Since this issue seems to have come up this year on the interwebs I think it's important to put out the discussion. What are your views on the sexual depiction of women in art/media/porn/etc.? Now anyone who knows me probably knows where I stand and I wrote a short essay of my thoughts but for now I will keep quiet. How do you feel about these depictions? Do you take a feminist view or not or something not as conventional? I eagerly await your response.
I don't really know what the feminist position of how women are portrayed in the different media is, but it seems to me that it would be wrong for me to tell women how they should allow themselves to be portrayed. It isn't any of my business if a woman wants to have kinky sex in front of a camera for money. If she wants parade around in her underwear on TV, again it isn't my place to tell her she can't. If the argument is that women are being forced to do these things, than I would be against forcing anyone to do something they don't want to do. But, if the so-called "force" is more money for them, then I don't see a problem with it.
If someone wants to have sex (on camera) for money, they should be allowed to do that.
I don't slut shame so I don't have a problem with it, and since I don't think there is anything inherently "wrong" or "dirty" with sex I don't view porn or stripping or prostitution as degrading.
I also own 13 Fleshlights and bought an external HDD purely just to back up my porn after the horror of accidentally deleting it all once, so I can't say there isn't some bias, lol.
Quote from: "ParaGoomba Slayer"I also own 13 Fleshlights
Why? Do you have 13 dicks?
Quote from: "ParaGoomba Slayer"I also own 13 Fleshlights and bought an external HDD purely just to back up my porn after the horror of accidentally deleting it all once, so I can't say there isn't some bias, lol.
raid 10 ftw. :-D
Quote from: "Valigarmander"Quote from: "ParaGoomba Slayer"I also own 13 Fleshlights
Why? Do you have 13 dicks?
Dude, there are so many different inner textures it's hard not to.
It's funny how many abortion activists who would argue that a woman's body is her own, to do with as she wishes, would castigate the same woman if she wished to do porn.
If a woman is happy making money getting fucked, that's her business, not mine.
How the media portrays women and how porn portrays women are different things to me.
According to the media, women are supposed to be pleasing visually to both men and women and if they aren't, there is a product to correct every flaw. If you don't fit that standard, you are unworthy of love, attention, success and a lot of other things.
How porn portrays women is as sexually submissive yet insatiable creatures who look up at you gratefully when you splat them in the face with sperm.
As far as what I think of women who do porn, I don't care. I don't think any different about them than I would a woman who bags groceries or acts in plays. It's a job. I don't think the damage womankind in general, which a lot of people claim.
I don't think women (or men) should be ashamed of their bodys or their sexuality, so I am very pro-porn, and a person expressing their sexuality in general, in art.
That said, I prefer it to be done with a bit of class and art.
Men are portrayed in porn as all having 9 inch dicks and I know this will come as a disappointment and frankly a rude shock to everyone on this forum, but I don't have a 9 inch dick. 9 milimeters perhaps, but 9 inches.. uhmmm..nope.
You'll all sob into your pillows tonight I know, but the sun will rise tomorrow anyway.
If porn were abolished tomorrow I can't see anyone's life being better for it.
Am I more likely to take women for granted, or disrespect them because of the porn I watch? Hard question to answer, since I would need a woman to randomly walk up to me and demand I let her introduce my glans to her esophagus, something all the more unlikely to happen since my dick wasn't transplanted onto my pelvis from a stallion.
Porn is not real life. Women in porn are not women IRL. Only a mental case gets the two confused. Only a retard watches Orgy at 30,000 feet starring Candy Deepthrust and Peter Shakestick and thinks that Stacy Flannigan from work must be a slut who secretly wants it because of the video he watched.
So the idea that pornography depicts women in a demeaning fashion doesn't hold any more water with me than the idea that violent video games cause violence IRL. Add to that the fact that a woman's right to choose what to do with her body isn't some fucking menu you get to pick from. "Oh well you can do this with your body but not that because it makes the rest of us look bad." LOL FUCK YOU?
Maybe in the 70's when half the porn available was produced by the mafia who exploited women by getting them addicted to drugs then forcing them to do a porno in exchange for their next fix, I would have had a real problem with porn. But today its like a billion dollar industry with laws and strict controls. The industry is very health and safety conscious and the actors are well compensated.
Its a job, and it would be like any other if it weren't for the type of feminist who thinks that something like giving a guy a blowjob is some form of submission to the patriarchy. Yeesh.
Quote from: "AllPurposeAtheist"Men are portrayed in porn as all having 9 inch dicks and I know this will come as a disappointment and frankly a rude shock to everyone on this forum, but I don't have a 9 inch dick. 9 milimeters perhaps, but 9 inches.. uhmmm..nope.
You'll all sob into your pillows tonight I know, but the sun will rise tomorrow anyway.
At least something will. :)
Quote from: "Triple Nine"What are your views on the sexual depiction of women in art/media/porn/etc.?
Adults have sex. And I see nothing wrong with them having sex for money or showing themselves off sexually for money.
A recent NPR piece (//http://www.npr.org/2013/05/10/182654664/what-does-sexual-coercion-say-about-a-society?utm_source=npr&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=20130510) mentioned a study comparing porn consumption, gender equality and sexual relations in Norway, American and Japan--which ranked 1st, 15th and 54th, respectively, on the Gender Empowerment Measure (//http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/indices/gdi_gem/). The study found that "depictions of coercive sex in pornography are about as common in Norway as in other countries" but "that Norwegian pornography was more likely than Japanese pornography to show women in empowered roles, with U.S. pornography falling in the middle". It was also mentioned that a different study (//https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=179581)"found that as pornography consumption has soared in Japan in recent decades, reported cases of sexual violence against women have fallen dramatically." (There is more to the article, which I found very interesting; it is not strictly on topic here, but I encourage you to read it).
So pornography in general, and even pornography depicting women being coerced into sex, appears not to be incompatible with the advancement of women and may reduce sexual-violence against them; Porn depicting women in empowered rolls appears to correlates with women being empowered in real life. (I would be very interested to see studies on whether the depictions of empowered women in porn resulted from the empowerment of women in real life or if porn-empowerment preceded or even perhaps helped facilitate real-world-empowerment.)
That certainly is not the storyline I generally hear about porn and the impact it has on women.
What's an "empowered role" for women in porn? Are we talking like Joanna Angel here?
Certainly sex depicted in porn is unrealistic to the sex off camera in daily life. And like any other industry there can be assholes who exploit girls/women. Having said that, the sex acts should not be the issue, but exploitation.
I am all for porn that is mutual where everyone has a say involved and safety is the issue.
But I do get down on people who say it should never exist at all. It depends for the reasons I stated above. I don't think anyone, male or female should get into it because they were abused, or to support a drug habit nor should anyone exploit another human. But I have no problem with well regulated porn.
Nothing to me is either/or. It depends on HOW it is being done.
Some women argue that porn allows for a disproportionate view of the female........ that porn typically depicts her in a way not necessarily natural (natural = real life) - and while I can kind of see their point I also see porn as fantasy based. Since it's more to satisfy fantasy and not really about real life - then fantasy allows that it is harmless. Does it objectify women? Maybe. But only for the man/woman who has trouble separating real life from fantasy in the first place. There's no controlling that. And monitoring fantasy isn't exactly a public issue but rather a private one.
Instead of looking to porn as the problem I suspect people rarely consider what might happen IF porn were banned or decided illegal. Imagine the upset or objectifying of women if there was no outlet for fantasy? Eeesh.
I think porn can be healthy for many. Objectifying women? Probably. But simultaneously a potential problem solver because it provides an outlet? Definitely. NotGod help us should porn ever be banned.
just my two cents worth.
I would just like to point out that many objections to pornography dissolve when the porn involves gay men, although I'm sure there is a feminist out there who would complain that women are underrepresented gay male porn industry.
Quote from: "GSOgymrat"I would just like to point out that many objections to pornography dissolve when the porn involves gay men, although I'm sure there is a feminist out there who would complain that women are underrepresented gay male porn industry.
LOL
Quote from: "Jason78"What's an "empowered role" for women in porn? Are we talking like Joanna Angel here?
That is, obviously, a key question and one not answered in the NPR piece. I managed to find the study (//http://www.elainehatfield.com/131.pdf) not behind a $30 pay-wall, and while I have not read all of it, this seems to be the relevant passage:
QuoteTwo coding guides for disempowering and empowering factors were created to quantify
the level of disempowerment and empowerment in each pornographic image. Prior content
analyses of pornography have predominantly focused on identifying negative or disempowering
factors (Dworkin, 1981; Cowan, Lee, Levy, & Snyder, 1988; Cowan and Dunn, 1994). Thus, the
disempowerment coding guide was compiled from what past research has deemed demeaning or
degrading towards women. The disempowerment scale is a 24-item measure, consisting of yes/
no indicators to identify the presence of factors such as:
•
The woman being bound and dominated, indicated by the use of props like leashes,
collars, gags, or handcuffs;
•
The woman being depicted as overly youthful or infantilized, indicated by the use of
costumes designed to make her look childlike or young;
•
The image focusing exclusively on a woman's sexualized body parts (Cowan et al.,
1998), indicated typically by a full-frame shot of the breasts, butt, mouth or vulva, or
if the woman's genitalia is spread open (Britton, 1999);
•
The woman is positioned solely to satisfy the sexual desire of the man, without regard
to her apparent comfort or pleasure, indicated by a contorted or unnatural pose, or if
she is in a submissive position (e.g. on her knees gazing up at the camera);
•
The image represents an idealized and unrealistic body type, with the woman being
very thin or underweight, having unnaturally large breasts that appear to be surgically
enhanced, or having skin unblemished by scars, stretch marks, or other "undesirable"
characteristics.
With no prior research on empowering pornographic content to draw from, the 21-item
empowerment scale was created using the inverse of many of the disempowerment factors.
These anti-disempowerment indicators included whether the woman is physically
un
-restrained
and in a natural pose, if she is
not
made to appear childlike through youthful costumes or facial
expressions, or if the frame includes the woman's entire body or at least her face. Other
examples include whether the woman is of average or above average weight, whether she has a
natural looking body (e.g. blemished skin including cellulite or wrinkles), and if she is in
authoritative or at least neutral position (gazing down or directly at the camera).
There is room to argue over the definitions they used, especially on the idea that lack of disempowerment necessarily equates to anti-disempowerment or (as the NPR piece called it and a term used elsewhere in the paper) empowerment, but I think they were mostly trying to use definitions created by others so they could just focus on their research.
QuoteCertainly sex depicted in porn is unrealistic to the sex off camera in daily life.
:-D Not in my life! :shock: :-$ Solitary
If women want to fuck for bucks that's their call, not mine. Good luck to 'em.
For me, I'd say one of the biggest issues with depiction of women in porn is when it is viewed by someone who is either too young or too stupid to differentiate between porn and real life. If 13 year old Billy is watching pr0n in his bedroom then tries ass-to-mouth on his first date with Blossom next door, it's probably going to end in tears for both of them, and Blossom's dad is probably going to tear Billy a new one.... :shock:
Quote from: "Poison Tree"[spoil:gck8ltic]Quote from: "Jason78"What's an "empowered role" for women in porn? Are we talking like Joanna Angel here?
