Maybe porn really does more harm than good for men?

[espec10001]

I thought the wind whispers mary?

 

It whispers many things but only if you're listening

[Zed]

Considering what you described, that is insane and depressing.

 

 

Just to add to what you said. The sex slavery ring is a multi-billion dollar industry and there are lots of women that are being forced to do porn videos as well as prostitution just to keep up with the demand:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/sex-slaves/

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/flash_point/001moldova/background.html

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/flash_point/001moldova/interview.html

 

...vast percentage of women portrayed in your friendly local

internet porn, not to mention your slightly-less-local magazine shop, are in very similar situations to these 19 women. In fact, these women were most likely also forced to "pose" for porn shoots. When you paid good money for an object, you make the most out of your investment. Hell, some of you may very well have been masturbating to these specific women, sex slaves being raped, sodomized, and abused, just last week. And if someone brought up the fact that many "porn stars" are, in fact, trafficked human slaves, those folks may have said "No way; the stuff I look at is totally legit. These women do it of their own free will. It empowers them."

Any one of you who is a porn consumer could have very easily been masturbating to images of these womens' rapes. These women right here. How does that make you feel?

 

 

 

And its not just women. Due to stereotypes:

African Men sold into sex slavery

of the two men, one was forced to take part in pornography, while the other was sold for sex. Both men were in their 20s and forced to stay in Glasgow against their will, lured there by the promise of work.

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/04/13/African_Men_Sold_Into_Sex_Slavery_Found_in_Glasgow/

 

The point is there are a lot more women, children (and some men) in those videos who are unwilling participants that once conceived.

[A O]

Hard evidence about the reality of the industry and it's treatment of women was something that was requested by a few participants in this thread. When presented with hard evidence, these same participants do everything in their power to ignore, talk over or belittle the evidence presented.

Hard evidence is something that you request. And that's meaningless coming from a person who never provides any of their own.

 

SweetJasmine provided quotes from actual pornstars and their experiences and it was ignored.

Sorry, but this is meaningless too. Its meaningless because people can, and have provided the same from the other side but that means nothing but an opportunity by the likes of you to totally discredit their evidence also.

 

Taramere posted an extremely horrifying and disturbing account and it was belittled and demeaned.

Same deal here as the above. Who hasn't seen a documentary of an interview of those within porn waxing lyrical about their job and the industry in general. Who hasn't seen one, and how much has that changed anyone's opinion. Not many and no change in view also I bet.

 

I guess if one worthless women gets abused and treated with little regard, that it is a very small price to pay for ultimately having enjoyable masturbation material. That seems to overide any treatment, depicitions and stereotypes made of women through porn.

There's homeless folk lying on the streets everywhere. I doubt if anyone here will ever come to their aid, will assist to make their lives better for them. And that is because we all know that they are the architects of their own fate. The responsibility for what has befallen them, and what can be done to change that lies squarely on their shoulders. So, what makes people within the porn industry any different to you? The fact that most within it are women? The fact that you don't like sex, or men - what is it?

 

And even if a woman doesn't go through the experiences that either SweetJasmine or Taramere showcased, how many men truly believe deep in their hearts that porn is doing a big great favor for both women and men?

You want to know what will do everyone a big favour. Let me tell you. Personal Responsibility. You'll never get rid of porn. You'll never get rid of those who want to work in it. It won't ever happen. What you can do though, what should become the gospel for everyone on this board, is to preach the art of personal responsibility. We are the architects of our own happiness, of our own destinies. The power lies within - we all need to know this.

 

Feminists fought for equal rights, feminists fought for opportunity. Some of you here are actually fighting against this. You're preaching the belief that some women simply don't have the ability to make choices, to take advantage of opportunity, to be seen as the same as anyone else.

 

But no matter. The big deal here, as far as this line of porn questioning is concerned, is to get out of victim mode and get into empowerment mode because you sure as heck won't ever change one side of this debate! The best thing that anyone can do is empower people with enough self-belief that gives them the ability to make the best choices for them, regardless of where they are and what situation they find themselves in.

 

 

.

[A O]

If there is porn where the actors are treated well and not bullied into certain acts, and there is porn where actors are treated horribly and harmed, why would you choose to watch the latter and think "meh, her/his fault for agreeing to do the job"? (wack wack wack wack ahhhhh)

You wouldn't. And if it can be separated, and I'm sure some of it it can, then the choice is easy for many - I'm sure.

 

.

[AD1980]

I dont condone what some of these people in porn due at all but when a women who joins porn complains that its not great work environment its sort of like somebody joining a gang and amazed that hes in danger of getting hurt or killed.

 

Its porn nothing should shock you get the hell out of the indudtry and away from these scumbags if its that bad

[Bejita463]

"Jesus - there's a real consent issue here. This girl has nobody to help her.

 

Who's fault was that? If you are going to enter a situation where you may be vulnerable without taking any safety measures, you are putting yourself at risk. Why was she even there by herself in the first place?

 

 

Some career research might end up giving you this warning:

Predator's Logic

If you consider the predator's logic, since you are heterosexual, you are never going to have sex with him. Drugging you is one way they can get in your pants. So, dosing you is a very easy way (and the only tactic) he can use to get what he wants.

Plus, they likely think you are a stupid college guy. So, it is all fun to them. Something they can joke about behind your back (you being the stupid guy and all). Because you are stupid, it is OK to do whatever they want to you.

 

Guys Get Roofied by Other Men

Many straight guys have woken up on a strange sofa in an unfamiliar apartment to find their clothing has obviously been taken off and put back on. Sometimes their boxers are on backwards or missing, or just not on their body how they usually are.

