> Larry Flynt is a pimp. He's been one for decades. Sex work in general
> reflects the degeneracy of pimp culture. Think about it, sex work that
> serves heterosexual men is a business in which men have absolutely no
> value to add except to instruct women on what porn-loving men will
> want and to persuade women to expose themselves for less money than
> they should be getting.
I'm curious, what amount of money should they be getting? Is there something wrong with negotiation? The director wants to pay less money;
is there anything wrong with negotiating to get the same thing for less money? The starlet wants to do less work; is there something wrong with the starlet (or anybody else, for that matter) negotiating for "less sex"? Shall negotiations be frozen, that there shall be precisely $20 per pelvic thrust, or no fewer than one nor more than three consummated sex acts per day per pornstar? Tell me, what is "fair"? How do you determine that answer?
Also, isn't the instruction of performers on methods of improving their performance in order to satisfy the desires of their audience "added value" in this process? Should they be producing bad porn? Do you propose "porn without directors"? I believe that this is a subtype of porn, so-called "amateur" porn. Shall that be the only type of porn permitted? How shall we guarantee that this is the only type of porn that exists?
> Unsurprisingly, narcissistic, egotistical,
> perverted chauvinistic and manipulative men tend to do well in that
> role. They're pimps. What do you expect?
Do pimps provide any services? In what context(s) do pimps exist?
> Kinder, gentler porn could conceivably be produced, but would men and
> women who could work together in a healthy and productive way ever
> choose to produce porn?
I would venture that, except in well-defined instances of clearly unwilling "porn slavery" (e.g. Vadim Kirpichenko, archetypical Ukrainian pimp and porn magnate, hires a brace of guards to pistolwhip his performers if they attempt to leave or are otherwise disinclined to debauch their chastity on video), that the fact that people are willingly doing so in exchange for money constitutes prima facie evidence that they are working together in a productive way, albeit an unhealthy one. Naomi the Naughty Nurse, after she gets done making "Naomi Needs Nookie 2: Paging Doctor Feelgood!", receives a check from SleazeNet Adult Entertainment for her participation in that film. She values this check more than the time she spends engaging in sex acts on videotape. This seems productive for all concerned: SleazeNet Adult Entertainment, takes a risk that its latest pornographic masturpiece will flop, but accepts this risk in return for profit; Starlet Naomi discounts future effects (health, reputational, financial, etc.) in exchange for a guaranteed paycheck now. You argue that this is not productive - why not? What do you suggest instead? Shall Naomi resume her other career as a brain surgeon?
Why do you think people star in porn films, anyway, and who do you think stars in them?
> Don't cooperation and recirprocal altruism
> generally imply a level of mutual concern and respect that tend to
> encourage more positive endeavors than pornography?
I don't know: if you have no other skills, it's awfully hard to eat concern and respect. I've tried, it doesn't work too well. On the other hand, to a first approximation, everybody's got the equipment to star in a porn film, and given the wide variety of disgusting fetishes out there, someone will find it appealing enough to pay for.
> Finally, let's get real, do women want more porn? It's really not hard
> to create. Isn't the truth that women don't really demonstrate a
> desire for porn anywhere near what men do?
Men consume nearly all (>90%) of photographic/video porn, at a guess. Women consume nearly all (>90%) of printed porn ("romance novels"). What's the difference? What's more offensive, a 4x zoomed-in closeup picture of an improbable penis halfway inside a gaping vagina, or a lurid verbal description of an improbable penis halfway inside a gaping vagina? Is that picture worth a thousand words? Better to ask the question: "Whence came all this porn in the first place?"
Conjecture: this is due to a lack of well-defined sexual frameworks in modern times. In previous times, the expected course of life with respect to sexual activity was "childhood -> sexual maturation -> marriage to member of opposite sex -> childbearing/rearing". An elaborate patchwork of rules was set up to cover all of these activities, and that order was not flouted lightly. Now, you can reorder that list in any way that you like, changing any number of them in any way imaginable ("marriage to member of opposite sex" -> "ceremonial bonding with my llama life-partner"), and not only are all of those permutations actively practiced, criticism of most variations of them is forbidden (in some instances and places, under threat of law). Is it surprising that in the presence of such an active distortion of ordinary and traditional sexual mores, that pornography is so actively consumed? What shall be done about this state of affairs? What was the cause of this state of affairs to begin with?
I can think of one sure-fire means of directing men and women to healthier and more productive pursuits - adopt as a cultural habit the Jewish/Christian/Muslim practice of stoning of fornicators and of women who lie about virginity, and reinstating the practice of arranged marriage. That would dry up most of that porn, all right. What do you think of that solution?
--
(c) 2005 Unscathed Haze via Central Plexus <hasted at tent.heads>
I am Chaos. I am alive, and I tell you that you are Free. -Eris
Big Brother is watching you. Learn to become Invisible.
|-------- Your message must be this wide to ride the Internet. --------|