Pornography poll

[Alceste]

I dont have evidence to believe the guy who said was a vampire with crack based saliva until jesuschrist saved him is lying either.

That doesnt mean vampires exist.

Which specific claims do you believe are lies and why?

Don't be evasive. It's a very simple and direct question.

 

[Me Myself]

Which specific claims do you believe are lies and why?

Don't be evasive. It's a very simple and direct question.

You are confused, the quesiton is for you:

Which specific claims do you think are true and what is the evidence?

 

[Alceste]

You are confused, the quesiton is for you:

Which specific claims do you think are true and what is the evidence?

I believe her when she claims that, in her experience, most of the actresses she knows are abuse survivors, and that those who are not don't last long. I also have no reason to believe she is lying about anything else.

 

[Me Myself]

I believe her when she claims that, in her experience, most of the actresses she knows are abuse survivors, and that those who are not don't last long. I also have no reason to believe she is lying about anything else.

So you believe a complete stranger just because you dont know if she is lying.


I thought we were talking about evidence.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

What makes you think they are less protected?

And if the motivation was need then most female pornstars would retire fairly qickly, given their paychecks.

Actually, that sounds like an awesome way too se if their motivation was such.

Erm a lot of women leave the porn industry early. 10-30% leave after their first scene and at least 53% do 3 scenes
Deep Inside - A Study of 10,000 Porn Stars | Jon Millward - Blog

And kayden kross a porn star said the adverage time a woman spends in the porn industry is 6-18 months.

 

[Me Myself]

Erm a lot of women leave the porn industry early. 10-30% leave after their first scene and at least 53% do 3 scenes
Deep Inside - A Study of 10,000 Porn Stars | Jon Millward - Blog

And kayden kross a porn star said the adverage time a woman spends in the porn industry is 6-18 months.

Then it seems they get exactly what they want out of it, and get the alternative to earn a lot of money doing something they dont like for not a lot of time instead of earning barely enough doing someing they dont like for the rest of their lifes.

I wouldnt call that exploitation.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I dont have evidence to believe the guy who said was a vampire with crack based saliva until jesuschrist saved him is lying either.

That doesnt mean vampires exist.

You can't compare the two I already addressed this

 

[Me Myself]

You can't compare the two I already addressed this

I already did. You probably werent paying attention at the post you quoted.

 

[Alceste]

So you believe a complete stranger just because you dont know if she is lying.


I thought we were talking about evidence.

I do know she isn't lying. I'm pretty good at detecting lies. There are obvious cues. Body language, evasiveness, repetition or excessive detail, lack of eye contact, stiff or awkward articulation, fidgeting, etc. What reason do you have to think she is lying about anything?

 

[Me Myself]

I do know she isn't lying. I'm pretty good at detecting lies. There are obvious cues. Body language, evasiveness, repetition or excessive detail, lack of eye contact, stiff or awkward articulation, fidgeting, etc. What reason do you have to think she is lying about anything?

You cant know that. All of those are subjective measures.

In any cade, which parts of ur argument do you extract from what she says?

And even if she was being honest about what she thinks about the industry, there are more likely as many opinions about e industry as people involved in it.

 

[Alceste]

You cant know that. All of those are subjective measures.

In any cade, which parts of ur argument do you extract from what she says?

And even if she was being honest about what she thinks about the industry, there are more likely as many opinions about e industry as people involved in it.

Detecting lies is not difficult. Police officers and border guards are trained to do it. The tells l listed are not subjective. They are based on research into visible lying behavior.

My point is that porn is generally exploitative. That is substantiated by her testimony that most actresses are adult victims of childhood abuse, that she often sees new actresses being pressured to do things they would rather not do, and that certain (named) specific producers of hard-core stuff are excessively abusive to their actresses. Also, her admission that she makes most of her money escorting as opposed to filming scenes supports my opinion that there really isn't any reason to assume porn actresses in general are not also working prostitutes.

And let me preempt your inevitable complaint that I can't base all these opinions on one single video, I don't. I've read three novel-length memoirs written by women who have left the sex trade, numerous articles and studies on the subject of prostitution and sex work, human trafficking, child abuse and related issues. I've also read a large number of social services files of abused children. Those files follow kids through their entire young lives, and certain behaviors and character traits develop with depressing predictability. Lack of physical boundaries is one, promiscuity is another. A taste for or willingness to engage in abusive sexual role playing is yet another. In addition to all of this, I also have a very close friend who is an independent escort who also does online video sex chat (which is porn, unless you have a fancy definition for porn as well as a fancy definition for prostitution) and is very open about her experience.

In short, my opinion is actually based on something. Yours, as you acknowledged earlier in the thread, is based on nothing at all. Unless you think interviewing a handful of porn stars in private in their own doctor's office for cash and randomly accosting strangers in airports to ask highly personal questions about sexuality and abuse for nothing is a good way to conduct a study.

 

[dust1n]

From what I understand, you can film anywhere, California is just the only state that requires permits. Porn is constitutionally protected, so if it's legal to film in a state, it is legal to film porn in a state. California is just the only state where it is explicitly legal. States can only ban material that is obscene, and it's incredibly difficult to get something labeled as obscene.

In the United States, the Supreme Court held in 1969 that State laws making mere private possession of obscene material a crime are invalid.[35] Further attempts were made in the 1970s in the United States to close down the pornography industry, this time by prosecuting those in the industry on prostitution charges. The prosecution started in the courts in California in the case of People v. Freeman. The California Supreme Court acquitted Freeman and distinguished between someone who takes part in a sexual relationship for money (prostitution) versus someone whose role is merely portraying a sexual relationship on-screen as part of their acting performance. The State did not appeal to the United States Supreme Court making the decision binding in California, where most pornographic films are made today.[22][36]

At present, no other state in the United States has either implemented or accepted this legal distinction between commercial pornography performers versus prostitutes as shown in the Florida case where sex film maker Clinton Raymond McCowen, aka "Ray Guhn", was indicted on charges of "soliciting and engaging in prostitution" for his creation of pornography films which included "McCowen and his associates recruited up to 100 local men and women to participate in group sex scenes, the affidavit says."[37] The distinction that California has in its legal determination in the Freeman decision is usually denied in most states' local prostitution laws, which do not specifically exclude performers from such inclusion.

In some cases, some states have ratified their local state laws for inclusion to prevent California's Freeman decision to be applied to actors who are paid a fee for sexual actions within their state borders. One example is the state of Texas whose prostitution law specifically states:

An offense is established under Subsection (a)(1) whether the actor is to receive or pay a fee. An offense is established under Subsection (a)(2) whether the actor solicits a person to hire him or offers to hire the person solicited.[38] In the United States, federal law prohibits the sale, distribution or dissemination of obscene materials through the mail, over the broadcast airwaves, on cable or satellite TV, on the Internet, over the telephone or by any other means that cross state lines. [39] Most states also have specific laws banning the sale or distribution of obscene pornography within state borders. The only protection for obscene material recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States is personal possession in the home Stanley v. Georgia.

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in Miller v. California that obscenity was not protected speech. Further, the court ruled that each community is responsible for setting its own standards about what is considered to be obscene material. If pornographic material is prosecuted and brought to trial, a jury can deem it obscene based on:

1. whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law and
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic_film#Pornographic_film_industry

 

[dust1n]

I see. Can't those permits require studios to meet criteria that protects actors/actresses from exploitation and health/safety risks?

Much as a permit to drill oil and routine expectations were required on the Deepwater Horizon, or much like permits require a real estate agent to maintain integrity and not discriminate based on housing.

 

[YmirGF]

In regards to the OP, yes porn CAN exploit both men and women, however I do not see that this is always the case. Whether it is degrading to the parties involved is almost entirely a moral perspective and thus open to debate.