Wait a second though. That is not talking about porn. That is a warning regarding a potential danger of male modeling.

 

So if I decided to try out modeling, went to some strange house alone, and accepted a drink without being cautious about what is IN it, something bad might happen to me. This is in a profession where the model may or may not even be expected to be nude at all, depending on the shoot.

 

Down with male modeling! Down with it, because this is clearly the norm rather than the exception, and my safety is not my own responsibility.

 

 

For clarification, just in case it isn't as obvious as I think it is; I don't believe that girl deserved that experience. I DO however, believe that her safety was her own responsibility. A responsibility she neglected if she stepped into a strange house with "nobody to help her." I doubt it is real common that models get drugged and raped, but that doesn't mean they should throw caution to the wind, does it?

 

As horrible as that story is, all it tells me is that there are scumbags out there (which I already knew), and that she should have been more responsible.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Bejita463

[silic0ntoad]

Actually ALL of the literature I have read in regards to porn/SA says this. It says that usually the porn starts off as a minor indulgence and then folks start going to more extreme kinds of porn (sometimes even child porn but I have no idea why one would switch from adults to kids, really weird) and/or it starts taking up longer and longer time because it is harder to get that "high."

 

In my own porn usage (back in the day) I can totally relate to this because when I started just about any naked form would have done it for me, then it graduated to better looking bodies, spending more time and at the very end, extreme bdsm porn, people in public etc. etc.

 

I posted on craiglist for a dominant man and gangbangs. (yes i am ashamed of this). You may not be vulnerable to those kinds of craziness, I suspect that it isn't uncommon, but certainly not a majority. I do know that for both me and my H that the porn/sex addiction was definitely progressive and to site some examples:

 

Out of the Shadows

In the Shadow of the Net

Facing the Shadow

Hope and Freedom for Sexual Addicts and Their Partners

Your Sexually Addicted Spouse

[COLOR=#004b91]Untangling the Web: Sex, Porn, and Fantasy Obsession in the Internet Age [/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004b91][/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004b91]I actually checked and all of the above actually back up exactly what you said "doesn't happen" with porn addiction.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004b91][/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004b91]Sorry dude, it does and it sucks.[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004b91][/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004b91]I also know that by posting this I am opening myself up to a lot of attacks I.e." you don't post up ads on craigslist because of porn, you post them up because you are a skank." blah blah blah[/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004b91][/COLOR]

[COLOR=#004b91]The ads made me realize that obviously I had become a pretty screwed-up person, even though it took me another year to realize that and now I am in recovery, so save it. I chose to work on my issues and now I am sharing them to correct a misconception.[/COLOR]

 

I'll find the article I posted. If you had a true understanding of the subject you wouldn't compare pornography "addiction" to "cocaine or hard drug addiction."

 

The article I posted specifically states modern medicine and sociological studies discredit pornography addiction, and state that it isn't an addiction at all, rather an IMPULSE. The ease of use, etc, all make it impulsive to use rather then addictive to the point that you cannot function on a daily basis without it (Crack, cocaine, heroin addiction.)

 

Look, call it what you will, and post up these articles if you will (Which, as I can see aren't clarified by anyone specific in the field of modern medicine. Pornography hasn't been specifically tied to any addicition, at all. SEX ADDICTS do exist, but there are no PORN addicts. Those articles lack credit because the article I posted specifically has agreeances on both sides of the spectrum that they cannot classify porn use as an addiction.

 

And save what? You're on here posting clearly unfounded, bullsh*t theories, and make comparisons that are clearly biased in favor of your bible belt personal war. This is ridiculous.

 

None of the people on the other side of this argument have even considered what they have said, without reprocussions. And you're going to sit here and justify it?

 

I'm sorry, but if you equate porn "addiction" (An unfounded term) to "hard drug addiction" then you don't deserve the right to even be considered in these arguments.

 

Porn use doesn't destroy your body. Porn use doesn't gobble up thousands of dollars in rehabillitation. Porn use doesn't lead to performing sexual favors to scumbag lowlifes on the streets just to scrape enough cash together for the next high. Porn use doesn't make you late for work. Porn use doesn't push your body and mind to the limit, have a withdrawal, or cause massive amounts of destruction throughout the entirety of your family. It doesn't cause you to sell your car so you can afford more lines. It doesn't cause late night forays that end in fist fights over drug use.

 

I love it though; JS in particular, you ignore my pleas for actual evidence, and then when it's posted, it doesn't come from you, but from Tigers. While I respect that she has had her own ordeals, I find it completely preposterous to even consider that this addiction (Hard drugs) is compared to an impulse (porn use) and misconstrued as another addiction (sex addiction). The evidence I've provided has clearly, precisely, and accurately shown that they can't classify it as an addiction, yet you insist on making the correlation.

 

Un. F*cking. Believable.

[sweetjasmine]

Please respond to this, sweetjasmine.

 

I skipped it the first time around because it's totally irrelevant.

 

I originally brought up the crappy conditions of the porn industry work environment because another poster claimed that women do porn because it's FUN and they LOVE THE ATTENTION. You would have a point if I claimed that 10 year olds work in sweatshops for a quarter a day because they think it's fun.

 

But if you're really curious, yes, I try to buy fair trade whenever I can and I avoid stores like WalMart, but no matter how hard I try, I'm absolutely certain I've bought products which were made by exploited workers, whether they're children or adults or illegal immigrants in the US making below minimum wage because most companies don't have honest labels on their products. "Made in USA" hardly ever means actually made in the US. I can't even buy local produce at the store without interacting with illegal immigrants making $3/hr. picking produce and putting it on the shelves.

