Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

No, not really. Why do you exclude amateur porn from consideration? The OP just says "porn" but later on you seem to redefine it as being just scat or humiliation, and when people bring up the idea of people doing porn voluntarily, you define it out of consideration.

I'm just as confused about your motivations as I was two hundred posts ago.

Perhaps a simple example will help make my point:

Q. What's wrong with alcohol?
A. Nothing at all. I had a wee sherry before my Sunday lunch last week and managed to behave myself the whole afternoon - no swearing, no fighting, no vomiting, no pissing down the side of a car on my way to the pub later that evening(!). There you go - open and shut case!

 

[Southwind17]

Irrelevant.

Yes, that would be the most appropriate word to describe your example. Thank you for that.

 

[arthwollipot]

Perhaps a simple example will help make my point:

Uh, not at all actually. I assume that you're not trying to make a dig at me because I'm a recovering alcoholic, are you?

 

[BTMO]

Then there's the fact that you're forming an opinion without having enough information to do so. I didn't say what I was doing when I posed. For all you know, they could have been still pictures of anything on the list you posted earlier. And no, I will not be divulging the content of such pictures here. I do not feel it is appropriate (especially since some people have already objected to use of explicit language in this thread), nor do I feel it would be within the terms of the MA for me to do so.

Are you happy in the decision to do the pictures? No regrets?

If so, then good for you. And I mean that seriously, not sarcastically.

People should do what they like, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. This would be a nicer world if people spent less time telling other folks how to behave, or judging them for stuff that *really* is none of their business.

 

[tesscaline]

Yes, that would be the most appropriate word to describe your example. Thank you for that.

Wrong.

My example was in direct response to a statement that implied that no woman could possibly want to do porn (with no definitions applied) unless she had no other options. It was relevant to that.

Stating that my example is not relevant to your super constrictive definition of "porn" is a strawman, as I never claimed that it was.

That I will not go into graphic detail in regards to my example does not change the fact that you are making baseless assumptions and arguing from incredulity.

 

[JFrankA]

By "can [divorce fantasy from reality]" I think you mean that most people "can resist seeking to realise their fantasies", right? In which case I agree with you. That's very different, however, from what I'm suggesting, which is that what one consciously fantasises about is what one really has a desire to do, at least to a degree. Do you see the difference?

I see what you are saying but it just doesn't work like that. Are you saying that a woman who has a rape fantasy in which she's the victim, if that woman was actually raped, she'd really enjoy it? I don't think she would. Not a real life one. Just because you have a desire to do something in a controlled environment doesn't mean you have the desire to actually have the reality.

I believe there's a difference between desiring the fantasy and desiring the reality.

It's the difference between playing Guitar Hero and being an actual rock star. Playing Guitar Hero is easy, you plug in the plastic guitar, strum it to the music playing and keep up with the dots. Being a rock star is harder, you devote your life to it. There's the years of learning the instrument, practice, writing songs, getting together with a band, losing band members, drama withing the band, getting a recording contract, etc, etc.

Most people will desire the fantasy of being a rock star, but not everyone would have the desire to give up so much to actually be one. It's the difference between play and reality.

It's the same thing with sexual fantasies. It's adult play. So long as it remains a game, so to speak, then its not a desire for the real thing.

Sorry JFrankA, I can't see how this example relates to the question of divorcing fantasy from reality, but hopefully my words above have clarified matters anyhow.

I see what you are saying but I don't think you see what I'm saying. In my example the "playing with buddies" scenario is a friendly game of poker. Not much is lost, you get to be with people you trust, if it gets too much, you can stop, it's just a game.

But in the illegal casino scenario, there's a lot more at risk. Money, the police, even the people around you.

Both are a desire to play poker, but one is the desire to just play: just like playing Grand Theft Auto, it is just a game. Nobody gets hurt, there's no risk and the environment is controlled. With the other, the risk is real, the damage is potentially horrible and you can't just stop what's happening.

Sure there's desire to play something but that doesn't mean that translates into desiring the real thing.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Perhaps a simple example will help make my point:

Q. What's wrong with alcohol?
A. Nothing at all. I had a wee sherry before my Sunday lunch last week and managed to behave myself the whole afternoon - no swearing, no fighting, no vomiting, no pissing down the side of a car on my way to the pub later that evening(!). There you go - open and shut case!

