Dirty Pictures: The Meat And Potatoes Of The Internet
Tom Matlack, a great guy I was on a panel with at LA Times Festival of Books, is trying to do some good with his site The Good Men Project (he has a book and a documentary by the same name).
Recently, he did a little exploration of a few people's thoughts on pornography -- including mine. He link writes:
I was at a dinner party recently with the CEO of a company involved in the video infrastructure of Verizon's FiOS service. He told me (in gory detail) how the capacity constraint on the system is quite literally being driven by $14.99 pay-per-view pornography.He was understandably amused by the stupidity of guys across the country, who eagerly consume porn movies--only to turn them off after an average of 18 minutes. A porn purchase lasts 15 percent as long as a two-hour movie and still drives the capacity requirements of the entire system.
It is difficult to overstate the role that pornography plays in American life (especially, one could argue, in Utah, the nation's most prolific downloader of online porn), or the hysteria that surrounds it.
Is Internet pornography really turning us all into sex addicts? Will boys who grow up on degrading porn be unable to form healthy sexual relationships as adults? Is repetitive porn viewing really changing our brains?
And, most importantly in my mind, are we---as guys---talking honestly about any of this? Are we ready to have a frank discussion about the role that online pornography plays in our lives? Are we ready to man up and tell the truth?
I recently set out to speak with readers and thought leaders about pornography in modern America.
My thoughts:
"The hysteria around pornography is just not useful. A good bit about it is an ugly side effect of the negative part of modern feminism: unattractive women who can't get what they want, and instead of doing the logical thing, doing the best with what they have, they demonize male sexuality.We live in what are 'evolutionarily novel' times. Men evolved to be visual--it was part of continuing the human race. Women evolved to be more circumscribed about who they have sex with--they have a far greater cost per sex act (potentially being pregnant for nine months and then having a child to raise). Male sexuality isn't wrong or nefarious--we just live in times where there are forces playing on our evolved preferences.
Similar to the hysteria about porn consumption, people are beside themselves about young people 'hooking up.' Well, at a certain point, many or most will tire of that and want something more. And then they will go look for that. You can become addicted to lots of things--food, porn, shopping, collecting action figures. If it's disrupting your life, keeping you from what you want, it's a problem. Maybe not all men will want to connect or to develop themselves to a point where they can connect. This is their choice. Some will. And it's up to parents to do the actual work of parenting to see that their kids turn out in a way where they have values, and can make choices that enhance their lives."
---Amy Alkon, syndicated advice columnist, advicegoddess.com; author, I SEE RUDE PEOPLE: One Woman's Battle to Beat Some Manners Into Impolite Society
And about those "unrealistic" pictures in porn, that isn't the only place you'll find unrealistic images. My friend Dr. Catherine Salmon writes eloquently about this in Evolutionary Psychology, Public Policy and Personal Decisions, a fascinating book she also edited with Dr. Charles Crawford. Details in my column "When Hairy Palms Met Sally". An excerpt:
Actually, he's a man, with male sexuality, which evolved to be highly visual and variety-driven, probably because the more indiscriminate sex a guy had, the more likely he was to pass on his genes. Because women get pregnant and saddled with the kids, they evolved to be choosy and seek men who show a willingness to commit. Erotica targeted to each sex plays out along these lines, notes evolutionary psychologist Catherine Salmon. While men have nudie porn, women have commitment porn -- the romance novel -- with equally "unrealistic images" of male behavior. Yet, you don't see men picketing the Harlequin rack at the grocery store, complaining that women will expect a dark, imposing prince to ride up on a white horse, pledge his everlasting love (while revealing some seriously ripped abs), and carry them back to his castle.
And as I quoted Salmon in my column "Leering Impaired":
Women's "commitment porn," with its formulaic happily-ever-after-gasm, "imposes a female-like sexuality on men that is...perhaps no more 'realistic' than that of pornotopia," writes psychology professor Catherine Salmon. "But no one is out there lobbying to ban romance novels because of the harm they do to women's attitudes toward men."
There is an exception to note here. There are situations where the woman who has the long-term relationship, with a guy about as committed as he can be, throws that away for a guy she met on Facebook or through WOW who sends her pictures of his dick.
And they lie about it.
Radwaste at July 26, 2010 3:02 AM
Really liked this Amy. Lots of good info on relationships.
I have tried to explain male versus female relationships and sexuality to female friends/co-workers from time to time when they struggle in relationships.
They typically dismiss what I have told them, after all who are they going to believe, me or Harlequin? Cosmo? Glamour?
The few women I know who have successful relationships understand male sexuality and don't try to make it something it isn't.
David M. at July 26, 2010 3:58 AM
I've never heard of a woman "raping" a man into happily ever after. I am not a porn fan because most of the women in it lost their ability to choose that lifestyle when they were very young.
I do think porn really skews a man's idea of what women like in bed. Young men have to be retrained by their partners, and few young women know enough about themselves to be able to do that well. Which helps explain the fact that a majority of younger women never orgasm with their partners.
momof4 at July 26, 2010 5:47 AM
Eh, the problem is I've known quite a few guys who consume too much porn and then can't get it up for their girlfriends. I don't know if its the porn itself or if they just get used to a tight-gripped masturbation technique, but it seems pretty common.
This has happened to my hot friends as well as my ugly ones, and in-between ones. It seems like a common problem.
I imagine women who get too used to vibrators probably have the same problem.
The fact is, though, if you beat off daily you're not going to have enough left over for actual sex. Also, if you're used to pleasing yourself in 5 minutes, you may not have the patience for a more drawn-out actual sex session.
NicoleK at July 26, 2010 6:33 AM
Young men have to be retrained by their partners, and few young women know enough about themselves to be able to do that well.
Posted by: momof4 at July 26, 2010 5:47 AM
-------------------------------
Mom of 4. You are correct. I think this is one of those things where wisdom has been lost with time or that the progressive movement screwed it all up.
I'm always surprised how little women I know even in there 40's, know about men and male sexuality.
David M. at July 26, 2010 6:35 AM
"I am not a porn fan because most of the women in it lost their ability to choose that lifestyle when they were very young."
Most of us, women and men lose the ability to actively chose high status professions when we are very young (or we never actually had that ability in spite of our fantasies) Most young people have no idea of the kind of talent and drive that it takes to make it as either a professional athlete or a heart surgeon, or a NASA engineer.
Women do porn for the most part for the same reason men become models, Chippendale dancers and actors, which is because their major asset is their physical attractiveness and not their intellectual prowess. Also for financial reasons, like drug dealing it is a career that generates a lot of money at least for a while. In some countries, there is still sex slavery going on but here in the US, it is mostly a matter of personal choice. Besides a lot of the porn on the internet these days is amateur.
Isabel1130 at July 26, 2010 6:40 AM
I think that the female being circumspect is really more of a cultural artifact than a genetic one--holdovers from the day when virginity paid more in nuptial contracts.
I'm also of the mind that women who complain about men and porn should turn in their romance novels, their erotica, and their Twilight books.
Are there going to be people (male and female) who get subsumed by their erotica of choice? Sure. All you have to do is look at the preponderance of 30+ old women waiting outside the theater to see Edward the Vampire--they aren't waiting with their daughters or if they are, they're using it as an excuse.