 

The thing is that when I buy a bell pepper from the store that was picked by an illegal immigrant or a pair of jeans that was put together by a 10 year old in the Third World, I'm not seeking out a video of the actual act of exploitation, getting sexually aroused by it, and fapping to it. In the case of watching a porn star who was heavily pressured into doing that double-penetration she didn't want to do, for 8 hours straight, you're watching someone being forced to do something and getting an orgasm out of it.

 

And I also don't know why you brought it up because I'm all for universal labor laws that would prevent that kind of exploitation, just like I'm all for mandatory condom use in porn and government intervention in the industry for the sake of public health and worker safety. I've been ranting about the negative effects of outsourcing, free trade, NAFTA, and WTO for a very long time.

[sweetjasmine]

So basically your risk is probably not much worse than doing the same with with random partners out in the real world, where there is NO requirement for tests at all, nor a requirement for condoms.

 

I don't see how that's relevant to the work conditions porn actors deal with. Most average people don't have unprotected sex with dozens of strangers every month.

 

I've seen plenty of porn WITH condoms as well.

 

Which is a great thing, except according to what I've found, only one studio requires it.

 

The adult entertainment industry knows the self-regulation is important to keep the government out of its affairs

 

They've had two HIV break-outs in the past ten years. And California OSHA is being sued, so the state is looking into regulating the industry. SO I don't think they've been doing a very good job self-regulating.

 

and AIM offers one more not so subtle bit of advice to the studios on its Web page that "it is hereby beneficial to the liability of the companies to keep records of bills of health regarding each talent member and their partners for each day they are employed.""

 

And the director of AIM encourages condom use but says she knows that studios won't ever require it.

 

Why ask a question where the answer is the same for you, and most women, as it would be for most men. In other words, you knew what the answer would be! Why ask a question unless it wasn't a question at all, but instead, a thinly veiled rant dressed up as a question!

 

Because people made the argument that it's just another paying job and that they wouldn't mind and would be cool with it because it's her choice. That doesn't sound like their answer would be, "I wouldn't want my gf doing that."

 

The starting point is the same for this industry as any industry. You choose to work in a particular field, knowing full well the hazards, if any, involved. The type of hazard, as far as discussion purposes are concerned, is immaterial unless its your job to monitor a range of work places. And if it is, then we'd all expect to see a lot more workplace-wide information in order to give porn its proper context.

 

The problem is that industries are regulated by the federal and state governments and are supposed to minimize risks to workers. That's not what the porn industry is doing.

 

A nurse can be fully aware of the fact that she might catch something by pricking her finger on a contaminated needle, but that wouldn't excuse a hospital from not taking the necessary precautions to make that occurrence less likely.

 

We're not missing the point. You just keep trying to move the goalposts in order to make a point! The simple fact of the matter is that this whole side issue falls squarely under the banner of personal responsibility. An aspect to which, some of you seem to want to brush aside in an effort to ramp up the victim verse villain dynamic. We're not buying it.

 

Personal responsibility doesn't excuse poor treatment or unsafe work environments.

It's a construction worker's responsibility to be safe on the job, and he chose to do it. That doesn't mean that his employer is free to do whatever he wants and disregard his workers' safety. That doesn't mean that his employer is free to say, "Eh, don't wear your hard-hat if you don't want to." If he did that, he'd get his pants sued off the second someone got injured if he didn't get caught for violating OSHA standards in the first place.

 

I read this article the other day about an escort who was raped at gunpoint by a TSA agent. He used his government-issued handgun. Is it all of a sudden not rape because she knew the dangers of working as an escort? Is it all of a sudden okay or acceptable? Is it less bad than if it had happened to that guy's date and not a hired escort? When you read about something like that, do you shrug your shoulders and say, "Oh well, she should've known better"?

 

I dont condone what some of these people in porn due at all but when a women who joins porn complains that its not great work environment its sort of like somebody joining a gang and amazed that hes in danger of getting hurt or killed.

 

Yeah, because an ILLEGAL GANG is just like a LEGAL, LEGITIMATE BUSINESS.

 

So if I decided to try out modeling, went to some strange house alone, and accepted a drink without being cautious about what is IN it, something bad might happen to me. This is in a profession where the model may or may not even be expected to be nude at all, depending on the shoot.

 

Then it's clearly all your fault and no one should ever have any sympathy for you. Also we should take video of it, post it online, and fap to it.

 

For clarification, just in case it isn't as obvious as I think it is; I don't believe that girl deserved that experience. I DO however, believe that her safety was her own responsibility. A responsibility she neglected if she stepped into a strange house with "nobody to help her." I doubt it is real common that models get drugged and raped, but that doesn't mean they should throw caution to the wind, does it?

 

As horrible as that story is, all it tells me is that there are scumbags out there (which I already knew), and that she should have been more responsible.

 

People willingly put themselves into stupid situations on a regular basis, and they end up getting hurt or taken advantage of. That doesn't make what happened to them any less wrong.

 

If your sister stepped into a strange house and got drugged and raped, would you lecture her about personal responsibility and how she's mostly to blame for what happened to her?

[Bejita463]

Then it's clearly all your fault and no one should ever have any sympathy for you. Also we should take video of it, post it online, and fap to it.

