Would you work...

Olgar Shiverstone · Feb 24, 2014

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
It makes me wonder why people have a moral dilemma with working in the adult industry and not hollywood.

Hollywood wasn't on the list in the original question.

Homicidal_Squirrel · Feb 24, 2014

Olgar Shiverstone said:
Hollywood wasn't on the list in the original question.

Lies!

Umbran · Feb 24, 2014

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.
...as a car salesman?
...as a drug traffickers?
...as a politician?
...as a soldier?
...as a tabacco PR rep?
... in the Hollywood movie industry?
Why/why not?

Car salesman, sure. I don't know if I'd be the best at it, but I have no objection to selling things to people. Politician is similar - my personal ethics probably mean I wouldn't do well. I've no general issue with being in the military, either - I almost used it to finance my education.

Drug trafficker and Tobacco industry - no thanks.

Porn - I have no moral problem with the basic idea of the media. I have problems with what I understand to be the current implementation of the business. The levels of victimization of performers is too high for my tastes.

While Hollywood does have its excesses, my understanding is that it is much, much more clean than porn. Given my personal skills, I'd probably be in the animation or special effects end of the house, which is only about as bad as any other business, by my understanding.

Zombie_Babies · Feb 24, 2014

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.

Yup. I'd even act if the circumstances were right. Never much minded people watching.

...as a car salesman?

Nope. I could sell the hell out of cars cuz I know 'em and like 'em and I'm very charismatic when I want to be plus I can present myself in a very trustworthy way. The reason I say no is because I don't want to live on commission. I like a salary. I did sort of seasonal work at one time and never knowing how much money my check was gonna be for until the week was over sucked pretty hard.

...as a drug traffickers?

Nope. Too much risk.

...as a politician?

Nope. Too much bureaucracy and, you know, bribes. That's all good until you get caught.

...as a soldier?

This is one I could do but I don't think I want to. Er, at least not at 35 years old.

...as a tabacco PR rep?

Yep. Hell, it'd be a lot of fun to expose all of the lies Truth tells.

... in the Hollywood movie industry?

Free money? Sign me up.

Dannyalcatraz · Feb 24, 2014

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
Right, yet there seems to be a pretty big problem with drugs. Lots of child stars seem to end up in rehab. It's not as if drug use is a minor thing in Hollywood.

Again, we're talking about degrees. Sure there's drug use in Hollywood. Add to that on the stage of Broadway and in rock venues everywhere around the world. And in corporate boardrooms. And in parish rectories. Drug use is not unique to porn.

What is different is that in the porn industry, some performers are either self-medicating or being drugged in order to enable them to perform, begging the question of ability to legally consent. This isn't speculation, this is a spectre raised by performers themselves.

As for the underage sex? There's a lot of people who have come forward and said they have been sexually abused as kids in Hollywood. Cory Felman and Cory Heim seem to be two of the worst. Then there is the guy who played Elmo, and there has been managers, talent agents, and others. It's not as if it doesn't happen, it's just not made very public.

Sexual abuse of the underaged occurs to some degree in every business or institution in which there is mixing of adults in kids- but only (a subset of) pornographers actually market it as a product for sale. That's a key distinction.

In any case, my actual point is that regardless of industry, you're going to find that there is an unsavory side to it. The adult industry isn't the only industry with this kind of stuff. It makes me wonder why people have a moral dilemma with working in the adult industry and not hollywood

It's a matter of degrees.

Homicidal_Squirrel · Feb 24, 2014

Dannyalcatraz said:
Again, we're talking about degrees. Sure there's drug use in Hollywood. Add to that on the stage of Broadway and in rock venues everywhere around the world. And in corporate boardrooms. And in parish rectories. Drug use is not unique to porn.

What is different is that in the porn industry, some performers are either self-medicating or being drugged in order to enable them to perform, begging the question of ability to legally consent. This isn't speculation, this is a spectre raised by performers themselves.

Just want to be clear; are you saying that all porn actors have to be on drugs to perform?

Sexual abuse of the underaged occurs to some degree in every business or institution in which there is mixing of adults in kids- but only (a subset of) pornographers actually market it as a product for sale. That's a key distinction.

Right, and a subset of hollywood studios sexualize kids in order to sell products.

It's a matter of degrees.

So really your "moral dilemma" isn't so much what is happening, just the extent to which you perceive it to be happening? The only difference between Hollywood and porn is the amount of coverage it gets when something happens.

Dannyalcatraz · Feb 24, 2014

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
Just want to be clear; are you saying that all porn actors have to be on drugs to perform?

I'm not saying it, they are. Self-reported rates of being under the influence while on screen vary from 70-99%.

Right, and a subset of hollywood studios sexualize kids in order to sell products.

Sexualizatuon of kids is bad, and it's not limited to Hollywood.

But films of sex with the underaged released as a product is worse.

So really your "moral dilemma" isn't so much what is happening, just the extent to which you perceive it to be happening? The only difference between Hollywood and porn is the amount of coverage it gets when something happens.

No, the difference is the degrees of actual problematic behavior. Media attention has zero to do with it- the incidental vices of Hollywood are the business model of porn.

The 2 Coreys were drugged out and abused, but they weren't drugged so that they could perform; they weren't sexually abused on screen as part of one of their films. They didn't make films against their will or without knowing they were being filmed. OTOH, there are porn actors who had exactly those things happen to them.

Don't get me wrong- there are activists who are doing their damndest to clean up the porn industry, and it IS getting better. But the porn world is orders of magnitude more dependent on victimization of "the talent" than is Hollywood.

Zombie_Babies · Feb 24, 2014

Underage porn is illegal and falls outside the bounds of what we consider 'porn'. HS didn't ask if you'd work in kiddie porn, he asked if you'd work in porn.

Bullgrit · Feb 24, 2014

delericho said:
Like Bullgrit, I find that each of these inherently conflicts with something in my ethics.

Huh? Did you just confuse Dannyalcatraz for me?

Bullgrit

Umbran · Feb 24, 2014

Zombie_Babies said:
Underage porn is illegal and falls outside the bounds of what we consider 'porn'. HS didn't ask if you'd work in kiddie porn, he asked if you'd work in porn.

He gave reasoning upthread already:

"Ex1) Though they're doing a lot better with their self-policing, the industry still has problems with underage performers. See the Tracy Lords & GGW controversies, separated by decades."

Not speaking for him, but it sounds like there's too high an incidence of failure to enforce age requirements to make it seem an ethical choice.