Some of the disgusting stuff that is happening in pornography

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women don't WANT to be abused and tortured.

It's a good thing these women are portraying abuse and torture, not being abused and tortured. And yes, the distinction is real and important.

Actually they ARE being abused and tortured. These are real women, in real situations, with real stuff being done to their body.

And yes, the damage done to them is very real and very important.

the women CHOSE to do that. what is it that you cannot understand about someone choosing to do something that you do not like?

Do you really think women are CHOOSING to be sodomized, ejaculated on, gagged, slapped, beaten and throttled? I don't think so. It's amazing how far some people will go to try and justify abuse and torture for titillation but it's not surprising. There's a troll on here that really hates women.

Yes, they chose to do this in exchange for payment.

Also, it may shock you to learn, some people (many of whom are women) DO enjoy these things, even without being paid or filmed.

NP. No one in their right mind would enjoy being beaten, slapped, throttled. You are crazy.

You obvious have nooooo idea about the BDSM society...but you know...ignorance is bliss.

BDSM is a FERISH meaning it's enjoyed by a relatively small portion of the population. And yet what you described in your post is not just fetish work it's part of mainstream porn. Meaning we can be absolutely certain that not everyone who films these scenes is into it. Even still, much of the violence in porn comes as a surprise- omg act, that's the very point of the article OP posted- how painful the actress acted like the sex was because that was the part she was playing and that the male porn star acted like he didn't listen because that was the part he was playing. No women d(lets go with 99% of them to please you ) don't want to have parts of them ripped open, they don't want to be punched, they don't want to hit in the face. ANY logical person knows this, so you arguing against it just reveals you, as the other poster pointed out, to be a misogynist troll. Which is nothing new or exciting, and simply shows how void of compassion and emotionally stunted you are on an article such as this

FIFY

No... it's real acts depicted in porn. Did you think this was special effects filmed on a green screen?

This circular nonsense is getting really old. Stop acting like those real acts aren't consensual and scripted with the full, willing, informed participation of all parties involved.

Many of the acts are not planned or scripted. In fact in the Frontline special a PP was kind enough to link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/ Thanks PP) the porn maker specifically admits that the woman involved does not know the extent of the violent scenario they have planned for her. It happens ALL THE TIME.

And again- does consent make it suddenly alright? If you agree to let someone pull your teeth out for money, is it okay for people to watch it and enjoy it? Does that make it suddenly morally permissible?

Morally permissible? If I want to make money by having someone pay to watch me have my teeth pulled, why yes, I argue, it's entirely morally permissible. What makes you think it is "immoral?"

So you have no problem with "Bum Fights" then? With the story of the homeless man who had hot coffee poured on him for $20?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scripted or reality tv. Nope, still not real.

Yes. Real sex. No green screens here.

We are failing to communicate, aren't we? You're saying that these women have no idea that they're going to be porn actors? I'm saying that they know that. I'm saying that the situations are acted out, they aren't real.

I'm saying, as I said in my previous points, that they often have no clue of what exactly will be entailed in the porn scenes. I explicitly stated that in my other reply but you attempted to ignore that and started a new thread. I can repost if you'd like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scripted or reality tv. Nope, still not real.

Yes. Real sex. No green screens here.

We are failing to communicate, aren't we? You're saying that these women have no idea that they're going to be porn actors? I'm saying that they know that. I'm saying that the situations are acted out, they aren't real.

She/they are arguing this:

1. porn depicts very "depraved" acts

2. "no one" and then, later, "99%" of women would "never" agree to these acts, or actually want to do them

Therefore, all "consent" given through the contract between the studio and the actress is therefore invalid.


Her/their argument is pretty terrible though, since they rest on a massive "begging the question" fallacy. Which, for those of you unfamiliar with the philosophical concept, means to "assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Actually, that's not what I'm saying.

1) I literally never said "depraved". However, that works- to be more specific you could sub in violent, intentionally degrading, etc

2) The vast, vast majority human beings do not want to be punched, throttled, etc

3) Since a huge percentage of pornography involves women (and it's always the woman in male/female porn being treated this way) being subjected to these acts, that means that the vast majority of women you see in porn being treated this way are not turned on, into it, etc.