That is, obviously, a key question and one not answered in the NPR piece. I managed to find the study (//http://www.elainehatfield.com/131.pdf) not behind a $30 pay-wall, and while I have not read all of it, this seems to be the relevant passage:
QuoteTwo coding guides for disempowering and empowering factors were created to quantify
the level of disempowerment and empowerment in each pornographic image. Prior content
analyses of pornography have predominantly focused on identifying negative or disempowering
factors (Dworkin, 1981; Cowan, Lee, Levy, & Snyder, 1988; Cowan and Dunn, 1994). Thus, the
disempowerment coding guide was compiled from what past research has deemed demeaning or
degrading towards women. The disempowerment scale is a 24-item measure, consisting of yes/
no indicators to identify the presence of factors such as:
•
The woman being bound and dominated, indicated by the use of props like leashes,
collars, gags, or handcuffs;
•
The woman being depicted as overly youthful or infantilized, indicated by the use of
costumes designed to make her look childlike or young;
•
The image focusing exclusively on a woman's sexualized body parts (Cowan et al.,
1998), indicated typically by a full-frame shot of the breasts, butt, mouth or vulva, or
if the woman's genitalia is spread open (Britton, 1999);
•
The woman is positioned solely to satisfy the sexual desire of the man, without regard
to her apparent comfort or pleasure, indicated by a contorted or unnatural pose, or if
she is in a submissive position (e.g. on her knees gazing up at the camera);
•
The image represents an idealized and unrealistic body type, with the woman being
very thin or underweight, having unnaturally large breasts that appear to be surgically
enhanced, or having skin unblemished by scars, stretch marks, or other "undesirable"
characteristics.
With no prior research on empowering pornographic content to draw from, the 21-item
empowerment scale was created using the inverse of many of the disempowerment factors.
These anti-disempowerment indicators included whether the woman is physically
un
-restrained
and in a natural pose, if she is
not
made to appear childlike through youthful costumes or facial
expressions, or if the frame includes the woman's entire body or at least her face. Other
examples include whether the woman is of average or above average weight, whether she has a
natural looking body (e.g. blemished skin including cellulite or wrinkles), and if she is in
authoritative or at least neutral position (gazing down or directly at the camera).
There is room to argue over the definitions they used, especially on the idea that lack of disempowerment necessarily equates to anti-disempowerment or (as the NPR piece called it and a term used elsewhere in the paper) empowerment, but I think they were mostly trying to use definitions created by others so they could just focus on their research.[/spoil:gck8ltic]
I have a few objections to that research:
It's over ten years old (I know that on it's own that doesn't invalidate it, but porn and attitudes to porn has moved on since then.)
There's a whole range of body types that persist in porn, not just what mainstream media says a woman should look like.
Some positions and poses are purely for the benefit of the camera. There's nothing submissive about a woman on her knees sucking a cock.
Shots are framed for their artistic merit, not for the ease of the performers. You'll see similar poses in non-pornographic works.
Restraints and bdsm behaviour need to be looked at in context. This is a sex act carried out with consent, requiring trust from both parties in order to be safe.
Thanks to HD porn, we now have performers, warts and all. Performers with biopsy scars, blemishes, cellulite, stretch marks and freckles.
In conclusion, I don't think that empowerment can be detected visually with a 100% success rate. Because what you're watching is fictional version of sex. Tanya Tate or Joanna Angel might look submissive on their knees sucking a cock, but they are the ones running the show.
bitches be crazy
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "Poison Tree"[spoil:8ba8zn92]Quote from: "Jason78"What's an "empowered role" for women in porn? Are we talking like Joanna Angel here?
That is, obviously, a key question and one not answered in the NPR piece. I managed to find the study (//http://www.elainehatfield.com/131.pdf) not behind a $30 pay-wall, and while I have not read all of it, this seems to be the relevant passage:
QuoteTwo coding guides for disempowering and empowering factors were created to quantify
the level of disempowerment and empowerment in each pornographic image. Prior content
analyses of pornography have predominantly focused on identifying negative or disempowering
factors (Dworkin, 1981; Cowan, Lee, Levy, & Snyder, 1988; Cowan and Dunn, 1994). Thus, the
disempowerment coding guide was compiled from what past research has deemed demeaning or
degrading towards women. The disempowerment scale is a 24-item measure, consisting of yes/
no indicators to identify the presence of factors such as:
•
The woman being bound and dominated, indicated by the use of props like leashes,
collars, gags, or handcuffs;
•
The woman being depicted as overly youthful or infantilized, indicated by the use of
costumes designed to make her look childlike or young;
•
The image focusing exclusively on a woman's sexualized body parts (Cowan et al.,
1998), indicated typically by a full-frame shot of the breasts, butt, mouth or vulva, or
if the woman's genitalia is spread open (Britton, 1999);
•
The woman is positioned solely to satisfy the sexual desire of the man, without regard
to her apparent comfort or pleasure, indicated by a contorted or unnatural pose, or if
she is in a submissive position (e.g. on her knees gazing up at the camera);
•
The image represents an idealized and unrealistic body type, with the woman being
very thin or underweight, having unnaturally large breasts that appear to be surgically
enhanced, or having skin unblemished by scars, stretch marks, or other "undesirable"
characteristics.
With no prior research on empowering pornographic content to draw from, the 21-item
empowerment scale was created using the inverse of many of the disempowerment factors.
These anti-disempowerment indicators included whether the woman is physically
un
-restrained
and in a natural pose, if she is
not
made to appear childlike through youthful costumes or facial
expressions, or if the frame includes the woman's entire body or at least her face. Other
examples include whether the woman is of average or above average weight, whether she has a
natural looking body (e.g. blemished skin including cellulite or wrinkles), and if she is in
authoritative or at least neutral position (gazing down or directly at the camera).
There is room to argue over the definitions they used, especially on the idea that lack of disempowerment necessarily equates to anti-disempowerment or (as the NPR piece called it and a term used elsewhere in the paper) empowerment, but I think they were mostly trying to use definitions created by others so they could just focus on their research.[/spoil:8ba8zn92]
I have a few objections to that research:
It's over ten years old (I know that on it's own that doesn't invalidate it, but porn and attitudes to porn has moved on since then.)
There's a whole range of body types that persist in porn, not just what mainstream media says a woman should look like.
Some positions and poses are purely for the benefit of the camera. There's nothing submissive about a woman on her knees sucking a cock.
Shots are framed for their artistic merit, not for the ease of the performers. You'll see similar poses in non-pornographic works.
Restraints and bdsm behaviour need to be looked at in context. This is a sex act carried out with consent, requiring trust from both parties in order to be safe.
Thanks to HD porn, we now have performers, warts and all. Performers with biopsy scars, blemishes, cellulite, stretch marks and freckles.
In conclusion, I don't think that empowerment can be detected visually with a 100% success rate. Because what you're watching is fictional version of sex. Tanya Tate or Joanna Angel might look submissive on their knees sucking a cock, but they are the ones running the show.
Many of your objections are valid, some of which (and others) were mentioned in the paper itself--and you could also point out what a small sample size they were actually looking at compared to the amount of porn that is out there. However, I don't think the research is as old as you say because it cites papers from the 2000s including one from 2009 and two from 2010 (though maybe the research is much older than the paper). Any research will have flaws, especially when trying to cover new areas. Some flaws only become apparent during the work. No one paper could possibly do everything necessary to get a true picture of what is going on and must rely on potentially faulty work/definitions of others (especially when the goal is to examine the overarching hypothesis of these others) and make concession away from perfection in the face of practical limitations
As you rightly point out, the women on her knees sucking dick may look disempowered (at least according to the (majority) anti-porn feminist view) but she is at the very least fully consenting to everything that is happening and, if she's a big name porn-star, probably holds the real power in the situation if only because she's the rare/valued commodity in the equation, so to speak, (not to mention she's got a vulnerable, sensitive cock and balls in her teeth and hands) so she may have the producer/director by their figurative (and the actor by his literal) short-hairs.
I hope more--and better designed--research looks into the issue and if all this paper ends up doing is spurring more investigation into this area I think it would have still been worth while.
The Anthony Wiener mistress has signed on to do a porno. I would watch it, she has nice personalities.
Negative: Just looked at pictures, it's whatever. Scratch that one.
Quote from: "Shiranu"The Anthony Wiener mistress has signed on to do a porno. I would watch it, she has nice personalities.
Negative: Just looked at pictures, it's whatever. Scratch that one.
:rollin:
Quote from: "LikelyToBreak"I don't really know what the feminist position of how women are portrayed in the different media is, but it seems to me that it would be wrong for me to tell women how they should allow themselves to be portrayed. It isn't any of my business if a woman wants to have kinky sex in front of a camera for money. If she wants parade around in her underwear on TV, again it isn't my place to tell her she can't. If the argument is that women are being forced to do these things, than I would be against forcing anyone to do something they don't want to do. But, if the so-called "force" is more money for them, then I don't see a problem with it.
Well said you! =D>
arguments about unrealistic expectations of women, can go the other way. how many men meet the expectations set forth in romance novels that women read?
people having unrealistic expectations about their partners happens in both directions.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"arguments about unrealistic expectations of women, can go the other way. how many men meet the expectations set forth in romance novels that women read?
people having unrealistic expectations about their partners happens in both directions.
QFT!
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Did you guys know that almost all het porn is out there made for men? From male point, to serve to the male pleasure...No?
Jodi Foster would disagree! :P Solitary
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Did you guys know that almost all het porn is out there made for men? From male point, to serve to the male pleasure...No?
So that means almost some of it isn't!
What's het porn?
Also why are markets geared toward men bad?
Romance novels, soap operas and daytime talk shows are marketed to women.
Is that bad?
Quote from: "Triple Nine"Since this issue seems to have come up this year on the interwebs I think it's important to put out the discussion. What are your views on the sexual depiction of women in art/media/porn/etc.? Now anyone who knows me probably knows where I stand and I wrote a short essay of my thoughts but for now I will keep quiet. How do you feel about these depictions? Do you take a feminist view or not or something not as conventional? I eagerly await your response.
I am male and heteralsexual. I am not a femminist or even an activist. I do want equality for women and I hate men that are so crass and shallow that all they can do is objectify women.
Porno does this unabashedly, and that is the only problem I have with the modern porno industry. Other than that the porno industry is like any other industry.
I don't watch porno because I just don't get arroused by some ficticious crap. I am much more intersted in spending time with my girlfriend, and I mean all the time. Sexual or nonsexual, every moment spent with her is satisfying.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Did you guys know that almost all het porn is out there made for men? From male point, to serve to the male pleasure...No?
I would think that has more to do with consumption than anything. Heterosexual porn is mainly consumed, or at least paid for, by heterosexual males.
Quote from: "GSOgymrat"I would just like to point out that many objections to pornography dissolve when the porn involves gay men, although I'm sure there is a feminist out there who would complain that women are underrepresented gay male porn industry.
