Would you work...

I'm not saying it, they are. Self-reported rates of being under the influence while on screen vary from 70-99%.
Citation?
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.
Right, but those kids are still being taken advantage of and exploited, and possibly sexually abused behind closed doors. The point is, they are still selling underage sex.

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.
Of course it does. This goes back to the other thread Bullgrit started about the one nighters, and the U.S. having all these sexual hangups. The porn industry has always been seen as some evil thing because sex is bad. Whenever you get one of these news stories about some underage kid performing in it, it's a gotcha! moment, and the media jumps all over it. The same rarely happens in Hollywood, it seems.
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.
So because the Coreys' sexual abuse wasn't sold as a product it isn't as bad? Also, have you considered the B-movie side of Hollywood? Most of those movies are just T&A movies where young girls and put on screen and they simulate sex. While it's not actual sex (assuming that actual sex never occurs), I'm betting there are some actors who also use drugs to get through those scenes.

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.
The fact is, there is no way to prove that claim. There is no way you can prove that more people are victimized in porn than in Hollywood. Sure, you might be right, the porn industry could be significantly worse than Hollywood. You could also be wrong, and Hollywood could be significantly worse than the porn industry. In fact, the rate of victimization could be exactly the same in both industries. By the way, I'm not saying one is better/worse than the other. I'm saying we can't be sure.

In any case, saying that you have a "moral dilemma" that prevents you from working in one industry compared to another because of "the degree" to which you perceive it to occur in one industry seems like a cop-out. It's still occurring in both industries. So it isn't what is happening in the industry that bothers you, it's just how much you think it happens.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

WayneLigon

Adventurer
...in the porn industry? Not necessarily as an actor.
No real problem.
...as a car salesman?
Certainly. No reason not to. I doubt a significant number of car salesmen are liars.
...as a drug traffickers?
Probably not, for the hugely increased likelihood of a sudden and violent death, or years of imprisonment. If it was what I had to do to put food on the table, though, sure.
...as a politician?
Have no problem with that.
...as a soldier?
Have no problem with that.
...as a tobacco PR rep?
That would be pretty dicey. I'd either have to need to money pretty badly, or it be a really, really good check.
... in the Hollywood movie industry?
Have no problem with that.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
The fact is, there is no way to prove that claim.

Well, he's not trying to indict someone. He's just trying to determine, for himself, if he'd work in that industry. This isn't a court of law, and the standards of proof need only be his own.

Is this thread about stating our own thoughts, or about justifying them to your personal satisfaction and standards of proof, rather than our own?

In any case, saying that you have a "moral dilemma" that prevents you from working in one industry compared to another because of "the degree" to which you perceive it to occur in one industry seems like a cop-out.

Hardly. Perfection is not allowed to us in this world, but that doesn't mean we cannot set minimum personal standards.
 

Well, he's not trying to indict someone. He's just trying to determine, for himself, if he'd work in that industry. This isn't a court of law, and the standards of proof need only be his own.
Right, so as I mentioned, it isn't about what actually happens, it's about how much it is perceived to happen that determines why someone wouldn't want to work in a particular industry. Which is why I don't understand the "moral dilemma" people keep claiming. If it's just that it occurs at a higher rate that makes it unsavory to someone, fine, I can accept that. However, that isn't what has been said. Or maybe it was, and I just missed it.
Is this thread about stating our own thoughts, or about justifying them to your personal satisfaction and standards of proof, rather than our own?
It's about you bowing down to me and worshiping me as your true Squirrel God.

Or, you know, just me wondering about why people don't want to work in a particular industry. I figured it would be fine to ask for clarification about a reason if it wasn't clear to me. Have I overstepped some rule/boundary by asking? Is that not allowed?

Hardly. Perfection is not allowed to us in this world, but that doesn't mean we cannot set minimum personal standards.
So what's your set minimum? Why is it set at that minimum?
 
Last edited:

Zombie_Babies

First Post
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.

That's sort of taking a company or two and saying the entire industry is to blame for what they did. That's ... nuts and it would mean that - if you're (general) true to your moral code - you'd not be able to work for anyone anywhere. Hell, he's a lawyer. Lawyers have done some horrendously unethical stuff, no? So how come the law as a business gets a pass when porn as a business doesn't? It's bad logic, IMO.
 

1] never - those folks are parasites
2] never - moral reasons
3] never - those folks are parasites
4] I would, I did I am happy to have done this, I wanted to do this for life.
5] No frickin way. I think it should be apperent

forgot the porn industry: no - moral delimma
I just noticed the "moral reasons" response to the car saleman job. I'm curious, what moral reasons do you have for not working as a car salesman?
 



Scott DeWar

Prof. Emeritus-Supernatural Events/Countermeasure
I just noticed the "moral reasons" response to the car salesman job. I'm curious, what moral reasons do you have for not working as a car salesman?

I have know many car sales persons and I would not trust any of them as far as I could comfortably spit a rat. Since I would never put a rat in my mouth to spit it out in the first place, I defiantly couldn't COMFORTABLY spit one. They were all just as bad as slick talkin politicians
 

I have know many car sales persons and I would not trust any of them as far as I could comfortably spit a rat. Since I would never put a rat in my mouth to spit it out in the first place, I defiantly couldn't COMFORTABLY spit one. They were all just as bad as slick talkin politicians
Okay, that makes sense. However, do you think you have to be like them in order to be good at the position? Do you have to be like them to even just sell cars?
 

Remove ads

Top