the impression that if they didn't use irreverent language, that Komen would be OK accepting donations from them. But i've seen other Komen stuff that uses a tongue in cheek objectification to which they seem to be accepting of. ('save the ta-tas' bumper stickers, etc.)
If someone that was clearly horrible (say, westboro baptist) raised a bunch of cash, but used respectful language, i wonder what their reaction would be...
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 06, 2012, 04:00:28 PM
Quote from: 🐳🐙🐳🐙 on October 06, 2012, 07:46:11 AM
I'm linking a lot (I have lots of marking to do, and an assignment, and am dealing with that by suddenly discovering Reddit) but here's another piece relevant to an ongoing discussion;
Breast Cancer charity is rejecting money raised from ''boobs'' videos on porn site. (http://feminspire.com/pornhubs-breast-cancer-donation-rejected-by-charity/)
huh.
that's interesting. my reaction is that Komen is in the wrong. their views on pornography seems to be out of the scope of their mission...
the article gives the impression that if they didn't use irreverent language, that Komen would be OK accepting donations from them. But i've seen other Komen stuff that uses a tongue in cheek objectification to which they seem to be accepting of. ('save the ta-tas' bumper stickers, etc.)
If someone that was clearly horrible (say, westboro baptist) raised a bunch of cash, but used respectful language, i wonder what their reaction would be...
Pretty sure their PR people would weigh and balance whether the objectionable funding source had the strong potential to impact their ability to provide services; ie. would it be likely to turn off other benefactors from donating or potential recipients from using their services? Would accepting it send a public message that is out of step with their mission statement and code of ethics? If yes, they would be wise to reject the funding.
Also, quite frankly, it sounds like Pornhub is using Susan G Komen Foundatin's name as a marketing ploy. Accepting the donation would be a tacit permission for that, and becoming, in essence, a marketing partner with a porn site is NOT in their best interest, nor is setting such a precedent.
Quote from: Bebek Sincap Ratatosk on October 06, 2012, 11:30:14 AM
Is prostitution a 'norm' though? I recall an experiment with primates focusing on the idea of money. The primates would complete a task and get tokens that could be exchanged for treats. The females were observed trading sex acts for tokens... No pimps, no corrupt industry, just primates, tokens, sex and bananas.
Hrmmm, Primates, Tokens, Sex and Bananas would be a good name for a band.
:?
Are you replying to something specific?
One last thing; I HATE those "save the tatas" bumper stickers (which are not in any way affiliated with Komen, FYI), because curing breast cancer isn't about saving breasts, it's about saving people from dying.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 04:35:55 PM
One last thing; I HATE those "save the tatas" bumper stickers (which are not in any way affiliated with Komen, FYI), because curing breast cancer isn't about saving breasts, it's about saving people from dying.
I know that and you know that and everyone HERE knows that...But you have to market it to America
TM, which has been conditioned to not care when people die, just when things THEY like go away.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 04:35:55 PM
One last thing; I HATE those "save the tatas" bumper stickers (which are not in any way affiliated with Komen, FYI), because curing breast cancer isn't about saving breasts, it's about saving people from dying.
Good point. A very good friend of mine had breast cancer and recovered. She's very knowledgeable about anatomy & physiology (she was one of my teachers at school) and very outspoken. One day, she told me & Mrs Mang' about it and her experience and then said something to the effect of "This is not a popular thing to say but, as crappy as breast cancer is.....there are a hell of a lot of other diseases that are much worse that no one is talking about because they don't have the marketing money behind them."
And while she's very grateful for getting treated and surviving (as well as raising money for cancer charities), she recognizes that we turn diseases into commodities. More slogans to stick on cars so we can promptly ignore the issues they represent. (cf: save our troops ribbons).
But there's no choice: We HAVE to make them into commidities, because that's the only way to fund research, because the government sure the fuck isn't going to do it. They have to give each other tax breaks and fund that new aircraft carrier.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 07:06:36 PM
But there's no choice: We HAVE to make them into commidities, because that's the only way to fund research, because the government sure the fuck isn't going to do it. They have to give each other tax breaks and fund that new aircraft carrier.
True. I think she understands that which is why it's frustrating. What's also frustrating is that the Komen people in CT pulled a dumb move which made it harder to raise money for them.
My friend is a physical therapist and for many years she'd always volunteered to do pre/post event massage for people running in 'Race For The Cure' events. One year, she is all set to volunteer and the Komen charity turn around and say "We're now only accepting massage therapists who work for the Massage Envy chain." Corporate bullshit 101 - you can't volunteer to help a charity unless you're an employee of this franchise.
