The war against porn

geni said:
No the punishment is for a crime. Being a jerk just makes it harder to defend yourself in certian cases.
Click to expand...
And it makes it more enjoyable for the police to arrest you, and for the prosecutor, judge and jury to convict you. For example, I would think that being a jerk to a cop who has pulled you over for a traffic violation would greatly increase your chance of getting a ticket, and later being a jerk in court increases your chance of conviction, and possibly even the severity of your sentence.
 
Puppycow said:
Oh, I don't think that's true. I think that most porn stars these days make a lot less than you would imagine.

These are people who don't think long-term. They could be drug addicts and this is an easy way to get enough for a few fixes. Or people who are easily manipulated and intimidated by a guy like Max Hardcore, who is kind of scary. Some people are just submissive and accept what they are offered because they aren't confident enough to question what they are told.
Click to expand...

*Facepalm*

Here we go again. SkeptiChick is right. We've been through your self-righteous prejudiced assumption on this before. It's completely inaccurate and insulting.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The convictions seem to indicate that the porn produced by him is illegal, as otherwise they wouldn't get obscenity convictions.
Click to expand...

But my point is that law is vague as to what constitutes obscenity. If there's a community out there which finds it obscene, you're doing something illegal, technically. Even though you weren't filming there, didn't advertise there, and nobody forced them to view your work.

Again, there are cases where someone was sued by a DA in a whole other state, and for something as ridiculous as that that community found seeing semen obscene and was trying to set a precedent.

There is no porn you can produce at all without it technically being illegal, because someone _somewhere_ will find it obscene. Getting a conviction, now that's another issue, but it still smacks to me of hypocrisy to pretend that it's all legal and good, but leave a loophole by which technically it's all illegal and bad.

Heck, God help us if some muslim fundies found a village somewhere, because in that community probably even showing a clothed woman but with her head and lower legs uncovered would be obscene. And I don't think that law makes an exemption for that kind of situation.

But it gets better. The charges against Max included using a computer to transport obscene material, and mailing obscene material. I doubt that he was sending free DVDs to random people like AOL. So if you have a website that contains what someone somewhere considers obscene, or run an internet shop selling what someone somewhere considers obscene, technically you're breaking the law.

Now I could see _some_ point in prosecuting those charges if someone was actually pushing that stuff unto unsuspecting people. If someone hacked into some old lady's computer to set a gay anal scene as a desktop background, or actually mailed some obscene photos to everyone in town, I could sorta understand why some people would want to make him stop.

But in this case I think someone had to actively, and of their own free will, whip out the credit card and buy a movie or presumably subscribe to his site. If they find it repulsive and obscene, they can just stop buying it. I just can't see why extra legal protection is necessary.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Or he just has enough access to people trying to get into porn and pays well enough that he doesn't need a lot of repeat models to keep it up. There are a lot of sleazy employers who do not pay or treat their employees well, and yet have no real trouble finding employees.
Click to expand...

Now I'm not particularly into that gentleman's work, and in fact I consider it distasteful. But it's hard not to run into some link to it now and then on the internet, if you're doing any surfing for porn at all. And I'm under the distinct impression that I've seen some of those gals in a lot of his scenes. Either at least some return, or he's doing some incredibly long movies ;)
 
HansMustermann said:
Now I'm not particularly into that gentleman's work, and in fact I consider it distasteful. But it's hard not to run into some link to it now and then on the internet, if you're doing any surfing for porn at all. And I'm under the distinct impression that I've seen some of those gals in a lot of his scenes. Either at least some return, or he's doing some incredibly long movies ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe, or shot enough scenes with them before they wised up, or any number of possibilities with him being a bad guy in some and not in others. Some people work for exploitative and sleazy employers for a long time after all.

There are a number of sleazy guys in porn, I remember one documentary were a guy who tried to act as some kind of agent made the women he represented have sex with him.
 
It's certainly a possibility, and I'm not excluding it a priori. But since at least one employee testified under oath that he was nice when out-of-character, I don't see any reason to favour the even less supported alternatives.

I mean, let's face it, just because some character is humiliated on the stage, it doesn't automatically mean that the actor is mis-treated when off the set too. In particular, since we're talking mysoginistic scenarios, there is this other work I can't help remembering, which is all about humiliating and tormenting a woman until she breaks down and accepts her fate. It's called "The Taming Of The Shrew", by Shakespeare. I don't think that the many actresses who played Katherina over the years would be similarly mis-treated off stage too.
 
It's funny how people preaching about porn tend to circle around BDSM.

Saffy: "This is awful! It's degrading to women!"
Patsy: "How do you mean? She's holding the whip!"