Being subjected to physical violence is unpleasant as a rule. As human beings we all know this. And yet, when men's boners are being threatened, they will attempt to deny even the most patently true facts. This we know.

Even if (and that is a BIG if - this thing about porn actresses not being "into" it is purely your conjecture) we accept all three of these premises, particularly the bolded,

So what? Why do porn actresses have to be turned on in order to have consent?

You listed three premises. Where is your conclusion?

I'm a woman, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scripted or reality tv. Nope, still not real.

Yes. Real sex. No green screens here.

We are failing to communicate, aren't we? You're saying that these women have no idea that they're going to be porn actors? I'm saying that they know that. I'm saying that the situations are acted out, they aren't real.

She/they are arguing this:

1. porn depicts very "depraved" acts

2. "no one" and then, later, "99%" of women would "never" agree to these acts, or actually want to do them

Therefore, all "consent" given through the contract between the studio and the actress is therefore invalid.


Her/their argument is pretty terrible though, since they rest on a massive "begging the question" fallacy. Which, for those of you unfamiliar with the philosophical concept, means to "assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Actually, that's not what I'm saying.

1) I literally never said "depraved". However, that works- to be more specific you could sub in violent, intentionally degrading, etc

2) The vast, vast majority human beings do not want to be punched, throttled, etc

3) Since a huge percentage of pornography involves women (and it's always the woman in male/female porn being treated this way) being subjected to these acts, that means that the vast majority of women you see in porn being treated this way are not turned on, into it, etc.

Being subjected to physical violence is unpleasant as a rule. As human beings we all know this. And yet, when men's boners are being threatened, they will attempt to deny even the most patently true facts. This we know.

Even if (and that is a BIG if - this thing about porn actresses not being "into" it is purely your conjecture) we accept all three of these premises, particularly the bolded,

So what? Why do porn actresses have to be turned on in order to have consent?

You listed three premises. Where is your conclusion?

I'm a woman, btw.

My point is that you are watching human beings being submitted to violence and abuse, that chances are, they are not in the tiny minority of people who are turned on by it. And that violence and abuse is wrong.

Sad that you have to spell these things out, but on DCUM that's the level of compassion we're at...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women don't WANT to be abused and tortured.

It's a good thing these women are portraying abuse and torture, not being abused and tortured. And yes, the distinction is real and important.

Actually they ARE being abused and tortured. These are real women, in real situations, with real stuff being done to their body.

And yes, the damage done to them is very real and very important.

the women CHOSE to do that. what is it that you cannot understand about someone choosing to do something that you do not like?

Do you really think women are CHOOSING to be sodomized, ejaculated on, gagged, slapped, beaten and throttled? I don't think so. It's amazing how far some people will go to try and justify abuse and torture for titillation but it's not surprising. There's a troll on here that really hates women.

Yes, they chose to do this in exchange for payment.

Also, it may shock you to learn, some people (many of whom are women) DO enjoy these things, even without being paid or filmed.

NP. No one in their right mind would enjoy being beaten, slapped, throttled. You are crazy.

You obvious have nooooo idea about the BDSM society...but you know...ignorance is bliss.

BDSM is a FERISH meaning it's enjoyed by a relatively small portion of the population. And yet what you described in your post is not just fetish work it's part of mainstream porn. Meaning we can be absolutely certain that not everyone who films these scenes is into it. Even still, much of the violence in porn comes as a surprise- omg act, that's the very point of the article OP posted- how painful the actress acted like the sex was because that was the part she was playing and that the male porn star acted like he didn't listen because that was the part he was playing. No women d(lets go with 99% of them to please you ) don't want to have parts of them ripped open, they don't want to be punched, they don't want to hit in the face. ANY logical person knows this, so you arguing against it just reveals you, as the other poster pointed out, to be a misogynist troll. Which is nothing new or exciting, and simply shows how void of compassion and emotionally stunted you are on an article such as this

FIFY

No... it's real acts depicted in porn. Did you think this was special effects filmed on a green screen?

This circular nonsense is getting really old. Stop acting like those real acts aren't consensual and scripted with the full, willing, informed participation of all parties involved.