Quote from: Mangrove on October 06, 2012, 07:16:57 PM
True. I think she understands that which is why it's frustrating. What's also frustrating is that the Komen people in CT pulled a dumb move which made it harder to raise money for them.
Which, the abortion thing?
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 07:20:14 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 06, 2012, 07:16:57 PM
True. I think she understands that which is why it's frustrating. What's also frustrating is that the Komen people in CT pulled a dumb move which made it harder to raise money for them.
Which, the abortion thing?
No, the fact that they decided that they only wanted massage/physical therapists from their corporate 'friends' at race events. Seems that being a licensed professional willing to donate time wasn't good enough for them. 'Massage Envy' being a chain then gets all the visibility of 'look at all our employees in uniform helping the poor ladies with cancer'.
Quote from: Mangrove on October 06, 2012, 07:24:35 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 07:20:14 PM
Quote from: Mangrove on October 06, 2012, 07:16:57 PM
True. I think she understands that which is why it's frustrating. What's also frustrating is that the Komen people in CT pulled a dumb move which made it harder to raise money for them.
Which, the abortion thing?
No, the fact that they decided that they only wanted massage/physical therapists from their corporate 'friends' at race events. Seems that being a licensed professional willing to donate time wasn't good enough for them. 'Massage Envy' being a chain then gets all the visibility of 'look at all our employees in uniform helping the poor ladies with cancer'.
They're just full of good decisions.
A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 08:25:38 PM
A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.
Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.
Any help is better than no help.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 08:25:38 PM
A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.
Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.
Any help is better than no help.
This is true, and also organizations, like people, often learn from their mistakes and go on to do better in the future.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 08:25:38 PM
A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.
Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.
Any help is better than no help.
Unless it's from a porn princess.
A lot of people think products with the pink logo are donating a percentage of profit from each unit sold, in Aus. That's not the case. The company pays a certain amount of money to use the logo for a period of time.
Seems what's happened here is the company has used the logo etc and THEN turned to the organisation and said, congratulations, you've given us the right to use your logo, here's the right amount of money.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 12:30:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 08:25:38 PM
A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.
Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.
Any help is better than no help.
Unless it's from a porn princess.
wut
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 07, 2012, 12:41:17 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 12:30:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 08:25:38 PM
A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.
Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.
Any help is better than no help.
Unless it's from a porn princess.
wut
... they turned down the cash from pornhub.
was it that the remark was flip, or am i missing something?
i'm confused now.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 01:02:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 07, 2012, 12:41:17 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 12:30:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 08:25:38 PM
A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.
Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.
Any help is better than no help.
Unless it's from a porn princess.
wut
... they turned down the cash from pornhub.
was it that the remark was flip, or am i missing something?
i'm confused now.
I'm kind of confused. It didn't seem to make much sense.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 07, 2012, 01:06:05 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 01:02:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 07, 2012, 12:41:17 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 12:30:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 08:25:38 PM
A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.
Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.
Any help is better than no help.
Unless it's from a porn princess.
wut
... they turned down the cash from pornhub.
was it that the remark was flip, or am i missing something?
i'm confused now.
I'm kind of confused. It didn't seem to make much sense.
you pointed out that you take what help you can get. SGK is better than nothing, and they have helped even if they have their deficiencies. so we should be thankful for that. (that's what you meant, right?)
i was saying that, imo, SGK should heed that advice and take the help they can, even if it has deficiencies. i.e. take the money from pornhub.
obviously, it's a matter of working out the PR math, like Nigel says, but....
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 01:29:53 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 07, 2012, 01:06:05 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 01:02:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 07, 2012, 12:41:17 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 12:30:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 08:25:38 PM
A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.
Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.
Any help is better than no help.
Unless it's from a porn princess.
wut
... they turned down the cash from pornhub.
was it that the remark was flip, or am i missing something?
i'm confused now.
I'm kind of confused. It didn't seem to make much sense.
you pointed out that you take what help you can get. SGK is better than nothing, and they have helped even if they have their deficiencies. so we should be thankful for that. (that's what you meant, right?)
i was saying that, imo, SGK should heed that advice and take the help they can, even if it has deficiencies. i.e. take the money from pornhub.
obviously, it's a matter of working out the PR math, like Nigel says, but....
I'm not getting what part of "net loss" you don't understand.
