Pornography poll

[freethinker44]

I am only OK with a contract if there is a reasonable out. I dislike contracts in general, but I do see their usefulness. I imagine that quite a bit of resources are committed to filming a movie, and it's not like they don't realize they are agreeing to have sex on camera, so as long as the studio keeps their end of the deal and there is no unexpected situations that the actor has to deal with, such as a family emergency, then the contract should be valid and the studio should be able to sue the performer for breaking the contract.

Again, coerced sex is not rape. If it is, then my wife rapes me almost every time we have sex, because she always initiates it and nearly every time I would rather be doing something else and I'm just glad when it's over. Nothing against my wife, she is a great, beautiful person, I just don't like sex.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am only OK with a contract if there is a reasonable out. I dislike contracts in general, but I do see their usefulness. I imagine that quite a bit of resources are committed to filming a movie, and it's not like they don't realize they are agreeing to have sex on camera, so as long as the studio keeps their end of the deal and there is no unexpected situations that the actor has to deal with, such as a family emergency, then the contract should be valid and the studio should be able to sue the performer for breaking the contract.

Again, coerced sex is not rape. If it is, then my wife rapes me almost every time we have sex, because she always initiates it and nearly every time I would rather be doing something else and I'm just glad when it's over. Nothing against my wife, she is a great, beautiful person, I just don't like sex.

I'm surprised that you were stuck in a contract as an employee. As a contractor, you & the other party have great power to bind each other. But employees have a great deal of contractual independence under the law regarding resignation. Non-compete clauses can work, but it's very hard to sue an employee & collect in court. The problem I see is that some employees have an unholy relationship with their employer, & the oversight of a licensing board could improve that greatly to avoid problems in the first place, ie, a regulatory fix rather than an after the fact tort remedy.

 

[Alceste]

Speaking of contracts! I think the performer should always we able to break it if they are no longer comfortable doing something.

Yeah, safe words are pretty much standard practice in real world sexy play time. On the other hand, I can see the reasoning that an actor who doesn't want to fulfil all the conditions of the contract shouldn't expect to be paid the full amount.

Maybe a "buck per thrust" payment model would work. (Three bucks for the anus.) Lol. Bonus pay for "finishing" the guy. Double bonus for "finishing" yourself.

 

[Alceste]

I am only OK with a contract if there is a reasonable out. I dislike contracts in general, but I do see their usefulness. I imagine that quite a bit of resources are committed to filming a movie, and it's not like they don't realize they are agreeing to have sex on camera, so as long as the studio keeps their end of the deal and there is no unexpected situations that the actor has to deal with, such as a family emergency, then the contract should be valid and the studio should be able to sue the performer for breaking the contract.

Again, coerced sex is not rape. If it is, then my wife rapes me almost every time we have sex, because she always initiates it and nearly every time I would rather be doing something else and I'm just glad when it's over. Nothing against my wife, she is a great, beautiful person, I just don't like sex.

Internal bleeding is a frequent problem in porn. If she signs a contact to do anal and her anus tears, you think she should be sued for stopping the scene?

What if it hasn't torn yet, but feels like it might?

What if she's not worried it's going to tear, but the pain is too intense for her?

What if there's no physical pain but she has a flashback or panic attack or some other psychological condition that makes it emotionally painful to continue?

What if the actor she's paired with gives her a really bad vibe?

There are lots of reasons an actor might change his or her mind. The dangling threat of a lawsuit amounts to coercion, and to coerce an unwilling person to have sex is rape.

 

[freethinker44]

Internal bleeding is a frequent problem in porn. If she signs a contact to do anal and her anus tears, you think she should be sued for stopping the scene?

What if it hasn't torn yet, but feels like it might?

What if she's not worried it's going to treat, but the passion is too intense for her?

What if there's no physical pain but she has a flashback or panic attack or some other psychological condition that makes it emotionally painful to continue?

What if the actor she's paired with gives her a really bad vibe?

There are lots of reasons an actor might change his or her mind. The dangling threat of a lawsuit amounts to coercion, and to coerce an unwilling person to have sex is rape.

