Is forcing sex on a pornstar the same as rape?

[Tiassa]

Already covered it, actually

That.

Okay, that's a start, Roman. Now, can you show how all of those quotes you've cited support your thesis:

... the fact that Tiassa seems to have some sort of love-hate relationship with the cock that he is projecting on everyone else, that his experience with a dick inside him is the same as everyone else's experience.

If they're human beings, why aren't you willing to allow them to enter contractual agreements?

Actually, I support legalized and regulated prostitution. Let's unionize the sex industry workers of the world.

Furthermore, why do you continue to refuse to address the real issue that you continue to ignore

Actually, I addressed this point last year in #36:

What is sex by coercion? If the person thinking that they NEED the job, their life depends on it, and the employer takes advantage of that fear and uses it against the person to get sex - what's that? Isn't it rape?

Consent given under duress is not proper consent.

Redarmy11 questioned the premise of duress in #37, and I replied in #38.

Mountainhare stated in #99 that there is no duress in the situation(s) considered in this discussion. With no basis for that argument offered, he left us nothing to work with; the discussion died off for ten months. On the one hand, perhaps it is understandable that you didn't read through the older portion of the discussion, and thus don't realize that you're demanding that I address a point that (A) I agree with, and (B) have already discussed. To the other, though, since you bothered to read back through the earlier posts in order to inject a dose of stupid irrelevance into the revival, we might wonder at the inaccuracy of your inquiry.

Might. It would be a specialized taste to wonder about that. There's not much return on the investment of the few seconds it takes consider that aspect.

 

[swarm]

Roman
Walking off may have future employment consequences, and I think that's the kernel of the debate.

If your boss is engaging in illegal practices and trying to force you to participate, you are already past “future employment consequences” and well into pressing charges and/or filing for a harassment suit. This is why bosses generally don’t do that sort of thing and businesses have stringent anti sexual harassment rules and every now and then somebody gets fired for being a dick and some business gets their pants sued off.

Actually, the kernel of the debate is the fact that Tiassa

Wow are you hitting on Tiassa or what? I haven’t seen anything that gay since Ted Haggard.

 

[Balerion]

I wonder how long it took for Tiassa to say that raping a pornstar isn't rape...

 

[Tiassa]

Did I miss something?

I wonder how long it took for Tiassa to say that raping a pornstar isn't rape...

I don't know, have I said it yet? Did I miss something?

 

[Balerion]

I don't know, have I said it yet? Did I miss something?

You probably have. If she's a pornstar, it's not rape, is it?

Edit: Can't wait for Tiassa to "relocate" this post just because she doesn't like me.

 

[Roman]

Okay, that's a start, Roman. Now, can you show how all of those quotes you've cited support your thesis:

I apologize for digging into old posts. I seem to do that somewhat frequently with you, not looking at posting dates.

Anyway.

Let me attempt to provide a synopsis for what you were posting appeared to be to me, and, apparently, Asguard:

Tiassa: Have you ever had a dick in you?
Tiassa: Huh have, ya?
Heterosexual poster: Uh, well, nooo...
Tiassa: Well I have, and let me tell you, it's not boring like pussy is and it makes me moody.
Tiassa: Since you've never had a dick in you, Roman, and I have, I can speak for porn stars in that if they don't really want to have sex, it makes them upset and moody, probably more moody than me, since I have more familiarity with male genitalia than you. There's no way it couldn't be viewed as routine or boring.

Actually, I support legalized and regulated prostitution. Let's unionize the sex industry workers of the world.

Actually, I addressed this point last year in #36:

And you did a poor job. Red more or less addressed the same issues I had.

Redarmy11 questioned the premise of duress in #37, and I replied in #38.

Another poor argument. Red did not follow up with the fact that there are many unjust laws, and whether or not something is a law or not is of little importance to any hypothetical ethical discussion. US policy on drug use probably the most egregious example.

stupid irrelevance into the revival, we might wonder at the inaccuracy of your inquiry.

Ah. So I am expected to drudge through your pages of inanity, unrelated and tangential, and draw what scant points I can, but you are not obliged to use your faculties?

Then I shall assist your understanding.

Mixed martial artists (MMA) get hit a lot by very big people. I have never been hit hard by someone who hits other people for a living. I have been punched in the head very hard by people much larger than me, however, and can tell you that it is very unpleasant.