Midwest Chick at July 26, 2010 7:00 AM
My friend is a porn star and makes porn movies. He's now moved to Thailand, where he can find lots of willing porn actresses. Plus, he has all these porn websites already up and running, so he can live anywhere and make money. He's 29 and has a 12" dick, which is how he got into porn in the first place.
I never felt anti-porn until I saw the business side of it, and the young, usually drugged-up girls he "recruited" to be in his movies. They all had made-up names, like "Star"...and they're not much older than my daughter...and they ARE somebody's daughters.
Then, I started looking at what a pervasively negative issue porn was in my relationships. My ex would beat off half the night to online porn, then come in wanting more from me because he was so stimulated by it - the rape and the violence and the objectification. He was definitely "addicted". There was never enough.
I understand male sexuality, but I also think that, like anything that's overdone and overused, porn eventually ruins the real pleasure of sex.
My fiance is not into porn. He has the requisite Playboy magazines in the bathroom, but it's clear that he'd rather have REAL sex...and the sex is a lot better...and, at 49, he performs much better than most men, probably because he's not getting off at other times.
Some things really should remain more mysterious, you know? If you explore every orafice with a camera, it kind of dilutes the excitement of being able to do that in real life.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2010 7:18 AM
My wife gets very upset if I view any porn, yet she is heavily addicted to the Twilight saga and movies and gets her fix now from reading Twilight fan fic written by others. She just attended a gathering of Twilight fan fic authors at the San Diego Comic-con and found all of them all to be obese with borderline personalities (she, on the other hand, is in great shape compared to them thanks to a low carb diet). I pointed out to her a year ago that what she was reading was really a form of porn, but she steadfastly refuses to admit it.
Tony at July 26, 2010 7:22 AM
Tony, I think the litmus test is does her reading Twilight make her closer/more romantic towards you or does it pull her away from the relationship? Anything, inluding porn or romance novels, that enhances the relationship isn't bad, but if the material routinely pulls one partner away from the relationship rather than constructively channeling that sexual/romantic energy towards their partner, it becomes negative.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2010 7:35 AM
"Most of us, women and men lose the ability to actively chose high status professions when we are very young "
I don't think you get it. Most of the girls in the sex industry were sexually abused when they were young. They learned that all they were good for was sex. They have drug addictions and came from really crappy home lives, and were seduced into this lifestyle with the promise of someone caring about them (like the majority of hookers are by pimps). They don't choose it because they're dumb and hot. Most of them aren't hot.
A very few girls make good money doing relatively few scenes. 98% do not. I see porn consumption as taking advantage of some really sad women, and I just can't find that erotic. There is a difference in playboy and most porn. Playboy models are paid well, at least. And I'm sure DH looks at them and whacks off. I'm okay with that on occasion, I like to get myself off to stories from literotica.com but I don't do it daily. Comparing literature to porn is simplistic. No one is hurt by the writing, women are harmed (and no doubt some men) by the filming.
momof4 at July 26, 2010 7:41 AM
Lovelysoul,
When the movie Twilight first came out, my wife started watching it several times in the theatre and would come home all hot and bothered and wanting to have sex, so our sex life actually got better initially. Since then it has gone back to our normal routine, and she would spend her free time reading fan fic. I don't think that it has affected our sex life adversely, although I was a lot more likely to initiate any request for sex after looking at porn.
Tony at July 26, 2010 7:49 AM
That's right, momof4. Another issue is that it is dangerous, especially for the girls. They don't use condoms in porn. They are blood tested every 2 months, but invariably, every few years, somebody contracts HIV. My friend told me that one of the male actors contracted HIV from gay sex while on vacation, then came back on set and gave it to at least one girl before he was tested again.
You won't know whatever happened to that girl. She's just replaced. The industry doesn't release information about how many get AIDS.
So, these people are engaging in unsafe sex so that others can jerk off in their living rooms. Most don't get paid enough to make it worth that risk...as if any amount of money is really worth your health.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2010 7:51 AM
I don't think you get it. Most of the girls in the sex industry were sexually abused when they were young. They learned that all they were good for was sex. They have drug addictions and came from really crappy home lives, and were seduced into this lifestyle with the promise of someone caring about them (like the majority of hookers are by pimps). They don't choose it because they're dumb and hot. Most of them aren't hot.
I do "get it" I just disagree. Sexual abuse and drugs do not turn men or women into porn stars. but they are certainly correlated with socio economic factors. If being a waitress at IHOP paid as well as porn then there would be a line out the door and if drugs were mostly legal, no one would be cooking meth in their backyard. Because you see any kind of sex work as distasteful, you believe that no one could freely chose it. I disagree, I think there is a great deal of freedom of choice and while a lot of people make stupid short term and long term choices, especially women because they let their emotions rule them, they are not necessarily victims. Also your definition of "hot" is probably not the same as a mans.
Isabel1130 at July 26, 2010 8:09 AM
>>Comparing literature to porn is simplistic. No one is hurt by the writing, women are harmed (and no doubt some men) by the filming.
Agreed, momof4.
And if a guy wants me to be a grown-up about his enjoyment of screen porn, I'll expect him to be a grown-up about the seamy reality of its filming.
Jody Tresidder at July 26, 2010 8:11 AM
"The hysteria around pornography is just not useful. A good bit about it is an ugly side effect of the negative part of modern feminism: unattractive women who can't get what they want, and instead of doing the logical thing, doing the best with what they have, they demonize male sexuality.
I always get lost when its blamed on feminism and feminism is described as ugly women not being able to get what they want. I know many women who feel very strongly agains porn that are not feminists and are not ugly. And yes, I do know a few feminists who happen to be very beautiful women.
There is an argument to be made that too much porn can change a person's views or likes sexually. But is the average man addicted to it or does he just watch for a release and then go back to his regular partner? As a woman, I enjoy porn sometimes both in a relationship and out. There are times I watch it more often and times I watch less.
There was a time I'd use Jenna Jameson as an example of a woman in porn who was in control of her career. She's become a mess though so I'd have to say there is something to the argument that women in porn turn to it for reasons that aren't all about making healthy life choices.
Kristen at July 26, 2010 8:25 AM
"Sexual abuse and drugs do not turn men or women into porn stars..."
That is really untrue. Almost all these girls have drug habits and come from terrible home lives. They are very easy to exploit and predatory directors of porn films prey on their vulnerabilities.
It's very hard to justify when, as I said, they are putting themselves at risk of death for your pleasure. The funny thing to me is that so many people who wouldn't consume a mass-produced chicken because of the horrible way they're treated/exploited, have no problem consuming porn. Even knowing that these "actors" are being exposed to the risk of AIDS so that you can safely consume porn in your living room doesn't click as being wrong.
It is not a safe industry. Porn exploits young women and men in the worst ways. Some, like my friend, have turned it around for themselves, gaining some kind of upper hand, but most of the "talent" are used and disposed of...sometimes after catching AIDS. That should turn people's stomaches enough to stop supporting it because if you're consuming porn, you're part of the exploitation.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2010 8:30 AM
If you explore every orafice with a camera, it kind of dilutes the excitement of being able to do that in real life. >>>
It really doesn't.
It might, if I could "feel" the tv. But I can't. So when he sticks his finger somewhere, it feels even better than it looked like it did on TV.
Yes, some of the close ups are a little much, but it doesn't ruin anything.
