Comments on: Good vs. Evil Porn

By: The Best of SugarBank 2006

The Best of SugarBank 2006 — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 16:19:53 +0000

[...] Good vs. Evil Porn [...]

By: Aurelius

Aurelius — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 08:21:54 +0000

Hey, I agree, it would be great if OSHA would step in and assure the safety of performers. Unfortunately, that’s going to have to wait until the fed is forced to classify the porn industry as a legit business, something that ain’t gonna happen under Gonzales, that’s for sure. The free speech argument is important because of this continued need to prove legitamacy. AS long as the governement classifies all sex workers as criminals there will be no coverage under labor laws. A union might help, it would be very difficult to move the adult industry into the “right to work” states since most of them are solidly red. The whole OSHA thing will have to wait until the court (and the country) changes radically. Even the most labor driven goverments, Germany and The Netherlands, France and Spain, are just now beginning to see sex work as legitimate labor. The US government still classifies adult movie work with prostitution as illegal occupations.
Question? Are exotic dancers covered under existing workman’s comp laws?
Or, if adult performers could manage to finagle their way into the Hollywood system, the SAG and DG system, they might be able to sue to enforce OSHA compliance. Anybody see this happening anytime soon?
If all else fails, performers who are injured/infected could always file civil suits against producers. Juries are easier to convince than idealogical political appointee judges. Make sense?
I’m stabing in the dark here Sara. I’m just a fan. I do all sorts of things for a living, from social work to training, developing instructional materials to retail management. Maybe someone else can help with this?

By: Sara

Sara — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:27:59 +0000

See, I find it more useful to think of this in the context of safety at the workplace, less than an issue of free speech. While it mixes both issues, the porn biz is more of a money-driven industry than a collective of artists trying to get the word out. There aren’t a lot of people starving so that people will truly understand the message of their being pegged on-screen after all. I’ve heard a little about OSHA-like standards being enforced on a sort of volunteer-basis amongst some production companies, but why shouldn’t it be regulated by OSHA itself? If “pornographer” is an occupation, shouldn’t it meet with occupational safety and health standards? (And just imagine the worker’s comp claims of carpal tunnel on the set of Handjob Honeys #8.)

By: Aurelius

Aurelius — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 02:52:57 +0000

I’m new here too, Sara.
The point I was trying to make is that if the community as a whole totally refuses to accept some sort of controls, then it becomes more likely that control will be imposed from without. Free speech is very importqnt, we all agree on that, but the courts have ruled that the right to free expression stops when other people begin to be hurt. Max and company say that since they are paying their models then the models are in fact not being hurt. I find this argument less than persuasive.
What is happening is that more and more “mainstream” porn is coming to rememble the “extreme” smut. Producers say that if they fail to portray realistic (or real) coercive sex, or extreme types of penetration, or spitting on the models, and so on, that they lose their market. We were discussing the possiblity and desireability of simulating some of the more difficult subjects, and the morality of raping a woman on camera and then paying her not to sue versus making it look like a willing woman was being raped. Does the simulated violence meet the fantasy requirements of the average consumer? Is there in fact something psychiatrically wrong with people who only enjoy watching assault if they know that the model is really being forced? That sort of thing.
Stopping these extreme producers is probably just not possible. Anybody see Max moving to Eastern Europe and continuing his spree there if the US government tries to stop him? And the existence of modems means that the consumer of this type of smut can just download the latest piss, fist and rape fest via the net.
What I see as the real danger is that the government will use Lizzy Borden, Robert Black and Max as excuses to do their best to close down the industry completely. The mainstream is very reluctant to accept any type of limits on what they can portray, and this puts all of them in danger. To tar Danni Ashe as a pornographer with the same brush as Lizzy Borden is a gross distortion of the truth, but given the current political environment and the restructuring of the court system under the current regime this remains a real possibility. Most of the obscenity cases in the past few years have gone 5-4 in the court. One more Bush pick and they’ll have a clear majority.

