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

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.

Stop answering a different question (you're floundering here). You asked ME whether I'd be okay if someone paid me to watch me have my teeth pulled. I'm the one with the teeth in your question. Why is it immoral if I agree?

Your strategy seems to be asking the same questions repeatedly in the hope that somehow the answers will change? If there's a definition of floundering, I think that might just be it.

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.

Truly, you seem like you have a point of view here but you've been really unclear about it is you're arguing. One minute it's about the actresses, the next it is the audience. I'm just asking specific questions to see what your point really is. There's some overlap of posting back and forth so that's why it seems repetitive.

I am not trying to be patronizing, and I mean this- but I'm truly unclear how you could even come to that conclusion. Did you think when I posted the article, that I was horrified with the actress's behavior? I mean... honestly?

The first post in the entire thread is "women don't WANT to be abused and tortured"... and you thought this was a condemnation of women?

I'm simply not buying that anyone could be that... lacking in mental capability. I think you tried an argument strategy which failed. But anyway, now you know.

Yes, but here, women WANT to be in these films for money. Just like if I wanted to have my teeth pulled for money, there's nothing wrong or immoral with that.

YOU said this:

"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?"

And you agree, yes, consent makes it all right. If a woman consents to be in theses films, then it is all right, and certainly it does not make her decision immoral.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Stop answering a different question (you're floundering here). You asked ME whether I'd be okay if someone paid me to watch me have my teeth pulled. I'm the one with the teeth in your question. Why is it immoral if I agree?

Your strategy seems to be asking the same questions repeatedly in the hope that somehow the answers will change? If there's a definition of floundering, I think that might just be it.

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.

Truly, you seem like you have a point of view here but you've been really unclear about it is you're arguing. One minute it's about the actresses, the next it is the audience. I'm just asking specific questions to see what your point really is. There's some overlap of posting back and forth so that's why it seems repetitive.

I am not trying to be patronizing, and I mean this- but I'm truly unclear how you could even come to that conclusion. Did you think when I posted the article, that I was horrified with the actress's behavior? I mean... honestly?

The first post in the entire thread is "women don't WANT to be abused and tortured"... and you thought this was a condemnation of women?

I'm simply not buying that anyone could be that... lacking in mental capability. I think you tried an argument strategy which failed. But anyway, now you know.

Yes, but here, women WANT to be in these films for money. Just like if I wanted to have my teeth pulled for money, there's nothing wrong or immoral with that.

YOU said this:

"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?"

And you agree, yes, consent makes it all right. If a woman consents to be in theses films, then it is all right, and certainly it does not make her decision immoral.

No, many of them DON'T. No more than a homeless man wants to dump hot coffee on himself for money.

You never did answer whether that was immoral, did you? (Quelle surprise)

HER decision is not immoral. The decision to try to exploit someone is.

But we already debunked your strategy didn't we? The constant "I have no argument so I'm just going to rephrase things and repost them 10 times thing" is tedious and easy to answer to. Talk about floundering.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Stop answering a different question (you're floundering here). You asked ME whether I'd be okay if someone paid me to watch me have my teeth pulled. I'm the one with the teeth in your question. Why is it immoral if I agree?

Your strategy seems to be asking the same questions repeatedly in the hope that somehow the answers will change? If there's a definition of floundering, I think that might just be it.

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.

Truly, you seem like you have a point of view here but you've been really unclear about it is you're arguing. One minute it's about the actresses, the next it is the audience. I'm just asking specific questions to see what your point really is. There's some overlap of posting back and forth so that's why it seems repetitive.

I am not trying to be patronizing, and I mean this- but I'm truly unclear how you could even come to that conclusion. Did you think when I posted the article, that I was horrified with the actress's behavior? I mean... honestly?

The first post in the entire thread is "women don't WANT to be abused and tortured"... and you thought this was a condemnation of women?

I'm simply not buying that anyone could be that... lacking in mental capability. I think you tried an argument strategy which failed. But anyway, now you know.