Following this same line of reasoning, if a MMA didn't feel like getting hit for the Friday night fight, but was compelled to go in and do it anyway, due to pressure from the person whom he contractually obliged to fight for, this would be assault, battery, maybe some sort of torture.

Right?

I mean, getting in fights makes me moody and contemplative. I can only imagine what getting beat up would be like.

The notion that a porn star deserves some sort of special protection for arbitrarily refusing to do her job (or his, for that matter) is a little... chauvinist.

How the porn company wishes to oblige their star's demands is an economic one, as you noted in one of your monster posts. Certainly not a moral one.

If the porn star doesn't want to deal with a festering penis or unknown talent that she had not previously agreed to do, then certainly she should not be "forced" (though coerced or persuaded would be more accurate terms here) into performing. And if the company did follow up on those threats when she refused, then she should of course take it to court and seek settlement.

 

[Tiassa]

Sorry, I'm not a psychic

Let me attempt to provide a synopsis for what you were posting appeared to be to me, and, apparently, Asguard:

Tiassa: Have you ever had a dick in you?
Tiassa: Huh have, ya?
Heterosexual poster: Uh, well, nooo...
Tiassa: Well I have, and let me tell you, it's not boring like pussy is and it makes me moody.
Tiassa: Since you've never had a dick in you, Roman, and I have, I can speak for porn stars in that if they don't really want to have sex, it makes them upset and moody, probably more moody than me, since I have more familiarity with male genitalia than you. There's no way it couldn't be viewed as routine or boring.

Well, at least you've shown us how cynicism is irrational. Perhaps that outcome tells us more about you than anything else.

The point originally arose in relation to a comparison of pornography to mundane work. How? Making pizzas? Shuffling paperwork? Dealing with particularly annoying customers determined to enhance their own petty self-images by a miniscule increment at someone else's expense? Calling people for telephone surveys?

From a strictly phallocentric perspective, there is a point at which I can see how the comparison works. But in receiving a penis into the body, I don't. Perhaps that's too complicated for you to comprehend? Or maybe you're just letting your cynicism blind you to anything beyond the first, most obvious combative response you can find.

And you did a poor job. Red more or less addressed the same issues I had.

You mean when he wrote about the "little slags" and how the "younger ones might need a bit of guidance"?

Another poor argument. Red did not follow up with the fact that there are many unjust laws, and whether or not something is a law or not is of little importance to any hypothetical ethical discussion.

Are you referring to labor laws, laws against prostitution, or something else entirely?

Ah. So I am expected to drudge through your pages of inanity, unrelated and tangential, and draw what scant points I can, but you are not obliged to use your faculties?

My faculties do not include mind reading.

Following this same line of reasoning, if a MMA didn't feel like getting hit for the Friday night fight, but was compelled to go in and do it anyway, due to pressure from the person whom he contractually obliged to fight for, this would be assault, battery, maybe some sort of torture.

It's called taking a dive. I've seen one-shot knockouts, how about you? And one of the differences is that when the MMA fighter takes a dive, it's over. If the porn star takes a dive, it means, "On with the fucking." If the MMA fighter takes a dive, you feel ripped off. If the porn star takes a dive, you get aroused. Not quite the same thing, is it?

Give porn stars the same sort of labor protection—including, "Ah, a shaving nick. You're not medically fit to fuck today."—and we're on our way. Three doctors ringside, state regulators ensuring workplace safety and contract integrity. Life goes on.

The notion that a porn star deserves some sort of special protection for arbitrarily refusing to do her job (or his, for that matter) is a little... chauvinist.

Arbitrarily? Anything to get her on that pole, eh?

Guess what, Roman: It's sex. While American society in particular needs to stop and reconsider the roots, effects, and intentions of its sexual mores, one thing that should not be at the heart of that reconsideration is how to force a woman to fuck. Western culture is not so far removed from the day when sexual intercourse was a wife's obligation. To use the same reasoning we've seen in this thread, "The little slags knew what they were getting into, and nobody's forcing them to have sex for a wedding ring. Okay, so maybe the younger ones might need a bit of 'guidance'."

How the porn company wishes to oblige their star's demands is an economic one, as you noted in one of your monster posts. Certainly not a moral one.

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that the economic concern stems from the failure to conduct oneself in an honorable way.

(And, hey, the first time I made the point, the post wasn't so long. Maybe you overlooked that in your zeal to flex your cynicism. Take it to Venice Beach, instead.)