 

You're right. I have absolutely no responsibility at all. It is ALL those bad bad men. Also, those people buying that magazine, or whatever medium the models were supposedly being hired for. After all, if that medium did not exist, that model would not have been there attempting to model for it for what happened to have even been possible.

 

Yes. Everyone else BUT him. He had absolutely no involvement in his own safety at all. None.

 

 

 

People willingly put themselves into stupid situations on a regular basis, and they end up getting hurt or taken advantage of. That doesn't make what happened to them any less wrong.

Agreed, but that doesn't make it the fault of people involved in the situation on the distant end. You don't know crap about the fashion models in that magazine on your desk (if you have one, just an example), but by using your logic, YOU are partially responsible for it if something DID happen to them, and THEY are not.

 

If your sister stepped into a strange house and got drugged and raped, would you lecture her about personal responsibility and how she's mostly to blame for what happened to her?

My sister takes responsibility for her own actions and safety, so that would not happen. Edited May 7, 2010 by Bejita463

[sweetjasmine]

Yes. Everyone else BUT him. He had absolutely no involvement in his own safety at all. None.

 

I'm not arguing that at all.

 

Agreed, but that doesn't make it the fault of people involved in the situation on the distant end.

 

I'm blaming the people actually taking advantage more than I'm blaming the "people involved on the distant end." The "bad guys" (which include women) are the producers, execs, and agents taking advantage of actors. I'm just pointing out that this is what people are watching and paying for. And getting off to. That doesn't mean the viewer is totally responsible for what's going on, but they are helping to support it by consuming the product and not even thinking about what goes into making that product.

 

Realistically, though, my concern is awareness. People seriously buy into the fantasy that the actors are all having a great time and just really, really, really, really love sex when in most cases, the reality of it is much uglier.

 

My sister takes responsibility for her own actions and safety, so that would not happen.

 

Nice dodge. I'll rephrase: if you by some slim chance happened to be close to someone so irresponsible and stupid, would you lecture them on personal responsibility and tell them that they're mostly to blame for what happened to them? Would you tell a sexual assault victim that she shouldn't have let that guy who she only went out with on two dates into her apartment?

[A O]

The problem is that industries are regulated by the federal and state governments and are supposed to minimize risks to workers. That's not what the porn industry is doing.

So the porn industry falls outside federal and state government regulations. Interesting. Well there's something that can be worked on then.

 

A nurse can be fully aware of the fact that she might catch something by pricking her finger on a contaminated needle, but that wouldn't excuse a hospital from not taking the necessary precautions to make that occurrence less likely.

Its all about choice. Most of us make choices based on not only the job itself, but the people we work with and whom we work for. We are given an understanding of what's ahead of us. We choose based on this, the consequences that befall us thereafter, are on us.

 

Personal responsibility doesn't excuse poor treatment or unsafe work environments.

Indeed. But, it does equip you to better handle any given situation to your own satisfaction. To not have it makes one a reactor, a potential victim, a person that forever blames anyone or anything else for what happens to them. That is not a person that anyone needs to be.

 

I read this article the other day about an escort who was raped at gunpoint by a TSA agent. He used his government-issued handgun. Is it all of a sudden not rape because she knew the dangers of working as an escort?

Escorts understand the risks involved in their line of work and yet they still get involved or carry on. The rapist, or anyone that brandishes a weapon around for no good reason, they all understand what they're doing also and the consequences that will befall them for the choice(s) they've made also.

 

We all make choices, there are consequences, some good, some not so good, to everything we choose to do. Adults are possessed with the ability to foresee what lays ahead with each choice we make. Most of us, at many points in time, will simply ignore this. Many times, this won't matter, sometimes it will. The bottom line though is that its all still our choice to make and our joy or burden to bear.

 

 

.

[Bejita463]

I'm blaming the people actually taking advantage more than I'm blaming the "people involved on the distant end." The "bad guys" (which include women) are the producers, execs, and agents taking advantage of actors. I'm just pointing out that this is what people are watching and paying for. And getting off to. That doesn't mean the viewer is totally responsible for what's going on, but they are helping to support it by consuming the product and not even thinking about what goes into making that product.

 

Is there a significant difference between this industry and any other where equally sleazy things happen?

 

Realistically, though, my concern is awareness. People seriously buy into the fantasy that the actors are all having a great time and just really, really, really, really love sex when in most cases, the reality of it is much uglier.

That's their choice. I don't see how it is anyone's business what is or is not morally acceptable or "right" for those who choose to do porn. Earlier when a bunch of porn star quotes were listed about their negative experiences, I didn't see one mention of AK47s being pointed at them. I didn't see any mention of the kidnapping and handcuffs that brought them there in the first place.

 

I've had some pretty jacked up things happen to me in my field too, and I don't blame people for using computers, even though I would not have been in those jobs in the first place had computers not existed for me to choose to make a career out of fixing them.

 

Know what I do not do either? Any number of idiot things that could permanently injure me when I do any number of job related things. Why? Because I take my own safety seriously. If I were negligent in the same ways, I could easily have lost limbs by now. My protective equipment has already saved me from such.

 

Now, who's fault would it have been had I not been wearing that protective equipment? Mine, or the person who asked me to perform the task, or the person who that task benefited? (Edit: Before it is even said, I have had people try to force me to work without that equipment, and I refused. Had I not, I'd not have all of my body parts intact today.)

 

 

Nice dodge.

It wasn't a dodge.

 

I'll rephrase: if you by some slim chance happened to be close to someone so irresponsible and stupid, would you lecture them on personal responsibility and tell them that they're mostly to blame for what happened to them? Would you tell a sexual assault victim that she shouldn't have let that guy who she only went out with on two dates into her apartment?