People sometimes like to do things other people wouldn't like to do. And if they get paid to do those things on camera, what's the problem? If you feel a given activity is horrible and degrading, don't do it. Or watch it. But don't try to impose your own views on others.

It's just like religion all over again--it's not enough for the faithful to follow their own consciences, they want everyone else to follow the faithful's consciences, too. Auntie Prude and Uncle Uptight disapprove of whips and chains, so it's wrong for you to enjoy them, or watch them, or get paid to perform with them. Because they care deeply about your moral fiber, and they want to save you from yourself. Against your will. Because they decided they're right.

I don't see much difference between the Taliban declaring it's sinful to have a statue of Buddha and somebody saying it's unethical to film people peeing on each other while dressed up as fairy princesses. There doesn't seem to be any harm in either, so why not mind your own business?
 
ponderingturtle said:
Maybe, or shot enough scenes with them before they wised up, or any number of possibilities with him being a bad guy in some and not in others. Some people work for exploitative and sleazy employers for a long time after all.
Click to expand...
You could say that the act in front of the camera is nasty and unpleasant for the women involved and you do not know of any woman who you think would do that voluntary.
Do you realise that people have different tastes and that he does not need that many women?

There are a number of sleazy guys in porn, I remember one documentary were a guy who tried to act as some kind of agent made the women he represented have sex with him.
Click to expand...

There is a reasonable chance that what you thought was a documentary, was really some fetish porn on the subject of cheating women out of fair pay and work conditions.

I know of one serie called bang bus or somesuch.
 
TragicMonkey said:
I don't see much difference between the Taliban declaring it's sinful to have a statue of Buddha and somebody saying it's unethical to film people peeing on each other while dressed up as fairy princesses. There doesn't seem to be any harm in either, so why not mind your own business?
Click to expand...

I say we here at JREF should start producing strawmen porn and see how upset the fundies get over it. We could have some scarecrow on scarecrow action.

If it works it will be poetic bliss.
 
Schrodinger's Cat said:
What exactly is a puppy cow? Is it a puppy which looks like a cow? A miniature puppy sized cow? Did a dog and cow interbreed?

I think I like puppy sized cow the best
Click to expand...

Stop spinning the roulette like that, or you may end up giving us ideas for a new porn movie :D
 
Toke said:
You could say that the act in front of the camera is nasty and unpleasant for the women involved and you do not know of any woman who you think would do that voluntary.
Do you realise that people have different tastes and that he does not need that many women?
Click to expand...

Sure. I like the porn by Kink a lot more than his because they give a feeling that they are above board and treat their models rights. He perpetuates a perception that he does not.

There is a reasonable chance that what you thought was a documentary, was really some fetish porn on the subject of cheating women out of fair pay and work conditions.

I know of one serie called bang bus or somesuch.
Click to expand...

It was by a guy who started looking into porn after the last HIV scare in 04 or so. Max was an example of someone who uses recent test results to justify condom free sets, when the practice has risk and a number of performers have gotten HIV from the practice.
 
Sort of on-topic...The bluenoses will always be with us...

We well recall Ashcroft "draping" the statue of "Justice" so as not to display any marble bits...
Now, the attorney general of Virginia has issued a campaign button that features that state's seal. The seal shows the Roman goddess "virtus" (virtue) in the traditional toga with one breast exposed.
But not the button...The image has been altered. Now, Virtue wears an armored breastplate that covers both.....
 
ponderingturtle said:
Sure. I like the porn by Kink a lot more than his because they give a feeling that they are above board and treat their models rights. He perpetuates a perception that he does not.
Click to expand...
I agree, Kink.com gives the clear impression that they are finding models who are really into it. Max is doing his best to hide it, although marrying one of his models suggest that he is not as offensive off camera. :)

It was by a guy who started looking into porn after the last HIV scare in 04 or so. Max was an example of someone who uses recent test results to justify condom free sets, when the practice has risk and a number of performers have gotten HIV from the practice.
Click to expand...

That does sound like a bad practice.
The amount of paperwork required to legally tape and distribute porn means that the sleazy and abusive practices depicted in e.g. bang-bus is not possible in professional porn. They are just acting/faking it.
 
I just wish people would make up their mind. Is porn and prostitution evil exploitation of women, or a case of free choice liberation and fight against the restrictive rules of society? What is it this week?
 
Bikewer said:
The seal shows the Roman goddess "virtus" (virtue) in the traditional toga with one breast exposed.
But not the button...The image has been altered. Now, Virtue wears an armored breastplate that covers both.....
Click to expand...

They don't want her to lose her virtue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom