... exploitation and coercion... It's their career choice, they're getting paid, and lots of people get satisfaction from it. — Sapientia
The pornography business is as exploitative as any unregulated, non-unionized, low-status work place is. — Bitter Crank
Actors and other staff work long hours (get as much material on tape as is possible in as few days as possible). The pay is low on a per hour basis. Performers do not receive royalties, generally. It isn't a long-term career for performers, even if they want it to be, because producers want fresh faces (fresh bodies). An increasing volume of porn produced depresses the value of any given production.
Physically, the work can be pretty tedious. Creating the appearance and illusion of sexual excitement is something of a strain. Men have difficulty maintaining erections over the course of a 12 hour day of sex scenes, women and men both get sore (depending on what sort of sex is being performed) and everybody gets tired and irritable after a while.
Most people do not elect pornography performance as one of their top 10 career choices. Many people accept this work because they don't have lots of better options, (and some people imagine that it will be exciting and serve as a gateway into 'real acting'; it usually isn't). A few people do manage to make a long-term career out of it, either as performers or by becoming producers.
Most pornography productions are unimaginative. People don't watch porn for interesting plots but a porn production can be more interesting or less interesting. But "interesting" usually involves more time, skill, and production expense, so don't expect to see much of it.
There are risks in sex work. Rough sex can produce injuries. Sexually transmitted diseases are always a risk which can be reduced or minimized, but not entirely eliminated. — Bitter Crank
How is this different from prostitution? — Noble Dust
I've never heard lust described in terms that would suggest there are some contexts in which it is acceptable — anonymous66
...virtually all cocaine users are addicted on the first hit. — Noble Dust
What would you make of an argument like this one?: Porn is giving people the wrong idea. It suggests that all consensual sex is fine. What we need is porn with a different message. The message being: sex is great, but it's for married people (or just for people in committed relationships?) So, instead of creating porn w/ sex fantasies implying or outright promoting fornication and adultery, create a genre of porn with fantasies of people meeting other wonderful people that they respect and treasure, falling in love, getting married, then having great sex.
Sounds like a great way for profiteers to make some money and for them to do society a favor in the process. — anonymous66
I think it is more likely the case that more relaxed social mores regarding sex drives the societal acceptance of porn than vice-versa. — Arkady
Can you think of a solution? — anonymous66
Not exactly. "Lust" is usually... — TheWillowOfDarkness
We see this play out in the "It'll be fine" dismissal of criticisms of the porn industry, porn watching and even sexual behaviour. The interaction between two or more people is reduced to someone's desire. What's is it that's at stake when someone is watching porn? Only the viewers desire, or so you would have us believe. It's an objectifying way of dealing with the unjust prejudice against desire.
The expression and interactions (performing porn, watching porn of people, sexual behaviour) of people are reduced to nothing but a question of one person desire. No doubt it is effective in undoing the prejudice against desire, but it has the unfortunate effect of reducing our understanding of these exchanges to nothing more than an individual's desire. — TheWillowOfDarkness
While limiting one's concern to exploitation that is illegal is commonplace and understandable, it seems an unsatisfactory moral stance to me. It delegates the decision about what constitutes morally unacceptable exploitation to the relevant legal authorities, and law has only a loose correlation with ethics.
A parallel with the market for chocolate occurs to me. Until recently, most chocolate was produced from cocoa that was grown and harvested in poor countries under very exploitative conditions involving lots of child labour. That exploitation was mostly legal where it occurred.
In recent years there has been a strong global movement against this, the result of which is that an increasing amount of the chocolate produced is produced under much less exploitative conditions. There are certification schemes for Fair Trade chocolate that appear to be credible. At first, only niche suppliers produced Fair Trade chocolate but now the large players are seeing the need to start complying with these expectations. There is a long way to go but there has been real, tangible progress.
Maybe I'm easily amused but the idea of a Fair Trade Porn market, accompanied by a suitable certification scheme, appeals to me. The scheme could have dual criteria of (1) no significant exploitation of the people involved in production and (2) no portrayal of activity that encourages sexual violence or unfair use of power imbalance.
I wonder what the chances are of the US government sponsoring such a scheme. — andrewk
On the other hand, lust just seems wrong. And taking acts so personal (the physical acts of sex) and making them public just seems wrong. — anonymous66
I don't think so, and certainly not any more than any business does, say, with respect to our interaction with the people who work at that business.And doesn't the porn industry just promote the idea that people are merely a means to an end?