Say someone says they'll help you move, but you know that in the process they'll A: use your ebay account to sell a bunch of stuff in your name, and B: piss off the other friends who offered to help, so that on moving day it's just you and the jackass and nobody else. Is that actually "help"?
And, with all that in mind, do you accept their "help", or do you say "fuck off, and quit using my name to sell your crap"?
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 07, 2012, 02:09:05 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 01:29:53 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 07, 2012, 01:06:05 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 01:02:47 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 07, 2012, 12:41:17 AM
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 12:30:41 AM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 08:41:55 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 08:25:38 PM
A organizations go, they're kind of a shitty one, unfortunately. Chock full O'bullshit. However, at least they have been generally pretty helpful at raising people's general awareness of breast cancer as an issue.
Yeah, well, take what you can get, and try for better results in the future, etc, etc.
Any help is better than no help.
Unless it's from a porn princess.
wut
... they turned down the cash from pornhub.
was it that the remark was flip, or am i missing something?
i'm confused now.
I'm kind of confused. It didn't seem to make much sense.
you pointed out that you take what help you can get. SGK is better than nothing, and they have helped even if they have their deficiencies. so we should be thankful for that. (that's what you meant, right?)
i was saying that, imo, SGK should heed that advice and take the help they can, even if it has deficiencies. i.e. take the money from pornhub.
obviously, it's a matter of working out the PR math, like Nigel says, but....
I'm not getting what part of "net loss" you don't understand.
Say someone says they'll help you move, but you know that in the process they'll A: use your ebay account to sell a bunch of stuff in your name, and B: piss off the other friends who offered to help, so that on moving day it's just you and the jackass and nobody else. Is that actually "help"?
The bolded
should indicate that i get what your saying. i'm not getting why you think i'm not getting it.
my gut feeling is that they're wrong, but hey, i'm sure they've got a raft of bean counters and pollsters that have compelling arguments that show people will be turned off by SGK accepting money from this site and will decide to not donate to this particular breast cancer charity.
looking at the website showing their 'boob bus'
http://www.pornhub.com/boob-bus
i don't really see them capitalizing on SGK. i see them capitalizing on the breast cancer awareness meme.
i get the impression from tfa that pornhub somewhere mentioned SGK, at least. i would assume that in their explanation of how they would donate some portion of proceeds to breast cancer charity, they mention SGK specifically. so.... if they never mentioned a particular charity (before or after the fact), would SGK have accepted the donation? If the answer is no, then it seems to me that they are not as much concerned with 'net loss' as they are simply making a political or philosophical statement, which is totally their right to do, but would be shooting themselves in the foot, imo.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 03:16:51 AM
looking at the website showing their 'boob bus'
http://www.pornhub.com/boob-bus
i don't really see them capitalizing on SGK. i see them capitalizing on the breast cancer awareness meme.
i get the impression from tfa that pornhub somewhere mentioned SGK, at least. i would assume that in their explanation of how they would donate some portion of proceeds to breast cancer charity, they mention SGK specifically. so.... if they never mentioned a particular charity (before or after the fact), would SGK have accepted the donation? If the answer is no, then it seems to me that they are not as much concerned with 'net loss' as they are simply making a political or philosophical statement, which is totally their right to do, but would be shooting themselves in the foot, imo.
:lulz: Well, all I can really reply to that is that it's a good thing that a guy on the internet with a gut feeling is second-guessing their decision based on assumptions and incomplete information gleaned from briefly skimming an article.
?
why are you being snarky at me?
did i presents something offensively? if so, i'd like to know so that i don't come across as a dick unintentionally in the future.
did i hit a particular nerve with you? if so, i'd like to not engage with you on sore topics; i respect you, and wouldn't want to lose any respect you may have for me.
OK, so I understand that you comprehend my statement about net loss, but disagree with SGK's decision because you have a gut feeling. I could be wrong, but my thought on that is that when second-guessing a decision a person or organization makes for themselves, it's wisest to reallllly examine why they might have made that decision, and ask whether your opinion is well-informed or if you're just talking out yer ass.
Also, to nitpick, no one is ever "in the wrong" for refusing donations. That wording implies that they have done something they could be liable for. No one can ever be held liable for refusing a donation.
As for the marketing angle,
QuoteIn a surprise twist, the intended recipient, Susan G. Komen's For the Cure Foundation, has rejected their donation, stating that they "are not a partner, not accepting donations" from Pornhub, and "have asked them to stop using our name."
seems pretty clear that they were using their name.
