Michaelson

No problemo.

christ-on-a-stick

Once more into the breach!
(Not in exact order here) - Yes, my first experiences in porn were not nearly as enjoyable, as detailed in my previous post and some of much earlier ones, which I why I left temporarily.

My relationship with my current producer (he is actually the owner/director/photographer and producer, distributes his own stuff as well as selling to other distributors) is very good and is something of a partnership in the sense that I am his only "contract girl". In the past seven years I have worked exclusively for him (with a handful of exceptions for another fairly new studio that we agreed on) in exchange for various conditions - a consistent number of shoots each month, my ability to choose/approve partners, my 100% ability to approve material and content (as well as often contributing "creatively") and a nice monetary arrangement (being paid slightly more than average for being exclusive and also so reliable and congenial to work with )

I do feel "lucky" to have come into such a nice arrangement, which has been both profitable and enjoyable for me (although there's always an element of "work" to it, but as with any job...) As far as being the "exception" to the rule... I would say that while my EXACT situation is somewhat unique/unusual, many, MANY of the women I have worked for that are "free agents" have strong ties with multiple studios, good relationships and agreements with particular studios and producers even in the absence of a formal "contract". Then there are obviously the true "contract players" (for Vivid, Wicked, etc.) but they represent only a minority in general. I would say the group I mentioned before (the "free agents") are the medain and majority. Then, of course, there IS the "underbelly" of women who have lots of personal problems and find themselves more susceptible to the more unscrupulous smaller studios/independents. I believe that to be a minority as well (remember we are not talking about the illegitimate/illegal factions of the industry here).
In my "first incarnation" I was represented by World Modeling and was hired out through them to various studios - probably between 5-10 in all.
"Big" is a relative term in this industry. The best I can quantify his market presence is to say that while he does a large portion of his sales through direct marketing (he has a catalog sent to a large database of regular buyers/persons on his mailing list and does large direct-mail business), he also sells to other distributors for their direct mail and/or internet sales, and you could probably find at least a handful of his titles at any given "adult bookstore" you might wander into throughout the U.S. As to the second part of your question, when I was represented through World, I was sent on one shoot where I was treated badly from the get-go and I ended up walking off the set and reported it to the agency, who collected 1/2 the shoot fee on my behalf and made a note of the complaint in their books. I have no doubt that they continued to send people there though, because not everybody would complain for personal reasons. There was one studio back then, though, that although I never shot for them personally, eventually got so many complaints and a few criminal complaints that they were blacklisted.
Addressed in my previous post, I think. In what way? Not trying to be obtuse, just some more specifics would help me answer this.

Barney Gumble

Ok, time to expand on this.

My point was that this argument basically boils down to a numbers game.

Your position, at least as it appears to me, is that it's "common sense" to hold the view that abuse and aggressive coercion is rampant in pornography, and thus the viewing of any pornography inherently feeds this system, thusly making the viewer a willing participant in an immoral act.

Ignoring the fact that "pornography" covers a huge scope of adult entertainment selections (much of which I would probably find objectionable), at what point does the pendulum swing from abuse being considered, to being expected? Simply restating it’s what you “feel” isn’t going to cut it with many posters in this forum, which is why some have tried to determine if there’s a personal psychological basis for this belief, as you’re not exactly inundating us with hard facts.

When I'm watching a film (cough) on Playboy TV, is it reasonable to assume the actors are formerly/currently abused drug addicts that were unfairly trapped into a deviant industry, or simply individuals who's sexual appetite goes beyond the "norm", and who have little problem with exhibitionism?

I wanted you to think about the formula you're applying to label an entire industry, which despite their likely over-inflated sales numbers, is still a huge industry by any measurement.

Again, no one here has supported child porn, or pornography where there is clear evidence the participants are not willing adults. The argument is that some of us simply feel that abuse and coercion, at least in more “mainstream” pornography, is not so widespread that it must be assumed to be part-and-parcel with the majority of adult entertainment, and at least with respect to other industries, of which there are abused participants.

If you’re going to point to a few cases where an adult performer has lamented their upbringing and the choices they’ve made as evidence that an entire industry is corrupt to the extent where it’s (how I loathe this term) “common sense” to assume that’s the case for the vast majority of pornography, then I’m going to point to the far greater number of verified, documented cases where priests have abused their authority to satisfy their sexual appetite on unwilling children.

One one hand with the catholic church, we have hundreds of cases just recently where abuse was proven in a court of law, with minors no less.

On the other hand, we have a prime time special where an adult performer gave her personal history.

See the problem? Wouldn’t the “common sense” factor kick in with respect to the priests, whereby we have far more verified examples of abuse, where the abuse can be labeled as such without question as it involves minors?

I’d just like to see some consistency here, that’s all. Why is not now “common sense” to advocate that all parents grab their kids and run like the wind whenever a priest enters into view? Or is this a case of just “bad priests”, and that the church, catholocism, or religion in general are not to blame?

After all, we can’t hold an entire system responsible for the actions of a few of its members…right?

luvluv

Barney Gumble:

I get you now.

Actually, I'd say you have every right to blame the Catholic church and the priests, and every right to abandon the Catholic church.