Is it possible that our attitudes towards sex and nudity just need to change? — anonymous66
And doesn't the porn industry just promote the idea that people are merely a means to an end? — anonymous66
I don't think so, and certainly not any more than any business does, say, with respect to our interaction with the people who work at that business. — Terrapin Station
I agree. While I am generally very liberal, video games or other media items that encourage violence or socially harmful attitudes (eg to women or minorities), will be on my hit list if I ever attain any form of political influence.as for the second point, if such portrayals are permitted in films and videogames, then porn should be no exception. — Sapientia
I agree. While I am generally very liberal, video games or other media items that encourage violence or socially harmful attitudes (e.g. to women or minorities), will be on my hit list if I ever attain any form of political influence.
However, having never played Grand Theft Auto or watched Game of Thrones, I have no idea whether they are really as bad as they sound. — andrewk
That's not what I mean by 'bad'. I mean if it encourages (eg by glamorising) harmful attitudes and actions (and looking back at my post, I believe that was perfectly clear). If it does then it's some of the people playing the game that are 'ruining it for the rest of us'. If it doesn't then I see no reason for anybody to object to people using them.Yes, they're probably as "bad" as people say, if by that you mean to refer to the kind of graphic content which some people may find shocking, vulgar, obscene or objectionable in some way. — Sapientia
[Porn] doesn't promote any ideas about how people should be treated in general. — Sapientia
Firstly, porn is fiction, not reality. — Wosret
I do think though, that women were generally barred from all means of real sovereignty, and means of self-support. Sex work was a means of doing that. Most marriages are of necessity for livelihood for women. — Wosret
I think that further degrading people that have very little options for themselves (as if they all grew up dreaming of being sex workers), for marketing their literal, most valuable assets because, one, the market exists, and two, they have no obvious better options. — Wosret
You are exaggerating. Granted, the average woman does not have exactly the same opportunities as the average man does, but women in the industrialized nations are generally able to achieve self support, and even sovereignty. Where marriage is a necessity is in providing adequate incomes on which to raise children. It takes two incomes from two adults, if the primary breadwinner is not earning a very substantial salary. — Bitter Crank
Sex work is not a dream job. No kidding. Neither are a good share of the jobs people drag themselves to every day.
The labor of all men and all women has been commodified. Female sex workers are no more exploited than truck drivers, custodians, roofers, secretaries, sales clerks, and factory workers are exploited.
The fact is that many individuals--men, women, young people, old people, smart people, stupid people--all kinds, have difficulty taking care of themselves in times of economic recession or depression. People who live in areas of endemic poverty, under-employment, and few opportunities will suffer more than people who live in booming economic areas. — Bitter Crank
Porn doesn't objectify. People objectify. — Sapientia
The problem is ultimately about those views themselves and the people who hold them, not with porn. The fact is, due to our nature, people are flawed; and, as a result, people will inevitably form flawed views. I'm all in favour of promoting views which avoid these kind of flaws, but blaming (in this case) porn itself is not, in my view, the right approach. — Sapientia
And if it is not so much that which is the problem, but rather the "consenting via monetary gain" aspect, then your problem isn't just with porn, but is with a huge and fundamental aspect of our society. That's just how society functions, and it isn't going to change any time soon. — Sapientia
That's not what I mean by 'bad'. I mean if it encourages (e.g. by glamorising) harmful attitudes and actions (and looking back at my post, I believe that was perfectly clear). — andrewk
If it does then it's some of the people playing the game that are 'ruining it for the rest of us'. — andrewk
As I said, I have no knowledge of whether such things do encourage such attitudes and actions, as I have nothing to do with them. — andrewk
I wonder. Performers of both genders frequently engage in acts which would have been regarded as degrading or inherently immoral not too long ago. Now the 'permissive society' has taken off all the taboos, these are now said to be matters of individual taste. But if women allow themselves to be degraded (I won't dwell on the specifics), isn't that in some way degrading to women in general? Doesn't it amount to a tacit or even explicit endorsements of acts of exhibitionism or sado-masochism or whatever it happens to be? — Wayfarer
I notice that the nearest the we get to condemnation of any such acts is when the recipient or subject is hurt by it, or at any rate, hasn't consented to the behaviour. Then it's 'bad' because it's physically harmful, or done against consent, But no matter what the act, if all involved are willing participants, then there can't be anything wrong with whatever they do, as 'consent' is the sole criteria. Is that right? — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.