Maybe porn really does more harm than good for men?

[espec10001]

So female porn actresses think it's fun to get pounded by the same 12 inch dong for 6 hours straight with no lube or protection (want to use a condom? no job for you! - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1892037/) in an industry where people have caught HIV/AIDS and other STDs? Where just about everyone has herpes?

 

And you're telling me you've never heard of the abuse and coercion people undergo in the porn industry?

 

Go youtube Jersey Jaxin and why she quit porn. Here's some of what she had to say:

 

 

Doesn't sound like she was having too much fun.

 

And Elizabeth Rollings:

 

 

Jenna Jameson:

 

 

Sierra Sinn:

 

 

Sounds like a really good time.

 

Honestly, I'm a little surprised that some of you guys are so tied up in the fantasy that you actually believe the acting.

 

Your points are moot. No one is holding a gun to these girls heads to do porn. They have a choice and they choose to do it. They chose to enter the porn industry, I have no sympathy for them regardless of all the dangers and 'coercion' they endure once they are there. They are getting paid to be treated like a piece of meat, and if they don't understand that before signing up, then that's their fault.

 

Porn wouldn't exist if there weren't so many girls willing and able and an audience of men to watch them! It goes both ways.

[sweetjasmine]

Your points are moot.

 

No, they're not.

 

You said women do porn because they think it's FUN and that people who do porn LIKE THE ATTENTION. What I quoted contradicts that. It's not "fun". They're acting.

 

I have no sympathy for them regardless of all the dangers and 'coercion' they endure once they are there.

 

Of course you don't. You're busy jerking off to it. Who cares if some skank gets HIV from unprotected sex as long as watching her is getting you off?

 

They are getting paid to be treated like a piece of meat, and if they don't understand that before signing up, then that's their fault.

 

And yet it's "just another paying job" and you guys would be okay with your daughter or sister or girlfriend doing it. Sure.

 

And I thought you said it "makes them feel special." Now you're saying they're getting paid to be treated like a piece of meat. So, uh, which is it?

 

How many of you would be comfortable with your girlfriend banging 25 guys in one day because she really needs the money? How would you feel if your girlfriend didn't want to have sex with you because she just spent 10 hours on the set getting pounded by Mr. 12-incher and she's too sore to even sit down?

 

Porn wouldn't exist if there weren't so many girls willing and able and an audience of men to watch them! It goes both ways.

 

That doesn't mean it's okay for actors to be treated like garbage, PUT IN DANGER OF CONTRACTING STDs, and pressured into doing things they don't want to do just to put food on the table. The industry is screwed up.

 

If you don't find anything wrong with that, then, well, okay, you're actually making JerseyShortie's argument for her. You're saying that women in porn are being treated like pieces of meat, and you find that arousing and have no problem with people being degraded for your pleasure.

Edited May 6, 2010 by sweetjasmine

[espec10001]

No, they're not.

 

You said women do porn because they think it's FUN and that people who do porn LIKE THE ATTENTION. What I quoted contradicts that. It's not "fun". They're acting.

 

 

 

Of course you don't. You're busy jerking off to it. Who cares if some skank gets HIV from unprotected sex as long as watching her is getting you off?

 

 

 

And yet it's "just another paying job" and you guys would be okay with your daughter or sister or girlfriend doing it. Sure.

 

And I thought you said it "makes them feel special." Now you're saying they're getting paid to be treated like a piece of meat. So, uh, which is it?

 

How many of you would be comfortable with your girlfriend banging 25 guys in one day because she really needs the money? How would you feel if your girlfriend didn't want to have sex with you because she just spent 10 hours on the set getting pounded by Mr. 12-incher and she's too sore to even sit down?

 

 

 

That doesn't mean it's okay for actors to be treated like garbage, PUT IN DANGER OF CONTRACTING STDs, and pressured into doing things they don't want to do just to put food on the table. The industry is screwed up.

 

If you don't find anything wrong with that, then, well, okay, you're actually making JerseyShortie's argument for her. You're saying that women in porn are being treated like pieces of meat, and you find that arousing and have no problem with people being degraded for your pleasure.

 

What part of no one is holding a gun to these girls heads to get into this business do you not understand?