It is highly unlikely that I would say that, as it would offer nothing productive to the situation. Especially since that lesson was already provided, no?

 

That does not alter the fact that if I did choose to be a douche-canoe and offer that advice that it would be true.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Bejita463

[Woggle]

I dont condone what some of these people in porn due at all but when a women who joins porn complains that its not great work environment its sort of like somebody joining a gang and amazed that hes in danger of getting hurt or killed.

 

Its porn nothing should shock you get the hell out of the indudtry and away from these scumbags if its that bad

 

Exactly. I admit that it is not an enviroment that many women would enjoy but then they don't have to get into it. It's like a vegan working at a slaughterhouse.

[Woggle]

Also I have not heard of this Max Hardcore guy until I came on this board. The majority of men who view porn probably have not even heard of him but I will ask my friends. I don't enjoy anything that shows women being abused but I see nothing wrong with looking at a nude picture.

[dreamingoftigers]

Also I have not heard of this Max Hardcore guy until I came on this board. The majority of men who view porn probably have not even heard of him but I will ask my friends. I don't enjoy anything that shows women being abused but I see nothing wrong with looking at a nude picture.

 

I think a lot of people aren't familiar with who produces the porn. They are far more likely to know who is in it etc, if that.

[Taramere]

Who's fault was that? If you are going to enter a situation where you may be vulnerable without taking any safety measures, you are putting yourself at risk. Why was she even there by herself in the first place?

 

When I say nobody was there for her, I don't mean she was there by herself. She went along with her agent, but unbeknown to her he was employing a strategy with her. Exposing her to one of the worst elements in the industry as a method of weakening her resistance to extreme porn generally. He revealed this to the documentary crew, and obviously regarded himself as a pretty savvy operator. I think she trusted him because she was gullible and not tremendously bright.

 

Also, the documentary crew were there obviously. Although it wasn't their role to protect her, she probably felt some sense that nothing really bad could happen to her while they were around. It's not like some wildlife documentary where the crew film the lions taking down the lame wildebeest and don't step in to help because "nature is just taking its course."

 

Though I do wonder, when I read some posts, if there are people out there who would take exactly that approach and carry on filming. "It's her problem....her responsibility....victim complex....Survival of the Fittest, dude."

 

 

 

 

So if I decided to try out modeling, went to some strange house alone, and accepted a drink without being cautious about what is IN it, something bad might happen to me. This is in a profession where the model may or may not even be expected to be nude at all, depending on the shoot.

 

Down with male modeling! Down with it, because this is clearly the norm rather than the exception, and my safety is not my own responsibility......As horrible as that story is, all it tells me is that there are scumbags out there (which I already knew), and that she should have been more responsible.

 

The entertainment industry generally is known for using people up and spitting them out quite mercilessly. The porn industry does it with concentrated levels of brutality, so I agree that it should come as a surprise to nobody that it attracts scum like Max Hardcore.

 

What would "being more responsible" look like? Should an actress ensure she's accompanied to shoots with friends or bodyguards? Is that permissible or realistic? I've got a feeling that if we analysed this to the nth degree we would probably end up agreeing that "being more responsible" would equate with "not working in the porn industry at all." If so, what can that be other than a pretty damning indictment of the porn industry?

[A O]

What would "being more responsible" look like?

Being more responsible or personal responsibility as I call it is all about self-belief and accountability and through this, we tend to make better decisions for ourselves, if not others too.

 

I've got a feeling that if we analysed this to the nth degree we would probably end up agreeing that "being more responsible" would equate with "not working in the porn industry at all." If so, what can that be other than a pretty damning indictment of the porn industry?

There's a lot of jobs that one can arguably damn to high heaven (the blatant corruption and sexism within police forces down my way in the 70's and 80's for example). Now, we can moan n groan about them or we can do something about it, but we're not going to get rid of them. Porn is little different to any other job. It can be, should be, and if not already is, I'm sure will be, as heavily regulated as most other professions. Having to fight off the moral minority I'm sure doesn't help matters much, especially when the name of their game is to destroy the industry rather than help clean it up some. But I say again, its not going to go away. And like anything with stick-ability - regulation and education (empowerment) is the most productive course of action here, not damnation.

 

 

.

[Bejita463]

When I say nobody was there for her, I don't mean she was there by herself.

 

Uh. If no one was there FOR her, she was there by herself.

 

She went along with her agent, but unbeknown to her he was employing a strategy with her. Exposing her to one of the worst elements in the industry as a method of weakening her resistance to extreme porn generally.

That is quite sleazy, but your agent is an insufficient "precaution" if you could even call him one at all. He was not there for her.

 

How well did she even know this guy? Not very well, I'd wager.

 

He revealed this to the documentary crew, and obviously regarded himself as a pretty savvy operator. I think she trusted him because she was gullible and not tremendously bright.

Most unfortunate, but I don't see the relevance it has on the point I was trying to make.

 

Also, the documentary crew were there obviously. Although it wasn't their role to protect her, she probably felt some sense that nothing really bad could happen to her while they were around. It's not like some wildlife documentary where the crew film the lions taking down the lame wildebeest and don't step in to help because "nature is just taking its course."

That's fair, but they weren't there for her either. I could understand that mindset, but that is still failing to take reasonable precautions to ensure one's own safety. When your job requires you to place yourself in a vulnerable position, I cannot fit in my head why one would fail to bring someone along who has a vested interest in your safety.

