Does pornography take advantage of women?
- Thread starter Perryman93
- Start date
Recommended Videos
A lot of it does! And I don't think anybody's going to argue that a lot (and I would say the vast majority) is clearly demeaning.
That said, it is their choice to appear in the films, and I haven't seen any evidence that they're coerced particularly often. Lots of pornography takes advantage of women, but some women take advantage of pornography. I guess there's no real easy answer?
That said, it is their choice to appear in the films, and I haven't seen any evidence that they're coerced particularly often. Lots of pornography takes advantage of women, but some women take advantage of pornography. I guess there's no real easy answer?
Does pornography necessarily take advantage of performers? No.
Does pornography necessarily degrade women as a whole? No.
Unfortunately, some porn definitely does involve exploiting the performers (both men and women). Still, as Cheeze pointed out, a lot of industries can be exploitative. And, as porn performer Lorelei Lee put it, "To imply that I have not exercised the same autonomous judgment as anyone else has in choosing a career, is to completely dismiss my will, intelligence and rational capability".
Moreover, I'd say most of mainstream porn is deeply steeped in sexism. It's in the iconography, in the essential formulas that make porn what it is. And, well, that inherently messed-up approach to sex and sexuality hurts our whole culture (and, in turn, drives the creation of more sucky, sexist, stupid porn).
-- Alex
Does pornography necessarily degrade women as a whole? No.
Unfortunately, some porn definitely does involve exploiting the performers (both men and women). Still, as Cheeze pointed out, a lot of industries can be exploitative. And, as porn performer Lorelei Lee put it, "To imply that I have not exercised the same autonomous judgment as anyone else has in choosing a career, is to completely dismiss my will, intelligence and rational capability".
Moreover, I'd say most of mainstream porn is deeply steeped in sexism. It's in the iconography, in the essential formulas that make porn what it is. And, well, that inherently messed-up approach to sex and sexuality hurts our whole culture (and, in turn, drives the creation of more sucky, sexist, stupid porn).
-- Alex
That's a good question. Why should a third party get most of money from that?Madshaw said:
Most of women who end up in porn don't have enough agency to get a better job. Yes, its their choice but they don't have a lot of other choices.
If you by porn, buy it directly from the couple involved so they don't end up being exploited by the middleman.
The thing is, Kink.com doesn't represent the mainstream. Not because it's BDSM but because it's based in San Francisco and dips its feet into the alternative/indie porn community much more than other big money-making studios do.cleverlymadeup said:
-- Alex
No, assuming the performer wants to be fucked silly whilst getting paid, it's all good.......they're called whores for a reason.
Men are the one's that the products are aimed at, just like 75% of the rest of anything that 'sells with sex'. Whether it's films, cars, clothes, toiletries, alcohol or VIDEO GAMES, when men are the target consumer someone always decides that sticking some tits on there is the best marketing strategy.
I am utterly ashamed that this is the case! I'm a bloke and I don't buy things because they stick sex on the box or in the subject matter just for the sake of it. I don't hold it against the manufacturers as much though, it's the rest of the consumers that 'fall' for this VERY simple means of marketing.
Sort yourselves out, you're lowering the average...........further!
Men are the one's that the products are aimed at, just like 75% of the rest of anything that 'sells with sex'. Whether it's films, cars, clothes, toiletries, alcohol or VIDEO GAMES, when men are the target consumer someone always decides that sticking some tits on there is the best marketing strategy.
I am utterly ashamed that this is the case! I'm a bloke and I don't buy things because they stick sex on the box or in the subject matter just for the sake of it. I don't hold it against the manufacturers as much though, it's the rest of the consumers that 'fall' for this VERY simple means of marketing.
Sort yourselves out, you're lowering the average...........further!
i have to agree, sticking sex/ sex related themes on something does not want to make me buy it!!DannyDamage said:
no it's not, simply because they CHOOSE to be in those scenes and do those things, watch a "behind the scenes" thing from a porn set and you'll see most of those "demeaning" things are actually worked out by the actors beforehandGood morning blues said:
and sorry but most ppl have been coming down on the side of "no it doesn't demean them", so yes we're willing to argue that it doesn't
it's not that they represent the mainstream it's more that people like to say "oh that's exploitative of women" even if they are based in San FranAlex_P said:
Rob Schneider agrees to appear to be covered in dog shit before shooting his movies, and gets paid for it. That doesn't mean that him publically being shown getting covered in dog shit isn't demeaning.cleverlymadeup said:
only cause you think it is, he on the other hand might not think it isGood morning blues said:
see you might think sex should only happen in the dark and with the doors closed and under the sheets. so any other way of doing it is "demeaning" but it's not necessarily so. if you enjoy what you're doing it's no longer demeaning it's pleasure