I don't think that would be a good reason not to give the benefit of the doubt to any SPECIFIC priest on any SPECIFIC moral issue, especially if they seemed to know their stuff. Although I have the greatest respect and admiration of MLK JR, there are reports that some of his behavior was occasionally less than stellar (certainly not to the level of the catholic priests, mind you). I don't think that is necessarily reason to discount his moral authority.

However, it may surprise you to hear that my answer is that yes, the Catholic church has basically lost all moral authority from this fiasco. I say that because, as is the case with the porn industry (probably to an even greater extent), the abuses were systemic. It's pathetic to have to say it now, but I don't believe I would ever grant any Catholic priest any unsupervised access to my children. I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into anything the Catholic church said (unless I could be assured that the priests behind the edict were not involved in the cover-up).

I think it would be a category mistake to include Christianity or religion into the discredited camp, but certainly no one could be blamed for no longer trusting the Catholic church.

I haven't put much thought into it before this, but this is my take. I happen to respect Catholic spirituality; a lot of my favorite Christian writers are Catholic. As a Protestant, I never thought the Catholic church had any real authority, but I certainly listened to what they had to say. Their edicts have lost a little prestige in my eyes now, given the events that transpired. So I guess the answer to your question is that the Catholic church has basically been discredited as a moral authority. The difference, I suppose, is that the Catholic church could get it back if it wanted to, given a few decades.

Lauri:

You and Lady Shea said this. What does this mean, exactly, to "own one's sexuality"?

christ-on-a-stick

Hello, luvluv.

Thank you for asking for clarification on this. It is an excellent, relevant question and I would like to give it the fullest answer that I can, which means a couple hours from now. But I look forward to enlightening you

Lauri

christ-on-a-stick

luvluv -

What do I mean when I use the expression to "own one's sexuality"? Well I am going to take a crack at this.

To start off in general: My body belongs to me, to use in any way that I see fit - so long as it does not impede upon the rights of another in that their body is theirs to use as they see fit. (This obviously precludes me from murdering, otherwise assaulting, raping molesting or otherwise harming anothers’ person against their will.)

With regard to my sexuality in specific, I see it as a quite lovely bonus to being a human being (as opposed to a “blessing” or “gift”, since I don’t believe it to have been “bestowed” upon me by some higher power, but in a generic sense I think the word “gift” can be used – i.e. the “gift of life” – I appreciate the “gift of sexuality”. It’s a Good Thing ™. )

My sexuality belongs to me and me alone. No one has the right to tell me how I can and cannot, should or should not explore it and use it, keeping in mind the above principle of respecting others’ same right. In any sexual scenario involving another person, consensuality is the overriding principle. That being said, I feel that I own my sexuality by saying to you, and anyone else who might say that a particular sexual practice is “immmoral” or “bad/dirty/icky” – mind your own beezwax, whatever I choose to do with my body a) by myself or b) with a consenting and legal partner is my business and nobody else’s. Not you, not my parents, friends or neighbors, or the government. And it’s already clear that as an atheist I find it ridiculous that some people believe there to be some kind of super-sky-daddy “eye in the sky” who is watching my every move and cares deeply about how I stimulate my own genitals, have somebody else stimulate them or stimulate somebody else’s.

For me, this translates to the the pornography issue in that I believe I have every right to use my sexuality in whatever way I see fit. If I want to show other people my body by stripping, posing for photos, etc., I am free to do so (nobody’s forcing them to look!) If I choose to have sex with another person (or myself!) on camera (or off for that matter) for money, I am free to do so – nobody is forcing either me or the viewers to participate. I am in total control of my own body and what I will and will not do with it, and for what reasons.

How does this relate to the fact that (IMO) we need to be teaching girls/women (from an early age, I believe) to “own their sexuality”? Well, I see all around me (in the US at least) a society and a predominant religion (Xianity) that teaches girls, from a very young age, a big ole steaming pile of shit about how their (sexual) bodies are some kind of precious gift that will eventually be “given” to someone (usually presumed to be a man). Although in secular society this is not as noxious as in Xianity (to be covered momentarily), there is still a weird double standard employed as evidenced by common language referring to a girl losing her virginity as “giving it up”, as opposed to a boy “scoring” something. Her “loss” to his “gain”. WTF?!?!?!? Then we have the slut/stud paradox – while a male with numerous partners is *snicker snicker* a “stud”, the female equivalent is looked down (frown frown) upon with derision as a “slut”.

Enter Xianity, especially of the fundy variety, and it gets even worse. A girl/woman’s virginity is “a gift” for her husband (and, to be fair, they maintain that a male’s virginity is reciprocally a “gift” to his wife). Again, I say, WTF??? Our sexuality is not something that is GIVEN to anyone – it is OURS, to be SHARED with a partner.

That sums it up for me – I believe that we each OWN our sexuality, and sexual activity with a partner is not “giving” it away but rather “sharing” it with that person. In a romantic, intimate, emotionally-connected scenario, we are sharing our sexuality as well as emotional connection. In a down-and-dirty plain ole fucking scenario, whatever kinks included, we are sharing our bodies and sexual expression. When you “own” your sexuality, you don’t “lose” it by sharing it.

