"So do you actually like legally sex trafficking men and women?" Someone isn't happy in the AMA of the owner of an adult entertainment company. (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
108 ups - 39 downs = 69 votes
73 comments submitted at 17:25:36 on Oct 26, 2013 by Micp
Another person trying to dismiss a woman's responsibility for her own actions.
The linked post is BS, but the 2nd reply containing quotes from pornstars that have been abused is unquestionable truth. It fits with some interviews I've seen. I have no clue why it's being downvoted so much.
If I sign up to work at McDonalds, am I signing up for the owner to do anything they want to me while I'm on the clock? You show up to do something, and you get something else entirely, something you didn't sign up for.
I'm anticipating your next reply: "if they don't like it they can leave". It's not that simple: "Sometimes you would get to a gig and the producer would change what the scene was supposed to be to something more intense and again if you didn’t like it, too bad, you did it or no pay." 6th pornstar in the list said this. The last one said " I freaked out and started balling; they stopped filming and sent me home with reduced pay since they got some shot but not the whole scene."
I guess at this point people will say those girls should get a lawyer, and now we're just in fantasy land, lawyers cost a fortune. When someone accepts to be exploited by someone else to be able to pay the rent, you cannot seriously claim they are at fault. I remember reading somewhere that girls that stand up for themselves end up getting blackballed from the industry (they get a reputation for having an "attitude problem"). If I were in their place, and I had to pay rent, I'd end up doing it too, but this doesn't absolve the abusive pornographers.
>If I sign up to work at McDonalds, am I signing up for the owner to do anything they want to me while I'm on the clock? You show up to do something, and you get something else entirely, something you didn't sign up for.
In that case you can always choose not to do it and find work somewhere else. No one is forcing anyone to work at mcdonalds or do porn.
>I'm anticipating your next reply: "if they don't like it they can leave". It's not that simple: "Sometimes you would get to a gig and the producer would change what the scene was supposed to be to something more intense and again if you didn’t like it, too bad, you did it or no pay."
So they have the open to willingly do it or not get paid. So it was their choice to do it.
>When someone accepts to be exploited by someone else to be able to pay the rent, you cannot seriously claim they are at fault.
Yes, they are still at fault because they're given an option and they willingly choose to do porn. No none of it was against their will.
>I remember reading somewhere that girls that stand up for themselves end up getting blackballed from the industry (they get a reputation for having an "attitude problem").
So they signed up for something and then tried argue about what they will and won't do all while expecting to get paid for work they were refusing to do...
They always had the option of not doing it.
You're a lolbertarian, aren't you? Because you can use what you just said to justify the erosion of all worker rights. "If you don't like it, don't work there". These statements are always said in what I imagine is a vacuum where jobs are plentiful and people don't have to worry about paying the rent.
From the listed quotes, we can see that those girls did not expect what they signed up for. They expected normal sex, not have their head stomped on or getting told they either do anal or don't get paid. That's exploitation.
Before submitting this post, I had a look at your post history. So you're not a libertarian, you're a redpiller. I don't want to get into a debate about how much women suck or whatever, I'll just say this: imagine it was a male pornstar having to deal with this. He shows up to be paid to "have sex with a girl", and he's told he's going to be pegged by a girl with a strap-on, and if he refuses, he won't get paid. He needs to pay rent. Do you feel any empathy now that it's a man? Do you see how it's exploitation?
> Because you can use what you just said to justify the erosion of all worker rights. "If you don't like it, don't work there".
Not every job is porn is corrupt, abusive, or detriment to the life of the actor/actress
>These statements are always said in what I imagine is a vacuum where jobs are plentiful and people don't have to worry about paying the rent.
If hey don't want to do porn they don't have to, it's a choice just like working fast food or construction.
>From the listed quotes, we can see that those girls did not expect what they signed up for. They expected normal sex, not have their head stomped on or getting told they either do anal or don't get paid. That's exploitation.
At what point were they forced to do these things against their will? At what point where they held captive with no way of leaving the sets? If you agree to do something you don't like for money you can't claim to be a victim of your own choices.
>I had a look at your post history. So you're not a libertarian, you're a redpiller. I don't want to get into a debate about how much women suck or whatever
You realize you don't really have an argument so you're making things up to try to have some kind of moral high ground. I have never posted in /r/TheRedPill.
> I'll just say this: imagine it was a male pornstar having to deal with this. He shows up to be paid to "have sex with a girl", and he's told he's going to be pegged by a girl with a strap-on, and if he refuses, he won't get paid. He needs to pay rent. Do you feel any empathy now that it's a man? Do you see how it's exploitation?
He has the option to walk away and not do it. Just because he needs the money doesn't mean he is a victim for choosing to do something he isn't comfortable with. Same thing goes for anyone doing a job they don't like. People that work crappy retail jobs because they have to make rent aren't victims either.
