The Case of Pornography

I wish to know why is it that the development of modern pornography has evolved into the "slave-handling" of women that participate in it? The models that involve themselves degrade themselves into sex slaves without borders, and I find it revolting.

Is it anything more than abusive prostitution- money for sex-slavery?

A "normal" job, as with an accountant or a auto mechanic, does not require physical abuse in order for one to obtain a pay-check. One does not have to practically ingest a penis to the point of tears or "throwing-up" in order to pay the rent or purchase food.

Have you seen the acts performed by these men for the sake of "quality" adult filming?"

But it "resembles" it, to say the least. Compare it to the pornography of the the 70's and 80's.

What is wrong with this view of mine? That some actresses, whether on web-pages or video, or both, seem, at certain moments, to be treated as if they were indeed the slave to the man's full lot of sexual desires?

No tcis, he was not the equivalenet of a gladiator-slave on his way to the slaughter...

NobleCon wrote:

No tcis, he was not the equivalenet of a gladiator-slave on his way to the slaughter...

Why not?

If a porn star is a sex slave, by your reasoning, an athlete is a gladiator-slave. I see no difference.

***

Perhaps we are arguing semantics. Are you a philosophy major?

***

1. If you are simply saying that "it appears the women are looking like sex slaves and are enacting sex-slave type acts in some of the movies" I'd agree with that.

2. But if you are saying "they are in reality slaves and are being forced to do porn and these disgusting things against their will or without prior knowledge of what they are getting into" then I totally disagree.

Which statement above are you trying to make, 1 or 2?

Or is it 3? Because your original post seems much closer to #2, and I totally disagree with that one.

Very good.

Thank you for explaining.

It appears that after all this, we pretty much agree after all!

Thats funny. The vagaries of cyber-debate.

***

What I find a bit disgusting about the entire deal is the amount of bizarre twisted pornos that are out there. The slave thing is but one example.

What I am getting at is that I am continually amazed at some of the seemingly sick stuff that turns people on.

I mean this aside from the discussion of the lives of the actors. They are doing the job they chose (as much as some don't want to admit it).

I am just surprised at the number of golden shower, S&M, severe bondage, almost tortuous pornos out there.

I mean, for there to be this many of these things on the market, there must be a heck of a lot of people that are into this stuff.

We humans are a sick bunch!

Isn't anyone turned on by just one woman and one man having affectionate relations anymore?

Does there always have to be a whip or chain or handcuffs or a rubber ball involved?

The strange thing seems to be, I'd venture to say MOST women like this type of thing once in awhile. Not all the time, but once in awhile.

You ask if anyone is turned on by "traditional" relations anymore? There are some out there...so I hope.

No. Firstly, a porn star is not a sex slave; she may resemble one at times, either by her own volition or by the script,

Yes, of course we agree. I have attempted to say only that within certain venues such sexual acts carried out on the females "resemble" outright slave-handling.

Weird people, maybe; mentally deficient, most certainly.

You ask if anyone is turned on by "traditional" relations anymore? There are some out there...so I hope.

Parados, are you certain of this response? In other words, have you read it prior to its posting and found absolutely no errors in it?

Those two statements make perfect sense, in that the one qualifies the other, and vice versa. As for the "black" people in Amistad, well, let us think this over...

A movie such as that involves the script, the actors carrying out the script, and so on. We know the story and the plot, the ending as well. In an adult movie, the script is minute in details and story, and the actresses constitute the prime objective of that script. More, the actresses "are" the script, and the script revolves around that. But this is secondary.

On this note of yours, I say that the actor, or the "black" actor as you put it, does not involve himself or herself in the same sorts of activity as the adult actress; torture scenes perhaps, but not that the activity is the movie. In adult movies, the activity is the movie, and the actresses, for the most part, are the activity. You can not equate the two: one is historical- factual at that- that depicts the historical record, the other is anything but historical, and the activity of the latter is the entire movie. The formats are not equivalent, and so the objectives are not equivalent; then, your comparison is not just.

As for the rest of your reply, it underakes an assumption that is just that: an open assumption of your own doing. I will tell you that it is false entirely, and you continued onward with it without question. Thank you for such consideration.

I am naive, my sexual attitudes that is? Please qualify...