MeganNJ at July 26, 2010 8:34 AM
Read carefully: "A good bit of the hysteria around pornography" ... "is an ugly side effect of the negative part of modern feminism: unattractive women who can't get what they want, and instead of doing the logical thing, doing the best with what they have, they demonize male sexuality."
This becomes part of the religion of feminism, the completely idiotic notion (vis a vis the differing biologies and correspondingly different psychologies) that the male prioritizing of women's looks is wrong/evil.
Amy Alkon at July 26, 2010 8:35 AM
18 minutes, huh?
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2010 8:36 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/26/dirty_pictures.html#comment-1736719">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Your mileage varies?
Amy Alkon at July 26, 2010 8:40 AM
>>Read carefully: "A good bit of the hysteria around pornography" ... "is an ugly side effect of the negative part of modern feminism: unattractive women who can't get what they want, and instead of doing the logical thing, doing the best with what they have, they demonize male sexuality."
Rewritten carefully, Amy!
..an ugly side effect of pornography: unattractive men who can't get what they want, and instead of doing the logical thing, doing the best with what they have, they fetishize female sexuality.
Jody Tresidder at July 26, 2010 9:01 AM
"Because women get pregnant and saddled with the kids, they evolved to be choosy and seek men who show a willingness to commit."
And apparently we have used the prerogative of changing our minds about that.
Pricklypear at July 26, 2010 9:05 AM
> I've never heard of a woman "raping"
> a man into happily ever after.
I've heard of millions of men who've been seduced into joyless unions that lasted a lifetime and infected the souls of innocent bystanders. Is that worse than what used to be call a "bad date"? You're relying too heavily on the pungence of the word rape.
> Young men have to be retrained by their
> partners, and few young women
> know enough about themselves to
> be able to do that well.
People forget that youth sucks. Noble savagery doesn't apply: Nature, red in tooth and claw, doesn't equip teenagers to be good lovers. And it wouldn't even if there were no porn or soap operas.
> Which helps explain the fact
> that a majority of younger women
> ever orgasm with their
> partners.
Naw, younger women's orgasmic response doesn't come on line as early as do men's. That's why it's always sounded goofy when aging hens say 'Girls mature so much faster in those years...!' They may start earlier, but it takes 'em longer to get anywhere worth going.
(OK, that was harsh. Many young women, lovingly handled, will responsibly demonstrate an intimate receptivity that's a tremendous blessing.)
> I am not a porn fan because most
> of the women in it lost their
> ability to choose that lifestyle
> when they were very young.
Tough to argue with that. Maybe a sex video isn't the big deal that it used to be, but one gets the sense that the professional sector is populated by children of divorce.
> ..an ugly side effect of
> pornography: unattractive men
> who can't get what they want,
> and instead of doing the logical
> thing, doing the best with what
> they have, they fetishize female
> sexuality.
Consider a complimentary phenomenon: Unattractive women (or merely an awkward ones) who can't get what they want, and instead of doing the logical thing, respond by demonizing masculine providence such that it can only come from a depersonalized government.
I think we see a lot of that in our body politic: Health care, food stamps, it goes on and on....
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2010 9:31 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/26/dirty_pictures.html#comment-1736732">comment from Jody Tresidder"unattractive" how, Jody? Women tend to care a lot less about looks than a man does, but will care much more than a man ever will about the sort of job and status their partner has. (It's the rare power chick who marries the waiter -- they tend to "marry up.")
Amy Alkon at July 26, 2010 9:32 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/26/dirty_pictures.html#comment-1736733">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]I've heard of millions of men who've been seduced into joyless unions that lasted a lifetime
If you were Blow Job Bertha before marriage, a guy has every right to expect you to continue being BJB after.
Amy Alkon at July 26, 2010 9:33 AM
Sorry about the Monday morning typos.
Y'know why I hate the sociobio types? They're so SUNNY. They're so CHIRPY! They're so eager to snap the gate shut and say AHA! We Have The Answer! A question that's been troubling humanity for thousands of years is now summarily closed!!
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2010 9:34 AM
>>"unattractive" how, Jody?
Smelly feet?
Jody Tresidder at July 26, 2010 9:47 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2010/07/26/dirty_pictures.html#comment-1736739">comment from Crid [CridComment at gmail]Y'know why I hate the sociobio types? They're so SUNNY. They're so CHIRPY!
Yeah? Check out Randy Nesse on depression:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nesse/Articles/IsDepAdapt-ArchGenPsychiat-2000.pdf
They're so eager to snap the gate shut and say AHA! We Have The Answer!
That's not the scientific method, and if you read studies that have adequate methodology, you'll note that they say stuff like "associated with," "linked to," and "suggests." They don't make affirmative statements.
Amy Alkon at July 26, 2010 10:09 AM
Sorry, lovelysoul, but have to disagree with you. Plenty of people in our country came from less than ideal home lives, were abused, and yet choose to make their life better rather than to self destruct.
Case in point, one of my best girlfriends was physically abused by her alcoholic parents, raped at the age of 11, and yet managed to work her way through college and is now a happy, successful adult. She worked hard to get there, but she made that choice.
Yes, some of us have better starts to life than others, but we all have free agency.
UW Girl at July 26, 2010 10:12 AM
>>If you were Blow Job Bertha before marriage, a guy has every right to expect you to continue being BJB after.
Back atcha, Foot Rub Fred (& not forgetting Cunnilingus Colin!)
Jody Tresidder at July 26, 2010 10:18 AM
"Smelly feet?"
I understand there's quite a fetish for that, too. Or maybe that's just for women with smelly feet.
Pricklypear at July 26, 2010 10:22 AM
>>Read carefully:
Thanks. I didn't follow it completely the first few times I read it.
Kristen at July 26, 2010 10:23 AM
..an ugly side effect of pornography: unattractive men who can't get what they want, and instead of doing the logical thing, doing the best with what they have, they fetishize female sexuality.
Posted by: Jody Tresidder at July 26, 2010 9:01 AM
Oh sure that can happen. The more important factor in my view is that, those unattractive men have to deal with unattractive women who can be as unrealistic in their views of sexuality as men can be. Given basic biology I'd argue those women are far more deluded than their male counterparts. Its still easier for them to get laid than men. There are plenty of women who's attitudes are writing checks that their bodies can't cash.
Which came first? Easy access to porn (who pays 14.99 anymore?) via the internet/cable tv or societal changes such as no fault divorce and the other effects of feminism on the family?
Sio at July 26, 2010 10:23 AM
>>OK, that was harsh. Many young women, lovingly handled, will responsibly demonstrate an intimate receptivity that's a tremendous blessing.
God, you sound like irlandes, Crid.
Or someone writing soppy copy for a life sized blow-up sex doll!
Jody Tresidder at July 26, 2010 10:27 AM
hmmm, this sure is an "everyone knows..." kind of conversation. But... since people are often VERY careful about what they say regarding this, I think we might imagine that reality is a bit different. Why we mate the way we do, is often a bit different than we say.
Does a guy view pr0n 'just 'cause or is it that he is no longer stimulated by his mate? And if that's the case, what's to be done? "you can't look at that anymore!!!!"
Yeah, that really fixes the problem.
Like women who get a bit squishy over some sparkly vampires, we all have these fantasy lives. It lies within the individual to figure out how to mix the fantasy and reality. Families and society can teach various things about personal responsibility and whatever, but it cannot succeed in imposing it from without.
