Pornography poll

[freethinker44]

I see nothing wrong with porn.

Why did you vote it should be banned and exploits women?

 

[dgirl1986]

Certain types should be banned. Not all exploits women.

 

[obsidian]

I know pornography has been thoroughly discussed here, but I was thinking about something and I wanted to see how the numbers added up.

Basically the question is: Assuming banning porn would stop distribution and prevent access to it, do you think pornography should be banned? If so, is it because or partially because it exploits women?

Exploitation is a subgenre to porn, so anyone pro-porn would have an extremely hard time also saying production doesn't exploit women, teens, subs, exes...

Removing porn would do nothing positive. People are going to think and act in many sexual ways no matter what's "legal". Laws discourage, but don't prevent...otherwise the judicial system would be much smaller in function. Besides, claiming expoitation as a reason to ban underhandedly credits notions like clothing (or lack of) being an invitation for unsolicited action against women. Either decide people are responsible for their actions (auditioning, contracting, and appearing in a porn AND being able to comprehend "no") or that they are all uber impressionable and are responsible for nothing they do...

 

[freethinker44]

Exploitation is a subgenre to porn, so anyone pro-porn would have an extremely hard time also saying production doesn't exploit women, teens, subs, exes...

Well, the argument is that all work exploits some talent/skill/physical quality of their workers, so the question really should have been "why is pornographic exploitation different and worse than any other type of exploitation?". I know the question asked if you think porn exploits women but I don't think anyone who says it doesn't actually argued in this thread that it is exploitation free, just that the exploitation is, in a general sense, no worse than other labor exploitation.

Besides, claiming expoitation as a reason to ban underhandedly credits notions like clothing (or lack of) being an invitation for unsolicited action against women.

How so? I'm not aware of the connection between the two.

 

[Uberpod]

All the porn I see has nothing to do with women !?

 

[freethinker44]

All the porn I see has nothing to do with women !?

If you're talking about gay porn, it's not really comparable. It's like two completely different industries that do the same thing for different markets. I don't know why there is such a divide between the two, but there is.

 

[Skwim]

Well, the argument is that all work exploits some talent/skill/physical quality of their workers, so the question really should have been "why is pornographic exploitation different and worse than any other type of exploitation?". I know the question asked if you think porn exploits women but I don't think anyone who says it doesn't actually argued in this thread that it is exploitation free, just that the exploitation is, in a general sense, no worse than other labor exploitation.



How so? I'm not aware of the connection between the two.

My exact sentiments.

 

[obsidian]

Well, the argument is that all work exploits some talent/skill/physical quality of their workers, so the question really should have been "why is pornographic exploitation different and worse than any other type of exploitation?". I know the question asked if you think porn exploits women but I don't think anyone who says it doesn't actually argued in this thread that it is exploitation free, just that the exploitation is, in a general sense, no worse than other labor exploitation.

I don't think so. Do slimeball production teams go out and find girls hard on their luck? Maybe...not sure, but it seems like a distinct possiblity. But the companies in the forefront would be hard to make a case against since there is a tiered process of getting in front of the camera--meaning opportunities to back down. And attendance of casting calls, auditioning, signing a contract/waiver/agreement are hard to paint as a a method of force. **in short, it's consented exploitation.

How so? I'm not aware of the connection between the two.

If your reasoning for banning porn is because of it's exploitive nature, you'd have to ignore the process of committing to production. The choice to do the deed. Meaning that the performers are not responsible for any actions or choices leading up to the camera recording. Removing the choice makes the argument of exploitation easy. Just like removing the choice for an adult to make any other poor decision makes calling what they do different than what it is....their responsibility.

 

[freethinker44]

If your reasoning for banning porn is because of it's exploitive nature, you'd have to ignore the process of committing to production. The choice to do the deed. Meaning that the performers are not responsible for any actions or choices leading up to the camera recording. Removing the choice makes the argument of exploitation easy. Just like removing the choice for an adult to make any other poor decision makes calling what they do different than what it is....their responsibility.

I'm not trying to ban porn. In fact, the only problem I see with porn is that it is stigmatized by society. You probably haven't read through the thread but you would see that I completely support the porn industry.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Nope, should not be banned. Doesn't exploit women. From all the porn I have seen, the gals seem to be pretty much enjoying themselves.

 

[Manna]

I think porn can be bad but I don't know if banning it will do more good than bad. The negative consequence of having to censure things we don't agree with, taking away the right of free speech in way, is more deleterious than stopping people from watching pornography.

However, I do think the issue should be tackled. High taxation on pornography maybe?

 

[freethinker44]

I think porn can be bad but I don't know if banning it will do more good than bad. The negative consequence of having to censure things we don't agree with, taking away the right of free speech in way, is more deleterious than stopping people from watching pornography.

However, I do think the issue should be tackled. High taxation on pornography maybe?

What do you think is wrong with it that porn, as a profession is worse than any other profession, and how do you think high taxation would solve this problem?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I think porn can be bad but I don't know if banning it will do more good than bad. The negative consequence of having to censure things we don't agree with, taking away the right of free speech in way, is more deleterious than stopping people from watching pornography.

However, I do think the issue should be tackled. High taxation on pornography maybe?

No, don't tax it. It already typically costs $60-$100 a DVD!

 

[freethinker44]

No, don't tax it. It already typically costs $60-$100 a DVD!

Where do you buy porn? That's crazy expensive. Also, it's free online.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Where do you buy porn? That's crazy expensive. Also, it's free online.

Lol. That's the going price for a new porn DVD where I live. Newer releases usually cost around that much. You can usually get them cheaper online or there's always the bargain bin where you can load up on DVDs that are about $10-$20.

I'm not exactly sure why it costs so much. Probably because the studios know that their base of people who will buy the DVDs isn't that large, as compared to Hollywood films. Also, those stores rent them out for about $5, too, so it would cause it to take longer for them to balance the cost of production with sales.

 

[Me Myself]

What do you think is wrong with it that porn, as a profession is worse than any other profession, and how do you think high taxation would solve this problem?

Pretty much my question.

 

[roger1440]

Lol. That's the going price for a new porn DVD where I live. Newer releases usually cost around that much. You can usually get them cheaper online or there's always the bargain bin where you can load up on DVDs that are about $10-$20.

I'm not exactly sure why it costs so much. Probably because the studios know that their base of people who will buy the DVDs isn't that large, as compared to Hollywood films. Also, those stores rent them out for about $5, too, so it would cause it to take longer for them to balance the cost of production with sales.

I think it has more to do with the supply and demand. When the demand goes up (among other things), the price goes up. They would probably sell the DVDs for more if they could.

 

[Flankerl]

buying porn

You know from all the weird stuff i have seen on the internet this is by far the weirdest of it.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

I know pornography has been thoroughly discussed here, but I was thinking about something and I wanted to see how the numbers added up.

Basically the question is: Assuming banning porn would stop distribution and prevent access to it, do you think pornography should be banned? If so, is it because or partially because it exploits women?

Pornography does not exploit women (or men ) They made a conscious decision to go into porn, unless they've developed mind control methods that brainwash women into going into porn.

 

[Pine]

Well, we know how the men voted.