a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by kleinbl00

    it is a two-way street and most here were writing from that perspective,

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.

    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 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."

    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.

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 maybe our personal experiences have differed some,

I think our personal experiences are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.