It's not simple. At all. And the only possible meaning I can get is that you're saying that porn causes negative impulses which is bad.

Which seems to say you've taken the positive affirmative position already?

Whatever.

 

[tesscaline]

Are you happy in the decision to do the pictures? No regrets?

Yes, I'm quite happy with the decision. My only regret is that I didn't do more of them at the time.

If so, then good for you. And I mean that seriously, not sarcastically.

Thank you

People should do what they like, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. This would be a nicer world if people spent less time telling other folks how to behave, or judging them for stuff that *really* is none of their business.

I totally and utterly agree with this.

 

[JFrankA]

Yes, that would be the most appropriate word to describe your example. Thank you for that.

What I don't get, SW, is that you say "What's wrong with porn?" yet you toss away any relevance to what you call "marshmallow" porn. So much so when someone says that they've done it or is in the business, you dismiss them as doing "marshmallow" porn.

Sorry, that falls into the category of porn. I'm afraid I have to agree with the rest, you seem to be moving the goal post there.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Sorry - you've lost me. What does this have to do with male/female porn "acting" pay differential?

I'm sorry, I assumed you had an understanding of basic economics. I'll try to explain.

As a general rule, the more demand there is for something, the more consumers are willing to pay for it. Producers know this, and wanting to make as much money as possible they raise their prices. Thus, higher demand generally results in higher prices.

The majority of the demand for pornographic products comes from heterosexual men. These are people who want to see women significantly more than they want to see men. Thus, there is a significantly higher demand for female porn stars than male porn stars. Thus, the women can demand higher salaries.

 

[JFrankA]

Just out of interest (and I'm guessing JFrankA is probably best placed to respond), how much could a porn "actor" expect to be paid compared to a porn "actress" in a like-for-like shoot (ideally the same single shoot for the most level playing field)?

ETA: Sorry - hadn't read Post #866 when responding. Perhaps JFrankA can validate?

I've paid my models equally - men and women.

But that's irrelevant. It's the law of supply and demand. In the world of studios like Wicked Pictures and Vivid Video, it's supply and demand. The woman are generally the bigger stars and paid more simply because that's what the male heterosexual audience wants, and that's what they cater to.

Studios that cater to gay porn will obviously have male stars be paid more, certain ones, again depending on the popularity.

Studios that cater to an audience that like transsexuals would pay more to a tranny than a genetically born woman.

It's the simple law of supply and demand. Whatever is working for the business gets paid more. Simple.

And that's the same for the non-porn entertainment industry. I would image someone like Keanu Reeves would be paid more than someone like Elisha Cuthbert. (Sorry, I think she's drop dead ) even though there may be people who go to a show because she's in it, it's Keanu who has the popularity enough to receive more pay.

But the point is irrelevant. It's just supply and demand, that's all.

ETA:

I'm sorry, I assumed you had an understanding of basic economics. I'll try to explain.

As a general rule, the more demand there is for something, the more consumers are willing to pay for it. Producers know this, and wanting to make as much money as possible they raise their prices. Thus, higher demand generally results in higher prices.

The majority of the demand for pornographic products comes from heterosexual men. These are people who want to see women significantly more than they want to see men. Thus, there is a significantly higher demand for female porn stars than male porn stars. Thus, the women can demand higher salaries.

That's true depending on the studio. The fact is that heterosexual men are still buying porn more than other demographics, but heterosexual women are catching up -- fast!

ETA Again:

It might be worth mentioning that hetrosexual women are the biggest buyers of in-print porn. That includes books and internet!

 

[ponderingturtle]

The irony is that the men generaly receive about half the pay as the women and while they may enjoy it, timing requires that you can't enjoy it too much or too soon. (the money shot)

I believe the typical career is longer though

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've paid my models equally - men and women.

But that's irrelevant. It's the law of supply and demand. In the world of studios like Wicked Pictures and Vivid Video, it's supply and demand. The woman are generally the bigger stars and paid more simply because that's what the male heterosexual audience wants, and that's what they cater to.

Studios that cater to gay porn will obviously have male stars be paid more, certain ones, again depending on the popularity.

Also it is my understanding that gay porn stars earn more than heterosexual porn stars, so there are some men who produce gay porn when left to their own choices they wouldn't engage in homosexual sex.