In my experience Women have the same problem with pr0n regardless if it's real or animated, home movies or whatever. So that worry about "The Industry" and how it treats it's people [according to Breslin men are actually treated worse.] is somewhat overwrought, it seems. What's the likelyhood that women would have a problem even if no real humans were involved?
The things that women read ARE pr0n just as what men see, but they rarely admit it. And when they do, they will still proclaim that it is somehow different.
The question is, are we so different from each other that we aren't interested in makin' babies in the longrun. So that when analogs get better, we will stop interacting in that way.
Think about it like this, if I have a Cherry2000 at home am I going to put up with everything required to deal with an actual woman?
SwissArmyD at July 26, 2010 10:41 AM
Plenty of people in our country came from less than ideal home lives, were abused, and yet choose to make their life better rather than to self destruct.
And good for them, sincerely. I think it's crap, though, to beat off to the ones who didn't.
MonicaP at July 26, 2010 10:45 AM
"The Invisible Barriers of Porn Users"
http://www.thinkinghousewife.com/wp/2010/07/the-invisible-barriers-of-porn-users/
lsomber at July 26, 2010 10:54 AM
"I think it's crap, though, to beat off to the ones who didn't." MonicaP
The point is, we aren't. It's an IMAGE, the people IN the image are largely inmeterial. There is a way to regulate the regime, but then you have to accept that pr0n is legit. Then you legislate working conditions and such. While you allow it to be an outlaw underground thing, you can't. You will never be able to control what is amature anyway.
SwissArmyD at July 26, 2010 10:56 AM
"Because you see any kind of sex work as distasteful, you believe that no one could freely chose it. "
I don't find it distasteful merely by being sex. I think prostitution should not be illegal. I don't think consenting adult porn should be illegal either. I do think that using someone with zero self-worth, who has most likely been hideously mistreated by those who should have protected her- the saddest of the sad cases if you will- for your own sexual gratification at their expense is pathetic. And I have the right to continue to think it. You'll notice this is different than Kim Kardashian flashing her boobs for a large payday. She did choose it, and does have full knowledge of her other options.
"Plenty of people in our country came from less than ideal home lives, were abused, and yet choose to make their life better rather than to self destruct."
Again, the fact that these girls did NOT beat the odds means you should feel perfectly sunny participating in their continuing degredation, using them as you see fit for your sexual release?
Jenna Jameson better start saving for her kids' therapy bills now, is all I can say about that (and if you've ever seen her sans make-up, she ain't that hot-VERY bad skin). I get that men tend to think anything naked is pretty darn hot, but really we do need some standards here.
momof4 at July 26, 2010 11:01 AM
>>In my experience Women have the same problem with pr0n regardless if it's real or animated, home movies or whatever. So that worry about "The Industry" and how it treats it's people [according to Breslin men are actually treated worse.] is somewhat overwrought, it seems. What's the likelyhood that women would have a problem even if no real humans were involved?
SwissArmyD,
I have to admit, that's a good point.
It's both true, and can be seen as a mighty convenient truth for some, that the porn industry - in the main - stinks.
But in my experience, the women (I know) who don't have an emotional shitfit over a partner's liking for porn also don't feel personally diminished by that preference.
Maybe a woman doesn't need to police a man's fantasies, as long as he/she doesn't become a prisoner of them?
Jody Tresidder at July 26, 2010 11:06 AM
The point is, we aren't. It's an IMAGE, the people IN the image are largely inmeterial.
Men (and women) may be stimulated by the images, but the people creating those images are real, and possibly getting HIV during the filming of the movie.
There is a way to regulate the regime, but then you have to accept that pr0n is legit.
This we can agree on. I would love to see porn regulated like any other industry, just like I'd like to see prostitution legalized. I would love to see someone making sure all the actors are at the age of consent and that working conditions are as safe as they can be. I have no problem with women choosing to sell their sexuality. I have a problem with already damaged people being exploited by an industry that offers them none of the same protections as a legit job.
MonicaP at July 26, 2010 11:07 AM
@UW Girl - The area of personal responsibility is uncharted (and unwelcome) territory to lovely-soul.
Feebie at July 26, 2010 11:09 AM
Heather Mallick reviewing Nick Hornby's About A Boy in the Toronto Star back in 1998:
Conan the Grammarian at July 26, 2010 11:32 AM
> God, you sound like...
Do you insult because you can't critique?
> That's not the scientific method, and if you
> read studies that have adequate methodology,
> you'll note...
Science doesn't need groupies, OK? Peer-review isn't a fan club.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2010 11:43 AM
>>Do you insult because you can't critique?
The scorching critique was in the line after the killer insult, Crid:)
Jody Tresidder at July 26, 2010 11:58 AM
"Case in point, one of my best girlfriends was physically abused by her alcoholic parents, raped at the age of 11, and yet managed to work her way through college and is now a happy, successful adult. She worked hard to get there, but she made that choice."
Like others have said, just because there are happy stories of troubled girls avoiding porn doesn't make what the porn industry does right.
The mainstream porn industry is, in fact, pretty heavily regulated. From what I've seen, they're sticklers about age, and, as I said, they test the "talent" for STDs every 2 months. This testing is mandatory or you don't work.
There's a lot of patting themselves on the back for these measures, as if they're making it safe and clean, and, in fact, this professional facade helps lure even more troubled young people into it.
But the fact remains they don't require condoms because it would be distracting to the audience. Men don't want to imagine banging some chick with a condom on. So, the whole industry takes the risk of HIV in order to satisfy the consumer.
That's not what happens with regulated prostitution, where condoms and testing are required. Both fields pretty much draw from the same emotionally damaged and/or sexually molested group as workers.
What is really ugly is how they're talked about by those making money off them. If you heard the "slut" "whore" "cunt" behind-the-scenes verbiage, you'd understand what a sickening business porn is, particularly towards women. The finished product may look all sexy and professional, but there's no way to make porn warm and fuzzy. We just kid ourselves into believing it's ok because these people "choose" this lifestyle.
The reality is that young girls live in group apts, barely subsisting, and are often "auditioned" by directors ahead of time in order to get a part. Women are paid around $800-$1000 a movie, and guys are paid around $500. It's hardly steady work for most of them. The majority of the girls end up as prostitutes, either directly or servicing people who get them parts (and drugs).
To me, it's more exploitive than prostitution because there's the element of stardom. A prostitute knows she's selling her body purely for money, but young girls do porn believing it'll make them famous.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2010 12:10 PM
Rereading, I just can't see the critique-y-est part, and am gonna assume you like it that way
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at July 26, 2010 12:10 PM
(OK, that was harsh. Many young women, lovingly handled, will responsibly demonstrate an intimate receptivity that's a tremendous blessing.)
My 25 year old (at the time) ex thought she could only get off by being on top and that was randomly. I taught her differently. By the time we split up -- she would wake up in the night wanting to get off in just about any position she could assume. ;-)
This we can agree on. I would love to see porn regulated like any other industry, just like I'd like to see prostitution legalized.
Just like we regulate the food industry. I know not quite equivalent but always ask yourself "Do you really want the government to regulate it?"
Jim P. at July 26, 2010 12:28 PM
Lovelysoul and momof4 are making some very absolute statements about the frequency of and causative nature of drugs, experiencing sexual abuse as a child, etc. and later porn participation. I call shenanigans and demand a walk back to the line of scrimmage on that one.