 

They are degrading themselves for crying out loud in exchange for cash! And no, I wouldn't be happy if my daughter or girlfriend did it, but you know what, if she really wanted to, I couldn't stop her. It's her body and she can do with it what she chooses. Is it foolish? Sure, but it obviously isn't stopping all these 'actresses' cause it seems like good money for them.

[sweetjasmine]

They are degrading themselves for crying out loud in exchange for cash!

 

I thought they were having fun and loving the attention because girls like being bad. (Does that mean girls like being degraded?)

 

So now that you agree porn actors (of both genders) are degrading themselves for money, does that change the way you view use of porn on the other end? Would you feel comfortable buying a product of degradation and supporting it with your money?

 

And no, I wouldn't be happy if my daughter or girlfriend did it, but you know what, if she really wanted to, I couldn't stop her. It's her body and she can do with it what she chooses. Is it foolish? Sure, but it obviously isn't stopping all these 'actresses' cause it seems like good money for them.

 

Of course you can't stop people and of course it's ultimately their choice to stay in the industry.

 

I'm just calling BS on "they do it because it's fun" and "I'd be cool with my daughter/gf doing it." Because I doubt any normal father would be happy with his little girl getting pounded by 25 guys on a set, in front of a camera, in an industry where STDs and drug abuse are very common. And I doubt most people would want to be in a monogamous relationship with someone who's regularly having unprotected sex with literally dozens of strangers on a regular basis for hours on end.

[espec10001]

I thought they were having fun and loving the attention because girls like being bad. (Does that mean girls like being degraded?)

 

So now that you agree porn actors (of both genders) are degrading themselves for money, does that change the way you view use of porn on the other end? Would you feel comfortable buying a product of degradation and supporting it with your money?

 

 

 

Of course you can't stop people and of course it's ultimately their choice to stay in the industry.

 

I'm just calling BS on "they do it because it's fun" and "I'd be cool with my daughter/gf doing it." Because I doubt any normal father would be happy with his little girl getting pounded by 25 guys on a set, in front of a camera, in an industry where STDs and drug abuse are very common. And I doubt most people would want to be in a monogamous relationship with someone who's regularly having unprotected sex with literally dozens of strangers on a regular basis for hours on end.

 

Girls getting naked on webcams or not getting paid are doing it for fun and kicks. They aren't getting paid and I don't see any other reason they do it other than the thrill.

 

Real porn actresses are getting paid to put up with that for $$$. It's called occupation hazards.

 

I mean really, what's the difference between watching porn and fantasizing about being with someone you'd want to be with? Ones on the screen and ones in your head. Guys fantasize about being with women they desire all the time!

[sally4sara]

I mean really, what's the difference between watching porn and fantasizing about being with someone you'd want to be with? Ones on the screen and ones in your head. Guys fantasize about being with women they desire all the time!

 

The difference is that the ones in your head don't have to go to see a doc after, or feel pain and regret.

 

Duh.

[espec10001]

The difference is that the ones in your head don't have to go to see a doc after, or feel pain and regret.

 

Duh.

 

Then they shouldn't have gotten into it in the first place DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR?

[sally4sara]

Then they shouldn't have gotten into it in the first place DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR?

 

Hey, you're the one asking questions with obvious answers. Your view as to why you don't think of them as victims is a separate issue.

[sweetjasmine]

Girls getting naked on webcams or not getting paid are doing it for fun and kicks. They aren't getting paid and I don't see any other reason they do it other than the thrill.

 

Sure.

 

Real porn actresses are getting paid to put up with that for $$$. It's called occupation hazards.

 

Well, sorry, but I don't think the possibility of contracting HIV/other STDs or having your anus torn and bleeding should be permissible occupational hazards. I don't find it any more acceptable than forcing workers to spend hours in enclosed spaces contaminated with asbestos without protection.

 

I mean really, what's the difference between watching porn and fantasizing about being with someone you'd want to be with? Ones on the screen and ones in your head. Guys fantasize about being with women they desire all the time!

 

See, this is exactly what I mean. The inability to make a connection between the pixels on the screen that you're jerking off to and the actual people behind it.

 

Unless we're talking CGI porn or cartoons or something, actual people had to do the sh-t you're seeing, and you're getting off to watching something that actually happened. Fantasizing is not the same. Porn may be based in fantasy, but people are actually doing what you're seeing.