 

[freethinker44]

In the United States, the Supreme Court held in 1969 that State laws making mere private possession of obscene material a crime are invalid.[35] Further attempts were made in the 1970s in the United States to close down the pornography industry, this time by prosecuting those in the industry on prostitution charges. The prosecution started in the courts in California in the case of People v. Freeman. The California Supreme Court acquitted Freeman and distinguished between someone who takes part in a sexual relationship for money (prostitution) versus someone whose role is merely portraying a sexual relationship on-screen as part of their acting performance. The State did not appeal to the United States Supreme Court making the decision binding in California, where most pornographic films are made today.[22][36]

At present, no other state in the United States has either implemented or accepted this legal distinction between commercial pornography performers versus prostitutes as shown in the Florida case where sex film maker Clinton Raymond McCowen, aka "Ray Guhn", was indicted on charges of "soliciting and engaging in prostitution" for his creation of pornography films which included "McCowen and his associates recruited up to 100 local men and women to participate in group sex scenes, the affidavit says."[37] The distinction that California has in its legal determination in the Freeman decision is usually denied in most states' local prostitution laws, which do not specifically exclude performers from such inclusion.

In some cases, some states have ratified their local state laws for inclusion to prevent California's Freeman decision to be applied to actors who are paid a fee for sexual actions within their state borders. One example is the state of Texas whose prostitution law specifically states:

An offense is established under Subsection (a)(1) whether the actor is to receive or pay a fee. An offense is established under Subsection (a)(2) whether the actor solicits a person to hire him or offers to hire the person solicited.[38] In the United States, federal law prohibits the sale, distribution or dissemination of obscene materials through the mail, over the broadcast airwaves, on cable or satellite TV, on the Internet, over the telephone or by any other means that cross state lines. [39] Most states also have specific laws banning the sale or distribution of obscene pornography within state borders. The only protection for obscene material recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States is personal possession in the home Stanley v. Georgia.

The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in Miller v. California that obscenity was not protected speech. Further, the court ruled that each community is responsible for setting its own standards about what is considered to be obscene material. If pornographic material is prosecuted and brought to trial, a jury can deem it obscene based on:

1. whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest
2. whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law and
3. whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornographic_film#Pornographic_film_industry

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

 

[Alceste]

In regards to the OP, yes porn CAN exploit both men and women, however I do not see that this is always the case. Whether it is degrading to the parties involved is almost entirely a moral perspective and thus open to debate.

I completely agree, although a significant subsection of it is overtly, unambiguously degrading. Specifically, the stuff where people exhibit open contempt for other people (usually women), including name calling and physical aggression.

I think "dehumanizing" is perhaps a better term, since not only do the actors present flat affect which does not inspire empathy or relatability for viewers, they often dissociate in order to get through the work without uncomfortable emotional responses.

Of course, quite a lot of work is dehumanizing.

 

[Revoltingest]

Much as a permit to drill oil and routine expectations were required on the Deepwater Horizon, or much like permits require a real estate agent to maintain integrity and not discriminate based on housing.

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.

 

[Alceste]

Your emotional reactions to my observations, reasoning and evidence that porn generally exploits women are your own, Rev. As is your strange idea that to call being paid for sex prostitution is "demonizing" it as opposed to using a neutral word exactly as the dictionary dictates. Also, I've offered numerous solutions to the problems. Workplace safety regulations, enhanced education, mental health and drug addiction treatment programs, better economic mobility for low income women, etc. are a few of my suggestions.

So, no, you've got it wrong once again with your false equivalencies.

 

[Revoltingest]

Your emotional reactions to my observations, reasoning and evidence that porn generally exploits women are your own, Rev. As is your strange idea that to call being paid for sex prostitution is "demonizing" it as opposed to using a neutral word exactly as the dictionary dictates. Also, I've offered numerous solutions to the problems. Workplace safety regulations, enhanced education, mental health and drug addiction treatment programs, better economic mobility for low income women, etc. are a few of my suggestions.
So, no, you've got it wrong once again with your false equivalencies.

You conservative moralizers offer such tortured rationales & "evidence".
But my post was broad. It isn't always about you.

 

[Alceste]

You conservative moralizers offer such tortured rationales & "evidence".

You republicans offer such hysterically inaccurate and ineffective rebuttals.