Pomp

luvluv,

...I am saying that it is highly probable that a significant portion, perhaps even the majority, of female porn stars are being exploited.

FWIW, I agree with you. I also, however, think that the vast majority of women and men who have to work to live are being exploited by their employers, and this isn't necessarily cause for moral outrage. The fact is that some women (and men) prefer to work (and, thus, to be exploited to some degree) in porn than in other fields. I'm as appalled by the fact that some women (and men) have sex for money as I am by the fact that some men (and women) work in the blast furnaces for money at the steel mills in the town where I grew up.

You can, of course, argue that the porn industry is more exploitive than many other industries, and you may have a case there, but your argument, then, is against specific practices within the industry, rather than against porn as a whole. For example, when we hear that Nike uses children working in sweatshops to produce athletic apparel, we protest the use of sweatshops, not the apparel industry itself. Your argument, as I understand it, is that porn invariably exploits the women who appear in it to a greater degree than other industries, because women are generally unable to completely seperate sex and commitment. I think we've come to an agreement here, based on the post to which I am responding, that such a statement is far too broad. In addition, as both LadyShea and Gurdur (I think, forgive me if I'm misrepresenting one of you) have already pointed out, "mainstream" porn tends to take significant measures to protect its stars.

So, given that women (or, at the very least, some women) are capable of having sex for money without experiencing unusual emotional problems, and given a particular hypothetical porn producer that follows reasonable guidelines to ensure that its talent is treated at least as well as employees in any other common industry, do you have any objection to the pornography produced by that particular enterprise?

My broader point, that women tend to have more negative consequences from promiscuity than men, to provide the basis for the more exacting point. It all started when Shea said that she knew healthy pornstars, and I told her I knew psychologically unhealthy promiscuous women. It all digressed from there.

LadyShea's point, that she knows healthy porn stars, serves to disprove your assertion that women are invariably harmed by appearing in pornography. There was never any question that some women (and some men!) who angage in promicsuous sex do so because of emotional problems.

I am not trying to judge anybody or criticize anybody about their lifestyle, but I believe some choices are better and definitely safer than others.

Well, I agree, but you haven't demonstrated, IMO, that pornography leads to an unhealthy lifestyle.

Okay kids I've had enough of this particular subject for a few days. I'll be back after the fight or tommorow.

I simply cannot resist this one. Let me get this straight. You're opposed to porn because of the uncertain, and controversial, possibility that it will cause emotional problems to those who participate in it, yet you have no problem paying to watch two men hit each other repeatedly in the head, leading to certain, permanent brain damage? And you have no moral qualms with this?

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>

bonduca

No. I want to see the studies. Please quote these sources, not the conclusions the author of the book has drawn. Otherwise, please quote the book and state that you are quoting from it.

Unless one is cloned, one has a father. What is your point?

In comparison to what time period? There have been times of greater or lesser casual sexual activity, and this is also affected by social class and culture.

Please support this statement with your sources of information.

Actually, I think these issues are illusion, and I am already familiar with the book. I was not sufficiently impressed to buy it.

Please support this statement with something other than your opinion. If you can show that this is indeed so, please show conclusively why the average man does not deserve to live as well as a king.

The average medieval peasant had a short enough life span and lived under wretched enough conditions to make comparisons with his (speculative) sex life of little merit.

Shall we try another time period?

The average footman during the Regency era apparently averaged a respectable total by our standards, not only with women of his own class (or lower), but often with attractive ladies of the class who hired him. (I recommend reading “What The Butler Saw”[1962] by E.S. Turner, “The Life and Travels of John MacDonald”[1790] by John MacDonald)

At any rate, it is nothing more than entertaining speculation about the past. What consenting adults do and how many people they do it with is really none of your business, however agitated it makes you to think of it.

See above comment regarding this book.

I stated that we have the means to prevent unwanted pregnancy and I stand by that. If you feel differently, please support this with facts, not indignant questions.

That is not proven. Also, that is the general idea of birth control. You have the option of abstaining if you do not approve. What does this have to do with STDs? Are you implying that we are riddled with incurable syphilitic cases as we were during the Victorian era, when sexual education and access to reliable prophylactic methods were not an option? If so, please support this with facts.