[Els]

Well, sorry, but I don't think the possibility of contracting HIV/other STDs or having your anus torn and bleeding should be permissible occupational hazards. I don't find it any more acceptable than forcing workers to spend hours in enclosed spaces contaminated with asbestos without protection.

 

 

Uh. Who are you to tell a woman (or man) whether her occupational hazards are permissible or not? I don't disagree with instating greater rights and regulations for pornography actresses, just as how there should be acceptable conditions and wages for factory work. But what you are suggesting is that the entire industry should be taken down, akin to taking down the factories completely. In the context of occupations, do you think that's a good idea? Let's say you don't know which of the shoes available in malls at the moment are made in harsh conditions by underpaid workers. Do you even research whether or not the brand of shoe you use is made in acceptable working conditionst? Would you then go barefoot because you may be participating in their exploitation if yours happen to be made by ten-year-olds working 16-hour shifts? Don't you think that's worse?

 

By the way, I don't know what sort of porn you watch, but AFAIK in legal porn rubbers are used, no permanent damage is done, and the actresses have every right to call a scene to a half if they're uncomfortable with the way things are going. Frankly, I'd love to try being one, if only society wouldn't forever condemn me for doing so, or if there was a way to not be identified. The girls in the porn I watch get to use Sybians, hitachi magic wands, huge ****ing machines and cool rafter-pully harnesses... and get paid for it!

Edited May 6, 2010 by Elswyth

[sweetjasmine]

Uh. Who are you to tell a woman (or man) whether her occupational hazards are permissible or not?

 

I'm not anyone, but in the US, there are standards for occupational hazards set by OSHA (under the Department of Labor). Employers are required to provide a safe working environment, and exposing your workers to HIV and STDs and not allowing them to use protection goes against that.

 

But what you are suggesting is that the entire industry should be taken down,

 

Read again. I've never suggested any solutions.

 

but AFAIK in legal porn rubbers are used,

 

Read the NIH study I linked: "In 2004, only two of the 200 adult film companies required the use of condoms for all penile–anal and penile–vaginal penetration. Performers report that they are required to work without condoms to maintain employment."

 

And that's not even counting all the facials and other contact with bodily fluids that could conceivably transmit STDs/HIV.

 

the actresses have every right to call a scene to a half if they're uncomfortable with the way things are going.

 

Not according to what former American porn stars have to say.

[Ruby Slippers]

That doesn't mean it's okay for actors to be treated like garbage, PUT IN DANGER OF CONTRACTING STDs, and pressured into doing things they don't want to do just to put food on the table. The industry is screwed up.

 

If you don't find anything wrong with that, then, well, okay, you're actually making JerseyShortie's argument for her. You're saying that women in porn are being treated like pieces of meat, and you find that arousing and have no problem with people being degraded for your pleasure.

It's truly depressing to consider how many men care more about having fodder for rubbing one out than any of the points you've made.

[A O]

No one is holding a gun to these girls heads to do porn. They have a choice and they choose to do it. They chose to enter the porn industry,

This is a point that I totally agree with. The primary problem that we should be concerned about is that no one is being forced to enter the industry, and do anything within it, against their will. Apart from that, their are consequences to many lines of work, be it forestry, the armed forces, law enforcement, construction and so forth. People choose to work within these fields, most knowing, at the beginning, or eventually, the dangers inherent within. Porn is little different to these and as such, shouldn't be treated as such.

 

How many of you would be comfortable with your girlfriend banging 25 guys in one day because she really needs the money?

How would you feel if it were your man?

 

How would you feel if your girlfriend didn't want to have sex with you because she just spent 10 hours on the set getting pounded by Mr. 12-incher and she's too sore to even sit down?

The reason is different, but the circumstance is still the same. Being refused sex - yes, because of work - yes. That's life - yes.

 

That doesn't mean it's okay for actors to be treated like garbage, PUT IN DANGER OF CONTRACTING STDs, and pressured into doing things they don't want to do just to put food on the table. The industry is screwed up.

That is true. It doesn't matter what field one's in, that's no reason to treat them differently to someone else. However, many people are pressured to do what they don't really want to do right across the employment spectrum. That's human nature in other words, its not industry specific.

