Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[BenBurch]

My reception of Ben's comment. He is not, of course, responsible for any misapprehensions on my part.

Certain posts have been made concerning the attitudes, experiences, and POVs of adult film performers. Some of these posts have been authored by people who have no personal contact with or experience of said performers. Some of these posts have been at least dismissive, if not actually biased against these performers as a group.

This seems to indicate an assumption of knowledge not unlike that of white "good ol' boys" discoursing among themselves about the experiences of blacks without having had any meaningful discussion on the subject with actual black people.

My apologies, Ben, if I have misrepresented your intent.

No, bang on.

I could have been less terse, but I was pre-coffee.

 

[RandFan]

Much like other forms of entertainment, porn does require the suspension if dis-belief on the part of the audience. The main thing I want, is to be convinced that everyone is having a good time. Some actors are more convincing than others. Some of the things people do are less convincing to me. Some videos are so lacking in production or acting quality I am unwilling to suspend my dis-belief.

I'm with you. However many people don't care. I've met folks who only like the action and the acting ability of the performers is not at all an issue.

 

[JFrankA]

Much like other forms of entertainment, porn does require the suspension if dis-belief on the part of the audience. The main thing I want, is to be convinced that everyone is having a good time. Some actors are more convincing than others. Some of the things people do are less convincing to me. Some videos are so lacking in production or acting quality I am unwilling to suspend my dis-belief.

I agree with you as well on this.

One of the things that really turn me on is the expression on the faces of the models. In fact, I find the face and the expressions and the voice much more erotic than the nude body. If the performer in the porn doesn't look she's into it, then it does nothing for me.

This is why I feel I don't objectify. However, I ask you all, if I don't think the actress is enjoying the scene and therefore I am not aroused by the scene because she seems like she's really not enjoying it, am I objectifying the actress?

 

[RandFan]

No offense intended.

No, but a good measure of sarcasam was.

 

[MontagK505]

I agree with you as well on this.

One of the things that really turn me on is the expression on the faces of the models. In fact, I find the face and the expressions and the voice much more erotic than the nude body. If the performer in the porn doesn't look she's into it, then it does nothing for me.

This is why I feel I don't objectify. However, I ask you all, if I don't think the actress is enjoying the scene and therefore I am not aroused by the scene because she seems like she's really not enjoying it, am I objectifying the actress?

I don't like linking sex and misery. A model I knew liked doing masturbation videos (I actually saw her wreak two vibrators) She had great facial expressions. Sometime later I saw videos of her doing girls and boys as well as toys. She clearly liked sex a lot. But, as soon as she was asked to do things she found unpleasant she quit doing videos.

Did I see her as an object? Perhaps. If I did, I saw her as a female person object who liked sex. I wouldn't have enjoyed seeing her as an object of degradation.

 

[Southwind17]

SW, I believe you have now officially avoided my question twice. I'm gonna bring this once again and ask you to please answer it:

So explain to me why am I being irrational by stating my will to lose respect for someone who has offended/attacked me, but you feel you have the right to disrespect people just because they engage in certain types of pornography you find distasteful.

I haven't answered it because this thread has taken up a lot of my time that I would ordinarily prefer to spend on other things, so I decided that I needed to be slightly selective. I clipped you, Ron, because much of what you've been writing, in my opinion, either makes little sense, fails to focus on the point at issue, is based on misinterpretation of what I've written or simply goes off at a tangent to the key point. Frankly, I couldn't be bothered spending my time trying to keep you on track. However, I can more than sense your agitation at my not answering one of your questions so I'll indulge you.

The thing is, Ron, the question that you pose above started off as this:

I think losing respect is understandable once the person has disrespected you. Then, you are entitled to lose respect for them, because they lost yours (You could, however, choose to still respect them and that is up to the person).

I considered that both illogical and nonsensical, and believe I let you know. I even gave an example to make the point.

But it seems your position has subsequently jumped about thus:

I make the choice of losing respect for a person if they have done something that hurts me or a loved one, or offends in a very deep way ...

If a stranger sits next to me, they are perfectly fine with me until (and if) they decide to disrespect me or attack me in some verbal or physical way. Then, if they do that, they have lost my respect. Until then, they had it.

