luvluv

Silent Acorns:

1) What difference does that make?

2) I don't think that's true. If I had to order my objections to porn in terms of their affect on me personally, I would think that the exploitative aspect would be number one. I am far more troubled, on a personal and emotional level, by exploiting young girls than I am by any religious proclamations against porn.

When I was struggling with porn as a young Christian, I never made any serious attempts to control myself until I began to see the girls in the films as human beings, with parents, brothers, sisters, and children, all of whom were suffering for her decision. When I began to see that the girls themselves were, in some fashion, being hurt, I was much more determined to stop. What religious and theological motivations spurred me to, simple empathy helped me achieve.

Why?

Absent religion, he would not have done what he did. All of his works and his methods came right out of the New Testament, mixed with a little bit of Ghandi. It is his religious training that allowed him to do what he did. If MLK was a porn star, black people would still be riding on the back of the bus. Could it be that in MLK's case <gasp and swoon!> religion was HELPFUL???

Harumi

So Luvluv, please be clear as to how you intend to solve the problem of exploitation.

You wish to unstigmatize it so that everyone will understand it, and then realize that it's evil, so stop?

Or what?

And this time, please answer my question.

Dr Rick

Those reasons are not "obvious;" please tell us why you can't look at the page.

Rick

Silent Acorns

The difference it makes is, I admit, external to the point of debate except to the extent that your religious reasons seem to bubble up whenever the exploitation argument becomes weak. This might not mean that your religious reasons are stronger (I'll grant you that) but it does suggest that in the end your religious (perhaps aesthetic?) resaons trump all others.

Case in point: I gave you an example of the closest thing you can have to "Christian Porn", and yet you still have difficulty approving of it. The religious reason may not be stronger to you in Belladonna's case, but its net casts so wide that it grabs all sexual images. Which in the end makes it more powerful.

I told you why. Because I hold the profession of "porn star" in higher regard than "minister". And why do I think that way? Because I believe that (all else equal) to be a minister is to waste one's talents on false beliefs while a porn star at least provides entertainment. It's a personal opinion based on my value judgements and I don't claim or expect it to be universally recognized.

What are you saying? That porn stars can't have valid reasons to fight segregation or that religious reasons are the only reasons MLK had against racism? Remember, I said "all-else-equal". The scenario I'm talking about is imagine a porn star named Martin King who tirelessly fought (non violently) for what he believed in, etc. This may sound absurd to you, but only because of the idea of a porn star being able to develop and inspire a movement. Also, to me at least, King was a great man because of his works. His personal reasons are trivial relative to what he actually did.

Would King's statements have less value if he was a porn star rather than a minister? Not to me.

Would you rather follow a minster than a porn star (all else equal)? Personally, I'd prefer the porn star.

But as I said, the issue of chosen profession is trivial relative to the issue of civil rights.

tronvillain

luvluv:
Oh please, I have nothing against people with piercings and tattoos - I have piercings and tattoos. It is simply an indication that she was not really an innocent Mormon when she started out in the business. Now, did she actually attempt suicide or have a nervous breakdown? I see no mention of either in this article. Now, she is still in porn, winning AVN awards, and married to Nacho Vidal (that name probably doesn't mean anything to you, but it does to me). It is not clear that she still has whatever problems she used to have, or that those problem were due to porn.

christ-on-a-stick

luvluv -

Well I was done here I'm divin' back in with one more question for you if you will indulge me.....

After reading your response to Silent Acorns' hypothetical scenario of making a porn film with his wife and distributing it, I want to know what you think about this...

Quite a bit of the work I have done has been in the "fetish" arena. Now, a lot of "fetish" themes are overtly sexual, so I know where you stand on those. However, there are quite a few that *aren't* - meaning no nudity or sex.

For instance:

* Legs and feet. Several minutes of me (or whomever) putting on and taking off stockings, trying different shoes, rubbing lotion on the feet, etc.

*Smoking. Nothin' but pretty ladies smoking, blowing the smoke on various objects, etc. etc.