 

 

.

[Woggle]

There are plenty of occupations that are dangerous. Joining the military can get you killed or blown up and many veterans come back screwed up so should we ban that?

 

The music industry has plenty of drug abuse so should we ban music?

 

In no way do I condone abusing porn actresses and the stories from these women are sad but nobody puts a gun to a woman's head and makes her do it.

[RobM]

This thread has officially taken a turn for the weird.

[Engadget]

Porn is der devil repent repent

[dreamingoftigers]

There are plenty of occupations that are dangerous. Joining the military can get you killed or blown up and many veterans come back screwed up so should we ban that?

 

The music industry has plenty of drug abuse so should we ban music?

 

In no way do I condone abusing porn actresses and the stories from these women are sad but nobody puts a gun to a woman's head and makes her do it.

 

That's not the point they have been trying to make and I have no idea how it was missed.

 

The point was that the people that are "just pixels" to them are actual people who are being exposed to disgusting and degrading things, whether or not they chose them. It's kind of like justifying buying crack or blood diamonds because the people in those types of lifestyles knew the risks of death etc. when they seem to be a more vulnerable population. A lot of the women in the porn industry have been sexually abused at a younger age and come from screwed up places. (Will find link later if requested and have time). That places them in a more vulnerable population imho. The average girl wouldn't succumb to pressure to have such rough sex that she cannot properly go to the washroom.

 

I think that sleeping with a crack whore is a very disgusting act because regardless of the fact that she is using what she can to get her next hit, you are using her to get your "hit." Mutual usership, while a choice is disgusting. Porn is another form of usership, I don't see how anyone that supports porn and usership can feel good about themselves when they know how their "high" was produced.

[A O]

The point was that the people that are "just pixels" to them are actual people who are being exposed to disgusting and degrading things, whether or not they chose them.

There is no 'whether or not' about this. If they choose to do this line of work, then they're the same as plenty of other occupations that involve disgusting and yes, degrading work. If they don't choose to do this work, then porn, in all likelihood, is the least of their problems.

 

I don't see how anyone that supports porn and usership can feel good about themselves when they know how their "high" was produced.

So, what have we had so far. Porn is degrading, porn is cheating and now porn is 'usurious'. Free will now equals being used. Wonder what we'll have next....

 

 

.

[Engadget]

Mutual usership, while a choice is disgusting. Porn is another form of usership, I don't see how anyone that supports porn and usership can feel good about themselves when they know how their "high" was produced.

 

You do realize that instead of porn, men take a snapshot mental image of attractive women and can use that, right? Goes by the vernacular "spank bank" in my circles, and is frequently in comedy acts and such.

 

So using a mental image, or viewing the computer screen for 10 minutes and shutting it off isn't much of a "high" for the vast majority of us. Just because you dealt with an addict doesn't make anyone else one.

 

Furthermore (Throwing political correctness out the window) I love meat. However when I pick up my burger, preferably not a fast food one, do I automatically say "Oh no the animals may have been in less than sanitary conditions, or a really disgusting one"? No. I eat that burger and enjoy it.

 

Here is an article from opposing views by a former porn star, Nina Hartley:

 

http://www.opposingviews.com/arguments/it-does-not-degrade-women

 

"Something as important to our species as sex is a natural inspiration for creative expression of all types. How one views the underlying subject of a piece of art, whether it be popular or fine, reflects that person’s upbringing. Pornography, by its very definition, deals directly and unapologetically with the sexual realm in all its complexity and contradiction. When it comes to anything sexual, our cultural tensions are stretched between stubborn Puritanical prohibitions and robust individualistic hedonism.

 

When viewing depictions of the latter, the attitudes and judgments of the former can be triggered in those who still influenced by those views, knowingly or not.

 

Just saying something is “degrading” doesn’t make it so. This value-laden assertion is most often made regarding materials taken out of context, often by those who deliberately manipulate the content in the service of an existing prejudice. We live in an open, pluralistic society and aren’t going to like everything we see. That’s a small price to pay for enjoying the freedoms of constitutional government. If people find porn degrading, they shouldn’t look at it. As Oscar Wilde wisely said, “In matters of taste there can be no dispute.” "

[sweetjasmine]

How would you feel if it were your man?