If you recall, I did say "reasonable out". Don't you think a torn anus during an anal scene would be a reasonable reason to stop a scene? I do. Good strawman attempt though.

As for the rest, if he or she has a mental or physical condition which prohibts them from performing, maybe they should think about a different career choice. I know the pay is hard to beat, but McDonalds and Walmart will hire just about anyone so in reality, no one is stuck doing porn. There is always a much less paying plan B.

And if they don't get along with the other actor? I actually read an interview with a porn star about this a couple days ago. They said getting to know their costars on a friendly level is really important. So I could see that being an excuse to stop the scene, but it seems like who they are performing with would be included in the contract. So if the studio changes performers last minute, that would be a reasonable exception, but if the actor knew before he or she signed the contract it seems unfair the studio should have to eat the cost of delayed or cancelled production because the actor doesn't want to do something they had every opportunity to opt out of. If I was making the rules I would even give them a time period before production where the contract is non-binding, that way if changes need to be made there is plenty of time to mitigate costs on both sides.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I'm sorry but I find it really creepy that you don't like sex and your wife still tries to have sex with you. When my partner doesn't want to have sex I'm like "ok cool"

 

[dust1n]

Right, basically what I said previously. They can only ban obscene material, not just pornography in general.

Generally, pornography doesn't meet the three qualifiers of legality; I would suggest be incredibly careful if you plan on paying hookers to have sex with you, and filming it as a defense from the law. I seriously doubt anyone is going to find much sympathy with that person.

 

[freethinker44]

Generally, pornography doesn't meet the three qualifiers of legality.

It's just the opposite actually. Almost everything meets the legal qualifiers. It's incredibly difficult to legally define something as obscene and almost all porn passes the test.

 

[dust1n]

The permit idea suggests something to me. It's interesting how the arguments against porn so resemble the arguments against gay marriage, prostitution, homosexuality, & polygamy:
- Claim horrible indirect consequences, ie, even if the parties immediately involved are in a voluntary relationship, & neither suffer nor cause direct harm to anyone.
- Make the vague & subjective claim that someone is "dehumanized", that marriage made less "sacred", or that the family is "destroyed".
- Fail to address practical solutions to the cited problems, eg, preventing injury & disease by legal regulation of working conditions, updating dower rights .
- Redefine terms to demonize them, eg, calling porn "prostitution".
- Paint an entire group in the most extreme way, eg, homos are child abusers, porn actors are helpless victims, homos want to convert straights.
- They see people not as individuals, but as a homogeneous group, & seek to regulate individuals in order to control the group to fit their social/religious/philosophical agenda.

That's true. Of course, let's be fair here... I find the arguments against porn equally interesting, and often resembling of prostitution.

- Ignore direct consequences of institutions at large, or in general, attempt to debase another's argument by pin pointing what their argument's similarities are to other arguments against other things that are completely different, but serve to paint the opposing side as prudish Victorian totalitarians; a well known fallacy.

- Make the vague & subjective claim that people freely enter the sex trade, often, even from the age of 18 or before.

- Often addresses how dysfunctional government is every possible chance allotted, but for some reason thinks regulation in the sex industry, of all things, is somehow immaculate at fixing the problems associated with the sex industry, in an occupation that is already undoubtedly more dangerous than other professions (not all, but plenty of them).

- Doesn't actually provide any solutions for any problems other than "legalize it & regulate it!" Which has always suspiciously seemed like a way to just ignore the problems.

- Complain the opposition doing something in a post in which has already done that same thing.

- They see not individual circumstances, but circumstance as a homogeneous entity, & seek to treat all of circumstance as if freedom was readily available to all people anyways, or made by all prostitutes or pornographers, and that internal desires don't often conflict (like, I don't want to be a prostitute, but I rather not starve to death), or that the interactions between two people exchanging money is somehow a contract in which all people equally and free engage in.




But, I'm just in here reading, so...

 

[dust1n]

It's just the opposite actually. Almost everything meets the legal qualifiers. It's incredibly difficult to legally define something as obscene and almost all porn passes the test.

