You have misunderstood 'letting'. It doesn't mean she remains with me and toes the line. It means she can do what she wants, but the relationship ends. Your 'Well, not as her keeper,' is actually rather similar.
Your response begs the question - would you have chosen to have a relationship with your 'gf' if it had been made clear to you from the start that her participation in porn was something you would have to accept?
If I have misunderstood, then that is because you have miscommunicated. "Letting" someone do something means exactly how I parsed it as. If you meant something else, and used this form to convey that nevertheless, then that's on you.
But that hairsplitting aside: your ultimatum/assumption that people, including you, would simply cut off their partner if they did this that and the other thing, that's again part of "regressive", if a less in-your-face part.
And no, my response does clearly address the matter straight-on. You don't date a middle manager in corporate rungs (which my gf is, as am I), and you don't date a wearer of short skirts, and you don't date a porn star. You date a person. People are multifaceted, unique persons. They are who they are. You fall in love with them, you fall in love with all of them. ...Might that change? Sure, everything is subject to changing, or at least to potentially changing. But it's strictly a case-by-case thing. This, "I don't approve of her wearing short skirts, or of acting in porn, and I'll break off with her if she ever does that" is again regressive, and Incel-ish, thinking --- which usually lands one only with hypothetical partners, or, if one is lucky (and one's partner unlucky) then with doormats bereft of independent spirit.
It is real sex if it is 'hard porn'...yet there is a 'fictive nature' in the depiction?
Yes. As has been explained to you multiple times. And as has been very clearly explained, graphically explained, in that post of mine that you handwaved away claiming densensess, and that you are free to revisit again.
I suggest your admission that you would be uncomfortable is evidence that your focus would be on the reality that someone else's whatever would be entering her whatever...which is exactly where most people's focus (including mine) would be. Who gives a fig about the fictive elements?
You are conflating --- likely deliberately --- two different aspects of the discussion here. What the actor is doing is real, be it simply mouthing romantic dialogue, or simulating romance, or kissing and fondling, or having sex. What the viewer sees is fictive. When your concern is with the actor, then what is real matters. When your concern is with the viewer, then the fictive nature of the depiction matters.
I didn't say I didn't understand 'meta' and I am asking what your post meant. What else does 'I don't understand your post' mean?
You've been dissembling away here in order to stay with your asinine views about porn. And now you're "meta"-dissembling away about our discussion over it!
My post upthread very clearly and very graphically explains why it is porn is fictive. You initially chose to handwave it all away by simply saying "Semantics Chanakya", I remember your words. When I indicated my exasperation, you then kept mum for days, even as you participated in this thread, and indeed with me. Then, after days, weeks maybe, you went back to that post of mine, and responded with imbecilities of like, and I quote from memory, "Meta? You must be a philosopher in your spare time" ; and "Baffled" ; and "I've no clue what this means" ; etc. And, at the end of that, you went back to your bot-like repetition of the inane conflation, again and again, of the real elements of porn, the actor's perspective, with the fictive elements of it, which would be the viewer's perspective. That suggests a dishonest attempt to dismiss my substantive post basis nothing more than your pretend-denseness: not a sincere desire to understand. The right approach to that is to leave you to your disingenuous pretend-denseness, and not to go through the motions endlessly of reasoned, rational discourse.
The point I've made there is clear enough. It's been made multiple times, including here in this post itself. And it's been very clearly made in that post of mine. If your denseness is real not feigned, and if you sincerely wish to penetrate your denseness and shed your asinine views about porn and arrive at the correct understanding of what the issue here is, then go back to my post, try sincerely to read it, with a view to understanding it, not dismissing it at any cost. Then if you still have any doubts, ask me, clearly, and specifically about the parts you did not understand, while acknowledging the parts you did understand. Put in that work, show me you're being sincere, and I'll be happy to help you understand if you still are unable to.
Porn is fiction, you say - but the sex is real if it is hard porn and you'd be uncomfortable (you 'guess' you would)?
Already addressed above.
Stop this asinine mindless bot-like repetition. You're starting to sound like the weirdos that keep repeating mindlessly, no matter what is said to them how many times, that spirits, or is it Jesus, bit them in their penis when they were peeing, and the pain went away when they prayed to its/his daddy.