However, I'll respond to your position as you last stated it thus:
If somebody has offended or attacked you per se then it seems reasonable for you to lose some respect for them. If they have justifiably offended or attacked you (I assume you mean verbally, not physically, when you write "attack", and I also assume that, by "justifiably", the offense/attack can be deemed reasonable based on what you have done to provoke it), then it seems less reasonable for you to lose some respect for them. And I will repeat, if you lose respect for someone simply because they have lost respect for you, that is irrational (unless, of course, their basis for losing respect for you is irrational, in which case you might be justified).

Now, turning to my position, if somebody behaves in a way contradictory to the morals, ethics, values and standards that I choose to uphold and I think that that person is sufficiently aware and cognisant of their behaviour in the context of how it will or might be viewed or construed by others, such as me, but not just me, then I am perfectly justified in forming a personal value-judgement about that person. If that judgement falls below a certain threshold then my respect for that person will fall accordingly. I'm sure we nearly all function the same way. It's just that our morals, ethics, values, standards, value-judgments and thresholds all sit differently.

So, let's put what I've just written into context with a few things you've written:

I make the choice of losing respect for a person if they have done something that hurts me or a loved one, or offends in a very deep way (For example, if some random guy on the street calls my mother a bad name, I feel very entitled to lose all respect for such person). That's a choice I make, and it is my opinion that it is perfectly reasonable. I already mentioned that's a choice ...[some emphasis added; some already there!]

Given what both you and I have deemed appropriate to emphasize, I'm a little puzzled as to why you seem to be contesting the basis of my disrespecting certain porn actresses in the first place. It seems to me that just because my morals, ethics, values, standards, value-judgments and thresholds sit differently from yours you feel entitled to claim that I'm somehow wrong.

And before you or anybody else seeks to claim that that's exactly what I've been doing, remember that it was my stated view that was challenged in the first place. I feel I'm at least entitled to turn any tactic used by a critic back on that critic if it serves to justify the basis for holding my view.

 

[Humanzee]

I would say its a low status profession in that its not really something considered benefitial to have on a resume'. It uses its employees up, treats them poorly and discards them. If our (US) society had more respect for sex or sex workers it might be different - and maybe its changing. But for now its pretty demeaning and not a career stepping stone - not something people choose when they have a choice IMHO. I'd rather be wrong.

 

[Southwind17]

I'm with you. However many people don't care. I've met folks who only like the action and the acting ability of the performers is not at all an issue.

You make that sound like such "folks" are a rare breed. I'm actually one of those folks, and not ashamed of it, and I'm sure there are millions more too. I couldn't be bothered with all the fluffy stuff around the edges (so to speak!), although, that said, there are some plots that I do like, including women in uniforms and the recurring straight-up massage parlour that turns out not to be so! Accordingly, I wouldn't really describe the porn "actresses" that I've tended to see as actresses and men as actors. In most cases not a single word is even spoken! To my mind they're simply performing sexual acts (not acting) in front of a camera. And to be clear, I don't see this as objectification. It's still real people doing it consensually, both women and men. Which I guess is why porn cartoons and cgi porn do nothing for me.

One of the things that really turn me on is the expression on the faces of the models. In fact, I find the face and the expressions and the voice much more erotic than the nude body. If the performer in the porn doesn't look she's into it, then it does nothing for me.

This is why I feel I don't objectify. However, I ask you all, if I don't think the actress is enjoying the scene and therefore I am not aroused by the scene because she seems like she's really not enjoying it, am I objectifying the actress?

I'd say you're not objectifying provided you're not supporting it (I don't think arousal has anything to do with objectification). If you're suggesting you've directed some porn fitting that scenario then yes, I'd say you were objectifying (together with many other verbs, adverbs, nouns and adjectives!). From what we've learned about you here though, JFrankA, I'm pretty sure that's not the case, though.

Did I see her as an object? Perhaps. If I did, I saw her as a female person object who liked sex. I wouldn't have enjoyed seeing her as an object of degradation.

A "female person object"? Isn't that a contradiction at worst, or a bet-hedging tactic at best (or should that not be the other way around?!)?

 

[MontagK505]

<snip>
A "female person object"? Isn't that a contradiction at worst, or a bet-hedging tactic at best (or should that not be the other way around?!)?

You're right, it is a contradiction. I didn't express myself clearly.

My bad.

When I actually take the photos / videos I simply don't see the model as a mere object.

However, I would point out I see a difference between a person I've seen on a motion picture screen but never met, and a totaly synthetic 3D animation. The latter I think would be regarded by most people as an object.