 

I would feel pretty disgusted. Even if I could get over the fact that he'd regularly be having sex with lots of strangers for hours on end and even if I could get over the fact that he'd be the kind of person who views his sexuality as a cheap commodity to be hocked for a quick buck and not something personal and private to share with people he loves, I would still be scared sh-tless of putting myself at risk for catching herpes, hepatitis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and even HIV.

 

I don't understand why you're asking. Or were you expecting me to say, "I'd totally be all over that hot stud :love:" ?

 

That is true. It doesn't matter what field one's in, that's no reason to treat them differently to someone else. However, many people are pressured to do what they don't really want to do right across the employment spectrum. That's human nature in other words, its not industry specific.

 

I can't think of any other industry which requires people to expose themselves to STDs and strongly encourages or even prevents them from using protection.

 

A nurse could contract HIV by pricking her finger on a contaminated needle, but I've never heard of a hospital which didn't allow medical staff to take precautions to reduce that risk as much as possible. They actually require staff to take as many precautions as possible. If a nurse didn't take precautions when working with patients, she would be fired and investigated for breaking the law by violating OSHA's standards.

 

I don't get how you guys are missing this point. Even in Nevada where prostitution is legal, there are regulations, and condom use is required for all oral sex and intercourse. And workers are tested weekly for most STDs. Being a legal prostitute in Nevada is safer than being a porn star.

 

There are plenty of occupations that are dangerous. Joining the military can get you killed or blown up and many veterans come back screwed up so should we ban that?

 

The music industry has plenty of drug abuse so should we ban music

 

First of all, I never said jack about banning anything, so please cut that out.

 

And, yes, joining the military can get you blown up, but the military does what it can to protect soldiers and minimize the dangers where possible. A commander isn't going to order a soldier to NOT wear armor when going out on a mission. Again, people do what they can to minimize the risks, and they take certain precautions.

 

Being a cop is dangerous, but no captain would send his/her cops into a raid and demand they not wear bulletproof vests. No commander would order HAZMAT people to go into a contaminated area without protection.

[Engadget]

I would feel pretty disgusted. Even if I could get over the fact that he'd regularly be having sex with lots of strangers for hours on end and even if I could get over the fact that he'd be the kind of person who views his sexuality as a cheap commodity to be hocked for a quick buck and not something personal and private to share with people he loves, I would still be scared sh-tless of putting myself at risk for catching herpes, hepatitis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and even HIV.

 

I don't understand why you're asking. Or were you expecting me to say, "I'd totally be all over that hot stud :love:" ?

 

 

 

I can't think of any other industry which requires people to expose themselves to STDs and strongly encourages or even prevents them from using protection.

 

A nurse could contract HIV by pricking her finger on a contaminated needle, but I've never heard of a hospital which didn't allow medical staff to take precautions to reduce that risk as much as possible. They actually require staff to take as many precautions as possible. If a nurse didn't take precautions when working with patients, she would be fired and investigated for breaking the law by violating OSHA's standards.

 

I don't get how you guys are missing this point. Even in Nevada where prostitution is legal, there are regulations, and condom use is required for all oral sex and intercourse. And workers are tested weekly for most STDs. Being a legal prostitute in Nevada is safer than being a porn star.

 

 

 

First of all, I never said jack about banning anything, so please cut that out.

 

And, yes, joining the military can get you blown up, but the military does what it can to protect soldiers and minimize the dangers where possible. A commander isn't going to order a soldier to NOT wear armor when going out on a mission. Again, people do what they can to minimize the risks, and they take certain precautions.

 

Being a cop is dangerous, but no captain would send his/her cops into a raid and demand they not wear bulletproof vests. No commander would order HAZMAT people to go into a contaminated area without protection.

 

So are you trying to say people in porn are ordered not to use condoms? Or that they're not regularly tested for STD's? Are you saying that a woman who demands a condom be used will be told "NAY WOMAN, BACK TO YOUR BEDCHAMBER WHENCE I SHALL RAPE YOU WITH MY GONORRHEA INFECTED MEMBER!"?

 

It seems like some people believe porn is some type of horrible slave trade where women have no say.

[sweetjasmine]

So are you trying to say people in porn are ordered not to use condoms?