They could easily have donated anonymously, perhaps directly to breast cancer research funds, had they wanted to, but clearly they were seeking publicity.
Making a political and social statement, by the way, ties DIRECTLY to the "net loss" I mentioned. Most of the MILLIONS of people across the country who donate to SGK are women, and many of them are frequent donors, albeit small amounts. Ever been in a grocery store and had them ask you if you want to round up for breast cancer? I did, just today, without even thinking, and it's hardly my favorite charity.
That particular statement, had they accepted the money, has the potential to significantly turn off many, many women. They stood to lose far more than the potential $30k Pornhub wanted to donate. Remember what happened when they threatened to defund Planned Parenthood? Just like in politics, alienating the body of populace you claim to serve is a bad, bad idea.
So those are just a few reasons I can think of off the top of my head that SGK may have weighed the options and decided against accepting the donation and subsequent de facto affiliation.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 03:25:41 AM
?
why are you being snarky at me?
did i presents something offensively? if so, i'd like to know so that i don't come across as a dick unintentionally in the future.
did i hit a particular nerve with you? if so, i'd like to not engage with you on sore topics; i respect you, and wouldn't want to lose any respect you may have for me.
Yes, I have to admit that I do find it baffling and perhaps a bit offensive that you are proposing that an organization whose stated mission is to cure breast cancer and therefore primarily serves women made a mistake in turning down a donation and affiliation with a porn website. I am confused because it seems like a pretty straightforward decision to me, because pornography does not support women, it exploits and objectifies women, and that would mean that an organization that is supposed to serve women would be directly financially affiliated with an industry that exploits and objectifies women. I can't for the life of me see how that could possibly be viewed as a shrewd maneuver in any way. Is it that you think women simply wouldn't notice?
FYI, the Komen ribbon is prominent on the screencap of Pornhub in the article.
Don't be too worried about my snark, there's literally no one else on the internet to argue with right now. I'm totally trying to build up to a good troll but it's slow going in these early stages... I have to be mostly innocuous but mildly grating for the first couple hundred posts, I'm only at like post nine, and NOBODY IS ONLINE.
hmm. yes. i think it would have gone largely unnoticed.
I could be wrong. i freely admit that i'm talking out my ass, and have not done any formal research on the matter. I'll refrain from further discussion until such time as i'm qualified.
(also, i didn't know that Komen owned the pink ribbon. that surprises me. i thought they had the stylized one with the tapered ends and the little circle on top. i would have assumed that the generic awareness ribbon colored pink would not be an ownable IP. so, at least i learned something new.)
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 07, 2012, 04:09:56 AM
Don't be too worried about my snark, there's literally no one else on the internet to argue with right now. I'm totally trying to build up to a good troll but it's slow going in these early stages... I have to be mostly innocuous but mildly grating for the first couple hundred posts, I'm only at like post nine, and NOBODY IS ONLINE.
:)
thanks. that makes me feel better.
i'm quite a sensitive fellow. and aim to not get cross with the folks on this board, which is a feat, if you want to engage.
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 04:17:45 AM
hmm. yes. i think it would have gone largely unnoticed.
I could be wrong. i freely admit that i'm talking out my ass, and have not done any formal research on the matter. I'll refrain from further discussion until such time as i'm qualified.
(also, i didn't know that Komen owned the pink ribbon. that surprises me. i thought they had the stylized one with the tapered ends and the little circle on top. i would have assumed that the generic awareness ribbon colored pink would not be an ownable IP. so, at least i learned something new.)
If I recall, they originated it but failed to trademark it, so it may not be a direct legal transgression, but it's definitely a deliberate association and most likely if Komen took them to court, they would win.
It wouldn't have gone unnoticed. Seriously. I can't imagine how it could possibly have gone unnoticed. All it would take is ONE Redditor to point out the hypocrisy and it would have been all over the Internet with a boycott in progress before SGK could issue a statement.
hypocrisy?
i thought they were simply engaged in the business of raising money to donate to breast cancer research. i didn't know that they had any official stance on anything other than 'breast cancer needs more funding'. if anything, i would say that their current stand is not in line with their stated goals.
so.... i'm not sure how long pornhub had this going on for, but obviously long enough that they had a bus touring around.
did we hear anything about it before SGK made a deal about rejecting the donations?
Quote from: Elder Iptuous on October 07, 2012, 04:43:13 AM
hypocrisy?
i thought they were simply engaged in the business of raising money to donate to breast cancer research. i didn't know that they had any official stance on anything other than 'breast cancer needs more funding'. if anything, i would say that their current stand is not in line with their stated goals.
so.... i'm not sure how long pornhub had this going on for, but obviously long enough that they had a bus touring around.
did we hear anything about it before SGK made a deal about rejecting the donations?
