Would you work...

Homicidal_Squirrel · Feb 25, 2014

Umbran said:
It's allowed, but.. the method left something to be desired. Check your your "seeking clarification":

"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."

I dunno about you, but when I want to know something, I ask a question. "Dude, that's a cop out!" is not a question, it is a judgement. How is it seeking anything, except in a passive-aggressive way?

The question was asked in a previous post:

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
Just want to be clear; are you saying that all porn actors have to be on drugs to perform?
Right, and a subset of hollywood studios sexualize kids in order to sell products.
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.

The post you quoted was a restatement, which I didn't think required for it to be stated as a question again.

My minimum, clearly, is somewhere between movies and porn. I don't think I can articulate it in a consistent and clear way beyond that - too much of ethical judgement is dependent on the details.

Why is it where it is? Because it makes *sense* to me.

That's not very clear, actually. Would you mind sharing some of those details?

Umbran · Feb 25, 2014

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
That's not very clear, actually. Would you mind sharing some of those details?

I'm not actually interested in getting into the details with you. Sorry.

Dannyalcatraz · Feb 25, 2014

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Again, one is an incidental and potential crime versus the intentional product of the industry. The first is peripheral, the second is the entire point. One is a fiction, the other is a crime.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

I have no problem with porn per se. I have a problem with the porn industry as it currently operates. Big difference.

So because the Coreys' sexual abuse wasn't sold as a product it isn't as bad?

No, but the opprobrium does not intrinsically attach to Hollywood. Again, their victimization was incidental to the product. They were not drugged it sexually assaulted in order to produce their movies. In porn, however, such victimization is crucial to the production of the product. Sometimes, it is even the point,

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.

And while that is much closer to the porn industry in overall sleaze, it still doesn't rise to...errr...sink to the same depths.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

About 50% of human trafficking cases prosecuted in the USA are sexual exploitation cases. Most are just prostitution cases, but a subset of those are for the primary purpose of the production of porn- usually child porn, but some adults (almost all women) as well.

Here's a couple of cases from the USDoJ where the human trafficking victims were filmed and had their images sold for profit:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news2013/stokes.sen.html
http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/2012/120217-03.html

Hollywood simply doesn't do that. They don't need to.

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.

Again, Hollywood doesn't need to drug or kidnap its actors to make movies. Enough in the porn industry do, though.

Does Hollywood exploit children? To a certain extent yes, but that is n the decline, and in most cases that remain, the parents are complicit. And the commercial product released to the public is one of fiction.

In contrast, when porn exploits children, it is with force, drugs, and without family consent. The end product is also evidence of an actual crime.

Homicidal_Squirrel · Feb 25, 2014

Dannyalcatraz said:
Actually, I already provided a link to a website where porn performers reported their own experiences with drugs and their perception of the drug use of their fellow performers.

I missed it. Which one is that Was it in this thread?

Here's another post, though, from Shelley Lubben (who, BTW quotes another porn star's blog on use):
http://www.covenanteyes.com/2008/10/29/ex-porn-star-tells-the-truth-part-2/

And another: http://henrymakow.com/the_porn_industry.html

You can also find non-Grandma friendly (language) discussions of it from ex-performers like Jennie Ketcham, a drunken interview with Taylor Rain and testimony from Regan Starr, Jersey Jaxin, Trent Roe, Linda Lovelace and others.

I've heard of the Pink Cross people. They seem to be wanting to do the right thing, but Shelley Lubben some times comes off as kind of crazy. In any case, I'm sure they are right about some of the cases they are talking about; however, I know that isn't the case for all. I know because I have a friend who does porn. So yeah, it's true that some of them take drugs to do the sex scenes. My friend for example took some herbal version of viagra in order to hump some really fat girl he said had a face like a bulldog and was sweating like crazy. Funny enough, his girlfriend was the one that got him into the porn industry.

Further, in the International Journal of Sexual Health in September 2012, Shippensburg University in Pennsylvania psychologist James Griffith and his colleagues reported (among other things) that the stereotype that porn stars use more drugs (esp. marijuana) than the average person was at least partially true.