This does not make sense. What are you trying to say here? The advantage of having the condom is offset by actually using the condom? Please clarify.

Not when attempting to kill sperm during intercourse. For that, pill or spermicide and condoms are more appropriate.

If, of course, you mean abstinence, simply say so. If you mean you are horrified to think of adults who are wholly unconnected to you having sex more often than you would personally choose to, please say so. I will probably laugh at you, but at least your meaning will be clear.

You choose to believe the version of pop culture hyperbole that fits the image of women you are most comfortable with. You choose to believe an article from a popular glossy magazine and a book called “Getting to I Do.” I suppose next you will be quoting to me from "Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus." I consider such sources, frankly, to be crap.

There are other, more scientific sources of information that you could pursue before you appoint yourself an expert on the true sexual nature of woman. If you have no interest in investigating further, that is your choice, but I find your current sources of information to be incomplete and therefore generally worthless.

If "most people" are said to believe something, it certainly should not be questioned. Most people believed in demonic possession, or that attaching leeches to a sick person would help cure their illness. Most people believed that when a person sneezed, their soul flew out of their mouth, and it could be snatched up by the devil. Many people believe in alien abduction and the infamous anal probe. Even more people believe that David Hasselhoff has talent. All of these things must be indeed be true.

I would say it is impossible to make an accurate assessment given the insidious influence of culture and socialization, particularly when the sources you have presented are of such questionable scientific value. Inaccurate and offensive stereotypes about women are presented and accepted as fact every day, but garbage presented with a flourish is still garbage.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

luvluv

I don't really know what you are getting so upset with me for. Like I said before, I only commented on this thread to suggest the possibility that porn stars might be damaged goods mentally. I only brought in my general perceptions about other women to make the point about that specific group of women. It sounds like you're taking the whole thing personally, and I'm sorry if you did.

I don't hate women, I just don't want to participate in them being hurt if I can help it. It's my belief that porn hurts them, so I avoid it. I was just expressing my opinion here, and if I got carried away with it I apologize.

luvluv

Just to clear some things up...

"No. I want to see the studies. Please quote these sources, not the conclusions the author of the book has drawn. Otherwise, please quote the book and state that you are quoting from it."

I don't own the book but Fukiyama cites his sources in the book you will not read, if you really want to know them.

"Unless one is cloned, one has a father. What is your point?"

Some people said that the Sweedish illegitimacy rate was not "real" illegitimacy because the father's cohabitated with their children and their children's mother. The couple just chose not to get married. By "real" illegitimacy, or fatherlessness, I meant situations in which the father is not known and/or does not participate at all in raising the child.

"In comparison to what time period? There have been times of greater or lesser casual sexual activity, and this is also affected by social class and culture."

Right, which is probably why promiscuity (or at least the data availiable about promiscuity) tracks positively with more industrialized countries.

"Please support this statement with your sources of information."

That there is evidence that there is more promiscuity now then there was before was one of the basic premises in the book you will not read. His sources for this information are indexed in the book you will not read.

"If you can show that this is indeed so, please show conclusively why the average man does not deserve to live as well as a king."

1) He can't afford it.

I grew up near the ghettos, and I know some guys who, unfortunately, rival NBA players in terms of progeny and rival sanitation workers in terms of salaries.

2) If he is living like a king, he is probably doing so at the expense of many women. Some of whom, granted, might just be in it for the sex, but inevitably some won't be and they will get hurt.

"What consenting adults do and how many people they do it with is really none of your business, however agitated it makes you to think of it."

You brought it up when you asked if I thought the current level of promiscuity is anything new.

"I stated that we have the means to prevent unwanted pregnancy and I stand by that. If you feel differently, please support this with facts, not indignant questions."

I don't know that it matters if we have the means if we are not using them or not using them correctly. There is stastical data that there are more unwanted pregnancies in industrialized countries since the advent of wide-spread birth control (there is statistical data to that effect in the book you will not read). You stated that the adverse consequences of sex do not fall more heavily on the shoulders of women because of birth control, so I countered that with saying that incidence of both among women has been on the rise since the advent of birth control. No one is disputing that we have the means, but one wonders if simply having the means is enough...