Go ahead and try it without U.S.C. Section 18 2257 forms. The maximum penalty for that felony is only five years.

 

[freethinker44]

Go ahead and try it without U.S.C. Section 18 2257 forms. The maximum penalty for that felony is only five years.

Surely, this whole time you weren't simply trying to say that pornographers have to maintain proof of age for their performers? This has nothing to do with whether or not porn is legal in all or some states or whether it is deemed obscene.

 

[Alceste]

If you recall, I did say "reasonable out". Don't you think a torn anus during an anal scene would be a reasonable reason to stop a scene? I do. Good strawman attempt though.

As for the rest, if he or she has a mental or physical condition which prohibts them from performing, maybe they should think about a different career choice. I know the pay is hard to beat, but McDonalds and Walmart will hire just about anyone so in reality, no one is stuck doing porn. There is always a much less paying plan B.

And if they don't get along with the other actor? I actually read an interview with a porn star about this a couple days ago. They said getting to know their costars on a friendly level is really important. So I could see that being an excuse to stop the scene, but it seems like who they are performing with would be included in the contract. So if the studio changes performers last minute, that would be a reasonable exception, but if the actor knew before he or she signed the contract it seems unfair the studio should have to eat the cost of delayed or cancelled production because the actor doesn't want to do something they had every opportunity to opt out of. If I was making the rules I would even give them a time period before production where the contract is non-binding, that way if changes need to be made there is plenty of time to mitigate costs on both sides.

Regardless, the looming threat of a lawsuit or not being paid is coercion, and coercion is rape.

It's interesting that you assume the purpose of a contract should be to do away with the necessity for continuous consent, rather than to protect the rights of the actors. If l was drawing one up, it would explicitly state that any participant was free to stop at any time for any reason, and obligate the producer to pay them for their time up to that point.

Cuz otherwise you run the risk of rape.

Why do you assume the contract would be worded so that an actor or actress has no way out?

 

[dust1n]

Yeah, it's as simple as that.

18 USC § 2257 - Record keeping requirements | Title 18 - Crimes and Criminal Procedure | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

18 USC § 2257

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which— (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.
(b) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct— (1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
(2) ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
(3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation.

(c) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times.
(d) (1) No information or evidence obtained from records required to be created or maintained by this section shall, except as provided in this section, directly or indirectly, be used as evidence against any person with respect to any violation of law.
:snip irrelevant part:

(f) It shall be unlawful— (1) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to fail to create or maintain the records as required by subsections (a) and (c) or by any regulation promulgated under this section;
(2) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to make any false entry in or knowingly to fail to make an appropriate entry in, any record required by subsection (b) of this section or any regulation promulgated under this section;
(3) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies knowingly to fail to comply with the provisions of subsection (e) or any regulation promulgated pursuant to that subsection;
(4) for any person knowingly to sell or otherwise transfer, or offer for sale or transfer, any book, magazine, periodical, film, video, or other matter, produce in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce or which is intended for shipment in interstate or foreign commerce, which— (A) contains one or more visual depictions made after the effective date of this subsection of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(B) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
which does not have affixed thereto, in a manner prescribed as set forth in subsection (e)(1), a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept; and

(5) for any person to whom subsection (a) applies to refuse to permit the Attorney General or his or her designee to conduct an inspection under subsection (c).

(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section.
(h) In this section— (1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in clauses (i) through (v) of section 2256 (2)(A) of this title;
(2) the term “produces”— (A) means— (i) actually filming, videotaping, photographing, creating a picture, digital image, or digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being;
(ii) digitizing an image, of a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or, assembling, manufacturing, publishing, duplicating, reproducing, or reissuing a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution, that contains a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct; or
(iii) inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, [1] of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, sexually explicit conduct; and

(B) does not include activities that are limited to— (i) photo or film processing, including digitization of previously existing visual depictions, as part of a commercial enterprise, with no other commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, printing, and video duplication;
(ii) distribution;
(iii) any activity, other than those activities identified in subparagraph (A), that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers;
(iv) the provision of a telecommunications service, or of an Internet access service or Internet information location tool (as those terms are defined in section 231 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 231)); or
(v) the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication, except that deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230 (c)) shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content of the communication; and

(3) the term “performer” includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, sexually explicit conduct.