:rollin:
Gay male porn is truly the most misogynist industry at all. Did you know that not a single woman has gotten an award at any of the award ceremonies for gay male porn?
In fact, in all the gay porn I've watched I don't think I've seen a single woman performer....
and I don't ever want to see one. Damn...I think that means I'm a woman hater...
Quote from: "Jason78"What's an "empowered role" for women in porn? Are we talking like Joanna Angel here?
Femdom.
By the way, someone needs to make femdom porn that isn't just a woman with a strap on fucking a guy or weird foot worship crap. I want to watch a woman in a dominant role have sex with a man, not what is essentially just gay bondage porn that happens to feature a woman as the top.
The industry is all over the place with a niche for any taste imaginable from people getting off watching others shit to getting beaten to strung up by their balls to just plain great sensual porn. If you don't have an appetite somewhere in porn you're either asexual or so utterly sexually satisfied at home on demand or maybe a little of both. Maybe your gentials were blown off in a war, but there's probably a niche somewhere in porn for that too..
Next niche! Total impotence porn!
Well, now that we got some responses I am sure many of you know I am very into porn, mainly the big-bust genre that is most prevalent in Score/Scoreland. I also have other, far less prominent fetishes such as being a sadist. I have seriously thought about this issue and in the end I can't think of a good reason why porn should be bad. I wrote an essay on this which you can read below if you got a few minutes. I did it really fast so it may have some errors in it.
Depictions of Women in Art and Media
[spoil:2ayg7jyk]There has recently been discussion about many issues concerning women's rights in the public sphere such as abortion, equal pay, and contraceptive use. This is important we talk about these issues so we can insure the rights for all people. However, on the internet there has been a smaller but also important discussion about how women are depicted. This discussion was spurred by two controversies, Atheism Plus and Anita Sarkesian's project. The main question in both of these projects is the way depicted in the art and media, such as video games, are sexist. The main argument is that in many cases the women are sexualized, which is sexist. I strongly disagree with this analysis. Without getting into the two controversies that started this debate online.
The first point that is often not paid attention by the people arguing the side that the depictions of women are sexist is recognizing the factors of targeted audience and economics. Companies are trying to sell a product in the case of something such as video games. For many "hardcore" games the majority of the audience is males. Why this it became this way is hard to explain because many early video games in the 1970s and 1980s lacked strong tones in gender. Nevertheless, the majority audience over gamers worldwide are male, most males are heterosexual, and thus it makes sense to use a variety of attractive women in the product. Sex is one of the most basic instincts most people have, it is only natural for it to be used in products to attract the general audience that would be potentially interested in the product, mostly heterosexual males. To downplay this important detail is to downplay the reason why you see much of sexualization you see in advertising and products that are targeted toward. This is a matter of trying to sell a product using a natural instinct that the majority of people have.
The second point that is short but still important is that men are also sexualized. Despite men being the key audience in many products, even men like to see themselves as sexually attractive. Again, in the case of video games, if there is a male protagonist it's very common for him to be muscular and physically fit and has physical and fashion elements that many would consider cool and attractive. Just because men are the key audience doesn't downplay the fact that men are still depicted sexually. The amazing thing is that men want to be depicted this way because people like to play roles and be someone they are not. When people want to pretend to be someone else, generally the desired figure is attractive as a personally and in this case, physically.
The next two points are important to note because it goes to heart of where the problem lies. People have different sexual tastes. One word that is repeatedly used by the other side is "oversexualization". Often times when this word is used along with "exaggerated" it describes a very specific sort of body set. This usually with depictions with women who have more fat in sexualized areas such as large breasts or large thighs, not to be explicit. Now these are not the only features many men find attractive, in fact many men do not find these features attractive. Even in many products and art depict different "body types" for attractive women to appeal to a large number of men who have different sexual tastes. So what is "exaggerated"? In this case I feel there is a bias against women with this certain body type, because the language used acts like there isn't women with these body features. To make matters worse, to expect no sexualization in media and art is a bit ridiculous, but that seems to be what the other side is expecting. Even art where there isn't some sort of monetary gain like a company people incorporate sexual elements because the artist(s) like sex. For people on the other side who feel further sexualization is fine, they want a change in the body types of the women to not be what they described as the "exaggerated" body types earlier. Never mind the fact that they already have different body types represented as stated earlier in vast majority of cases. The obvious rationalization is that these "new" body types would reflect "normal" women. This is a contradiction though because it still leaves out women who have the "exaggerated" body types described earlier and as much as some men like that body type these women also have insecure feelings about their bodies. All body types of women will be loved by some but also disliked by many, this includes the body types of women described as "exaggerated", which in of itself is an attack on these body types. There will always be people left out in these cases, and changing or increasing who is doesn't get represented doesn't make things any better.
The last thing about this that I feel the other side doesn't understand that much of sex is fantasy. Sex is often an area where otherwise risqué or even otherwise immoral actions can be acted out in the imagination. We have no right to impose our sexual tastes on to someone else and as long as they are not hurting others they can fantasize about anything they want. Just like killing and violence in movies and books, just because someone fantasizes and role-plays something otherwise immoral in any other situation doesn't mean they would do that in real life and in the public sphere. With the exception of people who may already have a problem, most realize their sexual fantasies are just that, fantasies they would not do or want to do in real situations. In the case of not actions but body features, none of us have the right to codemn a person's body or someone's attraction to certain features as "sexist". It is completely natural and people have the right to feel comfortable with the body they have or the physical features the are attracted to. Let's also not forget that you can't choose what your sexually attracted to either. To condemn something someone has no control over isn't fair.
In conclusion I feel that much of the accusations of sexism is important to consider but ultimately falls flat. When I analyzed the claims and arguments they seemed mostly rooted in confirmation bias and generally anti-sex attitudes. Now I believe there are issues that are important concerning women such as the right to an abortion, a right to contraceptives, and a way to try and balance the inequalities in pay concerning men and women due to a variety of practices such as job placement. I believe in women's rights and equality for all people regardless of who they are or what situation they are in or born into. We should also be concerned about issues concerning men to however such as the fathers' rights. I believe in gender equality and we should focus on all the problems that are caused currently by certain outdated gender roles. This debate is important but I do believe there are much more pressing issues at hand, speaking how this whole debate has yet to leave from the various internet communities it started in. There are more important matters in the developed and developing world to be concerned with.[/spoil:2ayg7jyk]
When I was twelve years old I and my buddies would sneak peaks at the Playboys at certain liquor stores where we knew they were left in reach. The adolescent hormone grapevine was full of lore about which liquor stores had the harder core stuff, like Gent, or Adam. (This was before even hustler, and by those standards were still pretty tame). At some of these the guys at the counter would tolerate a fair amount of snooping before chasing us off. (These were often the ones that would later be lax about asking for ID when we went in to buy booze at 17 or 18.)
Where to draw the line between art and smut? When I was passing puberty I knew nothing about exploitation. Smut was smut. The women were viewed as sluts by "righteous" society, and viewed with longing by my awakening genitals. I grew up in a society were I was told it was wrong, but was never told the truth about what exactly was wrong with it.
I just watched the Daily Show where John Oliver interviewed Hank Azaria about his role in the new movie "Lovelace". I saw the movie Deep Throat as a newly minted "young adult" at the Pussycat Theater in San Diego, where it would wind up running for years, making the producers millionaires, while Linda Lovelace got literally fucked out of every penny.
So, have I changed my views on porn? Well, I am certainly more educated, and in retrospect regret contributing to the fortune Linda saw not a penny of. Am I opposed to it in all forms? No. I still view it occasionally. Many of the women involved are well compensated, but I still see examples of women who are very likely victims of exploitation. Banning it will not stop the exploitation. De-stigmatizing the actors involved will help.
My problem is less with porn, but the assumption that women who do porn and women who have certain fetishes are less "valuable" and "respectable" than other people in society.
Many people don't make the distinction between being treated as a mere object with being the object of sexual desire or any desire for that matter. The difference is clear: you don't ask MERE objects for mutual consent beforehand and care what they want.
Note- I don't care much for the porn business because they don't treat the actors and actresses well.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"That is, obviously, a key question and one not answered in the NPR piece. I managed to find the study (//http://www.elainehatfield.com/131.pdf) not behind a $30 pay-wall, and while I have not read all of it, this seems to be the relevant passage:
QuoteTwo coding guides for disempowering and empowering factors were created to quantify
the level of disempowerment and empowerment in each pornographic image. Prior content
analyses of pornography have predominantly focused on identifying negative or disempowering
factors (Dworkin, 1981; Cowan, Lee, Levy, & Snyder, 1988; Cowan and Dunn, 1994). Thus, the
disempowerment coding guide was compiled from what past research has deemed demeaning or
degrading towards women. The disempowerment scale is a 24-item measure, consisting of yes/
no indicators to identify the presence of factors such as:
•
The woman being bound and dominated, indicated by the use of props like leashes,
collars, gags, or handcuffs;
Someone doesn't understand the D/s dynamic.
There often seems to be a strange disconnect between which depictions of sex society sees as empowering to women and which acts the women preforming them think of as empowering (as Colanth hints at with regard to the D/s dynamic). It brought to mind this opinion piece (//http://www.xojane.co.uk/sex/why-i-wince-through-hollywood-sex-scenes-and-not-porn). The gist of it is that porn actresses are often viewed as being degraded by their work, even (perhaps especially) if they voice enjoyment of it; yet legitimate actresses are lauded for doing often-called empowering sex scenes, even when they describe the experience as violating and terrifying and describe using alcohol to get through/over the scene while crying and feeling "a little raped" (though obviously not everyone from each group feels the same).
Unless we have some hypothetical overwhelming reason, I think we must accept at face value when a women says that preforming an action made her feel humiliated or empowered. Which brings me to twin (perhaps rhetorical) questions:
If a women says she feels empowered (or even simply neutral) preforming an act, can society decide that it is demeaning to her or women to at large? Similarly, if an actress describes her feeling after doing a scene with the sentiments quoted in this piece, who is society to deem it as empowering?
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Romance novels, soap operas and daytime talk shows are marketed to women.
Is that bad?
Yes. Soap operas do not represent a normal healthy adult relationship.
Quote from: "Jason78"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"Romance novels, soap operas and daytime talk shows are marketed to women.
Is that bad?
Yes. Soap operas do not represent a normal healthy adult relationship.
Of course. But do women watch them with the expectation that that's a normal and healthy sort of relationship? Or as a pleasing fantasy?
The idea that men get their cues from porn could use a little scrutiny, imho.
My wife and I really enjoy nude artwork and have several nude sculptures in our house. I don't have a problem in general with porn either. When I was younger, [s:1rq5malv]I[/s:1rq5malv] my friends watched TONS of if. The ONLY thing that bothers me about it nowadays is a report I saw on the news where women were being kidnapped and sold into the sex trade and forced to do porn. Every time I see porn now, that's all I can think about. I always wonder if by watching porn, am I supporting human trafficing and illegal sex trade? :shock:
Quote from: "Satt"When I was younger, [s:1sn22v66]I[/s:1sn22v66] my friends watched TONS of if. The ONLY thing that bothers me about it nowadays is a report I saw on the news where women were being kidnapped and sold into the sex trade and forced to do porn.