Yes, but here, women WANT to be in these films for money. Just like if I wanted to have my teeth pulled for money, there's nothing wrong or immoral with that.

YOU said this:

"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?"

And you agree, yes, consent makes it all right. If a woman consents to be in theses films, then it is all right, and certainly it does not make her decision immoral.

No, many of them DON'T. No more than a homeless man wants to dump hot coffee on himself for money.

You never did answer whether that was immoral, did you? (Quelle surprise)

HER decision is not immoral. The decision to try to exploit someone is.

But we already debunked your strategy didn't we? The constant "I have no argument so I'm just going to rephrase things and repost them 10 times thing" is tedious and easy to answer to. Talk about floundering.

But WHY is it exploitative when a porn actor agrees to be in a film? Why are you equating women in pornography with bums on the street?

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Stop answering a different question (you're floundering here). You asked ME whether I'd be okay if someone paid me to watch me have my teeth pulled. I'm the one with the teeth in your question. Why is it immoral if I agree?

Your strategy seems to be asking the same questions repeatedly in the hope that somehow the answers will change? If there's a definition of floundering, I think that might just be it.

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.

Truly, you seem like you have a point of view here but you've been really unclear about it is you're arguing. One minute it's about the actresses, the next it is the audience. I'm just asking specific questions to see what your point really is. There's some overlap of posting back and forth so that's why it seems repetitive.

I am not trying to be patronizing, and I mean this- but I'm truly unclear how you could even come to that conclusion. Did you think when I posted the article, that I was horrified with the actress's behavior? I mean... honestly?

The first post in the entire thread is "women don't WANT to be abused and tortured"... and you thought this was a condemnation of women?

I'm simply not buying that anyone could be that... lacking in mental capability. I think you tried an argument strategy which failed. But anyway, now you know.

Yes, but here, women WANT to be in these films for money. Just like if I wanted to have my teeth pulled for money, there's nothing wrong or immoral with that.

YOU said this:

"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?"

And you agree, yes, consent makes it all right. If a woman consents to be in theses films, then it is all right, and certainly it does not make her decision immoral.

No, many of them DON'T. No more than a homeless man wants to dump hot coffee on himself for money.

You never did answer whether that was immoral, did you? (Quelle surprise)

HER decision is not immoral. The decision to try to exploit someone is.

But we already debunked your strategy didn't we? The constant "I have no argument so I'm just going to rephrase things and repost them 10 times thing" is tedious and easy to answer to. Talk about floundering.

But WHY is it exploitative when a porn actor agrees to be in a film? Why are you equating women in pornography with bums on the street?

I am comparing the person who asks a homeless person to damage their body for money to those who ask young, uneducated women to do the same.

It's a great question, one that seems to have completely flummoxed you, since we're going on 3 pages now and you haven't been able to answer it.

Still waiting.

[Anonymous]

And do you really call them "bums on the street"? What a pejorative and heartless term for the homeless.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

Stop answering a different question (you're floundering here). You asked ME whether I'd be okay if someone paid me to watch me have my teeth pulled. I'm the one with the teeth in your question. Why is it immoral if I agree?

Your strategy seems to be asking the same questions repeatedly in the hope that somehow the answers will change? If there's a definition of floundering, I think that might just be it.

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.

Truly, you seem like you have a point of view here but you've been really unclear about it is you're arguing. One minute it's about the actresses, the next it is the audience. I'm just asking specific questions to see what your point really is. There's some overlap of posting back and forth so that's why it seems repetitive.

I am not trying to be patronizing, and I mean this- but I'm truly unclear how you could even come to that conclusion. Did you think when I posted the article, that I was horrified with the actress's behavior? I mean... honestly?

The first post in the entire thread is "women don't WANT to be abused and tortured"... and you thought this was a condemnation of women?

I'm simply not buying that anyone could be that... lacking in mental capability. I think you tried an argument strategy which failed. But anyway, now you know.

Yes, but here, women WANT to be in these films for money. Just like if I wanted to have my teeth pulled for money, there's nothing wrong or immoral with that.

YOU said this:

"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?"

And you agree, yes, consent makes it all right. If a woman consents to be in theses films, then it is all right, and certainly it does not make her decision immoral.

No, many of them DON'T. No more than a homeless man wants to dump hot coffee on himself for money.

You never did answer whether that was immoral, did you? (Quelle surprise)

HER decision is not immoral. The decision to try to exploit someone is.

But we already debunked your strategy didn't we? The constant "I have no argument so I'm just going to rephrase things and repost them 10 times thing" is tedious and easy to answer to. Talk about floundering.

But WHY is it exploitative when a porn actor agrees to be in a film? Why are you equating women in pornography with bums on the street?

I am comparing the person who asks a homeless person to damage their body for money to those who ask young, uneducated women to do the same.

It's a great question, one that seems to have completely flummoxed you, since we're going on 3 pages now and you haven't been able to answer it.

Still waiting.

Why so condescending?

It IS a great question, actually the basis of your argument, only you haven't been very clear about it at all. YOUR assumption is that all women in these films are basically "bums on the street" who are incapable of consenting based on some sort of inherent power imbalance.

So in order to forward your argument, you're going to need to show that these women ARE actually powerless, and not because you assume them to be so.

Most people here are arguing that no, these are paid professionals who know exactly what they are getting into.

Putting your fingers in your ears and insisting the opposite with no supporting facts doesn't mean you are right.

So, go ahead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And do you really call them "bums on the street"? What a pejorative and heartless term for the homeless.

Actually, you used the word "bum" as in "bum fights" earlier in this thread. You don't need to grasp so desperately for an upper hand by making me out to be a villain.

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

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.

Stop answering a different question (you're floundering here). You asked ME whether I'd be okay if someone paid me to watch me have my teeth pulled. I'm the one with the teeth in your question. Why is it immoral if I agree?

Your strategy seems to be asking the same questions repeatedly in the hope that somehow the answers will change? If there's a definition of floundering, I think that might just be it.

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.

Truly, you seem like you have a point of view here but you've been really unclear about it is you're arguing. One minute it's about the actresses, the next it is the audience. I'm just asking specific questions to see what your point really is. There's some overlap of posting back and forth so that's why it seems repetitive.

I am not trying to be patronizing, and I mean this- but I'm truly unclear how you could even come to that conclusion. Did you think when I posted the article, that I was horrified with the actress's behavior? I mean... honestly?

The first post in the entire thread is "women don't WANT to be abused and tortured"... and you thought this was a condemnation of women?

I'm simply not buying that anyone could be that... lacking in mental capability. I think you tried an argument strategy which failed. But anyway, now you know.

Yes, but here, women WANT to be in these films for money. Just like if I wanted to have my teeth pulled for money, there's nothing wrong or immoral with that.

YOU said this:

"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?"

And you agree, yes, consent makes it all right. If a woman consents to be in theses films, then it is all right, and certainly it does not make her decision immoral.

No, many of them DON'T. No more than a homeless man wants to dump hot coffee on himself for money.

You never did answer whether that was immoral, did you? (Quelle surprise)

HER decision is not immoral. The decision to try to exploit someone is.

But we already debunked your strategy didn't we? The constant "I have no argument so I'm just going to rephrase things and repost them 10 times thing" is tedious and easy to answer to. Talk about floundering.

But WHY is it exploitative when a porn actor agrees to be in a film? Why are you equating women in pornography with bums on the street?

I am comparing the person who asks a homeless person to damage their body for money to those who ask young, uneducated women to do the same.

It's a great question, one that seems to have completely flummoxed you, since we're going on 3 pages now and you haven't been able to answer it.

Still waiting.

Why so condescending?