(e,g.: "Almost all these girls have drug habits and come from terrible home lives. They are very easy to exploit and predatory directors of porn films prey on their vulnerabilities.")
Without further evidence, that leads to Lovelysoul's scolding moralizing: "It's very hard to justify when, as I said, they are putting themselves at risk of death for your pleasure."
Without getting into whether those two long-time posters are right in their faith-based assertions, I invite everyone to say it with me, folks: assertion, however sincere, is not evidence. (And as a follow-up, personal anecdote is among the weakest form of evidence when trying to establish causation from a one-off correlation where multiple variables are clearly at work.)
Now, it also may well be true that porn stars are almost exclusively pulled from childhoods where sexual abuse existed. But that would be something that can be readily supported by a link, I think, as that is generally the sort of metric social science can provide, if such a connection exists. Link, anyone? (I am too lazy to Google.....)
Spartee at July 26, 2010 1:44 PM
@lovelysoul...
so I'm supposed to feel sorrow and sympathy for some girl (or guy) who is willing to degrade herself in every possible way on film because she "believe[s] it will make her famous"?
Again, it's a matter of choice. If your number one priority is to be famous and be on film, and you're willing to do anything to get there, then don't come a-cryin' when you've got STDs and a drug problem.
Now, I will grant you that women in other countries do not, in any way, have the same avenues of choice that women in this country do. And for those women, I feel a great deal of sorrow. But in this country, there are a multitude of programs set up, both privately and by the US goverment (Jobs Corps leaps to mind here) that provide young people who have come from disadvantaged backgrounds with the opportunities to succeed. Those who choose to go into porn, at least here, had other options.
UW Girl at July 26, 2010 1:47 PM
As rotten as it may be for women to have to look at endless images of unreally sexed-up women, how terrible it must be for men who are force-fed a diet of action men and high-earners.
And here I am, sitting back and admiring these action heroes. I didn't realize that I was supposed to be bathing in a stew of self-pity, because I would never measure up to these semi-Gods in some women's eyes. Oh, the humanity!
mpetrie98 at July 26, 2010 2:09 PM
But the fact remains they don't require condoms because it would be distracting to the audience. Men don't want to imagine banging some chick with a condom on. So, the whole industry takes the risk of HIV in order to satisfy the consumer.
I'm somewhat distrustful of the idea that a condom can actually stop the transmission of a teeny-tiny virus.
mpetrie98 at July 26, 2010 2:12 PM
Put another way, UW Girl, all of us know people who came from tough circumstances and did well for themselves.
All of us know people who came from tough circumstances and did *not* do well.
All of us know people who came from well-to-do backgrounds who completely flamed out.
Personal stories abound. And you can find, literally, reams of social science studies with data showing all sorts of things regarding people's background and eventual life outcomes.
All that said, I take this view:
In our society, for people above the age of early teenage years, there are multiple opportunities for most people to get off the roads that lead to really bad outcomes.
The methods of getting off one of those roads are often simple--stay in school, don't spend money, focus on work, marry, stay married, avoid sudden changes to life--but that does not mean they are easy.
To get off roads leading to bad outcomes, you have to do the boring things, the things that are not fun, the things that will not produce any rewards for years, perhaps decades.
I have found, in my limited life experience, that people headed down bad roads are often people who lack the ability--for whatever reason--to defer gratification and do those boring, unfun things that will not yield results for years, or even decades. And when those years, and decades, pass, as they always do, the people who played grasshopper, not ant, then claim that it was some "other" at work each day, slowly destroying their lives relative to the lives of people who did not destroy their lives.
The other becomes racism, sexism, childhood abuse, rigged capitalism, whatever.
There certainly are large events that will ruin lives, however carefully or prudently people have otherwise lived their lives. Illness, war, random crime, bad economic turns, and other events can wipe out decades of careful nuturing of a life.
And they are large factors in people's early lives that could not be controlled due to minority in age (child abuse, neglected education in urban schools, etc.). These certainly have an echoing impact during the whole of life.
But the glory of America, I think, is we have put the former tsunami-like events and the latter pernicious childhood events into categories of setbacks that, if a person wishes, are unlikely to ruin your chances, if you set about living a prudent, careful life, filled with the selection of boring rather than exciting things.
As a result, it is much more up to people and their choices in life than it has been for any other generation or group of people.
Spartee at July 26, 2010 2:13 PM
"Maybe a woman doesn't need to police a man's fantasies, as long as he/she doesn't become a prisoner of them?" Jody, I do believe you have managed to sum up the point of this thread rather neatly. As for people who do become prisoners of their fantasies -- I believe that's the fault of the person, not the fantasy.
Cousin Dave at July 26, 2010 2:24 PM
>>Now, it also may well be true that porn stars are almost exclusively pulled from childhoods where sexual abuse existed. But that would be something that can be readily supported by a link, I think, as that is generally the sort of metric social science can provide, if such a connection exists. Link, anyone? (I am too lazy to Google.....)
Spartee,
This is not exactly a peer-reviewed science paper link!
But Jenna Jameson's How To Make Love Like A Porn Star [2004] gives a personal overview of the industry. And it's no picnic for most. Her own childhood was very rough. Bad sex stuff as a teen... (I've not read it yet myself so I don't know much much there is about the standard porn star background).
http://www.amazon.com/Make-Love-Like-Porn-Star/dp/0060539097/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
From a starred positive review:
"Most people, I suspect, when they spy the title of Jenna Jameson's "How To Make Love Like A Porn Star" rarely see the next line of the title ":A Cautionary Tale". The glitz, the glamour, the women and men, and the sex are what they think porn is all about. The tawdry, abusive, dirty and sad side of life is the real world of porn..."
Jody Tresidder at July 26, 2010 2:27 PM
Just a couple of random bits of info:
1. An acquaintance of mine fancies himself to be quite the photographer. I have seen his slide show, which includes a number of women I know who willingly allowed him to take their pictures in poses that went from artsy to flat-out porn. The ones I know personally had seen his wall of photos, so none of them were ignorant of inclination to show-off his work.
He told me it was amazing what these women were willing to do in front of a camera. (I've mentioned this before, I think, but it bears repeating, as far as I'm concerned.)
Mainly, I was embarrassed for them, in part because he is really not that good a photographer, and the pictures weren't very flattering. I think they could have been. I also don't think he really likes women very much and just enjoys the power.
2. Another friend of mine managed a porn store for years. For awhile they had live dancers, and I met a few. These girls were not "victims". They were lazy and came in when they felt like it or needed the money. Some of them were college girls. Some of them were supporting their men.
3. Before this, I went with a friend to a local bar where her husband was watching the Super Bowl. The half-time show at the bar was a dancer. I'd never seen one of these shows, and we hung around to watch. Believe me, this woman was the one with the power. She strutted around the stage, did a few bends and poses, pulled her g-string out a few feet (verrry elastic) while the men howled like coyotes, but stayed right where they were seated. Yeah, she had a body-guard, but she was right there on the floor with the drunks. I was very impressed. (Not with the dancing, though. God you guys are easy to please.)
My point is that you can't keep saying something is "degrading" or "dehumanizing", blahblahblah. A lot of women do it because they LIKE it. They choose it. Just like a lot of women buy dance poles these days, (for the exercise, of course). Just like a lot of women sneer at the image from Grease when Olivia Newton-John appears in her tight black slut outfit, but we would all love to have fit into it.