Many of the acts are not planned or scripted. In fact in the Frontline special a PP was kind enough to link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/ Thanks PP) the porn maker specifically admits that the woman involved does not know the extent of the violent scenario they have planned for her. It happens ALL THE TIME.

And again- does consent make it suddenly alright? If you agree to let someone pull your teeth out for money, is it okay for people to watch it and enjoy it? Does that make it suddenly morally permissible?

Morally permissible? If I want to make money by having someone pay to watch me have my teeth pulled, why yes, I argue, it's entirely morally permissible. What makes you think it is "immoral?"

So you have no problem with "Bum Fights" then? With the story of the homeless man who had hot coffee poured on him for $20?

First, why do you think it's immoral for someone to pay me to watch me have my teeth pulled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scripted or reality tv. Nope, still not real.

Yes. Real sex. No green screens here.

We are failing to communicate, aren't we? You're saying that these women have no idea that they're going to be porn actors? I'm saying that they know that. I'm saying that the situations are acted out, they aren't real.

She/they are arguing this:

1. porn depicts very "depraved" acts

2. "no one" and then, later, "99%" of women would "never" agree to these acts, or actually want to do them

Therefore, all "consent" given through the contract between the studio and the actress is therefore invalid.


Her/their argument is pretty terrible though, since they rest on a massive "begging the question" fallacy. Which, for those of you unfamiliar with the philosophical concept, means to "assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Actually, that's not what I'm saying.

1) I literally never said "depraved". However, that works- to be more specific you could sub in violent, intentionally degrading, etc

2) The vast, vast majority human beings do not want to be punched, throttled, etc

3) Since a huge percentage of pornography involves women (and it's always the woman in male/female porn being treated this way) being subjected to these acts, that means that the vast majority of women you see in porn being treated this way are not turned on, into it, etc.

Being subjected to physical violence is unpleasant as a rule. As human beings we all know this. And yet, when men's boners are being threatened, they will attempt to deny even the most patently true facts. This we know.

Even if (and that is a BIG if - this thing about porn actresses not being "into" it is purely your conjecture) we accept all three of these premises, particularly the bolded,

So what? Why do porn actresses have to be turned on in order to have consent?

You listed three premises. Where is your conclusion?

I'm a woman, btw.

My point is that you are watching human beings being submitted to violence and abuse, that chances are, they are not in the tiny minority of people who are turned on by it. And that violence and abuse is wrong.

Sad that you have to spell these things out, but on DCUM that's the level of compassion we're at...

No, you said this was about the actors and how they basically can't consent. Making it about the audience is a different topic

So why is it that a woman cannot agree to act in a porn clip where she is also not turned on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scripted or reality tv. Nope, still not real.

Yes. Real sex. No green screens here.

We are failing to communicate, aren't we? You're saying that these women have no idea that they're going to be porn actors? I'm saying that they know that. I'm saying that the situations are acted out, they aren't real.

She/they are arguing this:

1. porn depicts very "depraved" acts

2. "no one" and then, later, "99%" of women would "never" agree to these acts, or actually want to do them

Therefore, all "consent" given through the contract between the studio and the actress is therefore invalid.


Her/their argument is pretty terrible though, since they rest on a massive "begging the question" fallacy. Which, for those of you unfamiliar with the philosophical concept, means to "assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Actually, that's not what I'm saying.

1) I literally never said "depraved". However, that works- to be more specific you could sub in violent, intentionally degrading, etc

2) The vast, vast majority human beings do not want to be punched, throttled, etc

3) Since a huge percentage of pornography involves women (and it's always the woman in male/female porn being treated this way) being subjected to these acts, that means that the vast majority of women you see in porn being treated this way are not turned on, into it, etc.

Being subjected to physical violence is unpleasant as a rule. As human beings we all know this. And yet, when men's boners are being threatened, they will attempt to deny even the most patently true facts. This we know.

Even if (and that is a BIG if - this thing about porn actresses not being "into" it is purely your conjecture) we accept all three of these premises, particularly the bolded,

So what? Why do porn actresses have to be turned on in order to have consent?

You listed three premises. Where is your conclusion?

I'm a woman, btw.

My point is that you are watching human beings being submitted to violence and abuse, that chances are, they are not in the tiny minority of people who are turned on by it. And that violence and abuse is wrong.