 

Though I do wonder, when I read some posts, if there are people out there who would take exactly that approach and carry on filming. "It's her problem....her responsibility....victim complex....Survival of the Fittest, dude."

Attack the argument, not the person. Nowhere did I say I condoned what happened.

 

The entertainment industry generally is known for using people up and spitting them out quite mercilessly.

If the entertainment industry were so horrible, no one would remain in it. I don't doubt it can be competitive and harsh at times, but what exactly are we using to measure merciless? Tabloid harassment, or... what?

 

The porn industry does it with concentrated levels of brutality, so I agree that it should come as a surprise to nobody that it attracts scum like Max Hardcore.

What are you using to define "brutality"?

 

It doesn't surprise me that sleazes enter into any job where they'll get to see whatever gender they are physically attracted to nude. Those people will abuse the position, because that is likely what they entered it for. Are they the exception, or the norm? If they were the norm, I'd think there would be way more stories like this, and way fewer porn stars that do more than a single shoot.

 

Whether exception or norm, taking responsibility for ensuring your own safety is intelligent.

 

What would "being more responsible" look like? Should an actress ensure she's accompanied to shoots with friends or bodyguards? Is that permissible or realistic? I've got a feeling that if we analysed this to the nth degree we would probably end up agreeing that "being more responsible" would equate with "not working in the porn industry at all." If so, what can that be other than a pretty damning indictment of the porn industry?

It would look like having someone, ANYONE, there with a vested interest in the lady's safety, considering the vulnerable and easily taken advantage of situation she'll be in. If I were to ever go to a photo shoot as a model, I can guarantee you I wouldn't be going to it alone and I have plenty of strength and ability to defend myself to begin with, and I'd be in a much less vulnerable setting to begin with.

 

If you feel you can just wander onto any job at all and things are just going to be alright, let alone one where you're going to end up nude, a bad experience is in your future.

[Taramere]

Uh. If no one was there FOR her, she was there by herself.

 

That is quite sleazy, but your agent is an insufficient "precaution" if you could even call him one at all. He was not there for her.

 

How well did she even know this guy? Not very well, I'd wager.

 

Most unfortunate, but I don't see the relevance it has on the point I was trying to make.

 

I understand your point. Your competent, intelligent and well connected hypothetical porn star would take along her trusted protector and be able to stand up to the Max Hardcores of this world and kick their asses when they got out of line...if only she weren't too busy with her high powered executive position to spend time working as a porn actress.

 

You're criticising these girls for not being the sharpest tools in the box. Of course they're not. That's why their options are limited, and the porn industry does nothing if not exploit people with limited options. Which is why I drew the analogy with the wildlife documentary where the lame wildebeest gets pulled down by the lions.

 

We, human beings, like to imagine we're higher up than that. That we don't watch idly, or carry on filming, as the lame get pulled down by the ruthless. Except that in many cases, we do exactly that. We just feel a need to rationalise our lack of concern for the lame, in a way that animals don't. Which is where the Blaming The Victim mentality comes in.

 

Attack the argument, not the person. Nowhere did I say I condoned what happened.

 

I would say that you come very close to it. The argument you're relying on is the same one used in rape cases of yesteryear...where the woman was considered irresponsible for (for example) wearing a short skirt, and where the upshot of her being perceived as irresponsible was that her attacker either got a lighter sentence, or acquitted. You're arguing that what happened to this girl was her own fault because she didn't take sufficient precautions. She had her agent with her. He turned out to be a sleaze..and in your book, she's responsible for this. She had a documentary crew with her. Not good enough. According to you, she should have taken along a trusted friend.

 

Would this be that friend we all have, who knows the porn industry inside out and is fit for whoever and whatever they encounter there? If you were nude modelling, you would be able apparently to conjure up this streetwise friend who could defend you against any bogeymen you might encounter. Lucky you.

 

What if people don't have those connections? They shouldn't work in the porn industry, right? What if it's the only work they can get, and they have kids to support (as this girl did)? Well, I'm guessing you'd feel she just wasn't trying hard enough to find alternative work. Whatever the circumstances, and whatever the precautions a porn actress takes, I think you are going to fall down on the side of "if she gets abused, it's her own fault."

 

So yes...I would say that you come very close to condoning the abuse of those actresses.

 

If the entertainment industry were so horrible, no one would remain in it. I don't doubt it can be competitive and harsh at times, but what exactly are we using to measure merciless? Tabloid harassment, or... what?

 

What are you using to define "brutality"?

 

Odd question. I'm using my knowledge of what the word means? Ruthless. Applying the law of the jungle. Being devoid of concern or empathy for the weak and the lame.

 

It doesn't surprise me that sleazes enter into any job where they'll get to see whatever gender they are physically attracted to nude. Those people will abuse the position, because that is likely what they entered it for. Are they the exception, or the norm? If they were the norm, I'd think there would be way more stories like this, and way fewer porn stars that do more than a single shoot.

 

I would think that anybody working in porn for any period of time has to get desensitised to that kind of treatment. Which is precisely why her agent took Felicity to see Max Hardcore early on. The point was, as he conveyed to the documentary team, to desensitise her. It worked. The rest of the documentary showed her participating in the kind of porn she'd previously said no to (though subsequently, once she was home, she contacted the team to say that she was giving up porn).

 

Have you read interviews with porn stars? By and large, the relate their experiences in a tough, streetwise discourse. Being able to take abuse within the industry, and carry on working regardless, is like a badge of honour for some. The sign of a good egg. A real trooper. That applies to other industries, of course, and not just porn.