Hmm, would those argueing against porn consider that these men are being exploited? They are performing sex that they wouldn't in their private lives for money.

That's true depending on the studio. The fact is that heterosexual men are still buying porn more than other demographics, but heterosexual women are catching up -- fast!

Some of this might depend on how you define porn. I would class many romance novels as porn.

There is also the pure demographic issue, men buy more porn than women, and most men are heterosexual.

 

[JFrankA]

Also it is my understanding that gay porn stars earn more than heterosexual porn stars, so there are some men who produce gay porn when left to their own choices they wouldn't engage in homosexual sex.

Hmm, would those argueing against porn consider that these men are being exploited? They are performing sex that they wouldn't in their private lives for money.

Excellent point! I wonder why the anti-porn crowd screams "exploitation of young women" but never "exploitation of young men".

Some of this might depend on how you define porn. I would class many romance novels as porn.

I'm not talking about romance novels. I'm talking about written porn.

There is also the pure demographic issue, men buy more porn than women, and most men are heterosexual.

Very true. But the demographics are showing that women are catching up. Again, that's including the internet. Women are buying more now that it's on the internet.

 

[not daSkeptic]

There a short debate on this point in the movie Orgazmo, the ultimate conclusion of which is that porn exploits all people.

 

[Southwind17]

I'm sorry, I assumed you had an understanding of basic economics. I'll try to explain.

As a general rule, the more demand there is for something, the more consumers are willing to pay for it. Producers know this, and wanting to make as much money as possible they raise their prices. Thus, higher demand generally results in higher prices.

The majority of the demand for pornographic products comes from heterosexual men. These are people who want to see women significantly more than they want to see men. Thus, there is a significantly higher demand for female porn stars than male porn stars. Thus, the women can demand higher salaries.

Thanks for that. It wasn't my understanding of economics that threw me (which I'd say is probably "intermediate" ), rather the logic you were applying in your mind, which you've now explained verbally.

You overlook one fundamental aspect of "basic" economics, however, in your sarcy response. The "something" to which you refer above (let's rename it "resources") needs to be scarce for what you claim to apply. Putting aside complications such as price and demand elasticity for the moment, would you say that porn "actresses" are a scarce "commodity"? From what most people have written here I'd be inclined to say not. On the contrary, in fact.

Oh, BTW - this isn't the "simple explanation" I was alluding to!

 

[Eddie Dane]

I see what you are saying but it just doesn't work like that. Are you saying that a woman who has a rape fantasy in which she's the victim, if that woman was actually raped, she'd really enjoy it? I don't think she would. Not a real life one. Just because you have a desire to do something in a controlled environment doesn't mean you have the desire to actually have the reality.

I believe there's a difference between desiring the fantasy and desiring the reality.

That must be why I really enjoy paint-ball, yet would hate being in an actual war.

Even though actual wars usually have much cooler hardware.

 

[Eddie Dane]

You overlook one fundamental aspect of "basic" economics, however, in your sarcy response. The "something" to which you refer above (let's rename it "resources") needs to be scarce for what you claim to apply. Putting aside complications such as price and demand elasticity for the moment, would you say that porn "actresses" are a scarce "commodity"? From what most people have written here I'd be inclined to say not. On the contrary, in fact.

Normal actors and actresses are also not scarce.
Yet Nicole Kidman gets tens of millions per film and most other actresses are waiting tables in LA restaurants.

 

[JFrankA]

Thanks for that. It wasn't my understanding of economics that threw me (which I'd say is probably "intermediate" ), rather the logic you were applying in your mind, which you've now explained verbally.

You overlook one fundamental aspect of "basic" economics, however, in your sarcy response. The "something" to which you refer above (let's rename it "resources") needs to be scarce for what you claim to apply. Putting aside complications such as price and demand elasticity for the moment, would you say that porn "actresses" are a scarce "commodity"? From what most people have written here I'd be inclined to say not. On the contrary, in fact.

Oh, BTW - this isn't the "simple explanation" I was alluding to!

Nope. Not in this case. It's popularity not lack of "resources" that make the prices change.

....did you miss my post?

 

[JFrankA]

That must be why I really enjoy paint-ball, yet would hate being in an actual war.

Even though actual wars usually have much cooler hardware.

Exactly.

Beautiful example. Wish I thought of it.