*Some bondage with very intricate restraints/ropework/etc., but not nude and no sex.

Now presumably the guy (or girl!) watching the video is masturbating (note that's spelled with a "u" not an "e" ) - but the performer is not being hurt or exploited in any way (unless extreme ennui and/or uncontrollable fits of laughter can be construed as pain or exploitation). In fact, after shoots like these I always went home in a state of shock, absolutely amazed that I got paid (very well) do to some silly silly stuff.

I would be very interested to know on what basis you would object to this type of "pornography" (albeit softcore) - if you do in fact have an objections.

Thanks for your time!

Lauri

lunar tee

When I see porn, I become angry. I don't know why. I don't particularly want anyone to stop making it. Or watching it. I've always wondered why I have this reaction. Oh, well.

Monkeybot

On the topic of "benefiting from other people's exploitation"...

I think it would be useful to compare the porn industry and the United States Postal Service.

Sorting mail is one of the highest-paying blue collar jobs out there (or it was at the time of the shootings). This meant that you only needed a high school diploma to become a mail sorter. You didn't need much training, if any at all, and you didn't need special education. You just went in and did it, and got paid pretty well for it. For people with few other options, it is an extremely lucrative job opportunity.

This was a double-edged sword though. The skills needed to sort mail are esssentially nontransferable -- what other company are you going to work for that sorts mail? Moreover, the USPS saved a lot of money by hiring fewer employees -- but "encouraging" those employees to work overtime. Overtime initially seemed attractive to many employees, but in the long term, many workers became dependent on these overtime wages to make mortgage payments, car payments, etc. This leads to postal employees working insanely long hours, with all the problems that entails -- sleep deprivation, less family time, increasing anger and frustration at work.

Additionally, the situation between management and labour is almost universally criticized; those overseeing the mail sorters are quite often ex-military (since they are given preference in the hiring process) and sometimes, "military" attitudes have carried over into management styles. (source)
Worse, the situation sometimes divides along racial lines. There have been some references to the "Postal Plantation" system, in which black employees work sorting the mail while their white managers sit in their air-conditioned offices in far less strenuous straits. Many mail sorting rooms, incidentally, are not air conditioned. Furthermore, those handling the mail are monitored like hawks (there is actually a very good reason for this -- prevention of mail tampering -- but it nonetheless adds to the general workplace stress). (Source)

Now, if we are going by luvluv's arguments, it seems that we should boycott the USPS. After all, you don't KNOW if your mail was sorted by a black employee who was being harassed by his manager, who suffers sleep deprivation because of his overtime and can barely make his car payments. And if you DID know that your mail was sorted by such a person, would you feel comfortable opening it? If you buy a stamp, are you implicitly condoning the system responsible for this man's degradation?

Well, maybe so. But the answer is not to say, "Mail is bad. We should never buy stamps or open mail that is sent to us. We should consider anybody who enjoys sending or receiving mail a 'mail-pimp.'"

The answer, clearly, is to improve the USPS workplace. To respond to complaints, especially about management, in a clear, consistent, and timely fashion. To eliminate some of the stress factors in the work place. Reduce the dependence on overtime. And so on.

Likewise. IF there is exploitation and degradation in the porn industry (and judging from Christ-on-a-stick's contributions, it may not be as prevalent as is being assumed on this thread), the answer is not to just give up on porn. The answer is to RECTIFY the factors and trends that contribute to this situation.

And lastly, the USPS is the largest employer in the nation. The frequency of shootings is actually not disproportionately high. I've often generalized about the USPS and I in no way mean to state that 100% of USPS work places have the problems stated above.

In a similar manner, I think porn sets should receive the same consideration. Some porn sets may have degradation problems, etc. Not all. We don't even know how many... unless someone would like to provide some evidence and/or numbers.

dangin

Free the exploited mail sorters. We should make t-shirts.


luvluv, squirm all you like, your position is indefensible except as a matter of taste. And as a matter of taste you are expressing a distaste for what should be of natural interest to everyone, (sex, including porn) unless they have been warped by external forces (parents, religion, abuse). My morality is not based on sex, it is based on nature. Sex is natural. What more do I have to say?

luvluv

Harumi:

No.