As UW Girl says, the women in this country that go into porn had (and still have, for that matter)other options.
Pricklypear at July 26, 2010 2:30 PM
You don't have to feel sorry for them, but just don't believe that consuming porn is not at the cost of people's lives. If you're ok with that, as it sounds like you are, then there's no problem. But, for me, it's difficult to watch knowing that this girl or guy is being exploited and placed at risk for HIV just for my viewing pleasure.
You may not think about it that way. In fact, I'm sure most people don't, but the more knowledgeable you become about porn, the harder it is to justify consuming it.
And, yes, it's anecdotal, Spartee, but I've had these girls in my home. Being curious, I've always asked them about their families, and the stories have been very sad. A few had kids they were trying to support, and these were girls just barely 19 or 20. I'm sure there are some porn stars who've come from excellent backgrounds, but during the 6 years since my friend became a porn star/director, I haven't met any.
Like I said, I was always pretty liberal about porn and even enjoyed watching it before I saw the ugly side of the business.
There's a high end to the industry, no doubt, where "talent" is treated pretty well, but my friend has worked for Vivid, Playboy, all the big names, and the bulk of online porn isn't produced at the high end. It's made by the type of people he started out working for - producers of "Bang Bus", for instance (where they drive around picking up girls to be fucked in the back of a bus or van). It's all pre-arranged, of course. The girls are paid very little, demeaned (they get kicked off the bus afterwards to the jeers of the guys), and the producers make all the money.
My friend was so proud of this early work, and I tried to be supportive and happy for him becoming a "porn star". I watched all his early films, but it was hard to escape the exploitation of the women, as well him too. Having seen this side of porn, I worry for him, and the young girls involved. I fear he will get AIDS, especially now in Thailand, where many of the prostitutes - which are the women he gets to be in porn flicks -have HIV. They're just trying to put food on the table, and the sex trade is one of the only choices for them.
So, watch your porn, but don't kid yourself that it comes without a human price.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2010 2:30 PM
Pricklypear, I think being an exotic dancer or a nude model is a lot different from filming porn. A smart woman can exploit herself and her sexuality for her own financial gain, or sexual thrill, and that can be powerful.
These young girls are screwed sometimes by multiple men at the same time and totally unprotected. The profit of their degradation isn't kept or controlled by them. They get a bare sliver of the money involved. They're not in a position of power.
They don't enjoy it either. Even the guys have trouble enjoying it...almost all take viagra. There's so much stopping and starting, different camera angles, lights, people in the room, etc, that it's not like having real sex.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2010 2:42 PM
>>Believe me, this woman was the one with the power. She strutted around the stage, did a few bends and poses, pulled her g-string out a few feet (verrry elastic) while the men howled like coyotes, but stayed right where they were seated. Yeah, she had a body-guard, but she was right there on the floor with the drunks.
Pricklypear,
That's a very odd comment!
A woman who needs a bodyguard to keep her safe from the punters while she works dancing in a bar enjoys only the illusion of power, surely?
Jody Tresidder at July 26, 2010 2:49 PM
"You don't have to feel sorry for them, but just don't believe that consuming porn is not at the cost of people's lives."
Again, misplaced moralizing, ma'am.
This sneer you deploy applies also to every single consumer product you ever touched in your life. Your farmed food, shipped to your local grocer, comes from places that regularly chew up worker limbs. The trucks that ship it ruin the air and occasionally run over pedestrians.
Those comfy furniture items in your home? Manufacturing plants make them, and in those plants people are killed or disfigured by machines or chemicals.
That electricity you use to transmit your thoughts via the internet? Again, it comes with a price in lives lost and ruined.
Or was anyone in America still under the impression that, to take but one example, oil and and the wonderful plastic products we derive from oil--from sandwich baggies to premature-baby-saving medical equipment--are without cost in terms of lives lost and ruined? A cost that is not contained in the sales price, but is borne by people both within and without our nation.
If someone can argue--with recourse to data--that pornography has a higher body count in terms of either per capita or absolute numbers than something as blithely accepted as farmed food, oil-based products or any number of utterly banal consumer-oriented items we cannot escape using, I would be impressed.
But all those other consumer items do not feature toned and tight young women, except in the initial sales pitch, so men find them boring and women find them non-threatening. And discussing deaths of workers without the sex is so...so...unsexy.
Spartee at July 26, 2010 2:50 PM
"A woman who needs a bodyguard to keep her safe from the punters while she works dancing in a bar enjoys only the illusion of power, surely?"
Surely the presence of the secret service does not reduce Presidential power? Rather, it is an indicator of the power on display in the person?
Spartee at July 26, 2010 2:51 PM
Most porn actresses lie about being abused as children.
That assertion is as valid as some of the others I saw here.
carol at July 26, 2010 2:58 PM
Well, Spartee, at least you see my point. Anybody with a conscience has to weigh what they must consume and what they can live without. There's a whole lot we consume unnecessarily, therefore rendering the lives lost to provide it unnecessary too. Most of us wouldn't buy that unnecessary item if we really knew the human costs. Yet, we don't know, or choose not to think about it, which is how we're able to stomach buying it.
And a woman teasing guys at a strip club is maintaining her power. She's giving them almost nothing but frustration. It's not the same as being fucked for money. Prostitution is one thing, but a prostitute who keeps her earnings and determines who/what she is willing to do has more power than a porn star....and if she uses condoms, she has a lot more protection than a porn star.
lovelysoul at July 26, 2010 3:03 PM
No, Jody, I don't think it was an illusion of power, (except that all power is an illusion of sorts). One bodyguard, (no gun, and no tasers at that time) might have been an illusion of safety, since he wouldn't have stood that much chance against a bunch of horny or abusive drunks if they lost control.
Maybe you had to be there, but the feeling in the air was that she was like a stage hypnotist or something. Sure, it could have shattered, but it didn't. If she was at all nervous about her rather vulnerable position, she didn't show it. To me, it looked like power.
Which is part of my point, actually. Some people are all for women's liberation, as long as the liberated woman doesn't use her own sexual power to do anything the "liberators" disapprove of.
Pricklypear at July 26, 2010 3:05 PM
>>Maybe you had to be there, but the feeling in the air was that she was like a stage hypnotist or something. Sure, it could have shattered, but it didn't. If she was at all nervous about her rather vulnerable position, she didn't show it. To me, it looked like power.
Okay:)
Jody Tresidder at July 26, 2010 3:15 PM
A few thoughts on this:
Porn is not the problem.
The problem is choosing this as a profession holds about as much stigma these days as being a single mother. Porn has gotten more mainstream and culturally acceptable than it out to be (IMHO).
It also doesn’t help that in addition to the topic of viewing porn being utterly unremarkable in casual conversations these days (where as before, the topic of viewing porn was handled with at least mild embarrassment and discretion – functional shame?) is that the demographic now exposed to this industry and it's relative activities seems to be getting younger and younger.
For instance, the types of suggestive clothing (etc.) that is available to young women these days –in some cases even children (mini skirts, high heels, shorts with "juicy" written on the butt panel, tight fitting "Porn Star" tops you find in the juniors clothing section) is what I see to be the bigger problem.
Couple this with the age of new media, where access to this industry has become undeniably non-exclusive...and it is bound to attract persons with unfortunate backgrounds – people who if they had the smallest measure of self awareness residing in them would know this is the least healthy route for them to take in life.
