Asguard said:
my tiassa my point was that you keep bringing up "have you been penitrated" like it was somehow something women (and gay men) dont want. All i ment was that it seems you dont enjoy the sex your getting and somehow feel that its wrong. Wether that means that deep down your truly not atracted to guys or not i shouldnt have speculated on. if i offended you i apologise
No, the question doesn't presume that penetration is something people don't want. Rather, I would suggest that the question arises most in consideration of what we consider negative sexual experiences.
We have seen, for instance, some expressions in various threads about sex abuse and rape discussion of how a boy might appreciate a female teacher asking him to have sex with her. And in the multi-thread discussion of a woman's responsibility for being raped, at least one male expressed distaste at women who are too sexually forward with him.
Both of these perspectives are legitimate in and of themselves. But the basic root of perspective is different depending on which end of the equation you occupy.
The negative connotations of sexuality are inherent to the discussion:
Is an act rape? It seems rather egocentric to invest a dismissive outlook that compares unwanted sexual penetration to making fries at the local McDonald's when one's perspective on sexual intercourse is wholly contained within the outlook of the penetrator. I have had sex with women before when I didn't really feel like it, or when the terms of consent were violated. I didn't feel violated on those occasions. Indeed, I'm sure you've encountered before my remark that masturbation was more fulfilling than sex with my former partner. And I received last spring some unexpected insight. Having sex with a friend of mine for the first time, as soon as he touched me, he said, "Really? Well, maybe that's why _____ was complaining." Don't get me wrong, dude; I
don't have some monster whale of a cock. On balance, only two of my former lovers have said it was too big for comfort; they're a minority. Okay, we can add in there a couple of guys who wanted me inside them, but ... well, frankly, that's fine with me. I don't do guys in order to penetrate them.
But there I was, wishing the penis inside me was at least a bit bigger, spinning off on some random tangent in my head about what it would feel like if it was
too big. Only once has it been even close. I have, in terms of being fucked by men, been rather lucky. I've never been torn up or bruised inside, and the closest thing to a violation was when I asked a lover where the condom went, and he said, "What condom?" Nobody's sick, nobody's dying, life goes on.
I can tell you, though, that the experiences are vastly different. And the way you feel afterward is vastly different. I'm not talking about shame; to each their own on that. But I don't recall ever spending a day so moody and aware of my body in general after entering someone for intercourse as I am after being fucked hard. And, yes, there were nervous days and even months after the incident with the condom that never was. I have never experienced that from entering a woman, even in dangerous—e.g., unprotected—sex with a well-traveled woman.
The notion that the sex trade, when unpleasant, is just like any other work, seems rather superficial. My outright horror at cleaning a restaurant bathroom goes away as soon as I've scrubbed away the dirty feeling on my skin. But a good hot shower doesn't wash away the introspection and physical sensations after having a penis inside me. Trying to project that notion to a context of violation is an exercise in futility. Until it happens, it's beyond my reach; that is, I cannot in my mind increase so exponentially the awareness of body, the focus on sensation, or even the state of mild fear about disease I've experienced.
To the other, having had dull sex with women before, I can see quite easily how one might equate it to paperwork or the drudgery of making pizza.
a) it assumes that all women (and men for that matter) in the sex industry are like this and none of them chose that life which is a blantently false generalisation
It does not make that assumption. Rather, I would point out that pretending those issues have no effect on the comparison to mundane labor overlooks those realities is fundamentally erroneous. It's a job, one might say. She can quit. You know, market aside, there are plenty of relatively decent jobs I could probably get; indeed, we'll see soon as, since my kid is in school it's time to return to the job market. But this isn't true of every prostitute or porn star. For some, it's all they know.
b) it assumes that all the jobs done but the low socioeconomic are immoral because they are doing them.
Huh?
... the more the industry is brought into the open the LESS abuse will go on because of the same basic regulations which we all enjoy
This is a
very important point in terms of the scenario described at the outset.
Think of it this way: Even setting aside the idea that the contract described in the topic post is unrealistic, there are plenty of objections that might arise. Consider the most obvious,
disease. So Starlet agrees to do the film, and on the day of shooting the first scene, her partner arrives with suspicious white spots and lesions on his penis. She refuses to have sex with him, and is faced with dismissal and a breach of contract suit.
This is unacceptable duress. With reputable—whatever that word is worth—porn companies, the health of the performers is paramount. If word gets around that you're forcing your talent to risk disease, you'll be out of business, or else reduced to pushing Gnutella clips of "
Some bitch we picked up and promised fifty bucks if she would fuck Joe in the alley behind the bar" and hoping someone comes to cumsukkerzilla.com to buy the ten-minute DVD for ninety bucks.
