Agreed, I wasn't dismissing contrary opinions or ones that come from the viewer/consumer POV, just that, like you said, it is a two-way street and most here were writing from that perspective, and as I described, some of my friends had some issues with the way that sex workers and producers are portrayed, even in a relevatory light, so I just voiced some of the opinions I have heard and gathered from my conversations with them and experience in the environment. Again, I was merely stating my experience and where I was coming from, not stating I was some arbiter of hidden information. But this conversation is not just limited to "why are women who participate in rough sex porn degraded outside of the confines of work". The fact of the matter is that there is a difference between denigration and shame that is unwarranted, and that which is sought and enjoyed, and it seems that line gets more blurred when it comes to degradation in porn (which is a completely different form) and the degradation that happens in public in response to the participation in porn. These are two separate things and not dissimilar to derision that arises from other issues involving sexuality and expression. They're pretty vocal about it, pay their taxes listing the companies they shot with, as far as I know it's no secret to anyone they see more than once, but I do live in the SF bay area, so there's definitely a skew towards positivity and acceptance. What little I know from some older workers, there is a definite decrease in stigma, but farthest back I can attest to is mid-90s. Still pre-internet ubiqitous-ness though. Yeah, a combination of stuff absorbed through interaction and my own thoughts doesn't really make an assertion, I think I mixed up narratives with maybe something else I had read? I think maybe our personal experiences have differed some, but I only speak on what discussion I have had, my limited critical theory exposure and other reading. As far as my "submissive" comment, I wasn't just limiting the statement to mean only those who are into BDSM, but just the image portrayed, whether it be submissive men in same-sex relationships, or queers of any variety who display characteristics relegated to being "submissive." I need to learn ow to better reel in my scope sometimes. Also, "advertised" can mean a number of things to a number of people. Not just vocally espousing it, or "dressing the part", but just some simple expression which may be overlooked in some invites critique and derision in others. That does not make the perspective invalid.
And I've dated three strippers and did installs at strip clubs.
Women are degraded every day but only a certain subset voluntarily sign up for it in exchange for money.
How many people do they tell they do porn?
This is an assertion, not an argument. Can you back it up?
Here's your misunderstanding: It's not a discussion where perspective matters. We're all here talking because a member of the adult entertainment industry attempted to avoid the stigmas of the adult entertainment industry and failed. Yes, the argument is that the adult entertainment industry shouldn't be stigmatized but I'm sorry, that's never going to happen. This isn't something like apartheid or religious prejudice is an overwhelming, non-positive evil that should simply go away - half the draw of pornography is in its "forbidden" nature. Ever read Lady Chatterly's Lover? Boring damn book. But it's got a few prurient passages so OH SHIT PORN. Banned, persecuted, Victorian Bestseller's list. It's not like there weren't hookers in Whitechapel but read a forbidden book and boy howdy - what a rush. Nowadays Lady Chatterley doesn't have much on Twilight and the stigma is gone... suddenly nobody cares. So "acceptance of porn" will happen right around the time of "death of porn" for the simple reason that the taboo is the life blood of the industry. It is. The consequences of the author's actions were a known risk. They were a peril deliberately undertaken. They were a completely avoidable risk. That puts this discussion wholly and completely outside the realm of "she was asking for it because she wore a miniskirt." Both are wholly avoidable perils. Both are the direct consequence of willful participation in taboo employment. The line isn't blurred at all - it's to the left of both of these subjects and rests squarely on "monetary transaction." I think our personal experiences are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.it is a two-way street and most here were writing from that perspective,
But this conversation is not just limited to "why are women who participate in rough sex porn degraded outside of the confines of work".
it seems that line gets more blurred when it comes to degradation in porn (which is a completely different form) and the degradation that happens in public in response to the participation in porn.
I think maybe our personal experiences have differed some,