Linda Lovelace, the star of Deep Throat, a porn movie which pushed the envelope and brought porn into local theaters in the 1970s claims she was forced by her promoter husband to do the scenes at gunpoint. She claimed an abusive marriage to get a divorce, but there are skeptics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lovelace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linda_Lovelace)
QuoteBoreman [Lovelace] maintained she received no money for Deep Throat and that the $1,250 payment for her appearance was taken by [husband] Traynor.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Male porn stars on the other had, are 'lucky bastards' with dreamy jobs and they can just quit that occupation to move on anything else and even thrive. I am sure they would have great time telling their experiences to their new admiring colleagues, while a female pron star that managed to quit her job gets refused from every job she is able to do, because of her known past and position. I don't know if you are aware under these circumstances her known position is actually being a female.
I agree with what you said, I just wanted to point out this part is only relevant for heterosexual male porn stars. Gay male porn stars (top, bottom, or versatile) are subjected to the same type of scrutiny that women who were in heterosexual porn have to face. Apparently being touched by a penis on camera makes you an anathema.
Quote from: "Poison Tree"If a women says she feels empowered (or even simply neutral) preforming an act, can society decide that it is demeaning to her or women to at large? Similarly, if an actress describes her feeling after doing a scene with the sentiments quoted in this piece, who is society to deem it as empowering?
Men know what's good for women better than women do. (Where's the smiley for "disgusted"?)
Quote from: "Colanth"Quote from: "Poison Tree"If a women says she feels empowered (or even simply neutral) preforming an act, can society decide that it is demeaning to her or women to at large? Similarly, if an actress describes her feeling after doing a scene with the sentiments quoted in this piece, who is society to deem it as empowering?
Men know what's good for women better than women do. (Where's the smiley for "disgusted"?)
You are referring to chocolates and flowers of course - right? Otherwise - uh - No. No they don't. :rollin:
[youtube:p5mnovdk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q64hTNEj6KQ[/youtube:p5mnovdk]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/0 ... 08132.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/05/porn-star-nina-hartley-real-sex_n_3708132.html)
While I would agree that the majority of porn is probably aimed at heterosexual males, which is highly likely to be the case as heterosexual males are also likely the biggest consumers of pornography, there is also plenty of pornography showing passionate lovemaking which is geared at both sexes or in some cases even more towards women. This has probably grown in recent years, although I cannot really be sure of this. It does definitely exist though.
That said, this does not mean that some pornography is not degrading.
Another thing I'd like to ask/say, is if porn does depict women, or anyone in a certain negative way, and everybody involved consented to it and is not being exploited, what then? What can be done? Should something be done? Is this problem even rooted in the industry, or is it simply the manifestation of the attitudes held by those who consume it?
QuoteIf a het woman want to masturbate by watching porn she almost has no choice of porn designed for a heterosexual female point.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=porn+for+women (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=porn+for+women)
nobody has answered my question. WTF is het porn?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"BUT NO MEN, may be VERY few men, would consider to have a serious relationship with a female porn star -or prostitutes- let alone marry them. And that is the very basic problem lying underneath.
How many women would be comfortable with marrying a male escort/porn star?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"ONCE they are known with this occupation, it's almost impossible for them to lead a 'normal' life, have a relationship, family or get married someone they choose out of that occupation, let alone move onto a different occupation. (A few exceptions doesn't make any difference.)
How many women would want to have a family with a male pornstar/escort?
Would you knowingly hire an ex-male pornstar or escort for a different job as an employer? I almost certainly wouldn't.
I do in fact agree with some of the points you raised, but these points I'm not as sure about.
Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"nobody has answered my question. WTF is het porn?
Heterosexual.
Quote from: "Shiranu"Quote from: "hillbillyatheist"nobody has answered my question. WTF is het porn?
Heterosexual.
thanks!
I'm fine with porn- although I agree with drunkenshoe about there being no porn for heterosexual women and about how unfairly female porn stars(and other women who are more open about sex) are viewed and treated.
As far as media and general depiction of women:
The way women are so prized for their looks and how much their worth is derived from it drives me crazy. I can't tell you how many times someone has told me they don't like a television show/character because the actress isn't pretty. Female characters seem to always have to be beautiful for anyone to like them.
But there is porn for hetrosexual women.
People rarely(I'm sure they must -sometimes-) market porn towards het women or concern themselves with what a they would be interested in watching.
Quote from: "Skaði"The way women are so prized for their looks and how much their worth is derived from it drives me crazy.
It's called evolution, and it hasn't been long enough since it actually mattered for it to have changed.
Yes, thank you :P
You do, but apparently that doesn't go for everyone. I wouldn't be surprised if most employers wouldn't hire a former porn star for many kinds of positions, especially the public-facing ones. You don't, as an employer, want someone to google your sales guy and end up at an X-rated website.
I don't think that ignoring a statement really counts as an argument. Unless you don't count "having a job" as a "role", anyway. Male porn stars aren't allowed in most jobs either. At least not where I live.
On the other hand, I've heard a number of stories from female sex-workers who took the job because they needed to pay for their study, and who left the job when they got their diploma and moved on to a new position. That's actually kinda acceptable behaviour it seems, but you never hear of males doing that.
It's probably a different culture where you live (and you're probably right about the situation in Turkey), but I don't think it's a world-wide thing. I certainly don't get that vibe you're talking about here. Remember that most of the people here come from sexually backwards countries (I'm counting both the US and Turkey there), but not all the world is like that. Some countries have already moved beyond some of the issues you talk about. (Not far enough imho, but at least beyond the gender-divide you speak of)
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"If a male decides to quit that occupation and get a new career he can and in that position you can bet many women would consider that male among eligible life partners -because society does.
I'm not sure that I can bet on that though.
I'm trying to think of young women my age that I've known who would even consider an ex-pornstar as a life partner and I really can't imagine that any of them would. That's not to say that nobody would but I certainly disagree that society as a whole does not view an ex male pornstar as a less suitable candidate for marriage/relationships etc.
That said, I would not consider a female ex-prostitute nor ex-pornstar as a candidate for a relationship. This is not because I am sexist, this is because I would not want to be in a relationship with someone who has a completely different attitude towards the value of sexual expression and the sanctity of their own body than I do. That's not to say I would stop someone making their own choices, but I do think that someone who has made that choice is not compatible with me. That has nothing to do with sexism, and it would be the same way if I were a girl considering male companions.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteHow many women would want to have a family with a male pornstar/escort?
See above. A man always has a chance 'to be accepted to normal life' once he declared that he quit his job and tried to make another life. A woman cannot do that. She wouldn't 'be accepted to normal life' let alone another line of work or start a family after a pron career.
How do you know that a man has a good or much better chance of doing so though?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"And the only reason for this is her gender, being a female; having a vagina; and people coming out to this world from a vagina. A penis and a vagina have completely different meanings in social contract. Vagina determines some sort of value and worthiness of a woman, as a mother, as a young girl, as this and that...as a human being.
And throughout history it has been so for men, so much so that castration was used as a social weapon and a method of control. Not to mention that the size of a penis is far more determinate of a man's worth in society's eyes than the size of the breasts or structure of the vagina etc.
I'm struggling to see that you're objectifying someone by viewing them in terms of their private parts when they are a pornstar, male or female. If someone's primary marketable skill is removing their clothing and showing off their sexual organs etc. then why is it demeaning to them to evaluate that person based on their job?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"This is the real unshakable monarchy created by humans. Genitals organ monarchy. Penis and vagina. Vagina rules over everything if you know how to use it, because that's the only way penis can rule.
I really don't understand what you're trying to say with this.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"When you work with your brain, you are 'honourable'. When you are working with your hands, you are again somewhat honourable, but somewhat the lower class. If you are working with your vagina you are a low life and you are not entitled to the rights other organs gain you as working tools.
Likewise with a penis.
Do you really think that I give someone paid to wave their cock about on camera the same respect as someone who worked hard their entire lives to better themselves and to master a difficult skill which makes them useful to society? No chance.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteWould you knowingly hire an ex-male pornstar or escort for a different job as an employer? I almost certainly wouldn't.
If the person is qualified to do the job, I hire everyone. What he/she did before is none of my -or anyone else's- fucking business.
Your past professional experience absolutely is your employer's business.
If someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.
QuoteNot to mention that the size of a penis is far more determinate of a man's worth in society's eyes than the size of the breasts or structure of the vagina etc.
Errrr, no. You should check out pictures of ideal men and women on billboards. A women's boob-size is definately considered important to "society", which is mostly made up out of idiots.
QuoteDo you really think that I give someone paid to wave their cock about on camera the same respect as someone who worked hard their entire lives to better themselves and to master a difficult skill which makes them useful to society? No chance.
Unfair comparison. First off; someone who is being paid to "wave their cock about"
is woring hard to better themselves. Second off, you're comparing someone with a job in entertainment with someone who is mastering a "difficult skill"; by this logic you would respect a McDonalds worker less than a porn-star, because the porn worker has a lot more professional skills and a much more difficult job than a McDonalds worker has. And lastly, a porn star is useful to society by virtue of people are willing to buy his work.
QuoteIf someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.
You sound like you wouldn't hire people with hobbies either. Just because people spend time on something doesn't mean they can't do anything else. It would probably be a better idea to ignore what they did at the start of their carreer and simply check how good they are
now, which is the only relevant thing for being able to do their job.
I spent the "formative years" of my carreer doing something completely different from what I'm currently paid to do, but my boss didn't care about how I spent my time; he only cared about my current abilities, and those were good enough for a hire.
And seriously, would you refuse to hire someone who spent the first part of his career working at McDonalds before getting into his current field, simply because he didn't spend the "formative part of his carreer" working in his later field of choice? I'm betting you'd still consider him based on his current skillset.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteNot to mention that the size of a penis is far more determinate of a man's worth in society's eyes than the size of the breasts or structure of the vagina etc.
Errrr, no. You should check out pictures of ideal men and women on billboards. A women's boob-size is definately considered important to "society", which is mostly made up out of idiots.
Yeah you're not actually allowed to show huge phalluses on billboards...as hilarious as I'm sure that would be.
I didn't say breast size was considered unimportant, I'm saying that a man with a tiny penis is ridiculed and laughed at more than a woman with small breasts.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteDo you really think that I give someone paid to wave their cock about on camera the same respect as someone who worked hard their entire lives to better themselves and to master a difficult skill which makes them useful to society? No chance.
Unfair comparison. First off; someone who is being paid to "wave their cock about" is woring hard to better themselves. Second off, you're comparing someone with a job in entertainment with someone who is mastering a "difficult skill"; by this logic you would respect a McDonalds worker less than a porn-star, because the porn worker has a lot more professional skills and a much more difficult job than a McDonalds worker has. And lastly, a porn star is useful to society by virtue of people are willing to buy his work.