Rember, it wasnt to long ago that children of poor families were sent down into the mines to dig for coal. Most died in those mines. Was that immoral HELL YES, does that mean that running a mine today with labor laws, OH&S laws, VERY good pay ect is immoral?
There's a bit of irony about that point. (
Click here for the irony.)
The key difference between your point at the subject of discussion is found in the latter question:
"... does that mean that running a mine today with labor laws, OH&S laws, VERY good pay ect is immoral?"
Those things are lacking in a lawless industry like hardcore pornography. Sure, the pay might be okay, but the respect for talent is a necessity the producers only fail to recognize at risk to their profits. We'll get back to the producers in a moment.
Now lastly is it immoral to either expect someone to forfill the conditions of a freely entered into contract or provide finatial redress through the courts? No in my opinion its not. You will notice the "FREELY" in there. That rules out the people you are worried about because they havent freely entered into the contract
Would you say the conditions of textile sweatshops in Los Angeles are moral and proper? After all, the undocumented immigrants who make up the vast majority of the workforce "freely" choose to be there. Thus, why should employers have to bother with reasonable shifts, minimum wages, workplace safety, or laws about sexual harassment?
The notion of free choice, as you have expressed it, is insensitive to the reality of exploitation. That people feel they have nowhere else to turn does not oblige them to forfeit their humanity.
One aspect of this issue the discussion seems to disdain, though, is that of the
producers themselves. Specifically, the producers have certain responsibilities.
In the first place, even in mundane film, talent can be a headache. Supermodel cameos, for instance, are an endeavor of insanity. Apparently, getting a supermodel to simply hit her mark—that is, walk to the X taped on the floor and face the right direction at the proper time, speak
nothing of delivering her line with any competence—can be the kind of experience that makes you want to slap the shit out of her, shouting, "Get ... it ... right ... damnit!"
In the flesh industry, it is even more important to coddle the talent. Replace a Tracy Lords or Jenna Jameson with some unknown twat off the street and your profit projections collapse. At that point, the film isn't worth making.
Should profit projections be the arbiter of how one treats the talent? What if you start with the unknown twat off the street? At that point, it seems to depend entirely on why you are in business. If you're in it for the money, you accommodate your talent. If you're in it just to abuse women, well, you treat them like the schmucks in the random clips floating around the internet.
For instance, I remember once watching this one film, the name of which escapes me, about "F-TV". The cable guy comes over, installs the new sex channel, and then fucks the client. Anyway, the priceless look on a friend's face when he realized what he had rented, bought ... whatever ... notwithstanding, there was a curious aspect about the film that bears some relevance here.
The videotape box billed Ron Jeremy; that was probably the reason he chose the film in the first place, as neither of us had actually seen The Hedgehog perform before. But it was a diverse film. The cable tech, some hot starlet, arrived to install the channel. The first scene, then, was an "F-TV" program that featured adult babies who started masturbating themselves and then proceeded to deliberately clumsy intercourse. It's fair to say my friend was unnerved.
And then Ron Jeremy entered (heh) the scene. He came (heh) into the room, saw the sexy cable tech and the male client, and instantly threw a huge hissy-fit. The whole, "I knew it! You're cheating on me!" bit. It was hilarious, and ended with Ron Jeremy, playing an angry gay man, storming out on the line, "That's
it! I'm
going to my mother's!"
My friend had no idea what to say at that point. His expression at that point was one to remember. To the other, though, he recovered, and it was a fine joke we told on occasion for years.
In Jeremy's career, he did encounter circumstances where the female talent stipulated in their contracts that they would not fuck him. I can't say this was one of those films, but they gave him prominent billing for all of thirty sexless seconds.
In other words, there are ways to work around any particular objection by the talent. Recast the scene, shuffle the unwanted talent into another role. It's not like writing a porn scene requires three staff meetings, dinner with the director, and four rewrites. The dialogue can be spun out in less time than it takes to type, and less than the actual, finished scene will take to watch. If she doesn't like the scene, throw it out and write a new one. It will probably take less time than coaxing her onto some festering cock.
The producers' responsibilities come from two obvious directions. One is the market, the other is the law. Given the precarious position of pornography in relation to the law, no producer or director of reasonably sound mind is going to attempt to force the talent. It's too much legal exposure, and can knock one off the A-list of porn production.