 

[RandFan]

You make that sound like such "folks" are a rare breed. I'm actually one of those folks, and not ashamed of it, and I'm sure there are millions more too. I couldn't be bothered with all the fluffy stuff around the edges (so to speak!), although, that said, there are some plots that I do like, including women in uniforms and the recurring straight-up massage parlour that turns out not to be so! Accordingly, I wouldn't really describe the porn "actresses" that I've tended to see as actresses and men as actors. In most cases not a single word is even spoken! To my mind they're simply performing sexual acts (not acting) in front of a camera. And to be clear, I don't see this as objectification. It's still real people doing it consensually, both women and men. Which I guess is why porn cartoons and cgi porn do nothing for me.

Sorry. I meant no offense. I concede your point.

 

[Southwind17]

Sorry. I meant no offense. I concede your point.

No worries - none taken.

 

[The Painter]

In The Painter's deck, everything looks like this:

[qimg]http://i49.photobucket.com/albums/f253/quixotecoyote/oneoffs/1841076-2-pick-a-card-any-card.jpg[/qimg]

First of all if this picture were true all the cards would be Spades. Secondly,. tell me exactly which smiley faces indicates sarcasm??? Apparently I need to use them. No one here seems to get it. Man, you people are obtuse.

 

[Southwind17]

First of all if this picture were true all the cards would be Spades. Secondly,. tell me exactly which smiley faces indicates sarcasm??? Apparently I need to use them. No one here seems to get it. Man, you people are obtuse.

"You people". That's all of us except you, right? Just checking.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I would say its a low status profession in that its not really something considered benefitial to have on a resume'. It uses its employees up, treats them poorly and discards them. If our (US) society had more respect for sex or sex workers it might be different - and maybe its changing. But for now its pretty demeaning and not a career stepping stone - not something people choose when they have a choice IMHO. I'd rather be wrong.

Sounds like minor league baseball.

 

[Matthew Best]

To my mind they're simply performing sexual acts (not acting) in front of a camera.

But if they appear convincingly to be enjoying something that is really just another job, then that is acting, isn't it?

 

[Southwind17]

But if they appear convincingly to be enjoying something that is really just another job, then that is acting, isn't it?

First, I'm pretty sure the men in the most part naturally enjoy it - there's no "convincing" necessary (certainly the porn that I keep alluding to). Second, I'm not sure about the women. Certainly I've seen a lot of porn where it seems blatantly obvious that the women are into it as much as the men are, but I've also seen a lot of porn where it's possible the women are not particularly enjoying it but it's just a job. That's not to say they're necessarily disliking it, though, although I've also seen porn where the women seem actually to be disliking it but are prepared to go through with it, again because it's just a job. To be clear, by "disliking" here I'm not alluding to physical or emotional abuse (although I have come across a little of that too). So, for the women, so far as I can tell, every scenario applies. I'm sure somebody here, though, will have seen porn where the opposite is true, but in the main I don't think you'll see much porn where the men are not actually getting gratification from it.

 

[makaya325]

I have heard that men who watch Female on male Porn actually develop stronger Sperm. Any idea if this is true? It was on MANswers.

 

[Belz...]

Well your presence here sure makes me think you care what people think. You've certainly asked me a lot of questions (a couple quite well considered, I might add)! Or are you the mystery troll around here, the locating of which seems to be the sole attention and obsession of some posters here, like the illustrious Bigfoot!?

Gee, I wondered how long it would take you to revert back to your true self.

 

[Belz...]

Ah ... I see ... the "harmful" goalposts are also floating in the breeze. So tell me Belz: where does "harmful" end, lest this thread, as for so many like it, tumbles rapidly down into the semantic abyss?

How does porn harm ?

And you question my morals!

Your "morals" seem to be based on gut-feelings. I'd rather avoid that for me, so my answer to your question is "I don't know".

But you're defending the behaviour of others based on that opinion. If your opinion could be wrong, as you admit, what motivates you, then, to lean in the direction of the "rape portrayal porn reduces rape in reality" brigade?

I don't. I'm saying it could be one or the other. Do you have any evidence to show that it really DOES lead to more rape ?

I'm really going to have to insist that you read back Belz. You really do just seem to be going around in never-decreasing circles here.

It would've been shorter to simply answer my question, but I suppose reducing the amount of heat in this thread would be unnatural for you.

 

[Belz...]

That would be a check here, presumably:

Sorry Belz - couldn't resist rubbing salt into your self-inflicted tomfoolery wounds!

Er... was that supposed to prove anything ? What was that about, now ?