Sad that you have to spell these things out, but on DCUM that's the level of compassion we're at...

As people were lamenting at the very beginning of this thread, it's not just men but also women who are turned on by all of this. We may be too old for it, but that doesn't negate what young people want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women don't WANT to be abused and tortured.

It's a good thing these women are portraying abuse and torture, not being abused and tortured. And yes, the distinction is real and important.

Actually they ARE being abused and tortured. These are real women, in real situations, with real stuff being done to their body.

And yes, the damage done to them is very real and very important.

the women CHOSE to do that. what is it that you cannot understand about someone choosing to do something that you do not like?

Do you really think women are CHOOSING to be sodomized, ejaculated on, gagged, slapped, beaten and throttled? I don't think so. It's amazing how far some people will go to try and justify abuse and torture for titillation but it's not surprising. There's a troll on here that really hates women.

Yes, they chose to do this in exchange for payment.

Also, it may shock you to learn, some people (many of whom are women) DO enjoy these things, even without being paid or filmed.

NP. No one in their right mind would enjoy being beaten, slapped, throttled. You are crazy.

You obvious have nooooo idea about the BDSM society...but you know...ignorance is bliss.

BDSM is a FERISH meaning it's enjoyed by a relatively small portion of the population. And yet what you described in your post is not just fetish work it's part of mainstream porn. Meaning we can be absolutely certain that not everyone who films these scenes is into it. Even still, much of the violence in porn comes as a surprise- omg act, that's the very point of the article OP posted- how painful the actress acted like the sex was because that was the part she was playing and that the male porn star acted like he didn't listen because that was the part he was playing. No women d(lets go with 99% of them to please you ) don't want to have parts of them ripped open, they don't want to be punched, they don't want to hit in the face. ANY logical person knows this, so you arguing against it just reveals you, as the other poster pointed out, to be a misogynist troll. Which is nothing new or exciting, and simply shows how void of compassion and emotionally stunted you are on an article such as this

FIFY

No... it's real acts depicted in porn. Did you think this was special effects filmed on a green screen?

This circular nonsense is getting really old. Stop acting like those real acts aren't consensual and scripted with the full, willing, informed participation of all parties involved.

Many of the acts are not planned or scripted. In fact in the Frontline special a PP was kind enough to link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/ Thanks PP) the porn maker specifically admits that the woman involved does not know the extent of the violent scenario they have planned for her. It happens ALL THE TIME.

And again- does consent make it suddenly alright? If you agree to let someone pull your teeth out for money, is it okay for people to watch it and enjoy it? Does that make it suddenly morally permissible?

Morally permissible? If I want to make money by having someone pay to watch me have my teeth pulled, why yes, I argue, it's entirely morally permissible. What makes you think it is "immoral?"

So you have no problem with "Bum Fights" then? With the story of the homeless man who had hot coffee poured on him for $20?

First, why do you think it's immoral for someone to pay me to watch me have my teeth pulled?

You're fine with people jerking off to you writhing in pain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women don't WANT to be abused and tortured.

It's a good thing these women are portraying abuse and torture, not being abused and tortured. And yes, the distinction is real and important.

Actually they ARE being abused and tortured. These are real women, in real situations, with real stuff being done to their body.

And yes, the damage done to them is very real and very important.

the women CHOSE to do that. what is it that you cannot understand about someone choosing to do something that you do not like?

Do you really think women are CHOOSING to be sodomized, ejaculated on, gagged, slapped, beaten and throttled? I don't think so. It's amazing how far some people will go to try and justify abuse and torture for titillation but it's not surprising. There's a troll on here that really hates women.

Yes, they chose to do this in exchange for payment.

Also, it may shock you to learn, some people (many of whom are women) DO enjoy these things, even without being paid or filmed.

NP. No one in their right mind would enjoy being beaten, slapped, throttled. You are crazy.

You obvious have nooooo idea about the BDSM society...but you know...ignorance is bliss.

