If you smoke a joint, it will effect your behavior but does not infringe on my rights. (unless you believe that as a citizen, I have an inalliable right to not encounter anyone who is high.)

It’s stupid really, considering that the Kama Sutra existed before today’s ‘modern’ nations existed to use words like obscenity in inquiries and legal proceedings in relation to pornography.

I find it odd that people can watch Robocop in a theatre, and not be able to watch an adult movie.

My view is that pregnancy is a well understood potential side effect of unprotected sex and has nothing to do with abuse. I’d say no, unless the woman was somehow tricked into unprotected sex or denied a chance to use contraception.

Hypothetical:

A pregnant woman on a porn set.

She has consented to a ‘rough’ sex scene.

Rough treatment causes her to miscarry.

If not legal, does this producer have any ethical or moral obligation to this woman?

A woman becomes pregnant while on a porn set.

She decided to bear and raise the child.

Her scene-partner’s paternity is established by DNA testing.

My layman’s understanding of the law leads me to believe that her scene partner is legal obligated to support the child.

If not legal, does the producer have any ethical or moral obligation to this child?

I’m not suggesting modeling porn on Hollywood but I think it’s fair to draw parallels – there’s a great deal of similarity along with the obvious differences.

If we claim porn is so different, aren’t we responsible for building our own model. If we have – shouldn’t we be ashamed of the result?

And like Tony said porn is about actual sex and mainstream movies are not. Not sure that we can try to model the porn industry after Hollywood.

There is a world of difference between the pretend violence in mainstream movies and the actual sex in pornography.