I see no self-improvement in someone who is paid to reveal themselves and have sex on camera.
Have you worked in McDonalds? I haven't but I've seen and heard that it is quite high pressure and not very pleasant.
I don't hold anyone in disdain for working and earning their keep, but of course I respect someone professionally who has made great personal sacrifice and done something extremely difficult to become, say a doctor, more than someone who simply takes their clothes off. That doesn't qualify them for special treatment, but it is certainly a better and more impressive achievement.
Quote from: "Plu"QuoteIf someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.
You sound like you wouldn't hire people with hobbies either. Just because people spend time on something doesn't mean they can't do anything else. It would probably be a better idea to ignore what they did at the start of their carreer and simply check how good they are now, which is the only relevant thing for being able to do their job.
I absolutely would not hire someone with no hobbies given the choice, but keep on assuming things about me.
Someone who has lots of interesting hobbies and greatly enjoys and makes the most of their free time is likely to be a more productive employee as well. I wouldn't want to hire a robot, I want to hire interesting, problem-solving people who like to excel at things, and so would most people if they were trusting them with their business.
Take myself, I have worked hard in education and have nearly earned a degree in my chosen field, I have worked through the holidays at various companies to gain professional experience, my hobbies suggest taking genuine interest in thing and exploring my interests and myself, self-improvement and dedication, rather than watching TV 24/7, although obviously most people like to veg every now and then. I have references from those jobs suggesting that I am not content to simply turn up, get through to the end of the day and then leave, but that I genuinely strive to not only do my job, but to do it well and improve things around me, as well as constantly looking at myself. At my current job I have proven myself useful and trustworthy enough that as an intern, they trusted me to make manufacturing changes on a vehicle that will be mass-produced and shipped all around the globe.
Do you think future employers will look at me, having ALWAYS chosen the difficult route in order to better myself, and think "nah I'd rather chose the other 21 year old who took the easy way and showed their tits/penis/vagina/ass on camera for the past few years"?
Quote from: "Plu"I spent the "formative years" of my carreer doing something completely different from what I'm currently paid to do, but my boss didn't care about how I spent my time; he only cared about my current abilities, and those were good enough for a hire.
Yeah, and how did you get your current professional abilities? I doubt it was with your penis. Also, just because professional experience is different, does not mean it is invalid. Someone who has demonstrated that they have great ability to work with others, and to get the job done no matter what it is, and to be reliable and dependable is very valuable to an employer.
Quote from: "Plu"And seriously, would you refuse to hire someone who spent the first part of his career working at McDonalds before getting into his current field, simply because he didn't spend the "formative part of his carreer" working in his later field of choice? I'm betting you'd still consider him based on his current skillset.
No, I wouldn't refuse to hire someone who worked at McDonalds.
I would consider someone based on their current skillset, and those skills don't just fall out of the sky, they would have gotten them somewhere. Working in McDonalds is professional experience, and a necessity for some people to keep them sheltered, fed and clothed in the absence of any other work to do and they must have a minimum level of usefulness if they were able to cut it there without fucking up or getting fired. If someone has that among other necessary skills for the job, they've a decent chance of being hired. If they took the easy route and showed their body off for money instead of doing a real job then the chances are they haven't gained the same skills even as someone who worked in McDonalds. I've done a job where my main role was to clean shit, carry shit and to get shouted at, all for barely enough to cover rent, food and getting to work. In fact at that job I had a month where I did not have a single day off, including weekends, and worked dawn until night most of those days. You're sitting there assuming that I think people who work their fucking arses off at shit jobs don't know hard work and have developed no skills? Laughable. They're far better professionally than people who take the easy route of waving their bits about on camera.
I have a hard time imagining that if you'd poured blood, sweat and tears into building a successful business you'd not want to hire the most all-round competent people you possibly could to trust it with. Someone who made the career choice of being a porn star instead of something else is hardly going to be competitive with other applicants, especially these days in such a tough job market.
This discussion is pretty off-topic, given that it has little to do with the depiction of women, but I feel it was worth saying all of this, as the topic of women being unfairly disadvantaged with their future career choices was brought up. I do not think that being disadvantaged career-wise after making such a shitty career choice is a problem uniquely faced by women. Do people leave the porn industry and find it tough to get a good job as something else? I'm sure they do. People leave education and hard work in other fields and find it tough as well in this day and age. Is this problem unique to women? I don't think so, for the reasons dictated above.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Of course they do view it as a less suitable candidate, but more suitable candidate than a female one.
How do you know?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteThat said, I would not consider a female ex-prostitute nor ex-pornstar as a candidate for a relationship. This is not because I am sexist, this is because I would not want to be in a relationship with someone who has a completely different attitude towards the value of sexual expression and the sanctity of their own body than I do. That's not to say I would stop someone making their own choices, but I do think that someone who has made that choice is not compatible with me. That has nothing to do with sexism, and it would be the same way if I were a girl considering male companions.
Then you think what people do for a living define everything about themselves and I couldn't disagree more.
Of course I don't think that. I think that someone's attitude towards sex is an important aspect of a relationship and if their attitude towards sex is very, very different to mine then we're unlikely to be compatible life partners. That is exactly what I expressed above as well.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"What is this completely different attitude these people have towards the value of sexual expression and the 'sanctity' of their own body than you do? What 'sanctity' can human body have for fuck's sake? What bullshit is this?
In my opinion, sex is a very important way of expressing your feelings towards someone, and expressing myself sexually is something very intimate to me. That is just my opinion, but I only want to share this extremely close intimacy with people I love and trust. I would look for a similar attitude in people I'd like to spend the rest of my life with as a partner, simply because they would be suitable for me.
If someone else does not view sex in this way, and is okay with doing it with someone they do not love as a job, then they are well within their rights to do so, but they are probably a very different person to me, so them and I would probably not make compatible life partners.
My choice of potential candidates for relationships is entirely my own and simply dismissing my right to chose people I feel are similar to myself as bullshit is making you far more guilty of shaming someone for their choices than I am.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"This is the 'monarchy' I am talking about. The monarchy of genital organs over other parts of human body. You can work with any part of your body, but if you work with your genitals you are worthless, lazy...etc.
I don't think that.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Are you aware that You are practically saying, people who earn their lives with sex (porn or prostitution) cannot love or have sexual relationship with someone or any other relationship. And that's abhorrent.
I absolutely did not say that, nor did I even hint at that.
I said that someone who chose to do this would be very different to me, and that I did not think that we'd be suitable for eachother. That is in NO WAY trying to enforce control over what they can and cannot do. What is abhorrent is you trying to shame ME for my choice of who I would and wouldn't like to have a relationship with.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteHow do you know that a man has a good or much better chance of doing so though?
Are you serious?
If it is so obvious then it should be easy to tell me how you know this.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteAnd throughout history it has been so for men, so much so that castration was used as a social weapon and a method of control. Not to mention that the size of a penis is far more determinate of a man's worth in society's eyes than the size of the breasts or structure of the vagina etc.
Of course it is. And it is funny you expressing this as against what I said because that was exactly what I stated. Penis, vagina..etc are defined by patriarchal values. Or 'male culture' if you prefer. Otherwise I could have gone and walked around or work in the garden of my house topless in a summer site in this heat, as men can do.
But I can't because my breast are to be covered because they are highly sexual for the male, while their actual function is to feed an infant.
You have organs involved in sexual reproduction on your chest, men don't. The patriarchy didn't put them there. Society as a whole considers openly displaying organs involved in sexual reproduction as unacceptable (although I don't think it should be unacceptable, it's only a human body). Nuturing offspring is a part of reproducing.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteI'm struggling to see that you're objectifying someone by viewing them in terms of their private parts when they are a pornstar, male or female. If someone's primary marketable skill is removing their clothing and showing off their sexual organs etc. then why is it demeaning to them to evaluate that person based on their job?
Err...I am not sure why you wrote this, because I am the one who keeps repeating that they shouldn't be objectified in their lives just because of their occupation. And as it is the thread's titles I am making a comparison.
It's demeaning because that specific job(s) result them to be defined and viewed in the most primitive and abhorrent way as you did above. As people who cannot love or have healthy sexual relationships, because of some made up bullshit idea of 'sanctity' of human body. It's laughable.
I did not view them in that way, as I have said multiple times above. I have every right to chose who I would and wouldn't like to have a relationship with, just like you do, just like anyone does, pornstar or not. I would never try to prevent a pornstar, male or female, from making their own choices. That does not mean I am not entitled to make my own choices as to who I sleep with. To assume that because I would not like to sleep with someone or be in a relationship with someone that I am a bad person and to attempt to shame me for it is to be guilty of the thing you're accusing me of: shaming people based on their choices.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"That's interesting, because this is how you exactly define the whole issue as seen from your post.
No it isn't. It's what you assume I think based on the fact that I'm a man so I can't possibly make my own choices about who to be in a relationship with without being an oppressive, patriarchal monster. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOSE MY RELATIONSHIPS. So does a pornstar, before, during and after their career. Me making MY OWN CHOICE not to have sex with someone for ANY REASON is not abhorrent and it is not oppressing anyone. To deny me that right is.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteLikewise with a penis.
Do you really think that I give someone paid to wave their cock about on camera the same respect as someone who worked hard their entire lives to better themselves and to master a difficult skill which makes them useful to society? No chance.
No, not likewise with penis. A man is not defined as unpure, dirty or worthless, 'slut', 'whore' for having 'too much sex' or being open about it. For example in ALL religions females ARE punished far more violently and readily than men when 'sinned' in sex.
I view both men and woman in the sex trade equally.
Do you actually watch porn? I have yet to see much that makes the guy look intelligent, interesting, better than the woman, in control of his own actions etc. etc.
Do I agree that attitudes to women having sex in society are outdated and primitive in some cases? Yes.
Is it sexist to think less of both men AND women who do pornography? No. We can debate whether or not it is justifiable to think less of anyone for it, but it is not giving men nor women any kind of special treatment.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"And could you please define what is the meaning of 'WORKING HARD' here? Do you seriously claim porn stars and prostitutes cannot be considered HARD WORKING just because of the job they have to do? Or what they do is NOT useful to the society?
I think that most people would agree that the sex trade is not only not very useful to society, but that it brings with it social problems.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"But you are hard working, because you went to some college and dreaming of building race cars? And that is more useful to society because you didn't use your genitals to do it, but went to a school? Because everyone is born with equal circumstances...and who 'chooses' porn or prostitution is just lazy and stupid? Riiiight.
I was told at school that I wasn't good enough at maths to do it. I almost joined the Royal Marines because I'm just not that good academically and I didn't see many other options. I didn't though, I tried anyway, and worked my ass off to get through it even though I find it extremely difficult. Also my job is manufacturing road cars at the moment, which are probably one of the most useful things ever concieved, but this is irrelevant.
Someone has every right to chose to be a pornstar if that's what they want to do. That doesn't mean I have to think it is a good career move, and that doesn't mean I have to want to hire them. If by equal circumstances, you are referring to people who are forced to do pornography, that is an entirely different debate altogether, as that is hardly a deliberate career move.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteYour past professional experience absolutely is your employer's business.
If someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.
I am the employer here. You asked me if I would hire someone with that occupation in the past, I said I would.
You also suggested that someone's past experience was none of an employer's business, which it is.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Over all, your attitude of If someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something shows how delusional you look at porn industry and prostitution...life, world. If you really think these people work and continue to work in a line like this, because that's their dream job or what they chose to do, you have lot to learn, not to mention some empathy to build.
Please show me when and where I said it was someone's dream job. Oh wait I didn't.
In fact, what you just said right there, illustrating that you don't seem to think that it *is* someone's dream job, illustrates that you don't view it as an ideal job either.
I am absolutely not deluded about prostitution, and wish people who engage in it no harm. That doesn't mean that I should be obligated to give them tens of thousands of pounds a year to look after my property and my company though, if I were to have one.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"You wrote a post full of condescending, judgemental, high and mighty bullshit remarks to define these people/the occupation they have; used nonsense, made up words like 'sanctity' to define yourself as their opposite; defined them as 'lazy', yourself as 'hard working' and then picked up a word like 'dream job' as in "I didn't say that!" -which perfectly defines your narrow vision of life by the way- and now you're trying get back with a brazen faced, amazingly clueless air 'oh no, I didn't do that!' in a politically correct way.
Sanctity isn't a made up word.
I also said that I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with a pornstar because I had just as much right to chose who I do and don't have sex with as they do, and that therefore chosing not to be in a relationship with a pornstar was not a matter of sexism, a point which you're now conviniently ignoring, having used it as your main justification to declare me to have terrible attitudes etc.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Yes that's what you did, go read your post. Either own up to what you said and say, 'yes that is my opinion' or if you find your opinion changed or sounded different than what you intended -which is highly unlikely in this case, because these things are not that relative really- try to rephrase yourself. But stop pretending like you didn't do such a thing, when it's so fucking obvious. A little self respect, if you want some in return.
"I wouldn't hire an ex pornstar because there are far better candidates out there" isn't the same as "all pornstars are lazy and useless".
Secondly, another major point of yours is that women have way worse chances in employment after being one than men, and my response was to say that across both genders I would consider it a disadvantage, thus responding directly to your point. Of course that means I'm narrow-minded and all manner of other things, when really I'm illustrating a point: if you put "pornstar" on your CV, it will raise red flags for most employers, regardless of gender.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"I am not going to get sucked into this bullshit with you again, because I KNOW after we stopped talking about it and as soon as you started to talk about it with another poster -in more [s:208hfp0c]bullshit[/s:208hfp0c] politically correct way of course- some way in the middle, you'll start to say similar things to what I have been saying and even agree with them.
Keep postulating about what I'm going to do, which I'm sure is going to be extremely accurate given that you can't read me saying who I'd chose to be in a relationship without trying to twist it into saying that I think all pornstars can't have relationships etc.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"You perfectly know I am going to be straight, why do you keep doing this? If you want some politically correct bullshit exchange on the subject by extent a masturbating session over your 'high value life status' go pick someone else. And don't you dare say this has nothing to do with your life status. The comparisons and definitions you made in your post are clear than baccarat crystal.
I don't want political correctness. It seems that it is you who does, it is you who is defending a group of people by throwing accusations about what you think I think around.
Of course I used an example of my own career, however fledgling, to illustrate a point. I cannot tell you about someone else's. My point is that of course they will be at a disadvantage in the job market compared to someone who made different choices, and that isn't a problem of their gender, it is a problem to do with their choices alone.
You say I want political correctness, but it seems I'm the only one actually responding to points and talking on topic rather than assuming what you think and then attacking that instead.
Quote"I wouldn't hire an ex pornstar because there are far better candidates out there" isn't the same as "all pornstars are lazy and useless".
It's quite literally saying "all ex-pornstars are by definition less qualified than whatever else happens to be available". It's not the same, but it's pretty damn close. The fact that you wouldn't hire them in any case, regardless of the skill level of the other available people, says enough about how capable you consider them.
QuoteOver all, you need to think that you are above and worthy than these people as a human being, because you NEVER HAD to whore yourself out. Don't start with they can do other jobs. Porn industry or prostitution OR any trade related to sex is NOT some business you could start by going out and buying some capital. People are needed to be EXPLOITED, FORCED, BLACK MAILED into it. There is no other fucking way to it. Nobody, but nobody does that job because they desire. If you have a tiny bit of ability to build an empathy you can think this yourself. But all you can think is quoted above. And then why do I think this and that 'insert negative remark' here about you.
Uhm, this is also just blatant bullshit. There's plenty of people who go into it for the money, out of their own free will. In addition to the black market part, there's also all the normal reasons for going into the porn industry. If all of these people had to be "exploited, forced, or black mailed" then there wouldn't be a legitimite porn business in the world, they'd all be operating in secret. Most of those companies just hire people who don't mind having sex on camera, especially not if they receive a good paycheck out of it.
Wait, are we talking about the legal porn industry? The one with workers with an official contract, health insurance, fixed working hours, a worker's union, and all that stuff? Or are we talking the black market illegal porn industry?
Because the former is not as bad as you claim it is, and the latter is mostly bad because it's illegal, and all illegal businesses treat their workers like shit.
Quote from: "Skaði"I'm fine with porn- although I agree with drunkenshoe about there being no porn for heterosexual women..
What would porn for women be presented as?
What the fuck? Do I need to post that lmgtfy link AGAIN?
Quote from: "Plu"Quote"I wouldn't hire an ex pornstar because there are far better candidates out there" isn't the same as "all pornstars are lazy and useless".
It's quite literally saying "all ex-pornstars are by definition less qualified than whatever else happens to be available". It's not the same, but it's pretty damn close. The fact that you wouldn't hire them in any case, regardless of the skill level of the other available people, says enough about how capable you consider them.
I'm not sure what the job market is like where you all live, but in the UK most jobs even half worth having are severely, massively, hugely, insanely over subscribed to the point that even if you are literally the model human being and a great candidate that is maybe enough to get them to respond to you contacting them, let alone interviewing you or considering you.
In light of this, if I were an employer, I wouldn't hire someone who had spent a few years being a pornstar or a prostitute. That is not very good professional experience that translates to other fields very well, in my opinion, and there will be countless others to choose from. Clearly this opinion is shared with a fair few other potential employers given that we all seem to be agreeing that it is difficult to get work in other fields as a pornstar.
By explaining why it wouldn't be good business sense to hire an ex-pornstar or prostitute, I was actually pointing out that removing gender from the equation, it isn't an attractive proposition for most businesses, thus countering the point that it is only female sex workers who find it difficult to find work in other fields.
In an ideal world everyone would have a great job, but they don't. It's a very tough world out there job-wise, and certain types of professional experience just aren't as good as others. You might not like that fact, and I don't particularly either, but it's the way it is, and I literally can't understand why people are getting buttmad at me for pointing this out.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteDo you really think that I give someone paid to wave their cock about on camera the same respect as someone who worked hard their entire lives to better themselves and to master a difficult skill which makes them useful to society? No chance.
QuoteIf someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.
Well, you wrote these and I am skipping other bullshit you keep adding. And the answers were given in the first post you received.
To be able to make the above statements;
-You need to think that people born into pretty much same circumstances or at least similar ones.
-You need to think that sex workers and porn stars are not useful to society.
-You need to think that only people with certain education is useful to society.
-You need to think that sex workers and porn stars just doing a very simple job, and they chose this one because they cannot be bothered by any other.
-You need to think that sex workers and porn stars who were 'offered' any opportunity refused it with back of their hands just to do this job.
-You need to think that being a sex worker or a porn star does not require any skills or something easy to do.
-You need to think that being a sex worker or a porn star is making someone 'worse' than anyone else with other occupation.
See my reply to Plu above. Read what I wrote again, and again, and again. Read the words that are there, and only those. That is what I said, and what I mean.
"Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves."I wouldn't hire them because there are countless other people out there needing jobs who would be better for them. That is what businesses do, they are money making ventures, not social inclusion clubs. Many other employers likely feel the same as I do, given that, like you said, sex workers find it difficult to get hired for other things.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Over all, you need to think that you are above and worthy than these people as a human being, because you NEVER HAD to whore yourself out. Don't start with they can do other jobs. Porn industry or prostitution OR any trade related to sex is NOT some business you could start by going out and buying some capital. People are needed to be EXPLOITED, FORCED, BLACK MAILED into it. There is no other fucking way to it. Nobody, but nobody does that job because they desire. If you have a tiny bit of ability to build an empathy you can think this yourself. But all you can think is quoted above. And then why do I think this and that 'insert negative remark' here about you.
Fuck you for accusing me of thinking that (which I don't and never suggested that I did) based off of what you're telling me I think instead of reading what the fuck I wrote.
All I did was explain the reasons why someone who has worked as a pornstar or prostitute is not very employable in other fields, and why I wouldn't hire them as a result. Of course, a few posts ago you pretty much said the same thing; they find it hard to get other jobs. Of course when I say it you assume all sorts of terrible things about me for no fucking reason other than absolutely loving to make a scene.
Every post man, every post I make. You fly off on a huge tagent about how much of a terrible person I am because of some random horse shit you tell me I think which I clearly don't, reading the posts. My only explanation for this is that you must have your head stuck so far up your own arse that you can't see what I've written. Case in point: I say (paraphrased) "Someone who sells sex clearly has different views on it than I do. I wouldn't be in a relationship with someone with totally different views on sex and the value of their body to me."
You respond with (paraphrased): It's absolutely abhorrent that you think that pornstars and prostitutes can't have relationships, families and normal lives".
It's the same shit every time. I write something, you read something literally completely unrelated, and then use that as justification to get pissed and make up tonnes of shit about what you think I think.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteThis is not because I am sexist, this is because I would not want to be in a relationship with someone who has a completely different attitude towards the value of sexual expression and the sanctity of their own body than I do.
'Sanctity' is a made up word. You perfectly know what I mean when I say made up. Just like the words, creation, sacred, holly, soul, spirit, god...sanctity is a nonsense, made up word, a meaningless accumulation of some letters. It exists as a word, it doesn't mean fuck, it is also highly comical in this context.
'Sanctity' of their own body... :rollin:
My sacred vagina says hi, but my divine clitoris thinks you are a bit too clueless at times, while my blessed breasts are indifferent to pretty much anything around. And none of them gives a fuck to what they are, be it they are only horny or just in love.
Have you ever heard the standard turn of phrase "my body is a temple"? Same fucking thing with a different word. Well done for making yourself look silly because you have no grasp of basic metaphors.
Secondly, if we're mocking made-up phrases, the patriarchal cock monarchy (fucking lol) that I apparently rule with would like you to stop using your standard tactic of responding to what you accuse me of thinking instead of what I wrote.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Fuck you, too, sweety. You yourself wrote what you thought, I didn't add anything. By the way, do you even know on what part of this subject you disagreed with me? :lol:
Yes I did write what I thought, then you said I thought countless other things, examples of which are given above, which is what you often do, which is why talking to you is exceptionally frustrating. You even have one sentence up there that pretty much says "to say this, you must think:" with a list of loads of (incorrect) things I supposedly think. Now you turn around and say you never added on anything? How do you even cope with the massive amounts of cognitive dissonance in your mind? I'm genuinely amazed by it.