 

 

It would look like having someone, ANYONE, there with a vested interest in the lady's safety, considering the vulnerable and easily taken advantage of situation she'll be in. If I were to ever go to a photo shoot as a model, I can guarantee you I wouldn't be going to it alone and I have plenty of strength and ability to defend myself to begin with, and I'd be in a much less vulnerable setting to begin with.

 

Well of course, you'd be taking along your savvy friend who is able to protect you in all situations. Once he'd got changed in his telephone box.

 

If you feel you can just wander onto any job at all and things are just going to be alright, let alone one where you're going to end up nude, a bad experience is in your future.

 

I agree. I agree that in particular, anybody working in the sex industry is very likely to find themselves getting treated generally like a piece of crap. Rates of drug abuse, alcohol abuse and suicide are very high amongst women in that industry. Which is why I take a dim view of an it, and why I would strongly urge any woman to think very hard before getting involved in such an industry....and why I deride arguments about the ever increasing porn industry being a "harmless" and even healthy aspect of 21st Century living. I really don't like the notion of it getting to the point where porn is so prolific that just about every reasonably attractive woman is liable to do a stint in it at some point.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Taramere

[Bejita463]

I understand your point.

 

Do you?

 

I would say that you come very close to it.

And I stopped reading right here. If this is the conclusion you have drawn, I've either worded things poorly, or you've not even come close to understanding the point I was making.

 

You paint the victim as 100% helpless. Just because she was does not make what happened right, but the parallel you are trying to draw is similar to me hating the people who use the systems I support when I lose my foot because the handle on an industrial UPS breaks and falls on it.

 

It is after all, their fault I was carrying it by myself. Without steel toed boots on. They are villains for benefiting from the work that ended up injuring me due to my own negligence.

 

Also, pointing this out clearly means that the improper manufacture of that UPS (leading to that break) is being condoned, because you have to be entirely on my side or not at all. That's how logic works.

 

I'm not even reading the rest. If you are unable to remain civil, I've no interest in attempting to continue discussing this with you.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Bejita463

[Taramere]

the parallel you are trying to draw is similar to me hating the people who use the systems I support when I lose my foot because the handle on an industrial UPS breaks and falls on it.

 

It is after all, their fault I was carrying it by myself. Without steel toed boots on. They are villains for benefiting from the work that ended up injuring me due to my own negligence.

 

The handle of an industrial UPS breaking off is a sign of probable negligence on the part of an employer or manufacturer. You failing to wear steel toed boots is contributory negligence which will reduce any award you get...assuming your employer provided you with those steel toed boots, of course.

 

It's a poor analogy You're comparing an accident in the workplace, which would be a civil matter, with a sexual assault - which would be a criminal one.

 

Also, pointing this out clearly means that the improper manufacture of that UPS (leading to that break) is being condoned, because you have to be entirely on my side or not at all. That's how logic works.

 

In a situation like that, your employer will provide you with the necessary equipment you require to keep you safe (ie the steel toed boots). If they fail to do that, then they'll be held wholly liable if you raise an action against them alone. So once again, it's not a good analogy you're using here.

 

Duty of care. An employer has an extra duty of care towards their employee. The onus isn't on the employee to expect that their employer will be a sleazebag who doesn't take reasonable care of them...or even assaults them. Your argument seems to be that actors in the porn industry aren't entitled to benefit from the principle that an employer has a duty of care towards an employee. That if they get attacked or assaulted at work, it's their own fault for not taking sufficient precautions to protect themselves.

 

The underlying logic in your argument appears to be that when a person's job involves them taking their clothes off, they shed the legal rights most people enjoy in the workplace right along with those clothes. I can picture the pleadings. "The Pursuer should have known that her employer was a sleazebag. She had a duty to take reasonable care to protect herself from assault by her employer..."

Edited May 8, 2010 by Taramere

[Bejita463]

The handle of an industrial UPS breaking off is a sign of probable negligence on the part of an employer or manufacturer. You failing to wear steel toed boots is contributory negligence which will reduce any award you get...assuming your employer provided you with those steel toed boots, of course.

 

It's a poor analogy You're comparing an accident in the workplace, which would be a civil matter, with a sexual assault - which would be a criminal one.

 

 

 

In a situation like that, your employer will provide you with the necessary equipment you require to keep you safe (ie the steel toed boots). If they fail to do that, then they'll be held wholly liable. So once again, it's not a good analogy you're using here.

 

I was actually told to NOT wear the boots that had steel toe protection in them, and I was not provided them. I never had an UPS fall on my foot, but something tore a gash in those boots so badly the steel could be seen. I don't actually know what did it, which is why I just mentioned the UPS, because one of those could have done that damage. I was punished for having those boots on, and the proof used that I had them was the boot that had saved my foot.

 

And negligence was my point to begin with. Not everyone fails to look after their own safety. I should have had that protection provided for me. It wasn't. What could have happened to me would have been regrettable too, and not my fault either. It wouldn't have made me a 100% powerless victim though. That was my point. I perceived a kink in presented logic.

 

I have no problem trading views, and I even agree with some of yours, but any post that starts off with an attack is one I'm not going to read. We don't have to resort to that. This is a just friendly discussion to me, if it is an argument to you and I am bothering you, there are better ways to let me know than accusing me of condoning rape.

[Taramere]

I was actually told to NOT wear the boots that had steel toe protection in them, and I was not provided them. I never had an UPS fall on my foot, but something tore a gash in those boots so badly the steel could be seen. I don't actually know what did it, which is why I just mentioned the UPS, because one of those could have done that damage. I was punished for having those boots on, and the proof used that I had them was the boot that had saved my foot.