BDSM is a FERISH meaning it's enjoyed by a relatively small portion of the population. And yet what you described in your post is not just fetish work it's part of mainstream porn. Meaning we can be absolutely certain that not everyone who films these scenes is into it. Even still, much of the violence in porn comes as a surprise- omg act, that's the very point of the article OP posted- how painful the actress acted like the sex was because that was the part she was playing and that the male porn star acted like he didn't listen because that was the part he was playing. No women d(lets go with 99% of them to please you ) don't want to have parts of them ripped open, they don't want to be punched, they don't want to hit in the face. ANY logical person knows this, so you arguing against it just reveals you, as the other poster pointed out, to be a misogynist troll. Which is nothing new or exciting, and simply shows how void of compassion and emotionally stunted you are on an article such as this

FIFY

No... it's real acts depicted in porn. Did you think this was special effects filmed on a green screen?

This circular nonsense is getting really old. Stop acting like those real acts aren't consensual and scripted with the full, willing, informed participation of all parties involved.

Many of the acts are not planned or scripted. In fact in the Frontline special a PP was kind enough to link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/ Thanks PP) the porn maker specifically admits that the woman involved does not know the extent of the violent scenario they have planned for her. It happens ALL THE TIME.

And again- does consent make it suddenly alright? If you agree to let someone pull your teeth out for money, is it okay for people to watch it and enjoy it? Does that make it suddenly morally permissible?

Morally permissible? If I want to make money by having someone pay to watch me have my teeth pulled, why yes, I argue, it's entirely morally permissible. What makes you think it is "immoral?"

So you have no problem with "Bum Fights" then? With the story of the homeless man who had hot coffee poured on him for $20?

First, why do you think it's immoral for someone to pay me to watch me have my teeth pulled?

You're fine with people jerking off to you writhing in pain?

Why is it immoral?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scripted or reality tv. Nope, still not real.

Yes. Real sex. No green screens here.

We are failing to communicate, aren't we? You're saying that these women have no idea that they're going to be porn actors? I'm saying that they know that. I'm saying that the situations are acted out, they aren't real.

She/they are arguing this:

1. porn depicts very "depraved" acts

2. "no one" and then, later, "99%" of women would "never" agree to these acts, or actually want to do them

Therefore, all "consent" given through the contract between the studio and the actress is therefore invalid.


Her/their argument is pretty terrible though, since they rest on a massive "begging the question" fallacy. Which, for those of you unfamiliar with the philosophical concept, means to "assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Actually, that's not what I'm saying.

1) I literally never said "depraved". However, that works- to be more specific you could sub in violent, intentionally degrading, etc

2) The vast, vast majority human beings do not want to be punched, throttled, etc

3) Since a huge percentage of pornography involves women (and it's always the woman in male/female porn being treated this way) being subjected to these acts, that means that the vast majority of women you see in porn being treated this way are not turned on, into it, etc.

Being subjected to physical violence is unpleasant as a rule. As human beings we all know this. And yet, when men's boners are being threatened, they will attempt to deny even the most patently true facts. This we know.

Even if (and that is a BIG if - this thing about porn actresses not being "into" it is purely your conjecture) we accept all three of these premises, particularly the bolded,

So what? Why do porn actresses have to be turned on in order to have consent?

You listed three premises. Where is your conclusion?

I'm a woman, btw.

My point is that you are watching human beings being submitted to violence and abuse, that chances are, they are not in the tiny minority of people who are turned on by it. And that violence and abuse is wrong.

Sad that you have to spell these things out, but on DCUM that's the level of compassion we're at...

No, you said this was about the actors and how they basically can't consent. Making it about the audience is a different topic

So why is it that a woman cannot agree to act in a porn clip where she is also not turned on?

My comment is about both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women don't WANT to be abused and tortured.

It's a good thing these women are portraying abuse and torture, not being abused and tortured. And yes, the distinction is real and important.

Actually they ARE being abused and tortured. These are real women, in real situations, with real stuff being done to their body.

And yes, the damage done to them is very real and very important.

the women CHOSE to do that. what is it that you cannot understand about someone choosing to do something that you do not like?

Do you really think women are CHOOSING to be sodomized, ejaculated on, gagged, slapped, beaten and throttled? I don't think so. It's amazing how far some people will go to try and justify abuse and torture for titillation but it's not surprising. There's a troll on here that really hates women.