(i) Whoever violates this section shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both. Whoever violates this section after having been convicted of a violation punishable under this section shall be imprisoned for any period of years not more than 10 years but not less than 2 years, and fined in accordance with the provisions of this title, or both.

 

[dust1n]

Surely, this whole time you weren't simply trying to say that pornographers have to maintain proof of age for their performers? This has nothing to do with whether or not porn is legal in all or some states or whether it is deemed obscene.

And no, I wasn't, I was answering someone's questions regarding the legality of having sex with a prostitute and filming it.

 

[freethinker44]

Regardless, the looming threat of a lawsuit or not being paid is coercion, and coercion is rape.

It's interesting that you assume the purpose of a contract should be to do away with the necessity for continuous consent, rather than to protect the rights of the actors. If l was drawing one up, it would explicitly state that any participant was free to stop at any time for any reason, and obligate the producer to pay them for their time up to that point.

Cuz otherwise you run the risk of rape.

Why do you assume the contract would be worded so that an actor or actress has no way out?

What's the point of having a contract then? If the performer can break the contract at any time, for any reason and the producers have to pay for it and the costs of producing a video that isn't going to be made, who in their right mind would agree to those terms. I wouldn't. In fact I wouldn't hire people who insisted on a contract with those terms at all. An unconditional escape clause may cause producers to seek out people who are willing to work without a contract, and such people would be incredibly easy to take advantage of and we would be right back where we are now.

 

[Alceste]

What's the point of having a contract then? If the performer can break the contract at any time, for any reason and the producers have to pay for it and the costs of producing a video that isn't going to be made, who in their right mind would agree to those terms. I wouldn't. In fact I wouldn't hire people who insisted on a contract with those terms at all. An unconditional escape clause may cause producers to seek out people who are willing to work without a contract, and such people would be incredibly easy to take advantage of and we would be right back where we are now.

If the contract stipulates that the performers can stop at any time for any reason, it wouldn't be breaking the contract, now, would it?

Of course the point of a contract is always to unambiguously lay out the rights and responsibilities of both signatories.

Interesting you assume most porn producers are aspiring rapists. I don't see why they would take issue with such a contract. The images they've captured up to the point the actors withdraw consent still have commercial value. And all jobs I've had pay me for the amount of time I worked, even if I quit. It would be illegal for them not to.

Oh yeah, last thing, contracts of this nature should be required by law. So producers would not have the option of finding actors who will work without a contract.

 

[freethinker44]

Interesting you assume most porn producers are aspiring rapists. I don't see why they would take issue with such a contract. The images they've captured up to the point the actors withdraw consent still have commercial value. And all jobs I've had pay me for the anoint of time I worked, even if I quit. It would be illegal for them not to.

Definitely don't remember saying they are aspiring rapists. I just don't see why they would sign a completely one-sided contract against their interests.

And again, coercion is not rape.

Next thing you know you people will consider peeling vegetables rape.
[youtube]qqrXWSG4OGU[/youtube]
Carrot Peeling Contest On Girl - YouTube

 

[freethinker44]

And all jobs I've had pay me for the amount of time I worked, even if I quit. It would be illegal for them not to.

Porn pays per scene, so no sex, no pay.

 

[Alceste]

Definitely don't remember saying they are aspiring rapists. I just don't see why they would sign a completely one-sided contract against their interests.

And again, coercion is not rape.

Next thing you know you people will consider peeling vegetables rape.
[youtube]qqrXWSG4OGU[/youtube]
Carrot Peeling Contest On Girl - YouTube

Excuse me? Since when was coercion not rape?

 

[Alceste]

Porn pays per scene, so no sex, no pay.

There has to be sex happening for someone to decide they want to stop. If the producers retain ownership of the images, the actors should be paid.