That does not make the perspective invalid. Pornography is a two-sided transaction between producers and consumers. Neither are immune from criticism. Both are entitled to their opinions. And I've dated three strippers and did installs at strip clubs. No, but that's the discussion at hand. Women are degraded every day but only a certain subset voluntarily sign up for it in exchange for money. Let's keep our eye on the ball. Right. Her complaint is that the anonymity that protected her from the stigma she was being paid for vanished and she is now being stigmatized. Riddle me this - you've got lots of friends that do porn. How many people do they tell they do porn? Do they advertise their participation in porn? Do they put it on credit applications? The stigma associated with porn is nothing new - I'd even argue it's decreasing. That doesn't mean it's going to go away just because you want it to. If it did, there wouldn't be as much money in it. This is an assertion, not an argument. Can you back it up? And this is not just an assertion, this is a groundless assertion. I've known my fair share of kinks and to a man/woman, they didn't face any consequences unless they advertised it. LoveLine first went on air 10 years ago; Dr. Ruth started more than 30 years ago. "Kinkiness" does not have the stigma that "pornographic entertainer" has.I will say that it is probably a good reminder to everyone that most everything discussed here is from the worldview of the consumer, or those outside of the porn world looking in, and stems from some comparison of your own personal sex life, your relationship with the images that may or may not exist of yourself that mirror, to some degree, those seen in porn.
My partner does porn, runs her own website and films for other content providers.
The thing about this degradation is that it is not simply limited to those that participate in "rough sex" porn.
her complaint does not lie with those who viewed the porn... but instead with the supposed "normal" interactions... between her and many of the male students at her university that now accost and now abuse her, as well as the perceived... egalitarian internet/twitter interactions with a blind populace as to her sex work.
Her response to patriarchy (and more so rape culture) has less to do with the feedback being less than positive, but from outside observers having the revelation that a "normal" person participates in such an "unscrupulous" activity, that somehow this allows the response as seen to be normalized, and before, as a consumer, it is much more so as an "us and them".
This type of feedback that she is responding to is not limited just to an "outed" sex worker, but any such female-bodied person or anyone who reads as "submissive" or enjoys some type of "abuse" (not just abusive porn, but just the mere participation in porn elicits this reaction from people, as if they are abused, and if it is made known they are not, they are labeled obtusely with such things as "whore", "slut" etc.) as a result of patriarchal culture who can only respond to sex-positivity with derision and unwarranted abuse.
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,