Yes, they chose to do this in exchange for payment.

Also, it may shock you to learn, some people (many of whom are women) DO enjoy these things, even without being paid or filmed.

NP. No one in their right mind would enjoy being beaten, slapped, throttled. You are crazy.

You obvious have nooooo idea about the BDSM society...but you know...ignorance is bliss.

BDSM is a FERISH meaning it's enjoyed by a relatively small portion of the population. And yet what you described in your post is not just fetish work it's part of mainstream porn. Meaning we can be absolutely certain that not everyone who films these scenes is into it. Even still, much of the violence in porn comes as a surprise- omg act, that's the very point of the article OP posted- how painful the actress acted like the sex was because that was the part she was playing and that the male porn star acted like he didn't listen because that was the part he was playing. No women d(lets go with 99% of them to please you ) don't want to have parts of them ripped open, they don't want to be punched, they don't want to hit in the face. ANY logical person knows this, so you arguing against it just reveals you, as the other poster pointed out, to be a misogynist troll. Which is nothing new or exciting, and simply shows how void of compassion and emotionally stunted you are on an article such as this

FIFY

No... it's real acts depicted in porn. Did you think this was special effects filmed on a green screen?

This circular nonsense is getting really old. Stop acting like those real acts aren't consensual and scripted with the full, willing, informed participation of all parties involved.

Many of the acts are not planned or scripted. In fact in the Frontline special a PP was kind enough to link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/ Thanks PP) the porn maker specifically admits that the woman involved does not know the extent of the violent scenario they have planned for her. It happens ALL THE TIME.

And again- does consent make it suddenly alright? If you agree to let someone pull your teeth out for money, is it okay for people to watch it and enjoy it? Does that make it suddenly morally permissible?

Morally permissible? If I want to make money by having someone pay to watch me have my teeth pulled, why yes, I argue, it's entirely morally permissible. What makes you think it is "immoral?"

So you have no problem with "Bum Fights" then? With the story of the homeless man who had hot coffee poured on him for $20?

First, why do you think it's immoral for someone to pay me to watch me have my teeth pulled?

You're fine with people jerking off to you writhing in pain?

Actually, let me rephrase. You said it's not about the audience, but the "actor." So why is it immoral for me to be paid for this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women don't WANT to be abused and tortured.

It's a good thing these women are portraying abuse and torture, not being abused and tortured. And yes, the distinction is real and important.

Actually they ARE being abused and tortured. These are real women, in real situations, with real stuff being done to their body.

And yes, the damage done to them is very real and very important.

the women CHOSE to do that. what is it that you cannot understand about someone choosing to do something that you do not like?

Do you really think women are CHOOSING to be sodomized, ejaculated on, gagged, slapped, beaten and throttled? I don't think so. It's amazing how far some people will go to try and justify abuse and torture for titillation but it's not surprising. There's a troll on here that really hates women.

Yes, they chose to do this in exchange for payment.

Also, it may shock you to learn, some people (many of whom are women) DO enjoy these things, even without being paid or filmed.

NP. No one in their right mind would enjoy being beaten, slapped, throttled. You are crazy.

You obvious have nooooo idea about the BDSM society...but you know...ignorance is bliss.

BDSM is a FERISH meaning it's enjoyed by a relatively small portion of the population. And yet what you described in your post is not just fetish work it's part of mainstream porn. Meaning we can be absolutely certain that not everyone who films these scenes is into it. Even still, much of the violence in porn comes as a surprise- omg act, that's the very point of the article OP posted- how painful the actress acted like the sex was because that was the part she was playing and that the male porn star acted like he didn't listen because that was the part he was playing. No women d(lets go with 99% of them to please you ) don't want to have parts of them ripped open, they don't want to be punched, they don't want to hit in the face. ANY logical person knows this, so you arguing against it just reveals you, as the other poster pointed out, to be a misogynist troll. Which is nothing new or exciting, and simply shows how void of compassion and emotionally stunted you are on an article such as this

FIFY

No... it's real acts depicted in porn. Did you think this was special effects filmed on a green screen?

This circular nonsense is getting really old. Stop acting like those real acts aren't consensual and scripted with the full, willing, informed participation of all parties involved.

