Santorum gone too far

[Travis]

Sure it does. That was my point. I watch porn. I watched a lot of Jenna Jameson. Jenna Jameson was gang raped when she was 16.... I think it may have had something to do with her getting into porn. I am sure a lot of porn actresses came to the business in a similar manner. I didn't say it should be banned. My own point is I often wonder if I'm helping to exploit alot of women that are doing this. This was an article in my local paper this past weekend. I don't care if it has a religious angle to it, I think there is a point.

You are not exploiting anyone. Contracting with someone to have sex once a week on camera and get paid thousands of dollars to do it is not exploitation. This entire angle is stupid. You are trying to judge an industry by things that happened to employees before they were in it.

If Jenna Jameson was gang raped at 16 then that is terrible but that rape happens regardless of whether there is a porn industry or not. In fact countries where rape is most common, like the Democratic Republic of the Congo, have no domestic porn industry to speak of.

 

[BenBurch]

Anyone else envisioning an underground porn railroad?

Before porn became more legal in the late 60s through late 70s, porn was an illegal underground business. In many parts of the USA, it was the domain of the mafia like gambling and prostitution were.

If forced underground again, organized crime knows exactly how to profit from it.

 

[cwalner]

Before porn became more legal in the late 60s through late 70s, porn was an illegal underground business. In many parts of the USA, it was the domain of the mafia like gambling and prostitution were.

If forced underground again, organized crime knows exactly how to profit from it.

And since you bring it up, this would result in much greater exploitation than we currently see in the business. Most of the social ills that result from prostitution are severely heightened because it is illegal and thus prone to exploitation.

 

[carlitos]

Before porn became more legal in the late 60s through late 70s, porn was an illegal underground business. In many parts of the USA, it was the domain of the mafia like gambling and prostitution were.

If forced underground again, organized crime knows exactly how to profit from it.

Even when legal, the mafia still profits from it. Those viewing booth arcades have their earnings skimmed and money washed through them. Plus they have some prostitution and drug business in and around them.

 

[Caper]

*sigh*

Do you have any data, at all, to support your position (which is what my previous post was pointing out, btw. Nowhere did I accuse you of assuming that all 16yo girls who were gang-raped are in porn. I merely stated that your single anecdotal point doesn't come close to a solid piece of data one way or the other)?

*double sigh

I never said my single case scenario proved anything one way or the other....

and btw..... how many other people post case scenario's to support their point and never get taken to task for it?

 

[Caper]

Nobody ever claimed that you said all, but you did claim a pattern that you have yet to provide evidence for (beyond a single anecdote, which is not evidence).

I am doing this from a work computer right now... so I can't really start goggling porn related topics. Though I will on my days off.

 

[RandFan]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed previously moderated content

Everyone is skeptical of ideas that conflict with their world view. Skepticism requires us to be skeptical of ideas that fit with our world view.

• You think many if not most porn stars have been molested.
• You have no evidence.
• You are no different than the folks who believe in UFO abductions and big foot in that you are advancing a personal belief without skepticism.

 

[RandFan]

I never said my single case scenario proved anything one way or the other....

You've been advancing your pet belief for a day or two now. If you don't have the evidence why not admit that you don't know and stop advancing it?

and btw..... how many other people post case scenario's to support their point and never get taken to task for it?

This is a skeptics forum. It happens all of the time. I have taken the null hypothesis. Absent evidence of molestation and in light of the fact that many dispute the meme I can find no reason to advance the idea.

 

[Caper]

You've been advancing your pet belief for a day or two now. If you don't have the evidence why not admit that you don't know and stop advancing it?

This is a skeptics forum. It happens all of the time. I have taken the null hypothesis. Absent evidence of molestation and in light of the fact that many dispute the meme I can find no reason to advance the idea.

So is your position that women in pornography are victims of sexual abuse at the same rate of females of the general female population?