So, we’ve pretty much agreed that the assaultive, coercive porn is at least potentially harmful to consumers as well as participants, that consumers of this type material are probably troubled although most don’t go on to become predators ala Bundy, Gacy, Dahmer or the BTK killer, that there may be a valid reason or reasons to supress this type material, and that stopping it is probably impossible. What we can’t quite figure out is whether the mainstream can or ought to try to accept standards or to self-impose standards, a point beyond which they will not go. Also, can a model freely consent to being harmed physically and/or psychologically, or does the fact that they will agree to be raped for money imply impairment, and thus the inablility to give free consent?

By: Sara

Sara — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 02:22:45 +0000

What I’m seeing here in this argument is something that gets a lot of discussion in feminist circles with regard to “choice.” The fact that a choice can be made does not make it a good choice, a valid choice, or a choice that is helpful to your cause. You can choose to support extreme porn (something I’m not about to do, myself), but what are the ethical implications of offering someone money to be physically hurt?

I also think that the “but they’ll move into my bedroom next!” argument rings totally false. There are plenty of industries that will accept safety regulation either because it’s been forced on them by striking employees, or as a safeguard against litigation. This doesn’t mean you can’t use your chainsaw at home without wearing elbow pads, a helmet, goggles and a tetanus shot. It does mean that there is an ethos in our work culture that says that putting people in harm’s way for the sake of your company’s profits is inherently exploitative.

I realize that a lot of peoples’ fantasies of really brutish things are just that – fantasies. I am not going to begrudge someone’s turn-on, but I am also not going to pay someone to be in harm’s way for the sake of my orgasm. I am much more concerned about the production of porn than its content, so I guess it’s pretty obvious that I (for what it’s worth) would support acceptance of simulation and a rejection – in philosophy if not in legislation or industry standards – of exploitative and harmful pornography where the pain and fear are real.

And yes, I’m new around here, so I hope I’m not digging too many arguments that have already been had to death or making any disgustingly amateurish statements. Feel free to shoot me down, but please remember that I’m working from a place of actual ignorance and not just trying to troll the conversation.

By: Aurelius

Aurelius — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 07:58:34 +0000

There is a psychoanalytic school that teaches that violent porn has what is called a cathartic effect, ie being able to see something done reduces the need to do it ones self. There is something to this, particularly in most people.
The problem is always going to be the rare individual who is without internal moral standards, or whose internal standards are predicated along the lines of the belief that women do not represent human beings and are thus not subject ot the same considerations that men are. There is a school in Islam that maintains that women are souless creatures, and thus have no hope of an afterlife. By their own lights these people may be very moral, but if you believe that women are not people, you don’t consider your brutal behavior to be problematical. Few christians are quite this misogynistic. Psychologists refer to this as dehumanization. We see the same process in wartime as we convince ourselves that the enemy are not human and thus not to be treated with the consideration that we use with others.
The quest for a solution becomes a matter of trying to figure out how harmful this subject matter is, (and that is no easy task), how many people are likely to escalate into criminal behaviors, and whether or not the benefits of allowing total free expression outweigh the consideration of the people hurt by this material. We know what the right wing think about this issue, one sight of a naked breast, in their eyes, causes irrepairable sexual perversion.
They can’t be allowed to dominate the debate. I think that it’s imperative that the producers of adult material and the consumers of this material remain active, and be willing to compromise at least a bit.
Think about this. How would we, as adult enthusiasts react if we knew that there was a segment of the population who identified as straight who consumed violent gay material? Stereotypical gay men being raped, fisted, pissed on, by what was portrayed as right wing conservative straight men? Would sitting down with a few brews, a pizza and the gang from the factory to spend the evening watching a few “fags” get what they deserved be acceptable? Can we agree that seeing this material would increase the chance of these men acting out that way in the future? Would we defend this material as legitimate first amendment fodder? Even given that there would be a school within the gay community that would find this scenario arousing, I think the problem is apparent.

