[lbo-talk] Education and Sexuality (Chip Berlet on Hustler)

boddi satva lbo.boddi at gmail.com
Wed Dec 21 16:00:53 PST 2005



>
> 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?

Like all workers they should receive the full value that their work product generates in the marketplace, particularly because this is the selling of something that is such personal property.


>
> 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?

If the Director works for the interests of the productive group, he should get part of the proceeds like any other worker. I he works for the owners, he should get the shaft, as it were.


>
> > 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?

Pimps provide plenty of obfuscations and stories, all of which are aimed at one thing - getting more money from somebody else's work, and make a claim over them.


> > 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?

So you assume that whenever people are working together without violent compulsion they are working together in a healthy and productive way? That's nonsense, clearly. Of course Naomi has the right to sell her body to make money and if she's lucky enough to have a body that commands a high price for a look, then that's good for her. The financial "risk" of pornography does not exist. The performer has performed the act of prostitution for which she generally gets paid by the hour. Now comes the issue of ownership of the video. I believe that people have an inherent, permanent copyright to reproductions of their naked bodies and should get paid accordingly.


>
> > 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.

Right, all you have to do is sell yourself for a little while. And that's where pimps and capitalists come in to do their dirty business.


> > 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?"

Male porn is far more offensive. Fisting - 'nuff said.


> 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?
>

I think you are crazy or an idiot.

boddi



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list