I believe that if more girls/women are taught to feel comfortable with and "own" their sexuality, the less likely they are to be susceptible to the pressures of a sleazy producer wheedling them into doing more than they feel comfortable with. I feel that if plays strongly into a person's self-esteem that they are in control of themselves and their actions, and I feel that the insiduous lessons of a hypocritical puritanical society and sex-for-pleasure hating religion do much damage to a girl's ability to feel that they, are, indeed, ultimately in control.

Any questions so far? I am typing this totally stream-of-consciousness but I wanted to get it all on paper (so to speak!) while I have the time.

Lauri

christ-on-a-stick

luvluv,

For further (and better explained I'm sure!) information on my "philosophy" on this topic, try googling "sex-positive feminism".

99Percent

Great post Lauri! :notworthy

Although I suspect that sexuality as pleasure is a great taboo in many religions, particularly in Christianism because in olden times sex had great many moral consequences.

luvluv

1) I don't know how well this will work Lauri. I don't think a sense of ownership is going to really empower women in any meaningful sense. I think you are essentially dealing with an old dichotomy. A lot of the young women I see making terrible decisions about their sexuality have the "It's my body" defense well in hand and resort to it often. That is a very common notion among women who, in my experience, are making terrible, ill-informed, and highly coerced decisions.

Ownership doesn't really have anything to do with propriety. I have a car. Suppose a person tells me it is not good for my car to try to drive it without ever changing it's oil. I could reply to this person "It's my car! I can do with it what I want to!". I would, of course, be right. But so would he.

It is my car, and I can do whatever I want to with it. That was never the question. The question is what is, generally speaking, good for cars and what is, generally speaking, bad for cars. I don't think ownership has been the question for women (vis a vis males, at least) for about a century or more. The question is whether what you want to do with the body you own is good for it.

Moral or health issues are not solved by an appeal to ownership. Yes, it's your body. You can smoke if you want. But that doesn't change the fact that smoking is not good for you, and it doesn't make a person wrong for pointing out the fact.

I think a pure sense of ownership simply of the body isn't really going to give a woman any sense of control or any ability to make good decisions, PARTICULARLY WHEN, as (IMHO) I suspect in your case, that the appeal is actually made against some form of perceived authority (I.E. God or the church or some moral standard) and not against a prospective partner. In my experience young women say to me, or to their parents, or to some authority figure, "It's my body" but they aren't really able to say this to a male whom they have feelings for and are afraid to lose. The notion seems to be "It is my body so I can barter it for whatever I can get for it", not "It is my body so I have supreme sovereignty over it." Until and unless they realize that what they own is VALUABLE they will see no reason why they should not barter their sexuality for something the perceive to be more valuable (like the "love" of a boyfriend, or attention, or popularity). They generally realize (often too late) that their bodies and their futures were more valuable than what they bartered them for, and a sense of "ownership" can never, in and of itself, prevent this realization from being too late.

Ultimately, I don't think there is any way to get young women to make better decisions about how they use their sexuality without getting them to value it as something precious about themselves, and that is the one thing which your ideology forbids. Sex is meaningless and valueless in your ideology, unless it is imbued with meaning and value. And if something has no value, why should I be careful with it? Even if I emphasize ownership, as you suggest, the situation gets no better. Why should I value something that is valueless simply because I own it? I own many valueless things that I treat carelessly, so why not treat my sexuality carelessly?


2) As far as virginity goes, whether you like it or not it is probably inevitable that girls who MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION to hold onto their virginity (it isn't always mandated by the church) are more in control of their sexuality than nearly anyone else. It is nearly inevitable that in a sexual relationship both partners give up their sexual autonomy to a certain extent and make the commitment to fulfill the needs of their partners. People who decide on their own to remain virgins make no concessions either to authority or to their partners. You may not like the decision they have made to remain virgins, but people who do so have a much greater sense of ownership over their bodies than nearly anyone else. And again, even among religious believing women, ultimately they are in control of their bodies. They can decide to remain virgins or not to. Free will and all. It simply is not the case, generally speaking, that religious women are in some form of forced servitude. They decide for themselves to be religious and they decide for themselves the extent to which they will submit their sexual desires to that religious commitment. To suggest otherwise is more or less an anachronism (and a sexist one at that)

Michaelson

Letting people do what they want is beneficial to society, though, as it leads to a broader base of experience for people to draw from when they make decisions. Not to mention the ol' different strokes for different folks line of argument. You can't assume that your opinion is necessarily appropriate when applied to someone else. Not to mention that the mere suggestion implies your own infallibility. Just because you think young women make mistakes with their bodies gives you the right offer your own advice, perhaps, but nothing more. You can't judge people for decisions they make which affect only themselves.

Why should sex at one place and time have any bearing on sex at a different place and time. You can have crazy, reckless one night stand sex as young adult, and then go on to have beautiful loving sex with your future wife or husband, surely. I bet some people even combine both kinds of sex while married!

Love your body and all that, but give it what it asks for, as well.

Speaking of which, exactly where are you coming from here, luvluv? Is masturbation okay in your books?