 

Studio execs say porn with condoms doesn't sell. If you're a lowly actor, you have no power to demand condom use for every sex act. Why would they risk losing profits for the demands of one actor when they can just hire someone else who's willing to do it without a condom?

 

Steve Hirsch is the CEO of Vivid Entertainment, one of the country's most prolific producers of pornography. Testing for STDs in the industry is voluntary, but Vivid requires its performers to provide a clear test from the AIM clinic every 30 days in order to work.

 

 

 

"The truth is that when people watch adult movies, they're watching for the fantasy, and they don't want to see condoms," said Hirsch. "It's been proven over and over and over. Condoms in adult movies just don't sell well. That's just a fact."

 

 

 

[...]

 

 

 

While some companies say they offer female performers the option to use condoms, inside the industry the decision to demand condom use is widely viewed as a choice to not work in porn.

 

"If you wanted to [use condoms]," said Jayne, "you wouldn't hardly get any work. ...The whole point of the porn industry is to see something raw, see something really sexual and it'd be all like if you'd see a condom, it all looks a little pre-, like people should be using condoms in the real life and when they see it on screen they don't really want to see that."

 

Or that they're not regularly tested for STD's?

 

They're tested monthly, but that's not enough. The last time someone tested positive for HIV was just last year, and the rate of transmission of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes is still high.

 

You can get infected with something 3 days after your test, and your "I'm clean" certificate is still valid for the rest of the month. In the meantime, you're having sex with a dozen people and putting them at risk.

 

Are you saying that a woman who demands a condom be used will be told "NAY WOMAN, BACK TO YOUR BEDCHAMBER WHENCE I SHALL RAPE YOU WITH MY GONORRHEA INFECTED MEMBER!"?

 

No, they'll be told, "We don't have time for this BS" and they'll get someone else to do it.

[Engadget]

Studio execs say porn with condoms doesn't sell. If you're a lowly actor, you have no power to demand condom use for every sex act. Why would they risk losing profits for the demands of one actor when they can just hire someone else who's willing to do it without a condom?

 

They're tested monthly, but that's not enough. The last time someone tested positive for HIV was just last year, and the rate of transmission of gonorrhea, chlamydia, and herpes is still high.

 

You can get infected with something 3 days after your test, and your "I'm clean" certificate is still valid for the rest of the month. In the meantime, you're having sex with a dozen people and putting them at risk.

 

 

 

No, they'll be told, "We don't have time for this BS" and they'll get someone else to do it.

 

So basically your risk is probably not much worse than doing the same with with random partners out in the real world, where there is NO requirement for tests at all, nor a requirement for condoms. I've seen plenty of porn WITH condoms as well.

 

Anyone who goes into it knows the risks as already pointed out. If they move on to someone else, and that woman doesn't demand a condom, then that's her fault.

 

Here's something about condom use:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AIDS/story?id=4130615&page=2

 

""Before I do a scene with a guy or girl I have them tested the two days before and it take 48 hours to get the results, so I know they're clean. For me condoms hurt, so I can't get into a scene and I can't fake it. But I do promote safe sex especially if you are not going to get tested and you should get tested anyways at least once a month just to be safe."

 

The adult entertainment industry knows the self-regulation is important to keep the government out of its affairs and AIM offers one more not so subtle bit of advice to the studios on its Web page that "it is hereby beneficial to the liability of the companies to keep records of bills of health regarding each talent member and their partners for each day they are employed.""

[Peter Attis]

Yes. sweetjasmine, you always have something smart to say.

 

Men, how would you like to see a video of your sister or cousin or daughter turn up in your porn rotation?

 

Would it then still be harmless, and a healthy outlet, and nothing to get one's undies in a twist about?

 

(I'm not really expecting a real answer, as men will never actually answer this question.)

 

No one would ever actually answer the question because, to be quite honest, it's a REALLY stupid question.

[Els]

Let's say you don't know which of the shoes available in malls at the moment are made in harsh conditions by underpaid workers. Would you then go barefoot because you may be participating in their exploitation if yours happen to be made by ten-year-olds working 16-hour shifts? Do you even research whether or not the brand of shoe you use is made in acceptable working conditions? Don't you think that's worse?

 

Please respond to this, sweetjasmine.