When you have options and you choose to do something you don't like, you can't claim that you're being forced into anything or that you're a victim to anything but your own decisions.
You sidestepped my point entirely. I never said they didn't sign up for sex, I said they didn't sign up for abuse during sex, and in both replies you're acting like the two are equivalent, like a person can't just sign up to perform ordinary sex on film. I'm not gonna spend 10 minutes typing a reply when our severe communication problem makes it pointless. Have a nice day.
You quoted > It's not that simple: "Sometimes you would get to a gig and the producer would change what the scene was supposed to be to something more intense and again if you didn’t like it, too bad, you did it or no pay."
So it's not like the dynamics of the scene were changed during the scene. They were told ahead of time and given the chance to walk away but they choose to stay and do it. If it isn't what they signed up for they don't have to do it but they choose to do it knowing that the scenes weren't what they were comfortable with.
You then tried to change you arguement to feeling sorry for them for making bad choices instead of your original argument that they are victims somehow.
Having empathy for people that do shitty work doesn't somehow turn them into victims that aren't responsible for their life choices.
Even if you don't agree there's sexual abuse, surely you agree there's worker abuse? OK, let's say the requirements didn't change during the scene (it does sometimes, see next paragraph). The terms changed after she traveled there, possibly after declining alternative work. It's a violation of the initial agreement. The fact that she can't afford to do something about it doesn't mean it's not abuse. It's a smaller-scale version of those immigrant workers in Qatar who are brought in under false pretenses. You can't always just refuse and go back home with no money. There are girls that did this, and were blackballed. And there are those who were desperate and still did it, like the girls in that post. It doesn't mean they're not victims, it means they're double-victims, because they were so bad financially they still went through with it.
You missed this quote from one of the pornstars in the linked thread: >When I arrived to the set I expected to do a vaginal girl boy scene. But during the scene with a male porn star, he forced himself anally into me and would not stop. I yelled at him to stop and screamed 'No' over and over but he would not stop.
Out of curiosity, do you have any empathy for these girls (you didn't exactly say it)? Do you wonder what you would do in their place (including the financial necessity)?
>Even if you don't agree there's sexual abuse, surely you agree there's worker abuse?
This isn't the original argument. There may be cases of worker abuse in the industry but that doesn't prove that they are victims when they choose the job just because most needed the money.
>The terms changed after she traveled there, possibly after declining alternative work. It's a violation of the initial agreement. The fact that she can't afford to do something about it doesn't mean it's not abuse. Cherry picking one case of actual abuse doesn't prove that porn stars are victims when they choose to do porn. The job wasn't forced on them.
She still has the option to walk away and not do it. Choosing to do something that you aren't comfortable with doesn't make you a victim.
>It's a smaller-scale version of those immigrant workers in Qatar who are brought in under false pretenses. You can't always just refuse and go back home with no money. There are girls that did this, and were blackballed. And there are those who were desperate and still did it, like the girls in that post.
In no way are those two situations similar. Immigrant workers can't just say no and go home like pornstars. Porn stars actually have a choice while those kinds of workers don't.
>Out of curiosity, do you have any empathy for these girls (you didn't exactly say it)? Do you wonder what you would do in their place (including the financial necessity)?
If they don't like the job they can always find something else to do. being poor doesn't mean your obligated to have sex for money.
I have to say that while I don't fully agree with the poster in the linked comment, I do think this issue is a bit more nuanced than may you make it sound. At face value the argument that women enter into this business of their free volition and that therefore the business should not be reproached sounds completely reasonable. However, when you consider the underlying social and economic factors the situation becomes a bit more murky. In a society that commodifies women's bodies, it's unavoidable that a shadow will be cast over enterprises that commercialize such images.
Moreover, it's undeniable that many women enter the profession out of economic hardships, which makes the argument of choice a bit more hollow. This is analogous (although obviously much less extreme) to how workers in the early twentieth century faced the choice of working for a pittance or starving. Superficially one could say that taking on that grueling work for such an absurdly low wage was their choice, but I don't think it's difficult to see why the workers believed they were being exploited.
People go to work at coal mines out of need for money and economic hardship. Does that mean they are slaves? Does that mean they are forced to be there?
Of course not! Men work in coal mines and can be trusted to make thier own decisions for themselves, unlike those poor women in porn who have no self agency. I find it hilarious how when you dig through all the BS modern feminism often sounds very family to traditionalist additudes from the 30's.
> modern feminism often sounds very family to traditionalist additudes from the 30's.
Most feminists these days tend to be pro-sex from what I've seen. The anti-porn/sex thing seemed to die out by the 90s.
Edit: This is from people I've met. It does not cover tumblr feminism/SJW. Fuck tumblr.
Seriously. If you listened to SRS, women have no free will or agency and men control the entirety of society.
The key is to be a white male having the ability to tell everyone who isn't you what to do and why they're wrong for doing anything else, and place people on pedestals who are one of those minorities and agree with you.