Silent Acorns:

And what difference would that make? The discussion is still SUPPOSED to be about the expoitation of women, which no one wants to discuss because, let's face it, it's more fun to attack me.



Probably. So what? Has nothing to do with what we are supposed to be talking about. I mean, I'm really flattered that everyone around here thinks I'm so important that they would spend a lot of time fishing around for my personal motivations but... the thing is... I have a hard time seeing what it has to do with anything. <shrug>

Ministers do not just dogmatize or make theological pronouncements. They do counseling, community activism, charity work, and they provide a service which many people find meaningful, fulfilling, and necessary. You think they are mistaken, but you don't know the truth with any more certainty than they do. Ministers provide entertainment, as well (Insert lame atheistic joke here). Some folks, like myself, enjoy a good sermon. Why are they being served any less than a person who enjoys mastUrbating to porn?

I don't know that you are giving enough credit to Martin Luther King's religious commitments in producing his works. MLK was very straightforward in proclaiming that he only did all of his work OUT OF a commitment to Jesus Christ, and in response to the greater mission that this commitment called him to. How a porn star would get a similar motivation sans Christianity is beyond me. Moving forward, however, King was even more adamant that his TACTICS came straight out of the WORDS and DEEDS of Jesus Christ and the WORDS and DEEDS of Ghandi, two religious men. So, it is difficult for me to see how a porn star would have gotten the tactic of redemptive suffering, satyagraha, etc. without any influence from religion. You are underestimating the fact that Martin Luther King was the man he was because of his commitment to Jesus Christ. Take that away and he probably leads a totally different life, and it's hard to believe it would have been a more morally productive one.

Certainly Martin Luther King could be in error in thinking there is a God and you could be right, but it is certainly better to live his life in error than to live a porn stars life in accuracy. You seem to put ENTIRELY too much stock in whether or not the opinion a person holds is correct (when let's face it you don't know anymore than he does) and far to little stock in what a person actually does with their life. At least that seems to be the case with that comment.

tronvillian:

What does that mean? What exactly does the tatoo tell you about her innocence? Do they not give tatoos to people unless they can be assured that the person has less than upstanding character? I know of straight-edge kids who are virgins, who don't smoke and don't drink, who have tattoos and piercings out the wazoo. That statements seems very bigoted to me. How can you asses someone's chracter via a tatoo.

She looked right into the camera and said that she suffered a nervous breakdown after being coerced into doing a gangbang scene in a real jail with 5 or 6 men. She went home after that, had a breakdown, and quit the business (temporarily). I've got no reason to make this stuff up, tron. If you don't WANT to believe it, then there's nothing I can do about it. But she looked right into the camera and told the world about the breakdowns and the suicide attempts. I wouldn't have told everyone to watch the show BEFOREHAND if I intended to come in here and lie about what was shown.

Beyond that, though, isn't what WAS described in the article enough to give you pause?

Lori:

Sure, the way the dictionary spells it.

What difference does it make? Why are all of you so concerned with my personal beliefs BEYOND the belief supposedly at hand here? This is totally, totally, totally, totally, TOTALLY besides the point.

I never tried to psychoanalyze YOU, Lori, so I would appreciate it if you laid off psychoanalyzing me. I do object to porn for more than one reason and I am emphatically NOT trying to get you to object to porn for MY reasons. I am asking you how you would consent to porn when it would violate reasons we both agree on.

That being said, I would probably be more in favor of Silent Acorn's proposition than yours, because the sexual behavior of two loving, comitted adults who desired to share their experiences out of some sense of generousity or desire to help would seem more of a Christian thing to do than just feeding somebody's fetishes. Again, I would object to what you were doing less than I object to hardcore pornography, but probably not enough to spend anytime advocating against it. I would probably still personally feel it was wrong, but I wouldn't see why any non-Christian should agree with me on that.