Many of the acts are not planned or scripted. In fact in the Frontline special a PP was kind enough to link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/ Thanks PP) the porn maker specifically admits that the woman involved does not know the extent of the violent scenario they have planned for her. It happens ALL THE TIME.

And again- does consent make it suddenly alright? If you agree to let someone pull your teeth out for money, is it okay for people to watch it and enjoy it? Does that make it suddenly morally permissible?

Morally permissible? If I want to make money by having someone pay to watch me have my teeth pulled, why yes, I argue, it's entirely morally permissible. What makes you think it is "immoral?"

So you have no problem with "Bum Fights" then? With the story of the homeless man who had hot coffee poured on him for $20?

First, why do you think it's immoral for someone to pay me to watch me have my teeth pulled?

You're fine with people jerking off to you writhing in pain?

Why is it immoral?

Because you're taking pleasure in other people being in pain? I mean... do you know the definition of "immoral"?

Now to answer both of my questions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scripted or reality tv. Nope, still not real.

Yes. Real sex. No green screens here.

We are failing to communicate, aren't we? You're saying that these women have no idea that they're going to be porn actors? I'm saying that they know that. I'm saying that the situations are acted out, they aren't real.

She/they are arguing this:

1. porn depicts very "depraved" acts

2. "no one" and then, later, "99%" of women would "never" agree to these acts, or actually want to do them

Therefore, all "consent" given through the contract between the studio and the actress is therefore invalid.


Her/their argument is pretty terrible though, since they rest on a massive "begging the question" fallacy. Which, for those of you unfamiliar with the philosophical concept, means to "assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Actually, that's not what I'm saying.

1) I literally never said "depraved". However, that works- to be more specific you could sub in violent, intentionally degrading, etc

2) The vast, vast majority human beings do not want to be punched, throttled, etc

3) Since a huge percentage of pornography involves women (and it's always the woman in male/female porn being treated this way) being subjected to these acts, that means that the vast majority of women you see in porn being treated this way are not turned on, into it, etc.

Being subjected to physical violence is unpleasant as a rule. As human beings we all know this. And yet, when men's boners are being threatened, they will attempt to deny even the most patently true facts. This we know.

Even if (and that is a BIG if - this thing about porn actresses not being "into" it is purely your conjecture) we accept all three of these premises, particularly the bolded,

So what? Why do porn actresses have to be turned on in order to have consent?

You listed three premises. Where is your conclusion?

I'm a woman, btw.

My point is that you are watching human beings being submitted to violence and abuse, that chances are, they are not in the tiny minority of people who are turned on by it. And that violence and abuse is wrong.

Sad that you have to spell these things out, but on DCUM that's the level of compassion we're at...

No, you said this was about the actors and how they basically can't consent. Making it about the audience is a different topic

So why is it that a woman cannot agree to act in a porn clip where she is also not turned on?

My comment is about both?

So address them both, one at a time. Why is it immoral for a porn actor to be paid to be in a clip where she is also "not turned on/into it/etc" as you put it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Women don't WANT to be abused and tortured.

It's a good thing these women are portraying abuse and torture, not being abused and tortured. And yes, the distinction is real and important.

Actually they ARE being abused and tortured. These are real women, in real situations, with real stuff being done to their body.

And yes, the damage done to them is very real and very important.

the women CHOSE to do that. what is it that you cannot understand about someone choosing to do something that you do not like?

Do you really think women are CHOOSING to be sodomized, ejaculated on, gagged, slapped, beaten and throttled? I don't think so. It's amazing how far some people will go to try and justify abuse and torture for titillation but it's not surprising. There's a troll on here that really hates women.

Yes, they chose to do this in exchange for payment.

Also, it may shock you to learn, some people (many of whom are women) DO enjoy these things, even without being paid or filmed.

NP. No one in their right mind would enjoy being beaten, slapped, throttled. You are crazy.

You obvious have nooooo idea about the BDSM society...but you know...ignorance is bliss.