 

And negligence was my point to begin with. Not everyone fails to look after their own safety. I should have had that protection provided for me. It wasn't. What could have happened to me would have been regrettable too, and not my fault either. It wouldn't have made me a 100% powerless victim though. That was my point. I perceived a kink in presented logic.

 

I have no problem trading views, and I even agree with some of yours, but any post that starts off with an attack is one I'm not going to read. We don't have to resort to that. This is a just friendly discussion to me, if it is an argument to you and I am bothering you, there are better ways to let me know than accusing me of condoning rape.

 

Okay...I apologise for the suggestion that you were condoning rape. I appreciate why that would feel like a personal attack, but it's really more a case of me going off on a train of thought about what may or may not be regarded as mitigating circumstances in a criminal action.

 

OT...the situation with your foot. Did the employer not want you to wear the boot because they felt it would slow up productivity in some way? A friend of mine used to deal with offshore safety issues, and would often be at loggerheads with gaffers who wanted to bypass certain safety procedures to increase productivity (and their own bonuses).

 

Were you injured at all in the accident? If you hadn't been wearing those boots, you could prove that the employer told you not to and you lost your foot as a result of the accident...you'd be warmly welcomed in any law firm in the land, I'm sure. I can't see how there would be a possibility of contributory negligence on your part in that situation.

 

With porn...because the industry is expanding all the time, I think at some point society will have to recognise it as an industry like any other. The more it expands, the more it will be filled with workers who are just ordinary people..and I think as that starts to happen, people will develop more concern about what happens to those ordinary people in the course of their employment. I think of certain parts of South East Asia where the sex industry is the only feasible option for many women, workwise. 18th Century London when, despite the prevailing prudery, a huge percentage of the female inhabitants worked as prostitutes.

 

From the female perspective, this - the oldest profession - is the profession that women have made great strides in escaping over the past couple of hundred years. Now we have this colossal industry becoming an ever bigger employer of women. Its even got tame feminists and intellectuals who insist that this is an empowering choice for women. That it's all in the mind really. If a woman feels degraded when 20 men ejaculate and urinate on her, then she is degraded....but all it takes is a mental switch for that women to feel empowered by such a situation. Buy into the "in BDSM its the sub who has the most power" stuff.

 

It just seems ridiculous to me.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Taramere

[A O]

That's why their options are limited, and the porn industry does nothing if not exploit people with limited options.

The porn industry is hardly unique in this field. The less qualifications one has, the less they're likely to earn even though the work they secure, in all likelihood, is harder and more demanding than most. They're being exploited for their lack of qualifications and options thereof also.

 

We just feel a need to rationalise our lack of concern for the lame, in a way that animals don't. Which is where the Blaming The Victim mentality comes in.

Blaming the victim has a bigger, badder cousin called playing the victim. Funny how the supporters of the latter are very selective of their concern. The bum on the street, for all intents and purposes, the lame - are you going to help them? By your logic, you should. What is your rationalization if you don't verse what is your rationalization for helping those involved with porn?

 

The argument you're relying on is the same one used in rape cases of yesteryear...where the woman was considered irresponsible for (for example) wearing a short skirt, and where the upshot of her being perceived as irresponsible was that her attacker either got a lighter sentence, or acquitted. You're arguing that what happened to this girl was her own fault because she didn't take sufficient precautions.

And this is an argument that I support. Just like I'll cop it sweet if I got mugged late at night while being seen withdrawing cash from a money machine while on my own. The mugger deserves to get what they get if they get caught, but I sure heck didn't help matters any by withdrawing money in the circumstance that I did.

 

Whatever the circumstances, and whatever the precautions a porn actress takes, I think you are going to fall down on the side of "if she gets abused, it's her own fault."

If the abuse is unlawful or against regulations, then the abuser should be punished. If its not, then its up to each and everyone of us to decide how much of anything we'll take. The ultimate precaution being - removal from the toxic environment one has found themself in.

 

So yes...I would say that you come very close to condoning the abuse of those actresses.

Condoning would be allowing unlawful abuse to go unpunished. People are bad, there's not a lot we can do about these types, especially if they haven't broken any sort of rules. All we can do, and this is the easiest option of all, all we can do is try and empower the weak.

 

Have you read interviews with porn stars? By and large, the relate their experiences in a tough, streetwise discourse. Being able to take abuse within the industry, and carry on working regardless, is like a badge of honour for some.

I wonder how much money plays a part in their decision making though. Would they stick at it on minimum wage? Has that ever been mentioned? I'm guessing most wouldn't.

 

I agree. I agree that in particular, anybody working in the sex industry is very likely to find themselves getting treated generally like a piece of crap. Rates of drug abuse, alcohol abuse and suicide are very high amongst women in that industry. Which is why I take a dim view of an it, and why I would strongly urge any woman to think very hard before getting involved in such an industry

Its still another industry and like any other profession, its largely dependent on the those involved, or those who're interested in it, to set acceptable guidelines and workplace practices. Its not or shouldn't be an industry that's above regulation.

 

....and why I deride arguments about the ever increasing porn industry being a "harmless" and even healthy aspect of 21st Century living. I really don't like the notion of it getting to the point where porn is so prolific that just about every reasonably attractive woman is liable to do a stint in it at some point.

Its not harmless but it isn't going away either. What's the best course of action to something that's always going to be around....

 

 

.