I find that I’ve been pedantic and long winded. I apologize. Sorry, Sam, This is a sore point with me because, to be honest, porn has been my obsession since I was 10 years old. I grew up looking at the 70’s mags full of hippie chicks like Roberta Pedon and old pics of Bettie Page. I feel that porn serves a vital purpose as a release for sexual tension and I fervently reject the idea that it needs to be done away with. The very thought that the current administration is trying to tar all adult content with the same brush offends be to no end. If Danni Ashe goes to prison I’ll have to organize an underground and liberate her, a cause for which I would quite willingly endanger my own life! If Max were tried and sent to a women’s prison filled with inmates named Large Marge who had killed their abusive husbands I’d consider justice served.

By: Seska

Seska — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 04:00:17 +0000

Aurelius – I am with you on the psychological disturbance. I understand how psychodramas can be useful for people to work out fears and the like (including sexual issues) but I for some people I think the darker sides of sex as captured in porn feeds their darkers sides. But how does one legislate that formally or informally? The more I think about this issue the more depressed I get.

By: Aurelius

Aurelius — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 02:23:10 +0000

I’m afraid I’m going to have to play Satan here and argue that if you can only get off by watching others really be used and degraded that you in fact meet all the requirements for serious psychiatric disturbance ala sociopathy or psychopathy no matter how “normal” you are otherwise.
First amendment rights have always been interpreted as stopping at the point where others are harmed by your behavior. The behaviors of real psychotic porn consumers are harming others if only because of continued production of the most degrading subject matter. Simply because someone is getting paid for something that is no guarantee that they are not being harmed by it. How would you feel if you knew someone who was being paid to smoke cigarettes? Are they being harmed by this behavior? There is a world of difference between someone who gets off on playing with pee and watching Max piss in some girls mouth because he paid her $5000 to accept it.
It’s a big move from fantasy to action. Most people never make that move. This is the reason we can still buy Nabakov and Pynchon at bookstores despite the objectionable sexual content. However, my point is that the Bush regime is actively trying to remove this freedom. The day could very well come when we can no longer purchase Lolita, Ada, or Gravity’s Rainbow in bookstores because of the sexual behavior of the protagonists with underage partners. If “serious” writers are threatened how much more endagered is the porn industry?
I’ve followed Max’s career since the early days when he was doing gonzo butt smut. I’ve avoided Black since I saw him throw a glass of wine into the eyes of Sara Jane Hamilton during a Bruce Seven film back in the 90’s (real pain just doesn’t turn me on). I think that allowing men like these two to come to represent porn in the eyes of the public is to invite intervention by the American Taliban.
That said, getting either of these two under control is probably just not possible short of prosecution. Sooner or later the DA in Birmingham or Nashville will get a hold on one or both of them and that’ll be that.

By: Seska

Seska — Sat, 12 Aug 2006 00:40:22 +0000

About enjoying sexual fantasy more if it is fiction – I think soem people will and some people won’t. i prefer knowing people are safe. I get turned off when they are no condoms. But I know other people who ahev the opposite reaction. Similarily they only get turned on by the porn (or say they) if people are really fucking, really orgasming and really in pain (and worse really takign advantage of people). I am not sure what to think about all of this. Some of these people are pretty darn ncie and ordinary in their every day lives but they onyl get off if the stuff they see is degrading as possible – if they knew it was acting then they would not buy it. Is the answer making the simulation and the acting as beliveable as possible? I struggle with the idea that there are those who need to see people in real pain in order feel pleasure.

By: Sam Sugar

Sam Sugar — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 22:06:51 +0000

Afrekete – got it.

Seska – I am prone to agree with you. We’re allowed to be open sexually and still have limits right? It should be okay to criticize intent when it’s as messed up as some of the stuff Max et al are into.

Aurelius – I agree that what we consume does have some effect on how we percieve the world.

Sabrina – I’m with you. You can enjoy a sexy fantasy far more if you know that what you’re seeing’s fiction. Simulation will mean more extreme porn, but it’ll be more palatable too.