If the porn star doesn't want to deal with a festering penis or unknown talent that she had not previously agreed to do, then certainly she should not be "forced" (though coerced or persuaded would be more accurate terms here) into performing. And if the company did follow up on those threats when she refused, then she should of course take it to court and seek settlement.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

 

[Roman]

Well, at least you've shown us how cynicism is irrational. Perhaps that outcome tells us more about you than anything else.

Blah blah blah...

The point originally arose in relation to a comparison of pornography to mundane work. How? Making pizzas? Shuffling paperwork? Dealing with particularly annoying customers determined to enhance their own petty self-images by a miniscule increment at someone else's expense? Calling people for telephone surveys?

Blah blah blah!

From a strictly phallocentric perspective, there is a point at which I can see how the comparison works. But in receiving a penis into the body, I don't. Perhaps that's too complicated for you to comprehend? Or maybe you're just letting your cynicism blind you to anything beyond the first, most obvious combative response you can find.

ME ME ME, eh Tiassa?
Maybe you shouldn't get a job in porn.
Christ. It's like everyone else is you. Or that sex can't just be boring and routine to some women. Way to hold a double standard, Mr. Liberal.

You mean when he wrote about the "little slags" and how the "younger ones might need a bit of guidance"?

This bit:

Porn Producer: Hi Candi, welcome to Sleezy B Productions. Take your coat off, please - and then have sex with this man. {points}
Candi: I, uh... say what?
Porn Producer: Take your coat off, please - and then have sex with this man. {points}
Candi: I, uh... what, you mean right now!?
Porn Producer: Yes, please - and hurry. Time is money. Come along, we haven't got all day.
Candi: Oh wait, wait a second... you mean I have to have sex?
Porn Producer: {Stares disbelievingly} Well, er, yes, er... Candi, why do you think you're here?
Candi: Er, um... well I came about the cleaner's job?
Porn Producer: Ah...

Red makes an important point- at what point do you begin a job in porn and not realize you are filmed having sex for money? If it's really so onerous, get a job making pizzas.

It's not like it's Soviet Russia. There are plenty of non-porn jobs which are just boring and tedious, right?

Are you referring to labor laws, laws against prostitution, or something else entirely?

The laws against prostitution. In particular, this bit:

Labor Investigator: We have a complaint that you would not pay a woman for work done on your film unless she had sex with a man she did not want to have sex with.

Porn Producer: Well, she violated her contract.

Labor Investigator: How so?

Porn Producer: By not having sex with the man.

Labor Investigator: Are you saying she was contractually obliged to have sex with this man?

Porn Producer: Yes.

Labor Investigator: And her payment was contingent upon fulfilling this act under the contract?

Porn Producer: Yes.

Labor Investigator: Are you saying that you are organizing and patronizing prostitution?

Porn Producer: Er ... um ... er ... the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution says I do not have to answer that question.

If Candi breaks her contract, shouldn't she be held responsible (given that the terms of the contract were held up by the other party, of course!)? Yes, she should.

It's called taking a dive. I've seen one-shot knockouts, how about you? And one of the differences is that when the MMA fighter takes a dive, it's over. If the porn star takes a dive, it means, "On with the fucking." If the MMA fighter takes a dive, you feel ripped off. If the porn star takes a dive, you get aroused. Not quite the same thing, is it?

I guess the porn star could just call in sick or whatever, right? Or pout, or fight with the director, or do a bunch of other stuff. In both cases, they hurt their career. There's a reason no one watches boxing anymore, anyway. It's a little less fake that pro-wrestling, and a hell of a lot less interesting.

Give porn stars the same sort of labor protection—including, "Ah, a shaving nick. You're not medically fit to fuck today."—and we're on our way. Three doctors ringside, state regulators ensuring workplace safety and contract integrity. Life goes on.

What does that have to do with a professional not doing their job?

Arbitrarily? Anything to get her on that pole, eh?

If you a janitor doesn't feel like cleaning toilets today, and decides not to do it, should he be protected for being lazy? Just dirty toilets- not ebola infected ones or something like that.

Guess what, Roman: It's sex.

So?
If sex is such a big deal for them, maybe they shouldn't have a job in it. They could get a job picking tomatoes or doing construction or something. There are plenty of jobs to be found in America. 20 millions illegal immigrants wouldn't be here if there weren't.