As far as I'm concerned a major point of contention was me explaining why pornstars and prostitutes have a hard time finding work in other fields, and why I wouldn't hire one (which was the current topic of conversation), then you got very pissy and made a scene.
I also disagree with you on a number of things that you say I think, and I'm the number one expert on what I think, not you so that puts that one to rest.
I would like to say that I'd be willing to hire any male that has been involved in porn, just note that weekly reviews can be quite strenuous...to say the least. :P
Quite seriously, I'd hire anyone as long as they have demonstrable skills relevant to the job. If the ONLY thing they did was work in porn, then no, I wouldn't hire them. If they spent time on the side learning a skill or trade relevant to the job I was offering, then I would consider their qualifications vs. the qualifications of other candidates.
I realize that, sadly, it doesn't work like that in today's world, but what can be done about it other than working to change society's preconceptions about sex workers and waiting for society's views on sexuality in general to change? It's certainly not going to change overnight, but I do believe the situation for women in porn is better than it was in the 70s, if only by a little.
Quote from: "TrueStory"What would porn for women be presented as?
Something involving chocolate and aisles and aisles of shoes I imagine.
Quote from: "Plu"Quote"I wouldn't hire an ex pornstar because there are far better candidates out there" isn't the same as "all pornstars are lazy and useless".
It's quite literally saying "all ex-pornstars are by definition less qualified than whatever else happens to be available". It's not the same, but it's pretty damn close. The fact that you wouldn't hire them in any case, regardless of the skill level of the other available people, says enough about how capable you consider them.
Actually I read SF's point as invoking ceteris paribus, which would actually make his point a fair one.
Bracketing out that, "Damn close" also isn't the same, and still makes SFs point valid, IMHO.
I didn't read SF say 'in any case', could you point that out? It'd allow me to reevaluate.
ah..SF and shoe disagree...hmmmm. who woulda thunk...
splendid I would think.
SF said:
QuoteIf someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.
Which is basically a bullshit argument, unless you assume that this mystical porn-industry person has no hobbies, no education, no part-time work, nothing except their work in porn. Interestingly enough, people who work in porn have relatively limited working hours due to high pay-per-hour, which means that they are actually likely to have
more skills than someone who spent his years working long hours for McDonalds.
If passion for a job, intelligence, age, etc are all equal then the pornstar is probably the
better choice considering how much more time they'll have had to practice in their spare time.
I'm not sure how people think that someone who works 6 hours a week to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever is less qualified than someone who spent 40 hours a week in a burger joint to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever. That makes no sense.
Quote from: "Plu"SF said:
QuoteIf someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.
Which is basically a bullshit argument, unless you assume that this mystical porn-industry person has no hobbies, no education, no part-time work, nothing except their work in porn. Interestingly enough, people who work in porn have relatively limited working hours due to high pay-per-hour, which means that they are actually likely to have more skills than someone who spent his years working long hours for McDonalds.
If passion for a job, intelligence, age, etc are all equal then the pornstar is probably the better choice considering how much more time they'll have had to practice in their spare time.
I'm not sure how people think that someone who works 6 hours a week to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever is less qualified than someone who spent 40 hours a week in a burger joint to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever. That makes no sense.
Yes.
Ceteris paribus. SF didnt qualify his statement beyond the initial premise making his point.
You're inferring beyond the limit of the hypothetical. I can do that:
One is working at McDonalds part time to supplement their study at medical school. A porn star, doing comparatively less hours, spends his spare time doing airfix models after shoots because his dad has a passion for planes from WWII.
Ceteris paribus, who would you hire for the new junior doctors position in graduate oncology?
Anyone can infer beyond the hypothetical in question. The point is the original premise of SF's 'point' is valid in so far as the notion he was forwarding was limited to the example of person x spending their tine developing their skills specific to a job (he mentions doctor) and someone acting in porn shoots since age [18?]. At no point could I read that SF says 'in any case' that someone is automatically more qualified for an undefined and unknown job in a unspecific location based purely on the fact that they are not a porn star.
Unless you can point it out?
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Quote from: "Plu"SF said:
QuoteIf someone spent the formative years of their career showing their boobies or their willies on camera instead of learning something useful or getting better at something, then I don't want them to work for me. Immediately they are less qualified than someone who spent that time learning skills and doing things to better themselves.
Which is basically a bullshit argument, unless you assume that this mystical porn-industry person has no hobbies, no education, no part-time work, nothing except their work in porn. Interestingly enough, people who work in porn have relatively limited working hours due to high pay-per-hour, which means that they are actually likely to have more skills than someone who spent his years working long hours for McDonalds.
If passion for a job, intelligence, age, etc are all equal then the pornstar is probably the better choice considering how much more time they'll have had to practice in their spare time.
I'm not sure how people think that someone who works 6 hours a week to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever is less qualified than someone who spent 40 hours a week in a burger joint to pay the bills and spends the rest on their education/hobby/passion/whatever. That makes no sense.
Yes.
Ceteris paribus. SF didnt qualify his statement beyond the initial premise making his point.
You're inferring beyond the limit of the hypothetical. I can do that:
One is working at McDonalds part time to supplement their study at medical school. A porn star, doing comparatively less hours, spends his spare time doing airfix models after shoots because his dad has a passion for planes from WWII.
Ceteris paribus, who would you hire for the new junior doctors position in graduate oncology?
Anyone can infer beyond the hypothetical in question. The point is the original premise of SF's 'point' is valid in so far as the notion he was forwarding was limited to the example of person x spending their tine developing their skills specific to a job (he mentions doctor) and someone acting in porn shoots since age [18?]. At no point could I read that SF says 'in any case' that someone is automatically more qualified for an undefined and unknown job in a unspecific location based purely on the fact that they are not a porn star.
Unless you can point it out?
Picked up a new phrase from the Pseudo-demand, Pseudo-supply thread? I'm stealing this anyways. I should have learned about it in school but I was too busy showing off my hot bod.
Well I guess you should have spent your time reading about rectums instead of fucking them.
(//http://img.pandawhale.com/32228-Laker-bros-deal-with-it-gif-Im-A2vJ.gif)
[spoil:q6s7erzv]i just wanted to post that gif and that seemed like the best time to do it. I'm sorry :([/spoil:q6s7erzv]
Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Well I guess you should have spent your time reading about rectums instead of fucking them.
[ Image (//http://img.pandawhale.com/32228-Laker-bros-deal-with-it-gif-Im-A2vJ.gif) ]
[spoil:3gfouivb]i just wanted to post that gif and that seemed like the best time to do it. I'm sorry :([/spoil:3gfouivb]
LOL. I saw your post before the edit.
Quote from: "TrueStory"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"Well I guess you should have spent your time reading about rectums instead of fucking them.
[ Image (//http://img.pandawhale.com/32228-Laker-bros-deal-with-it-gif-Im-A2vJ.gif) ]
[spoil:1jew55sl]i just wanted to post that gif and that seemed like the best time to do it. I'm sorry :([/spoil:1jew55sl]
LOL. I saw your post before the edit.
;-)
But now it's lost forever!
But still, pics or GTFO.
Anyway, I'm just trollin' because I'm up late and can't sleep.
Plus I know SF prefers it when a Bro has got his back.
(//http://images.wikia.com/vampirediaries/images/6/66/Hug_me_bro.gif)
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"You got your bro's back with trolling by picking a few words to force them into some 'logical context', ignoring his overall attitude and stand? #-o
That gif's a bad choice. Younger one was dead and he was 'resurrected' with a demon deal his bro made to save him by selling his soul, but he has no idea what happened and also why he is hugging him that tight. :P
I have no clue what the show is from, but I do know bros before hoes ;)
The only thing I want to force is my penis into Megan's fox hole.
I didn't cherry pick either, I quoted in black and white. His attitude and 'stand' is irrelevent to the point I was examining. Come on shoe, you know what I pointed out was 120% correct. 120%. In not one single place did SF say that he wouldn't hire a pron star 'in any case'.
He could be a serial rapist, but it doesn't detract from the fact accusations contrary to the above are unfounded. You know I'm right. Lets hug.
QuoteAnyone can infer beyond the hypothetical in question. The point is the original premise of SF's 'point' is valid in so far as the notion he was forwarding was limited to the example of person x spending their tine developing their skills specific to a job (he mentions doctor) and someone acting in porn shoots since age [18?]. At no point could I read that SF says 'in any case' that someone is automatically more qualified for an undefined and unknown job in a unspecific location based purely on the fact that they are not a porn star.
Under a Ceteris paribus, you need two people with a past job unrelated to the current field who worked towards their new job in their spare time. There is no proper "all other things equal" if there are multiple deviating factors between two people. That just makes the argument incredibly silly. OBVIOUSLY someone who worked in porn and never did anything else in his spare time is less qualified than someone who worked at MacDonalds and studied in the side. But under that comparison you
cannot conclude that being a pornstar is thus detrimental to your skills, because you're comparing a collection of things that together make you less qualified. And it's easy to see that if you discard both pornstar and macdonalds worker, that it still holds, which means that the issue is with what you did on the side, not what you got paid for when you did things on the side. Which is my whole point: your previous job at worst has 0 relevance to your current job, it cannot make you less qualified than any other jobs you previously had with 0 relevance to your current job.
If you would hire someone who once worked at MacDonalds (assuming the new job is unrelated to flipping burgers), then you should also be able to hire someone who once worked in the porn business (assuming the new job is also unrelated to having sex with people), Ceteris paribus.
Both people wasted an X-amount of time doing something irrelevant to the new job. (The pornstar probably wasted less, but we can easily just assume he spent an equal amount and the whole statement still holds). Both people should be at least equally eligble for being hired, based on their skills and experience.
Of course the best source to ask is SF himself... so I'll just the simple questions:
Ceteris paribus, would you consider someone who worked at MacDonalds better qualified than someone who worked the same number of hours doing porn? Would you consider someone who worked at MacDonalds better qualified than someone who worked
less hours doing porn and spent
more time preparing for the new job? Would you consider someone who spent 8 hours a week sitting in front of the tv watching the static better qualified than someone who spent the same time shooting porn?
(And of course the kicker; would you consider your colleagues suddenly less qualified to do their job if you found out that when they said their hobbies were 'drinking beer and watching football' they actually meant 'getting paid to be bummed up the arse', even though both are equally irrelevant to their day-job?)
Yeah but Plu, you're still not showing me where SF said 'in any case', which is the accusation you levelled at him.
Other issue then are moot. Show me, and we'll move the discussion on.
There is not going to be a literal small quote I can make that says that. He has placed pages of text. That's why I'm asking him the direct question, so we can settle it. I could repost everything he's posted so far and try to make my point, that won't be as useful.
Which is why I posted the questions above.