"Are you implying that we are riddled with incurable syphilitic cases as we were during the Victorian era, when sexual education and access to reliable prophylactic methods were not an option?"

Ever heard of AIDS? I'd say that ranks with syphillis.

"This does not make sense. What are you trying to say here? The advantage of having the condom is offset by actually using the condom?"

Well, the book you will not read goes into some detail about how the presence of available birth control has had the psychological effect of making people take sex less seriously. As a consequence, they have more sex and are less careful about who and under what conditions (married or unmarried, committed or uncommitted) they have it. Failure rates of contraception being what they are, and human incompetence and unwillingess to use contraception being what they are, the result is more of the adverse consequences of sex and not less. The bottom line is there are less adverse consequences of sex if people limit their number of partners than if they have wide access to birth control.

"If you have no interest in investigating further, that is your choice, but I find your current sources of information to be incomplete and therefore generally worthless."

In my own defense, at least I am willing to look at any information I can get my hands on even if it doesn't fit my opinion. I might not have my hands on it yet, but I, at least, am not purposely avoiding data.

". If you mean you are horrified to think of adults who are wholly unconnected to you having sex more often than you would personally choose to, please say so. I will probably laugh at you, but at least your meaning will be clear."

I agree that promiscuity has fluctuated throughout the ages, but the current attitudes and options for birth control have probably caused an explosion in the number of sexual parters that average people will have in their lifetime. Of course there's no way to directly measure that and there's really no need. How much of a problem that is can be measured by pathologies that result from it (abortion rates, illegitimacy rates, rate of treatment of STD, etc). To whatever extent casual sex occurs that does not result in a problem for either partner, I don't have a problem with it. I don't expect non-Christians to act like Christians. I am concerned though with the adverse results of casual sex, particularly when it occurs with young girls in my community, many of whom never had any real guidance as regards their sexuality.
Believe it or not, the circle of guys I hang out with, including my brothers, all do quite well with the ladies and I never lecture them or anybody else about it. I never get in anyone's business, and I would never judge any particular person. But if you ask me my general opinion about sex, I hold firm to my opinion (no pun intended). I am opinionated but not judgemental. Like I said, I grew up in a neighborhood where a lot of young ladies (and men, at least those who stuck around) ruined their lives by engaging in sex before they were ready. I've even had a few discussions with some of them like the one we are having now, but they all reacted very much like you are. (Saying that I'm just upset that other people are having sex.) Happily, many of them are doing fine now and are able to handle themselves, but quite a few of them are now parents of children they not only can't afford but have no idea how to raise. I watch MTV and listen to discussions about porn and I am upset because no one is teaching young people to take sex itself seriously. People talk about condomns and protection but they don't talk about what role sex has in your concept of self, or how much it affects every other aspect of your life. The message that they are pumped all day long is that it is fun and that everybody is doing it. I can no longer turn on the radio at 2 o' clock in the afternoon with my 7 year old nephew in the car without hearing some girl singing about her dress dropping down to her knees. The society we are in does not take sex seriously, and that is having adverse social consequences far beyond just HIV. Believe it or not, my concern with sex actually emerges from my concern for the well-being of people. There are some individuals who care about people and who therefore have concerns with their sexual practices. It may suprise you to realize that all of those people do not hate women and are not angry at all the fun those young people are having. Can I disagree with you about sex and not be some kind of mysoginist?

