Wage Slavery

[Ayotollah of Ass]

Ok, against my better judgment, here it goes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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

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

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

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

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

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Nigel's tough. I'm not sure I could even sleep good with Nixon gazing down at me, much less do teh secks. 

The gentlemen LOVE it!

Well, they don't usually come back, but I'm pretty sure they love it. Secretly.

That's because, in order to come back, they'd have to dig themselves out of the rose garden...  And they're too afraid to do that, because they know another Nigeling is waiting for them if they DO get out.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Also, AA, not to split hairs but technically I'm not an amateur psychologist, I'm a student psychologist. Which does not necessarily mean more qualified.

[Cain]

[Ayotollah of Ass]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Verbal Mike]

Bingo.

[Dildo Argentino]

Cain, I am sure you are actually aware that growing up behind the Berlin Wall when it was still standing included Marxist indoctrination at all levels of the child-care and education system. By the time I had got out of here at 18, I'd had eight years of formal studies in the Marxist interpretation of history as well as capitalism as it existed then (they called it "history" and later "citizenship studies"). This is not the same as university-level study of Marxism in several ways, but it was protracted and immersive. Not to mention the fact that I explained why I thought freelancing in the wild east was pretty alienated work.

As for the rest of what's been happening here, I see that my prediction on page 16 (I think) that it was not over was correct. This is all very interesting. Has the Ayotollah seen the light? Or does he have his tail between his legs now? Is all sex-work significantly worse in terms of psychological damage to the worker than all other varieties of work (I think I did mention soldiering??? No responses? Prison wardens, doctors, I mean particularly doctors practicing in areas with totally inadquate welfare resources? Obstetricians? Subsistence farmers under increasingly desert-like conditions?). Or is it more the case that the nature of sex-work provides a unique leverage for exploitation partly because sex is, well, sex (though the commercialisation aspect runs deep, did you know that chimps exchange meat for sex? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7988169.stm), and partially because of this particular society's hang-ups about sex are so atrocious? As for Ayotollah's three points, this also flies, I think:(sorry, I was going to go further there, then decided not to, but failed to delete this fragment, which is meaningless on its own, hence the edit)

It seems we have no justifiably generalisable data or means of assessing the evidential power of the data that we do have. We have shocking testimony from one group of people, rather contradictory testimony from another group of people (who claim to be by and large alright with being sex-workers), no way of getting reliable information about the veracity or size of either group... in actual fact, what are we on about? I mean apart from the fact that I am an incorrigible wanker?

I'll think some more, and share the results. Beware.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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

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

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

[Dildo Argentino]

Why are there so many people for who have no problem with personal liberties overriding someone's right to dignity, but not okay with someone's right to dignity overriding anyone's personal liberties? Either way, somebody's losing a piece of their sovereignty (if you want to see it that way), so why is there such resistance to "erring" on the side of the world not being full of assholes?

Could you give an example each, please (one of personal liberties overriding right to dignity, and one the other way)?

[Dildo Argentino]

Holist, may I ask you a question?

Would you prefer that your daughter became a translator, or a prostitute? Can you explain your reasoning for your preference?

If I had to choose between those two, I would prefer her to become a translator. The reason for that preference is that prostitution has a far greater chance of damaging her and causing her problems in the long term, and it is also quite likely to cause certain types of damage that freelancing is very unlikely to cause.

But I would warn her, whichever profession she chose to dabble in, about the lure that "easy money" is, the dangers of self-exploitation and the long-term effects of alienated work - all of which are much less brutal and more subtle in translation than they are in prostitution, but are present and problematic, anyway. Which is why (given that her daddy is a freelance translator), I think she may well end up thinking this sort of thing (freelancing) may be a good idea, while I pretty confidently predict that at no point in her life will she think prostitution may be a good idea. So, despite the fact that prostitution is much more dangerous, the freelance angle (a pattern I am passing on right now - she already thinks that "working" is largely equivalent to sitting in front of a computer and being boring) is actually more of a worry for me.

[Dildo Argentino]

In Ireland, they're explicitly denying sex workers are part of an industry.

http://feministire.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/the-irish-trade-union-movement-throws-sex-workers-under-a-bus-2/

Are you implying that this may have something to do with the fact that so many Irish prostitutes seem to have such a gruesome time of it?

Or if you are not implying that, I would like to.

[Dildo Argentino]

Hey, you know what? Fuck you, too. Sugarpuff.

And here's the root of Holist's support of prostitution.  He's a misogynist.

Hell, I just figured it was the only way he could get any.

I do not support prostitution, I am not a mysogynist and, thankfully, there is another way I can get some. 

[Dildo Argentino]

Holist, this may should seem ridiculously obvious to the point that it nearly goes without saying, but when you have primary providers (former prostitutes) speaking out against an industry they were in, they not only have no financial gain from doing so, but also the high probability of financial handicap. When you have current facilitating managers (madams/pimps) in that same industry refuting those who are speaking against it, they have a vested financial interest in the industry. One group has not only power, but also financial interest, and the other group has no power and no financial interest. An impartial investigator, therefore, has to consider those variables.

Well I beg to disagree. Distasteful as you may again find this comment, people actually do get paid for book contracts, especially if the book is sensational enough to be very successful, in which case being a former prostitute speaking out against an industry may actually end up being quite lucrative.

Also, if the picture that the survivors themselves paint (a sketch: a very small handful of terribly intimidated and damaged valiant professors of the "real real" about the sex industry who are being actively, manipulatively and secretly persecuted by those standing to make a profit from the sex industry from the one side and media standing to make a profit from sensationalising their stories from the other), then, to be honest, I don't see why the madams/pimps bother. Whatever else it takes (stomach, a great deal of it, I imagine), I am pretty sure that masquerading as sex-worker rights advocates while keeping up a full-time pimping business is actually a time-consuming, resource-intensive undertaking. The sex industry is massive, entrenched, global, these few dozen crybabies (not what I think about them! what these hypothetical pimps-pretending-to-be-activitists would see them as!) can't pose much of a threat? Especially as they are also denied their voice by the global media, who only see them as fodder for the thrills market.

[Dildo Argentino]

Well, if you actually read his post (I did, for the humor value), he goes on and on about how the pimps "seem reasonable".

Liar.

Which is a level of squick that puts him somewhere between Todd Akin and Babylon Horuv.

I agree it would be, except I didn't go on and on about how the pimps seem reasonable.

I said that one particular person, who is accused by the Survivors of being a madam pretending to be an ex sex-worker and the sex-workers' rights activist in order to discredit them, responded to the accusations with an article that I found convincingly argued and sane. I further mentioned that she's not alone. That's not "going on and on about how the pimps seem reasonable".