It would seem that way back when, aspiring porn actresses with a healthy sex drive who wanted to enter this profession were more likely to do it because, well, they liked the sex and the (aheem) exposure. They liked it enough in fact, that they wanted to do it regardless of the social stigma and inevitable risks. They weren’t the same personalities as these immature 18 year olds with the herd mentality and broken homes.
Like single motherhood, becoming a porn star should carry some stigma with it. And that is not to judge them as immoral, but it’s because we don’t want people doing this that ought not to be and we don’t want to have this be yet one more thing for the Nanny State to come rushing in to save the day on and regulate.
To the majority of young girls, this profession should be about as attractive as becoming a subterranean sewer technician in downtown London.
Feebie at July 26, 2010 4:01 PM
Well, Spartee, at least you see my point. Anybody with a conscience has to weigh what they must consume and what they can live without. There's a whole lot we consume unnecessarily, therefore rendering the lives lost to provide it unnecessary too. Most of us wouldn't buy that unnecessary item if we really knew the human costs. Yet, we don't know, or choose not to think about it, which is how we're able to stomach buying it.
Then you would have us live in grass huts on the Savannah and hunt down antelopes for dinner -- making sure we used every part of the animal. Otherwise you are being hypocritical using a computer.
Jim P. at July 26, 2010 4:42 PM
Wow Carol, you do bring a new level of intellectual discourse here, don't you?
momof4 at July 26, 2010 5:04 PM
"http://www.shelleylubben.com/articles/pornstarsandsexabuse.pdf"
Here you go Spartee, it took a 3 word search on yahoo, first link. There were lots of others. I was assoc major, and while I agree it's not a hard science, this particular phenomenon is widely known and proven.
momof4 at July 26, 2010 5:07 PM
Women are strange.
Most of the arguments by women here can be categorized in two ways:
Porn is creepy
Women are victims
Women seem to be particularly perturbed, disturbed, or otherwise unsettled by men's enjoyment of porn.
The common thread in what makes it creepy and the victim references is that men are both the guilty and the powerful parties.
We're wrong for enjoying it and producing it. The women in it are victims and the men in it are victimizers.
So...what does all this suggest? That what disturbs women about this is two fold:
Male enjoyment that does not stem from their female mate. This sort of thing frequently disturbs women. Chris Rock did a routine about it actually: "Women want to be the source of her man's happiness, if he has a smile on his face and she didn't put it there, she's not happy."
In particular I'd say that it is that other women are in some way involved in a man's pleasure, and that they have no control over that.
The other source of concern here for women is that male power is considered in some way threatening. The obsession with female abuse stories and damaged helpless women is repeatedly made, though without any actual statistical study or supporting evidence.
...frankly its pretty tiresome. I'm not going to call it a glamorous happy life, but for gods sake these are grown up women fully able to make their own choices in a society that offers umpteen thousand different ways to change their lives on the public dime or the privately donated dollar.
Some have made some interesting points, and yes some men will be so focused on fantasy that they do not know how to deal with reality, but most women I think, if they could get inside a man's head for a day, would think every man everywhere was a sex addict anyway.
Robert at July 26, 2010 5:36 PM
"Male enjoyment that does not stem from their female mate."
Robert, there are two sides to this coin.
Feebie at July 26, 2010 6:24 PM
By the end of the day, it all comes down to this:
Most human beings, male and female alike, are shit.
And a relationship between shit and shit. . comes
out smelling like. . have you guessed it?
Furthermore, most of the info they absorb
from their cultural environment (about "relationships" and whatnot) is the product of other humans, and hence. . . shit.
Shit begets shit begets shit . . from everlasting to everlasting, world without end!
Shitty deal, eh? ;)
Fidelbogen at July 26, 2010 6:41 PM
Most porn is creepy. If you were to see it being made, your enjoyment of it would cease. Much like most people (not all, I eat meat and I have seen it) would not eat mass-market meat if they knew how it was made. It basically boils down to (for those of us here who DO know): are you okay with using some really, really mentally damaged goods to get your rocks off? If so, ball-up and admit that you're not a lot better than sex-tourists in thailand and move on. I think people should be allowed to make their own choices with regards to adults. I just think they should own them when they make them.
momof4 at July 26, 2010 8:10 PM
you might consider momof4 that you don't know everything, and that your suggestion of "mentally damaged goods" is also not everything, or even close to everything... or even close to anything.
You have decided that pr0n is bad in all it's froms no matter who makes it or why. I too know people in and out of the industry. Like ANY OTHER industry there are good sorts and bad ones. The point made before about how many men are maimed or killed in various industrys is a similar thing. A lot of the guys hurt, are hurt by mangers, sup. producers if you will, that only work in profit, and don't care about humans.
Does that make the pr0n industry any different from farming? From wildcatting?
Or is it only different because it involves sex, somewhere at some point? The numbers in the US are small.
You want to own something? How many road workers were killed last year in Texas? Do you OWN that?
it's not to say that this is good for people who work the industry, but as pointed out dozens of times, they are not SLAVES here. They can choose another way. If you really want to get inviolved, there are places in thei world where there are actual sex slaves. Try doing some good there. I can point you to a number of places.
Spare me the false piety.
SwissArmyD at July 26, 2010 8:43 PM
And now for something completely different:
1. Most sex criminals have seen the LEAST amount of Porn; most have a devoutly religious upbringing.
2. When bans on pornography were lifted in West Germany, Sweden and Denmark, the rates of sex crimes either stayed the same or decreased.
3. XXX star Asia Carrera is a MENSA member with an IQ of 131. Nina Hartley is a tireless crusader for free speech and sexual education. Ciccolina was an XXX performer while a member of Italy's parliament.
True, there are many "C students" in XXX, but don't paint them all with the same brush.
4. If I were female and did XXX, I could eliminate $20,000 worth of credit card debt in 2 months. As a male performer it'd take 2 years.
5. Performers ARE tested for HIV; virtually nobody else is unless they do it voluntarily. You have better odds contracting HIV from a regular date than a porn star.
Having said this...and interviewing adult stars and reviewing films...I wouldn't say Porn's 'awesome', it is what it is...but I'd rather work in XXX than a coal mine or a lobster boat.
K.K. at July 26, 2010 9:18 PM
Women are paid around $800-$1000 a movie, and guys are paid around $500.
Lovelysoul, I thought guys got paid more? Or so I heard. Because there is a shortage of guys around who can 'get wood' on demand, whereas there are no shortage of women who can lie there and pretend to be happy. I know everyone thinks guys will have sex whenever it's offered, but the performance pressure of the set, cameras, etc is a real problem for guys in the porn industry as far as I know.
Pricklypear, I think being an exotic dancer or a nude model is a lot different from filming porn. A smart woman can exploit herself and her sexuality for her own financial gain, or sexual thrill, and that can be powerful.
I agree completely with you on this. I have a friend who is a stripper - and yes I met her at her club, and yes I quit going there to stay friends with her.She is constantly bemused at the amount of money people will hand over just to keep her naked even if they can't touch her. The point is that they are selling intimacy, not sex.