 

[Caper]

Everyone is skeptical of ideas that conflict with their world view. Skepticism requires us to be skeptical of ideas that fit with our world view.

• You think many if not most porn stars have been molested.
  

No. I never said that. I said a large percentage. Higher then the general population. The youtube video you linked argued against an outrageous number of something like 80 to 90 %

[*]You have no evidence.

I'm on a work computer, when I am off I will look.

 

[RandFan]

• You think many if not most porn stars have been molested.

No. I never said that.

Okay, but you did say that a large percentage were molested. I took large percentage to mean many.

From what I read a large percentage of them were molested.

 

[RandFan]

So is your position that women in pornography are victims of sexual abuse at the same rate of females of the general female population?

Absent evidence to the contrary and in the face of many who deny the meme I don't accept the positive claim.

 

[cwalner]

So is your position that women in pornography are victims of sexual abuse at the same rate of females of the general female population?

That is a good way to express the null hypothesis in this case.

Also consider what your claim is, as you are somewhat alternating between two of them:

1) Women who enter porn are more likely to have previously been victims of sexual abuse/assault
2) Women who are in porn are more likely to experience incidents of sexual abuse/assault.

I distinguish these two because evidence for one is not evidence for the other.

I would also like to now bring up the fact that this discussion seems to focus on the Women in porn. What about the Men? Do you think male porn stars are more/less likely than the general population to have experienced or experience sexual abuse/assault? How do you think it compares to Women in porn.

I ask this, since even if there are differences between porn stars and the general population, then it should hold across gender boundries if porn is the only factor. If it differs based on gender, then other factors are probably in play, such as societal views regarding porn, not porn itself.

 

[kmortis]

Keep it civil, folks.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis

 

[BenBurch]

Even when legal, the mafia still profits from it. Those viewing booth arcades have their earnings skimmed and money washed through them. Plus they have some prostitution and drug business in and around them.

Very rare now.

 

[Travis]

So is your position that women in pornography are victims of sexual abuse at the same rate of females of the general female population?

Why does this matter?

Unless they are being abused while on the job it is completely irrelevant.

Hell if I was sexually abused as a child does that mean any job I've ever had should now be banned?

 

[Caper]

Why does this matter?

Unless they are being abused while on the job it is completely irrelevant.

Hell if I was sexually abused as a child does that mean any job I've ever had should now be banned?

Can you please tell me where I mention anything about a ban?

 

[cwalner]

Why does this matter?

Unless they are being abused while on the job it is completely irrelevant.

Not entirely. If a particular profession had an exceptionally high percentage of abuse victims then it is a reasonable hypothesis that there is something intrinsic in the profession that it relies on previously exploited people in its labor pool. However it is also a reasonably hypothesis that it is not intrinsic to the profession, but is related to societal values regarding that profession.

I would not be very surprised to learn that sex professions (especially in the USA) had a higher percentage of previously sexually exploited people in their ranks. But I would tend to ascribe such distinction to the USA's attitudes towards sex more than I would to anything intrinsic to the professions.

 

[Caper]

Not entirely. If a particular profession had an exceptionally high percentage of abuse victims then it is a reasonable hypothesis that there is something intrinsic in the profession that it relies on previously exploited people in its labor pool. However it is also a reasonably hypothesis that it is not intrinsic to the profession, but is related to societal values regarding that profession.

I would not be very surprised to learn that sex professions (especially in the USA) had a higher percentage of previously sexually exploited people in their ranks. But I would tend to ascribe such distinction to the USA's attitudes towards sex more than I would to anything intrinsic to the professions.

Very good post.

 

[Roadtoad]

Pretty sure professional pornography, amateur porn, suggestive pictures, erotic stories and drawn stuff all have the same corrupting influence on Christian society and the nuclear family...

Facts and reality are even more so. Seems to me the biggest threat to Christian Society as a whole, though, is recognition of how destructive their own dogma tends to be.