Wait... I just explained how it's at odds with their mission. You don't see that? Are you serious?
Also, can you do your own research? I'll look this up for you THIS TIME, but after that please Google things yourself.
They started the campaign five days ago. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/pornhub-komen-donation-breast-cancer-month_n_1939648.html
The "Save the boobs" bus is unrelated to this fundraising effort and did not attempt to make any connection to the SGK foundation.
YOU may not have heard of it before SGK rejected the donation, but the reason THEY heard about it and made their statement rejecting the donation before the funds were even offered to them was because it was already spreading over the Internet: http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/10/this-the-worst-breast-cancer-month-idea-ever.html
Here is their actual mission statement:
QuoteThe Susan G. Komen for the Cure promise: to save lives and end breast cancer forever by empowering people, ensuring quality of care for all and energizing science to find the cures.
Please don't feel like you have to keep arguing to humor me; I'm about to go to bed anyway.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on October 06, 2012, 07:00:06 PM
Quote from: A Very Hairy Monkey In An Ill-Fitting Tunic on October 06, 2012, 04:35:55 PM
One last thing; I HATE those "save the tatas" bumper stickers (which are not in any way affiliated with Komen, FYI), because curing breast cancer isn't about saving breasts, it's about saving people from dying.
I know that and you know that and everyone HERE knows that...But you have to market it to AmericaTM, which has been conditioned to not care when people die, just when things THEY like go away.
And there's the "I <3 BOOBIES" rubber bracelets, which fall into the same category.
They DO give kids the option to troll school and fast food jobs, though:
"I'm going to have to have to ask you to take that off. It's inappropriate."
(outraged self-righteousness) "BUT IT'S FOR BREAST CANCER!"
Todd Akin told me breast cancer only happens to porn stars and other fornicators.
Quote from: LMNO on September 18, 2012, 06:04:16 PM
Yeah, so. I like porn. I suppose that's no surprise. I've watched a lot of it, and a lot of different kinds.
These kinds of threads make me uncomfortable, which means I've got some thinking to do.
I'm going to admit that I'm most likely deluding myself, but there are a few actresses who really, really give off the impression that they're reasonably happy about their choice of careers. There are also those who are directing themselves in their scenes, which gives them some control about what they're doing. I'm thinking about people like Bobbi Starr, Belladonna, and Joanna Angel.
I know there's a huge amount of porn where both actors are completely dead behind the eyes, and a disturbingly large amount of it is explicitly violent towards women, and there's quite a bit that's more or less geared towards non-consent (they film her saying she's willing, and then do their hardest to make her tap out and quit). But let me be clear, that doesn't turn me on.
I realize that this is an area where my pride of being a rationalist is threatened; reason would dictate that even if sex-positive pornography existed, it would be a very very small portion of an industry that harms almost everyone who participates in it. And yet, I watch.
9 years later:
There is no ethical consumption. Everything you want to do was in some way connected to exploitation.
It's like deciding you have to cancel David Bowie because one night in the 70s he was high as a kite after a show and slept with a groupie that turned out to be 15 years old. Or realizing that Hunter S Thompson regularly beat his wife. Or that HP Lovecraft was a ferocious bigot. If you have to cancel all artists that don't have a dirtbag component to their lives, you simply will not have any art to appreciate.
Porn is still exploitation. But so is damn near anything else. The very clothes you are wearing and the device that you are reading this on were almost certainly made by slaves. If you use palm oil for anything, it was made by slaves (and the ones that say they don't employ slaves are technically telling the truth, it's just that they buy the raw goods off of the companies that do use slaves.)
The world is soaked in awful, evil deeds, and that's the only truth you need to know.
So, wait, I'm good to resume jacking off to swap.avi again now? Happy days! :lulz:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Roger on September 17, 2012, 04:15:46 PM
This is a remake of a lost rant I wrote in response to someone saying porn was "empowering" to women. I can't find the original, so I'm re-writing it now.
The life-cycle of the average porn starlet.
Okay, so there's this 18 year old girl, fresh off the bus and ready for her new life in The City. She's hoping to land a job as a waitress or whatever, until she can get her first big break in modeling or film or whatever.
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.
But now she's no longer a fresh face. She's known, and her value starts to drop. So she has to do more and more bizarre things to get on camera. Starts with anal, goes downhill from there.