I could shorten it down even further, and ask the even simpler question of SF:
Would you, under any cirumstance, hire a former porn star to do a job?
If he's willing to answer it, we'll have our answer. And if he says "yes"... well he should explain how that meshes with all his other posts, because all of those are screaming "no".
Well that's where the disagreement lies. I read it as 'no' and you read it as 'yes'. Nowhere in his posts did I read anything insinuating 'in any case', which is why I posted.
I see SF arguing that building up a trade, or a transferable skill as preferable to being a Ron Jeremy. That's his point to argue, but I see the merit of it.
QuoteI see SF arguing that building up a trade, or a transferable skill as preferable to being a Ron Jeremy. That's his point to argue, but I see the merit of it.
It's barely even worth arguing, but "Ron Jeremy" is a
very small subset of "pornstar". And quite obviously, someone who devotes their whole life to doing porn like that isn't going to be qualified to do something else. The problem is that everything SF has said so far sounds like "all pornstars do nothing but sex related stuff and it's impossible for them to have other skills", while I've just been saying that's not true and most have plenty of time to do other stuff.
Unless I'm really horrible at explaining my point it shouldn't be hard to see that porn stars can have just as many useful skills for a job as any other person that had an unrelated job can have. Or SF is just using a completely different definition of ex-pornstar as I am, and only considers someone who devotes their whole life to porn a porn-star, in which case his argument makes perfect sense I guess, although I'd like to hear his opinion on the other 90+% of people who got paid for shooting pornography :P
I'm actually more of a Peter North fan myself, I was just being flippant.
But I agree with you on that point.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I have no clue what the show is from, but I do know bros before hoes ;)
Who is supposed to be the hoe here? Plu or me? I am the only female in the conversation, is that supposed to be just funny or a hint expressed in joke...? baronvonrort style doesn't become you, Fidel, don't make an ass of yourself.
"bros before hoes" is a saying that assholes use to show that they don't really care about their girlfriends :P I think it's being used tongue in cheek. At least I hope it is, it's really hard to respect anyone who uses the phrase in a serious manner.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I have no clue what the show is from, but I do know bros before hoes ;)
Who is supposed to be the hoe here? Plu or me? I am the only female in the conversation, is that supposed to be just funny or a hint expressed in joke...? baronvonrort style doesn't become you, Fidel, don't make an ass of yourself.
SEE: Plu's comment
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"QuoteI didn't cherry pick either, I quoted in black and white. His attitude and 'stand' is irrelevent to the point I was examining. Come on shoe, you know what I pointed out was 120% correct. 120%. In not one single place did SF say that he wouldn't hire a pron star 'in any case'.
He could be a serial rapist, but it doesn't detract from the fact accusations contrary to the above are unfounded. You know I'm right. Lets hug.
Nobody in any forum writes or answers to posts without considering the posters attitude or stand expressed in it
I did. Think of it as a non-linguistic synchronic analysis of the comment, and the criticism leveled at him.
QuoteI couldn't care less about your fellow country man, but obviously something changed about you, because you are not righti but talking out of your 'arse'. I hope nothing bad happened in RL.
Gif is from Supernatural.
I haven't changed shoe. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm suddenly a whole different person. :| I'm just raising a point that I believe the accusation was unfounded, which I stick by unless I'm proven wrong by SF.
I'm all arse.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Quote from: "Fidel_Castronaut"I haven't changed shoe. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I'm suddenly a whole different person. :| I'm just raising a point that I believe the accusation was unfounded, which I stick by unless I'm proven wrong by SF.
I'm all arse.
I honestly didn't think that because you disagreed. I have never seen you writing in this style before, that's all. So I thought may be he is having a bad or an 'interesting' time recently.
And I guess, that was also because I find the notion of covering someone else's back just because they happen to be other's fellow country man a bit...dunno the word, 'peh'. I haven't seen you being sensitive to anyone because they were 'accused' of something you think they didn't do before.
But SF enjoys this, so don't worry. And you can be sure that he'll agree with you on anything even if he's just said the exact opposite in the previous page. :lol:
What does "I'm all arse" mean, by the way?
Ha. It doesn't mean anything, except if you like arse ;)
I do try and speak up for others sometimes. That's he's also British doesn't mean anything to me, but I like him as a person, just as I like you and Plu.
crap---- did I miss a group hug? *pout*
QuoteBut heads up, I'll hit the youngest one in the head if he looks funny at me.
I'll keep my eyes averted 8-[
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Your post was very clear, what you said was very clear.
It was, but evidently not to you.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"And when you are told where that stands,
And this is where you fall flat. You do not repeat back to me what I've said (like I need an echo anyway), but you take what I've said and use it to assume what I think "to write that you must think ___ & ____ & ____", and both in this thread and in the past you've been wrong about what I think probably a good 99% of the time.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"you start these series of posts babbling complete nonsense and you enjoy it. You really enjoy this. And now you are talking about my mind. How nice. I wrote that silly list to poke you with what you wrote, because you are acting like you didn't. I don't give a fuck what you think on what point on the subject, I only find the way you look at these people abhorrent. You are unfair and you expressed that unfairness the worst possible way, with your usual fucking arrogance. And I don't have any respect for someone who looks down on some group of people because of their occupation, based on a point of his born into position in life. Everyone can born into any kind of life. You don't get to chose what you're born into. Some can deal with or get out of it, some can't. And after making your high and mighty statements, you are trying to create this air, as if you didn't say anything revolting a bit. If I am exceptionally frustrating don't talk to me. You do not have to get into some conversation with me or agree/disgaree with me...
A paragraph about how I babble about nonsense not responding to anything I've said.
You make my points about ignoring everything I say for me..... :rollin:
Now, Plu has said something along the lines of "if this is really what you think I definitely disagree" and has asked me to clarify what it is that I think, rather than telling me the 999 things I think and why I'm such an abhorrent person for it.
(Numbered the questions in bolded text to respond to each more clearly)
Quote from: "Plu"Of course the best source to ask is SF himself... so I'll just the simple questions:
1. Ceteris paribus, would you consider someone who worked at MacDonalds better qualified than someone who worked the same number of hours doing porn? 2. Would you consider someone who worked at MacDonalds better qualified than someone who worked less hours doing porn and spent more time preparing for the new job? 3. Would you consider someone who spent 8 hours a week sitting in front of the tv watching the static better qualified than someone who spent the same time shooting porn?
4. (And of course the kicker; would you consider your colleagues suddenly less qualified to do their job if you found out that when they said their hobbies were 'drinking beer and watching football' they actually meant 'getting paid to be bummed up the arse', even though both are equally irrelevant to their day-job?)
1.Absolutely, and I'm sure most employers would as well. If it is true that ex- sex workers find it difficult to find other jobs, which I don't have difficulty believing, and it seems that most others in this thread don't either, then that would lend credit to the assertion that most employers would as well.
2.Clearly it depends on what that preparation entails, but if we're assuming it was good, and deliberately learning directly related skills etc. then no. I do think that being a full-time pornstar is more time-intensive and demanding than most people give it credit for though, but that doesn't change the answer to the question. My point was that the job isn't good professional experience, but this also does not change the answer.
3.No. I don't really consider either to be good professional experience that translates well into other fields though.
4. If someone wrote the phrase "bummed up the arse" anywhere on their CV it'd go in the bin :rollin:
To answer the question seriously though, I would revise my estimation of them as a person, but that would not influence my thinking as to how good they were at their job if they were already doing it well. Likewise, I have worked with other people that I intensely disliked that I thought/knew were brilliant at their jobs.
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"But SF enjoys this, so don't worry. And you can be sure that he'll agree with you on anything even if he's just said the exact opposite in the previous page. :lol:
Admittedly it is funny to watch you backpedal and use all the mental gymnastics you can to find any excuse to justify sticking whatever negative traits on me that you can (such as being a patriarchal cock monarch), but I don't go out of my way to pick arguments and fights with you. I added my views on the topic with my first post in it, you went up in arms about it. If you think that me simply speaking my views (however much you may dislike them) is somehow a provocation directed solely towards you then I'm not sure what to tell you other than that my life really does not revolve around you. I did respond in kind to you telling me exactly what you think I think, but it's a huge leap from that to me deliberately taking pleasure in arguing with you, big logical leaps skipping loads of steps about what I definitely think is nothing new though, is it?
Quote from: "drunkenshoe"Nobody in any forum writes or answers to posts without considering the posters attitude or stand expressed in it
Yeah, but if every time you say what you think my attitude and stand is, and then I say it isn't and explain why, and you ignore it and continue hounding me for what you think I think, then you're not considering my stand.
Don't Spam!
Wow, this thread was dug up after 4 years and spammed!? It's a zombie thread!
Quote from: Mermaid on August 04, 2013, 09:42:55 PM
How the media portrays women and how porn portrays women are different things to me.
According to the media, women are supposed to be pleasing visually to both men and women and if they aren't, there is a product to correct every flaw. If you don't fit that standard, you are unworthy of love, attention, success and a lot of other things.
How porn portrays women is as sexually submissive yet insatiable creatures who look up at you gratefully when you splat them in the face with sperm.
As far as what I think of women who do porn, I don't care. I don't think any different about them than I would a woman who bags groceries or acts in plays. It's a job. I don't think the damage womankind in general, which a lot of people claim.
Porn doesnt interest me much, for reasons of fakeness. But women do.
I watch bear porn, my depiction of attractive men is pretty grounded as long as their big and hairy.
Don't worry CB, its the other kinda bears.
Gummi Bears?
Quote from: Unbeliever on September 07, 2017, 01:22:29 PM
Wow, this thread was dug up after 4 years and spammed!? It's a zombie thread!
At least they didn't resurrect the Ponies and the pedophiles ... yet.
Quote from: Baruch on September 07, 2017, 06:47:22 PM
At least they didn't resurrect the Ponies and the pedophiles ... yet.
Sorry, Bronies.
Gummy Bears? Just chew them up and spit them out!
Quote from: Baruch on September 08, 2017, 01:17:14 PM
Sorry, Bronies.
Gummy Bears? Just chew them up and spit them out!
you spit out gummies? Now what would willy wonka have to say to you about that?
Quote from: Munch on September 08, 2017, 02:00:28 PM
you spit out gummies? Now what would willy wonka have to say to you about that?
I will tell the Umpa-Lumpas to give him a little lumpin' on his umpa.
Quote from: Munch on September 08, 2017, 02:00:28 PM
you spit out gummies? Now what would willy wonka have to say to you about that?
Never even liked those. And the original and later Willie Wonka were both creepy.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2017, 01:02:35 AM
Never even liked those. And the original and later Willie Wonka were both creepy.
Gummy worms are useful for little boys to gross out little girls ;-)
Quote from: Baruch on September 11, 2017, 01:18:55 AM
Gummy worms are useful for little boys to gross out little girls ;-)
Gummi bears have nothing to do with either Willie Wonka movies. I hope.
Quote from: Cavebear on September 11, 2017, 02:10:22 AM
Gummi bears have nothing to do with either Willie Wonka movies. I hope.
Gummis come from Germany ... they are the Master Candy.