Does that study indicate what the drug use is for? Why they do it? I'm sure a similar study conducted about Hollywood actors would probably turn out similar results. I'm betting alcohol abuse is a problem in both industries.

(Caveat: porn stars are reluctant to cooperate with researchers, so his data does have issues. They also have an average career in the biz of 18 months or less, so that skews things as well.)

We also have testimony that drug use in the porn industry is not universal- Kayden Kross, an adult film actress and writer, claims to be drug free and refuses to work on screen with those who indulge.

Exactly my point. I'm not denying that this kind of stuff happens in the porn industry. I'm just wondering why, if similar things happen in Hollywood's entertainment industry, you would have a moral dilemma with one industry but not the other. To me, it appears that it is based off of the rate of occurrance, not what is actually occurring.

In any case, I think we've derailed this thread enough, and there are others who seem to be getting a bit upset about the discussion we are having, for one reason or another. So, in order to not further derail this thread, I created another thread. Let's just get back to the original topic here, and if you want, we can go further into this porn VS Hollywood topic in the other thread.

Homicidal_Squirrel · Feb 25, 2014

Umbran said:
I'm not actually interested in getting into the details with you. Sorry.

Your loss.

/Moving on.

Homicidal_Squirrel · Feb 25, 2014

Dannyalcatraz said:
[sblock]Again, one is an incidental and potential crime versus the intentional product of the industry. The first is peripheral, the second is the entire point. One is a fiction, the other is a crime.

I have no problem with porn per se. I have a problem with the porn industry as it currently operates. Big difference.

No, but the opprobrium does not intrinsically attach to Hollywood. Again, their victimization was incidental to the product. They were not drugged it sexually assaulted in order to produce their movies. In porn, however, such victimization is crucial to the production of the product. Sometimes, it is even the point,

And while that is much closer to the porn industry in overall sleaze, it still doesn't rise to...errr...sink to the same depths.

About 50% of human trafficking cases prosecuted in the USA are sexual exploitation cases. Most are just prostitution cases, but a subset of those are for the primary purpose of the production of porn- usually child porn, but some adults (almost all women) as well.

Here's a couple of cases from the USDoJ where the human trafficking victims were filmed and had their images sold for profit:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/mow/news2013/stokes.sen.html
http://www.justice.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/2012/120217-03.html

Hollywood simply doesn't do that. They don't need to.

Again, Hollywood doesn't need to drug or kidnap its actors to make movies. Enough in the porn industry do, though.

Does Hollywood exploit children? To a certain extent yes, but that is n the decline, and in most cases that remain, the parents are complicit. And the commercial product released to the public is one of fiction.

In contrast, when porn exploits children, it is with force, drugs, and without family consent. The end product is also evidence of an actual crime.[/sblock]

All very interesting, but it's just going further off topic in this thread. I started a thread where that discussion would fit better.

Dannyalcatraz · Feb 25, 2014

To answer your question, I provided the first such link in post #25 in this thread, HS.

Homicidal_Squirrel · Feb 25, 2014

Dannyalcatraz said:
To answer your question, I provided the first such link in post #25 in this thread, HS.

Yup, I totally missed it. I thought your link was going to be to an actual study where a certain number of adult performers were surveyed.

So here is another question, would you work in the diamond industry?

sabrinathecat · Feb 25, 2014

Scott DeWar said:
I would feel like I have ~~dived~~ dove into a cesspool, if you know what I mean.

Funny, thats to be how I feel when I watch most popular drama series these days.

Dannyalcatraz · Feb 25, 2014

Homicidal_Squirrel said:
So here is another question, would you work in the diamond industry?

What kind of data are you mining for, HS? Every industry has an unsavory side.

Diamond mining? The Blood/Conflict diamond controversy is well documented, as is the fact that most mines that aren't involved at all, and that the industry sandard involves a lot of engraving and tracking of diamonds.

And mining of diamonds and other materials have other issues as well: labor, environmental hazards, conflicts over land & water usage with other land owners, etc.

Furniture & instruments? The acquisition of rare woods and organic materials has been linked to environmental waste, poaching, murder and even terrorism.

And?