6 months later, she's thinking to herself, "If I let that guy piss on me and then drag me into the shower, I could make rent."
6 months after THAT, she's thinking a little differently. "If I let those guys choke me out and put their cigs out on my back, I might get enough to score." By this point she looks 40, and her skin looks like that of a cadaver. Her eyes are dead, like two burned out light bulbs.
A few weeks later, she's been sold to a pimp for her drug debts, and she's hooking to score. Statistically speaking, she's dead in 3 years, tossed in a convenient dumpster.
Then there's the next 18 year old girl, fresh off the bus and ready for her new life in The City. She's hoping to land a job as a waitress or whatever, until she can get her first big break in modeling or film or whatever.
Rinse, repeat.
So when you feel the need to tell me porn is "empowering" to women, take a moment instead to SHUT UP. What porn IS, is turning a human being into a commodity. It is trading in human misery. It is about as "empowering" to the woman as being enslaved was "empowering" to the Black population of the 1800s America. It's sordid, when you look at it that way, and about as sexy as watching monsters waterboard people at Gitmo.
That's all I have to say.
This is all very true. I'll add to it that often times its the 'middle american cam girl who gets a free plane ticket out to florida' routine these days. They like to isolate them, wow them, and then throw them in the hull of a shitty fishing boat and sex traffic their asses out to other nations where 'American sluts' fetch a hefty delivery fee, and are sold into straight up slavery. So your analogy to the 1800s is very accurate.
This is why any male who advocates that 'sex work is real work' is suspect for 'fighting for woman's right to sell him her ass', and most likely not much else in the way of being an 'ally'. I for one would prefer to help build an environment where women dont have to resort to such measures in life.
Of course I do have to concede that there are women out there who have beat the bad system and are camming for fun and profit and even making porn without any personal exploitations. These exceptions are strictly Solo players, and the Monogamous Couples who beat the system and only do things for themselves, and maybe sell the finished product to various distributors.
HOWEVER, on top of that 1% of 'beat the system' players out there, EVERYONES work is stolen, repackaged, redistributed, and sold in various world markets, and clip sites for ad dollars, without permission or compensation to the makers. There is no system in place to protect content in that market place. Anyone can bot scoop files off clip sites, and live feeds straight off cam sites, then sell those works and nothing is going to stop them. So in the end there is no way to avoid exploitation 100%.
The only good anyone can do is make efforts to keep individual people safe, pay living wages for regular jobs, and continue to destroy anyone involved in the global trafficking operations any way possible. Which is crazy hard to do as they get women from anywhere they can including underage kids in orphanage/foster care systems here in the united states, which are often run by evangelical billionaires who employ their extended families in these 'non profit' tax shelter operations.
Betsy DeVos is one of these people. Her brother Eric Prince owns the Blackwater mercenary army / illegal arms dealers network, while Betsy was scooping migrant children out of cages and trafficking them to fuck knows who and billing the taxpayer $700, per day, for each child stolen from their parents.
The shit runs deep and everyday 'turn a bitch out' porn is just the tip of an iceberg of pure fucking evil.
I'm still not 100% convinced that all the arguments against porn aren't actually arguments against assholes. Most porn is sick and exploitative is no different from most music is totally unlistenable bullshit or most art is just some fuckhead shitting paint on a canvas for a paycheck. Difference wi porn in the west is there's 2000+ years of weird catholic guilt and repression added to the mix and that drives it more underground than shiny pop starlets doing a line or two to get them through the gig. Sex is badwrong and evil by papal decree so it stands to reason that mostly shady fuckers will be involved in it. There's a ton of good porn out there but it's buried under a million tons of crap. Just like there's a ton of good music and a ton of good art. If someone does something totally cunty to another human being they should be stomped, whether that's dumping a bunch of preteens in a shipping container and hoping half of them make it to the warehouse or pointing guns at them and telling them do dig up rare earth minerals for apples latest underpowered shiny bullshit.
I think folks who see "sex work is work" as bullshit are in denial about how badly most work sucks. Yes, sex work is awful. Like much awful work it pays well. Treating it differently than toxic waste disposal, or drug dealing is counter productive.
Eliminating sex work is probably impossible and trying and failing to do so makes life worse for sex workers. Hiring a hooker or going to a strip club, or paying for porn is absolutely supporting exploitation and probably also supporting rape, but getting the cops involved will only make things worse for the victims and probably give the exploiters another tool to enforce obedience.