While American society in particular needs to stop and reconsider the roots, effects, and intentions of its sexual mores, one thing that should not be at the heart of that reconsideration is how to force a woman to fuck.

If someone enters a contractual agreement, then breaches contract, they should be responsible, right? Maybe they shouldn't be entering into contracts they cannot honor.

That's one way of looking at it. Another would be that the economic concern stems from the failure to conduct oneself in an honorable way.

Right. It's irrelevant, though, given that a business will conduct itself in whatever way maximizes profit. They would just as soon conduct themselves dishonorably, if it was worth it. But since people have choice, and the ability to work elsewhere, porn companies willingly conduct themselves in such a manner as to retain talent.

(And, hey, the first time I made the point, the post wasn't so long. Maybe you overlooked that in your zeal to flex your cynicism. Take it to Venice Beach, instead.)

Yeah, I did overlook its lack of girth. I was reading all your posts, and it sort of blurred into one mega-post of weepy bitching about how we need more nannies. But yes, that's the point I mentioned.

 

[scott3x]

As far as I'm concerned, the solution to this is that contracts shouldn't be able to be made that 'force' someone to have sex with someone they don't want to. Basically, like this:

Porn star: I don't want to have sex with that person.

Employer: Ok, guess we'll have to have to find someone else for the role.

Porn star isn't paid for the shoot (she opted out), but she also can't be sued for opting out. Ideally, all of this would be set up in advance; as in, actors enter into a contract as to who they will be performing with and then get to it.

 

[scott3x]

Originally Posted by Killian_1_4

But is forcing sex on a prostitute rape or robbery?

Depends on the judge. Unfortunately.

I haven't taken a look at a case of this nature but I find it difficult to believe that a judge would say that? All I can say is it's morally wrong whatever a judge may say. As James said, rape is sex without consent, full stop.

 

[Asguard]

Tiassa

once again i have to wonder, is there any job you would concider to be worse than working in the sex industry?

maybe being a test study for medical resurch?
scraping up car acident victoms?
disposing of medical waste?
collecting cans out of public bins for a living?

anything at all?

Next question, if you asked a sex worker what do you think THERE answer would be?

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

I have avoided this thread, because the question is stupid. Using force to make someone have sex is Rape. If I held a gun to my wife's head and said-let's fuck! that's rape. If I went to someone's house, a married couple, and held them at gunpoint and made them have sex with their children, I raped them all. This isn't clear?

 

[Asguard]

Mr. Hamtastic
they arnt talking about physical force, rather if you entered a contract to provide a service and you didnt provide that service should the law compensate you for not reciving said service

 

[scott3x]

Mr. Hamtastic
they arnt talking about physical force, rather if you entered a contract to provide a service and you didnt provide that service should the law compensate you for not reciving said service

Making contracts that would penalize you for not having sex with someone, in my view, is immoral. I'm not talking about not wanting to have sex with a husband or wife (husband or wife then goes for a divorce). I'm talking about not wanting to have sex with someone and then someone -suing- you because of it. This, in my view, is immoral. It should be illegal to make such a contract.

And if it's true that a judge can say that a prostitute that is raped is merely being 'robbed', that should be illegal too.

 

[Roman]

Making contracts that would penalize you for not having sex with someone, in my view, is immoral.

Then don't do it.
It's that goddamn simple.

 

[Asguard]

scott3x i agree with your second point (rape is rape no matter who the victom is, its only robbery if it was concentual but then they refused to pay at the end or they stole the money back) but i also agree with roman if you dont wish to be in the sex industry then dont

 

[swarm]

No contract can require you to perfom an illegal act.
No boss has the right to use force in enforcing contractual obligations.

Either of those cases nullifies your obligation to perform.

 

[Asguard]

actually it doesnt, only if porn is illegal is it illegal to make a contract to make porn

 

[Mr. Hamtastic]

Can an athlete be forced to play for a team he has signed a contract with? The team can sue him for breach of contract, he can be forced to face financial loss, but can't be forced to play for the team. How is this different?

 

[Asguard]

actually its the same, as i said if the contract is unreasonable, ie the football player has to kick 50 goals or the male porn star has to have sex 10 times in a row and its phyically imposable then the contract is invalid

If however they sign a contract and they then just CHOSE not to forfill it then they are liable to civil redress