Um, if you don’t see a huge difference between sex and stealing, racism and rape … can’t help ya.
I agree with you about banning it, but I’m coming to the point where I think it is all-too-natural.
What the hell?
[QUOTE=Troppus]
What the hell?
[/QUOTE]
They are all ‘natural’ tendencies in humanity, even if they are distasteful and against modern laws and cultural mores and norms TODAY. But even being against culture and ethnic mores, modern laws and society all of those things still happen quite frequently…right?
Of course they’re all natural, in the sense of not being a new invention of so-called “civilisation”.
And I don’t even agree with banning bestiality, it should all come under animal cruelty laws imo and if no cruelty no problem. And bestiality porn should never be illegal, the reason for keeping child or rape porn illegal is because distributing it will increase the suffering of the victims, that can’t be the case with bestiality.
I don’t get your point. Salmonella occurs naturally, but we do our best to avoid ingesting it and certainly don’t rank it as “food”.
Sr Siete’s point is that a society which views sex as bad, dirty; shameful forces sexuality into the fringes. Sexuality is not inherently bad. It serves to bond couples, create children, and for most people it feels pretty good. But when repressed, tied to feelings of shame, inadequacy, and evil: it can and often does become an ugly, perverted thing.
Healthy, typical sexuality does not rank amongst racism, sexism, or any other crimes against humanity.
[QUOTE=Troppus]
I don’t get your point. Salmonella occurs naturally, but we do our best to avoid ingesting it and certainly don’t rank it as “food”.
[/QUOTE]
And I don’t get yours. Salmonella IS natural. Doesn’t mean you should seek it out or embrace it. Arsenic is also ‘natural’. Just because something is ‘natural’ doesn’t automatically make it a good thing…and that’s the point.
But MY point was that rape and sexual abuse are also ‘natural’ tendencies in humanity. Again, ‘natural’ does not equal ‘good’. Murder is also a natural tendency for humans, but that doesn’t mean we should go forth and murder all we like.
No, but the definition of what IS ‘Healthy, typical sexuality’ changes over time and society, and all of those other things are also natural for human beings. Again (to beat a dead horse after checking it’s teeth in mid-stream to see if it’s a good gift), all of those things are part and parcel of ‘natural’ human behavior…but that doesn’t mean we should indulge in them or encourage them. Natural does not equal good, or even acceptable to society or cultural more.
Healthy, typical sexuality is that which occurs between willing, consenting partners and includes but is not limited to procreation. The presence of a camera with full consent of all parties involved does not alter the previous definition.
I don’t recall cameras in any archeological digs of ancient human or proto-human species. How did they affect our natural state again? How did they influence our ever shifting cultural and societal mores, taboos and customs? What IS the standard, ‘Healthy, typical sexuality’ for humans? Missionary position between ‘adults’ 21 years or older? 18? 16?
Cave paintings which predate mirrors depict the sex act, so it’s probably a safe bet that ancient human nookie had at least as many witnesses as depictions. Porn is not a twentieth century phenomenon. And I’m not why any definition of human sexuality requires a description of the positions used.
Actually, I’d rather BigT explain his comment. As for the OP? Yes, but I’ve had access to commercial porn since the mid 80’s, and signs that the actors were chemically altered have always been disturbing and offputting. Incoherence, dilated or pinpoint pupils, bad skin, dazed or disconnected look…no chance I would purchase a product with an obviously altered actor. But porn is available for free, so how can the casual viewer vote with money? It seems to me that regulation is more likely to come from those with a vested interest in banning pornography.
I’ll leave it to him, since I suspect we are talking past each other here. 
I don’t have any cites on this, so call b.s. at will, but I think the movies produced by studios hire either well-known actresses/actors or find their talent from agencies. These people have agents or mouthpieces of some sort that negotiate for them. They sign contracts with the studio that state what they are going/willing to perform and how much they will be paid. They often have their agent or handler or pimp, if you will, on set to assure that the performer is not being mistreated and the stipulations of the contract adhered to. That would mean they are well aware of the situation they are getting themselves into/the job they are going to perform and that it is a work-for-hire situation with a flat pay and no royalties. If you are signing with a certain studio, you would be aware of the kind of work they want you to do - I think to portray themselves as babes in the woods would be disingenuous. Given the type of easy money work that it is, it might attract a certain type of screw-loose individual. However there are examples of people who seem to be fairly even-keeled who have made a long term career in that field - Nina Hartley comes to mind. I would imagine, again no cite, that the kind of horror stories told by the actresses in OP’s post would happen at the fringes of the studio system; ie the couple of guys with a video camera who shoot scenes to be sold to less reputable studios or various websites.
Their motives are that they are God Botherers.
I’m not buying it, no pun intended. To consume porn/pay for sex has noting to do with their damage, unless you are paying for them to be damaged. That’s like saying that giving money to a cause we believe in, say the 'Save All of the Lovely Children of the World from Meanness" and the director is a crackhead and beats his wife, makes us complicit in spousal abuse.
Nope, Nope, Nope.
And using these ‘psychologically damaged’ women as witnesses is a very poor choice. I had a friend who was a drug addled gay prostitute, before it was fashionable. He is/was mad as a hatter. I don’t suspect these women have a lot more on the ball than he did.
We are complicit when we choose to be. One cannot ascribe ‘complicity.’
You are a consumer of the Internet, the greatest purveyor of pornography. Are you complicit in their damage?? If so, stay off the Internet and give these poor girls a chance.
Yeah, what’s wrong with being sexy?
Even if the number were 100 per cent, it doesn’t mean that the porn industry is in any way culpable. These numbers are irrelevant.
Personal responsibility is used by people who are used to being personally responsible. (Why should they be forced to feel empathy for others in a worse situation than themselves???)