BDSM is a FERISH meaning it's enjoyed by a relatively small portion of the population. And yet what you described in your post is not just fetish work it's part of mainstream porn. Meaning we can be absolutely certain that not everyone who films these scenes is into it. Even still, much of the violence in porn comes as a surprise- omg act, that's the very point of the article OP posted- how painful the actress acted like the sex was because that was the part she was playing and that the male porn star acted like he didn't listen because that was the part he was playing. No women d(lets go with 99% of them to please you ) don't want to have parts of them ripped open, they don't want to be punched, they don't want to hit in the face. ANY logical person knows this, so you arguing against it just reveals you, as the other poster pointed out, to be a misogynist troll. Which is nothing new or exciting, and simply shows how void of compassion and emotionally stunted you are on an article such as this

FIFY

No... it's real acts depicted in porn. Did you think this was special effects filmed on a green screen?

This circular nonsense is getting really old. Stop acting like those real acts aren't consensual and scripted with the full, willing, informed participation of all parties involved.

Many of the acts are not planned or scripted. In fact in the Frontline special a PP was kind enough to link (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/ Thanks PP) the porn maker specifically admits that the woman involved does not know the extent of the violent scenario they have planned for her. It happens ALL THE TIME.

And again- does consent make it suddenly alright? If you agree to let someone pull your teeth out for money, is it okay for people to watch it and enjoy it? Does that make it suddenly morally permissible?

Morally permissible? If I want to make money by having someone pay to watch me have my teeth pulled, why yes, I argue, it's entirely morally permissible. What makes you think it is "immoral?"

So you have no problem with "Bum Fights" then? With the story of the homeless man who had hot coffee poured on him for $20?

First, why do you think it's immoral for someone to pay me to watch me have my teeth pulled?

You're fine with people jerking off to you writhing in pain?

Actually, let me rephrase. You said it's not about the audience, but the "actor." So why is it immoral for me to be paid for this?

There would be no moral transgression on your part, but only on the part of the people who paid you and the people who take pleasure in it.

Now, since I've entertained your quite obvious and almost patronizingly stupid questions, please answer both of mine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Scripted or reality tv. Nope, still not real.

Yes. Real sex. No green screens here.

We are failing to communicate, aren't we? You're saying that these women have no idea that they're going to be porn actors? I'm saying that they know that. I'm saying that the situations are acted out, they aren't real.

She/they are arguing this:

1. porn depicts very "depraved" acts

2. "no one" and then, later, "99%" of women would "never" agree to these acts, or actually want to do them

Therefore, all "consent" given through the contract between the studio and the actress is therefore invalid.


Her/their argument is pretty terrible though, since they rest on a massive "begging the question" fallacy. Which, for those of you unfamiliar with the philosophical concept, means to "assume the truth of the conclusion of an argument in the premises in order for the conclusion to follow."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Actually, that's not what I'm saying.

1) I literally never said "depraved". However, that works- to be more specific you could sub in violent, intentionally degrading, etc

2) The vast, vast majority human beings do not want to be punched, throttled, etc

3) Since a huge percentage of pornography involves women (and it's always the woman in male/female porn being treated this way) being subjected to these acts, that means that the vast majority of women you see in porn being treated this way are not turned on, into it, etc.

Being subjected to physical violence is unpleasant as a rule. As human beings we all know this. And yet, when men's boners are being threatened, they will attempt to deny even the most patently true facts. This we know.

Even if (and that is a BIG if - this thing about porn actresses not being "into" it is purely your conjecture) we accept all three of these premises, particularly the bolded,

So what? Why do porn actresses have to be turned on in order to have consent?

You listed three premises. Where is your conclusion?

I'm a woman, btw.

My point is that you are watching human beings being submitted to violence and abuse, that chances are, they are not in the tiny minority of people who are turned on by it. And that violence and abuse is wrong.

Sad that you have to spell these things out, but on DCUM that's the level of compassion we're at...

No, you said this was about the actors and how they basically can't consent. Making it about the audience is a different topic

So why is it that a woman cannot agree to act in a porn clip where she is also not turned on?

My comment is about both?

So address them both, one at a time. Why is it immoral for a porn actor to be paid to be in a clip where she is also "not turned on/into it/etc" as you put it?

I already addressed it. When you answer me a new question, I will be happy to answer. I cannot simply restate something 500 times in different ways until you get it. If there's anything I can specifically clarify, I am absolutely happy to help you out and eager to.