Ltw at July 26, 2010 9:18 PM
Being me, after I read M4's post I googled something like How to make a porn movie. Got lots of ads and blogs for amateur porn, one funny one showing a guy with cue cards reading Ah, ah,ah, and Oh,oh,oh, and one that looked like it might be for real, as it involved techies and cameras and lights, an interruption involving someone's phone ringing, and some of the on-screen sex the young folks do these days--kind of awkward, very athletic, and to my mind boring. The guy was, shall we say...well-hung. The girl was cute and annoyingly vocal. The sex was formulaic and unconvincing. I didn't stay for the money shot.
I do agree with an earlier Momof4 post, about porn skewing a young man's idea of what women like in bed. I've always been somewhat disturbed by the idea that a kid might learn about sex from a porn movie, and get the idea that women like to rub manjuice into their bellies like moisturizing cream, while they continue to moan in ecstasy. (Or maybe they don't do that anymore. Like I said, I didn't stay for the big finish.)
Actually, I imagine it's like making any other movie, except you need to do, well, anything and everything. With cameras and lights and interruptions and re-takes and no dignity whatsoever.
As for the really gross stuff, I imagine people who like to watch it would not be deterred by watching it being produced. I watched a NOVA episode when I was a teenager that took you through a meat-processing plant from beginning to end, starting with the cow going into the building and shot with a bolt-gun or whatever, through the whole bloody slasher film process. Maybe it should have put me off meat, but it didn't.
However, after working on a seafood processing boat I won't eat crab legs anymore. Go figure.
Pricklypear at July 26, 2010 9:26 PM
Hey - where are the links? Asia will tell you all about herself. Flip around her site.
Radwaste at July 26, 2010 9:44 PM
And DO NOT MISS Grace Undressed, one of the great writers online!
"All my life I had a dream. I called it by the names of cities and ambitions and lovers. I followed it down halls and towards horizons. It had a voice like a beautiful girl. It sang me to sleep in cold rooms at dawn."
Radwaste at July 26, 2010 9:48 PM
"Robert, there are two sides to this coin."
No, not so much.
Robert at July 26, 2010 10:37 PM
I'd like to know where the very low figure came in for what women are paid for porn. I happen to know firsthand that the average payscale for women making a porn movie runs $900-$1500 per hour and that the average movie takes between 3-4 hours to shoot. The actors are also tested every 30 days for HIV and other STDs. Having become well acquainted with several actors/actresses, they all seemef quite happy, had no obvious drug or mental problems, and chose porn of their own free will. I met them while I was working in a lab in college and processed their STD panels and through that got another job of administrative assistant for the porn company, which is how I know the specifics I mentioned.
I'm so sick of gearing that women are victims hete and that they were essentially forced into against their will. Bullshit! They made a conscious decision to do it and are free to quit whenever they want. Why is is that there always has to be a victim no matter what the situation and that there is no such thing a personal responsibility?
BunnyGirl at July 27, 2010 2:43 AM
I've always been somewhat disturbed by the idea that a kid might learn about sex from a porn movie, and get the idea that women like to rub manjuice into their bellies like moisturizing cream, while they continue to moan in ecstasy.
While I agree with you Pricklypear - I learnt about sex the hard way (two 15 year olds fumbling around trying to work out where the bits went, and causing each other a bit of pain in the process) - I should point out I had a girlfriend once that didn't like to swallow but really did enjoy the feel of me coming against her chest/stomach. But a lot of that was the closeness and sensation so it wouldn't film well, which sort of proves your point I guess.
Ltw at July 27, 2010 3:20 AM
"And a woman teasing guys at a strip club is maintaining her power. She's giving them almost nothing but frustration."
"Power" is sexual tension brought about by bad dancing and lucite heels? Who knew?
If only Lenin and Stalin had put on those sling-back hooker heels, that whole revolution and purging thing would have been so unnecessary.
0_o
Spartee at July 27, 2010 5:40 AM
Ltw, men are paid less than women, as there are, indeed, more men willing to do porn. Almost none can "get wood" on demand. They're not supposed to use viagra, but my friend, who started when he was only 24 or so, had to break down and get a prescription, as he later learned most male talent do. He'd never needed viagra during regular sex, but the demands of film are different - they stop and start. He's supposed to stay hard while they get still shots, different camera angles, etc. It's not like he can just bang a girl until he gets off.
Maybe some women get paid $3500 an hour at the high end, but, like I said, most porn is not produced at the high end.
And the fact they are being regularly tested for STDs makes clear the risk. You're not more likely to get HIV from a date. If you're fucking ten different people in a week, your risk of STDs is much higher. Those people are also fucking 10 people a week - for work - and then they have relationships with others off camera, who are not being tested. HIV gets into the industry. It just isn't publicized.
My friend has a website for people who want to be a porn stars. It's one of his many paying websites - that one may even be his. I don't think anyone ever becomes a porn star through his site, unless he picks them to shoot a movie with him.
He recently put a girl in the hospital because he's so hung (12") that she got hurt having sex with him. She was a young Asian girl. He and the producer thought that was really funny. This is the kind of seediness that's involved in making the bulk of porn out there. If it doesn't turn your stomach, it should. Simply saying "these people choose this" is a lame justification for supporting an industry that uses people this way.
lovelysoul at July 27, 2010 6:00 AM
Lovelysoul, although I like porn, the demeaning, degrading stuff really does turn my stomach. There's no shortage of it out there that makes me physically ill. I had heard that the male talent were more valued but you seem to know better than me, which is fair enough.
I must say the stuff I choose - at least on face value - doesn't seem to be harmful or unpleasant. Maybe I don't know.
Ltw at July 27, 2010 7:11 AM
Ltw, the higher end stuff is best. At least the talent is well paid. Some of it is being produced by women now.
It's still a concern that they're put at risk for AIDs, but at that level, the talent can presumably weigh the risks objectively rather than acting purely out of need. The internet, and the use of digital cameras, has made it too easy for unscrupulous people to make porn and prey on the vulnerable.
I think people should be free to do whatever they want with their bodies. If you want to film yourself having sex and post it online, as a lot of couples are doing today, that's fine. If others enjoy watching that, and you can make money off it, good for you.
It's situations where there's a real power imbalance that worry me...where people, usually young girls, are lured in and taken advantage of because they're poor or needy.
lovelysoul at July 27, 2010 8:00 AM
M4: "If so, ball-up and admit that you're not a lot better than sex-tourists in thailand and move on."
A statement which pretty much proves Amy's original point.
"I think people should be allowed to make their own choices with regards to adults. I just think they should own them when they make them. "
How about the women who make the stuff (and are paid handsomely for it) owning their choices?
Cousin Dave at July 27, 2010 8:27 AM
"He recently put a girl in the hospital because he's so hung (12") that she got hurt having sex with him. She was a young Asian girl. He and the producer thought that was really funny. This is the kind of seediness that's involved in making the bulk of porn out there. If it doesn't turn your stomach, it should."
Lovelysoul, I have to ask. If you think what your friend is doing is so seedy, why are you friends with him at all?
Also I think Cousin Dave brings up great point about women who make the stuff (Candida Royalle), but also what about women who consume it, such as myself. I probably watch as much porn if not more than my bf. Granted porn is mostly made for men by men, but what about the porn made for women by women? What are the objections to that, if any? I am having a hard time relating to other female commenters' objections to porn.
LL at July 27, 2010 4:18 PM
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=4555806
Savage Love on porn today
2007 Nielsen NetRatings, 1 of 3 users of internet pr0n are women.
MeganNJ at July 28, 2010 8:07 AM
Leave a comment