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

bonduca

If you cannot list your sources, this is only an expression of your opinion. Telling me you read some things you thought were really neat in Fukuyama’s book is not sufficient to support your statement.
What is your point?
This statement makes no sense. Please clarify it.
Again, I have nothing more than your indignant assertions that this is in some book you read that you do not have now. If you are going to make these assertions, you will have to back them up with something more substantial than you read it somewhere, but don’t have the book now. I am under no obligation to run out and purchase a book you cannot even quote from. Please give me verification of these statements beyond your vague recollections.
Please clarify this statement. Do you mean that a man cannot afford to date and sleep with many women while single? Yet you claim that many men do so. Please explain this contradiction.
The fact that you “knew some guys” who may have been irresponsible gives you the right to make sweeping generalizations regarding everyone’s sexual behavior? Please explain this.
Prove it. Prove also that this applies to everyone and that it supports your previous statements.
And you have yet to prove that it is. Please provide proof.
Instead of providing verification of your statements, you make vague reference to some book you read, that you do not have now, and complain that I will not run out and buy it to see if you are right. In other words, you have no data to back up your statements.
That is the responsibility of the person using the birth control. The means are available. Wonder to your heart’s content.
Unlike cases of syphilis in Victorian times, we have access to education and safe sex practices to guard against infection. If an individual chooses not to avail themselves of these measures, that is another matter. One might as well declare all cars are bad because some drivers will not wear seat belts.
Mentioning the opinions and conclusions of one author is hardly a definitive study. Neither is complaining that I will not read Fukuyama’s book to save you the trouble of quoting from it. Do you or do you not have statistical data OR EVEN ANOTHER SOURCE YOU CAN QUOTE FROM? Do you in fact have anything beyond vague assertions formed from a magazine article and a book you read but don’t have now?
I repeat, we have the means to prevent unwanted pregnancy, access to information, and safe sex practices. If an individual chooses not to avail themselves of this, it is their choice. If a problem is caused by individual lack of responsibility, do not blame availability of contraception. After all, contraceptive measures are equally available to others who DO take precautions and practice safe sex.
You cannot even quote from Fukuyama’s book, which appears to be your only source.
Probably? Please provide the data that you are using to draw this conclusion.
So why mention it?
Provide the statistics. You are guessing.
If you are concerned, perhaps you should try volunteer work. There must be a local organization you could donate your services to.

While I am happy for you, I am unable to see how this is relevant to the discussion.
Indeed?
Yes, a great deal of what you have said appears to be purely opinion.
Again, have you considered volunteer work in your community?
luvluv, while your concern for the young people in your community is commendable, I do not see how it supports your statements regarding the general nature of female sexuality. It is those statements I take exception to, not how you choose to regulate your own personal sexual conduct.

The AntiChris

I hope luvluv responds to this. It does rather suggest that luvluv has contradictory moral standards.

Chris

Amen-Moses

btw the TV programme I mentioned is called Laid Bare, just in case anyone wants to look it up.

Amen-Moses

Panta Pei

"I don't hate women, I just don't want to participate in them being hurt if I can help it. It's my belief that porn hurts them, so I avoid it."

It is my belief that holding the female gender responsible for the moral downfall of humanity, degrading them at every stage of life, asserting childbirth is a punishment instead of a joyous event and then indoctrinating them into the ultimately abusive mindsnare that they should unconditionally love and defend the imaginary sky king (and the men that claim representative authority) responsible for their torment hurts them.

Poor, hapless, pornstars indeed.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Jamie_L

There's a funny thing about personal experience: it makes statistically invalid sample sizes feel like the absolute truth.

I knew someone who was thrown from a car during an accident because he wasn't wearing his seatbelt. He survived, but the other passenger who was belted in the car was killed. He was told by emergency personel that if he had been belted, he would have died to. He never wears his seat belt anymore, because he is now convinced it puts him at risk.

So, everyone here's got an opinion, and many of us have personal stories to back up those opinions (myself included). That's all well and good, I suppose, but in the end I reckon it'll keep us all from changing anyone's mind in this thread.

Jamie

Pomp

luvluv,

Two not-quite-points:

1) The message that they are pumped all day long is that it is fun and that everybody is doing it. I can no longer turn on the radio at 2 o' clock in the afternoon with my 7 year old nephew in the car without hearing some girl singing about her dress dropping down to her knees.

Technically, the song you are talking about (if it's the one I'm thinking about...is the chorus "Oops...oh my!") is actually about masturbation. The singer meets an attractive man at a club and, rather than go home with him, returns home by herself to masturbate on the experience. No safer sex is available!

2) I own a copy of The Great Disruption and, as I've said, I found it to be more an exercise in cheerleading for traditional Western values than a serious academic work but, if I can find it, I'm putting it at the top of my reading list for a re-read and, when I'm done, I'll critique Fukuyama's opinions for you.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: Pompous Bastard ]</p>