Of course, again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that we are talking about, though again I am flattered that you are all so interested in my personal life. If this keeps up I might write an autobiography.

Monkeybot:

I think the differences between the porn starlet, with a history of abuse, are numerous.

I see no way in which a young girl, with a history of abuse (as is often the case) could engage in unfeeling sex acts for money without causing herself further emotional damage. I don't see any law that can be passed which would prevent porn producers from hiring more weak-willed starlets over stronger-willed ones, or for courting more desperate people over ones more able to say no.

The work itself, under the most ideal conditions, would still be damaging to this person. The same could not be said of the postal worker. The girl's very decision to work is suspect because of her initial vulnerable conditions. The target young girls are often emotionally unstable and financially desperate, and are TARGETED by the porn companies because of these very traits. Postal employers do not TARGET employees based on a perceived inability to resist pressure. I would consider a young woman, in her late teens or early twenties, in emotional and financial distress to be more vulnerable a target than the postal worker. And again, as the Dateline special highlighted, the porn industry is essentially union-proof, and this is BECAUSE of the desperate circumstances that so many girls find themselves in. No matter how many girls make the decision to leave or take a stand and get fired, there are two or more in desperate circumstances ready to take their place. The postal services have strong unions, and while unskilled labor unions are never going to be as powerful as skilled ones, it still has some ability to protect it's employees because of the organized and dependant structure of the postal system. If the postal workers could organize to the extent that they could pull of a nationwide strike they have enough power to shut down the country. If every pornstar walked today, there's plenty of material already out there to keep everyone afloat until new pornstars could be found, and that wouldn't take very long.

So, to begin with, for many logistical and social reasons, postal workers are protected much more than porn stars. Secondly, the hardcore pornography industry will still be intirinsically harmful for many of it's participants under the best conditions. I defy you to find a psychologist who would reccomend gargantuan promiscuity as a plan for mental health. Most of them would say it was extraordinarily high risk behavior, particularly for people with a history of abuse or emotional problems. (For anyone keeping score, exactly the type of girl that porn producers covet most.) So it being that there is no way to totally remove the destructive element totally from porn, I think there is always an inherent exploitation involved no matter the constraints.

But let's be clear, I believe that we do have the obligation to work to rectify or refuse to support ANY industry which exploits it's workers. This is kind of ironic because I have family members in the postal industry and I have supported them on the picket line on numerous occasions. I have boycotted UPS, Federal Express, and USPS on different occasions to be in solidarity with them on issues like the ones you express. It IS our moral duty, I believe, to refuse to support exploiters so far as we are able. It being that mail service is more indispensible that pornography, and that internal and external pressures can TOTALLY eliminate problems, it is not incumbent upon us to abolish the postal service, or declare it to be intrinsically harmful. It being that pornography is not indispensible and that no amount of intenal or external pressures can ever stop an emotionally distraught person from acting out their pain to their own self-destruction through porn, I think it is right to totally refrain from pornography. (And remember I never advocated for porn abolition, only that morally consistent individuals should abstain.)

Lets be ridiculously extreme and say that only one pornstar per porn production house had ever been emotionally damaged as a result of her work in the industry. Would you work for or financially support a daycare where only one child had been sexually abused? And is it at all likely that there are not, or have not been, more than one actor or actress in every company who was emotionally damaged by their participation in the porn industry?

Fine. How many of the people in this discussion who use pornography are doing any of those things? How many are just equivocating and justifying with no intentions of every lifting a finger or giving a dime to help, but just want to feel better about using porn?

I do think it would be noble to try to improve porn. I would feel alot better if porn could be regulated by standards we all approve of to make it more protected. (It should be flat out illegal for any pornography to not include the use of condoms, for instance.) That would remove this objection to porn for me.

Harumi:

Now that I've got your attention, I don't really WANT you to do anything. I'm just bringing some things to your attention. Do what your conscious tells you to do. I'm sure you'll make the right decision.