NobleCon wrote:Though, none must endure sexual cruelty.
I fear that you missed my point, that we all endure cruelties. Merely the variety of cruelty that varies. For a pornography actress, they may or may not be sexual. Within other industries the cruelties may be sexual or they may be physical, emotional, etc.
Quick anecdote. When I worked at a burger joint many years ago, a manager made one of the counter-staff scrub a toilet smiling the whole time because she wasn't smiling enough for the customers.
Quote:That interaction- that form of sexual communication- represents only a sexual appetite for such action; mostly, these are the appetites of the majority of men. It is this interaction that, depicted in many films and on many web pages, places the male in a dominant position and the female as the "slave."
I've seen a few pornographic films and magazines in my day. They're not particularly my cup of tea, I've always been more into romantic fiction but that's just an aesthetic matter to me. The point of the matter is that pornography is a wide and diverse area in which many interests are catered to. Saying that pornography consists of submissive females and dominant males is a broad generalisation of a vast genre.
I'm also curious how you are familiar with the sexual appetites of the majority of men. Is there a study I am not familiar with or is this through personal experience?
Quote:This, to me, represents a sort of sexual cruelty.
Cruelty to whom? Clearly not the actress, (since you've said their willingness/enjoyment is irrelevant). Clearly not to the viewer. Society in general?
I find myself unsure of your exact point. Would you object to this enslavement of... let's say a cartoon character?