That's what I've never understood about SRS, if they're so pro-women, why constantly make them sound weak and dumb?
Actually, yes, the status of certain workers does bear resemblances to slavery, in fact there is a specific terms for this concept, namely wage slavery. Now, the use of this term in the present day, at least in wealthy countries may seem hyperbolic, but when applied to say the late nineteenth century or certain workers in developing countries the term is incredibly apt.
You are talking about a labour rights issue, something similar is true of lots of industries. I think that by focusing on how the whole industry is the worst thing in the world, 'the comodification of women's bodies' and stuff like that, it makes it harder to solve the labour rights issue because it perpetuates the stigma around the industry. It would be great to see some kind of 'porn actors guild of America' that would be on the side of performers. How is the body of a porn actor more comodified than a builder, wrestler or somebody who does one of them talking head shows on MTV or something.
Is this really necessary though? Female actresses already make on average 100-250k a year for a job that requires no training or education. That's a pretty fucking outstanding amount of money.
So it's not really a labor rights issues because they can leave whenever they want and are paid extraordinary well. I don't think /u/mysrsaccount2's point is valid in any way.
EDIT: source
I'm sure not all of them make that kind of money, but I think that the wages are not exactly the issue, although it would probably be good for them to get residuals etc.
From what I've read/seen there are problems with how people get into the industry, i.e. scumbag agents that tie people into contracts and bully people into taking jobs they don't want, also there is an issue with the actor/actress not having any power or leverage against the studios 'on set', I think that a 'porn actors guild of America' and measures against unscrupulous agents would be a good thing. There is also the issue of pensions and healthcare for people who are in the business for a long time, I think that this should be true of most industries that have similar working set ups, I would be interesting to see if there is labour/guild representation in places that are more 'union friendly' like Germany.
>I'm sure not all of them
I never said they all were. I said the average. You do understand how averages work?
source
Fair enough.
>Female actresses already make on average 100-250k a year
Source for that? I imagine the vast majority of porn actresses make far far less than that.
source
That's an average. A few high outliers will skew the average, so some very well paid porn actresses will move the average upward. You're probably wanting the median.
That's mentioned by Ron Jeremy probably the world's most famous male porn star, he's going to be working in films that pay far more than most porn productions.
His guess is better than yours.
There are poor people with nothing but the health of their body to carve an existence with. Enduring shitty places to work and live is a great way to trade your health for cash. The infusion of cash could set you up for a nice retirement, or a good education for your kids.
Wage slavery is more narrow than that.
P.s. In the western world, we also have a very slanted view of what's an acceptable way to live. Two to three bedrooms or nothing: even in legitimately urban city centers you may not be allowed to live without suburban-grade domestic space and two parking places. No wonder there's a chronic housing shortage! Scaling minimum housing down and relaxing minimum quality of life requirements would make far more housing available at all locations, at all price points, even affordable ones at top spots. Does it serve the poor to be strictly priced out of prime job locations?
Well we're going to have to agree to disagree.
We're discussing the pornography industry in America in modern times, not ninteenth century. These girls are not slaves and they are not being raped. There are some areas of concern in the porn industry, but those are outliers and don't sound like the original OP.
The problem with wage slavery was that people where in a position where they had no skills, no savings and basically no way of doing anything alternative to the job they had. because of that the employers could keep them at a ridiculously low pay, which again made it so the employers could never generate any savings to try and do something alternative or move away.
Clearly this is not a problem today, where if they so wanted they could get any menial job at a grocery store, coffee shop or mcdonalds, although it would probably be a step down in salary to many of them.
Also just in relation to the linked post it's a retarded myth that the porn industry has an interest in keeping the pornstars on drugs. They want the stars to look sexy, which means they want them healthy and in shape. stuff like drugs is adverse to that and would quickly have the stars look trashy.
And yet in the end, it was their decision to do it and no one forced them.
>However, when you consider the underlying social and economic factors the situation becomes a bit more murky.
Nothing stopping them from getting any other type of job and they aren't forced to do porn
>In a society that commodifies women's bodies, it's unavoidable that a shadow will be cast over enterprises that commercialize such images.
No one is forcing them to use their bodies to make money. There are tons of other jobs they could do.
>Moreover, it's undeniable that many women enter the profession out of economic hardships, which makes the argument of choice a bit more hollow.
No one is forcing them to do porn, they can always find other forms of work.
People enter every profession out of economic hardships. I don't hear people complaining when poor men sign up for work on oil rigs or crab fishers or in the mines. Any of those jobs is more dangerous than porn and probably lower paying, but when men do it it is seen for what it is: a rational decision made by a responsible human. When a woman makes a decision that could hurt her, somehow she isn't a full person in control of her actions.
Careful. You might be called a rape apologist.
I hope so, that would be drama in subredditdrama. Surely the best kind of drama.