It IS a great question, actually the basis of your argument, only you haven't been very clear about it at all. YOUR assumption is that all women in these films are basically "bums on the street" who are incapable of consenting based on some sort of inherent power imbalance.

So in order to forward your argument, you're going to need to show that these women ARE actually powerless, and not because you assume them to be so.

Most people here are arguing that no, these are paid professionals who know exactly what they are getting into.

Putting your fingers in your ears and insisting the opposite with no supporting facts doesn't mean you are right.

So, go ahead.

I fail to see what's wrong with being a "bum on the street" which I believe you mean to be a homeless person? I guess you intend this to be an insult? I think that says more about you than either homeless people or the girls in these films.

Many of these women are economically disenfranchised- overwhelmingly poor, uneducated, and young. Their lack of economic power is a fact.

It's hard not to be condescending when you have found yourself utterly flummoxed and unable to answer the questions I've lobbed at you. Hard to consider someone a worthy opponent (to put it kindly) in that case, is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And do you really call them "bums on the street"? What a pejorative and heartless term for the homeless.

Actually, you used the word "bum" as in "bum fights" earlier in this thread. You don't need to grasp so desperately for an upper hand by making me out to be a villain.

I actually put it in quotes, as a "bum fight" is the term for these exploitative videos. A term which is meant to show disrespect, selected for the same reason you selected the word.

But speaking of- 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:

I fail to see what's wrong with being a "bum on the street" which I believe you mean to be a homeless person? I guess you intend this to be an insult? I think that says more about you than either homeless people or the girls in these films.

Many of these women are economically disenfranchised- overwhelmingly poor, uneducated, and young. Their lack of economic power is a fact.

It's hard not to be condescending when you have found yourself utterly flummoxed and unable to answer the questions I've lobbed at you. Hard to consider someone a worthy opponent (to put it kindly) in that case, is it?

DP. The word "bum" is an insult. You're getting carried away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I fail to see what's wrong with being a "bum on the street" which I believe you mean to be a homeless person? I guess you intend this to be an insult? I think that says more about you than either homeless people or the girls in these films.

Many of these women are economically disenfranchised- overwhelmingly poor, uneducated, and young. Their lack of economic power is a fact.

It's hard not to be condescending when you have found yourself utterly flummoxed and unable to answer the questions I've lobbed at you. Hard to consider someone a worthy opponent (to put it kindly) in that case, is it?

DP. The word "bum" is an insult. You're getting carried away.

Agreed and that's how the other poster intended it. Thank you for agreeing.

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

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.

Stop answering a different question (you're floundering here). You asked ME whether I'd be okay if someone paid me to watch me have my teeth pulled. I'm the one with the teeth in your question. Why is it immoral if I agree?

Your strategy seems to be asking the same questions repeatedly in the hope that somehow the answers will change? If there's a definition of floundering, I think that might just be it.

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.

Truly, you seem like you have a point of view here but you've been really unclear about it is you're arguing. One minute it's about the actresses, the next it is the audience. I'm just asking specific questions to see what your point really is. There's some overlap of posting back and forth so that's why it seems repetitive.

I am not trying to be patronizing, and I mean this- but I'm truly unclear how you could even come to that conclusion. Did you think when I posted the article, that I was horrified with the actress's behavior? I mean... honestly?

The first post in the entire thread is "women don't WANT to be abused and tortured"... and you thought this was a condemnation of women?

I'm simply not buying that anyone could be that... lacking in mental capability. I think you tried an argument strategy which failed. But anyway, now you know.

Yes, but here, women WANT to be in these films for money. Just like if I wanted to have my teeth pulled for money, there's nothing wrong or immoral with that.

YOU said this:

"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?"

And you agree, yes, consent makes it all right. If a woman consents to be in theses films, then it is all right, and certainly it does not make her decision immoral.

No, many of them DON'T. No more than a homeless man wants to dump hot coffee on himself for money.

You never did answer whether that was immoral, did you? (Quelle surprise)

HER decision is not immoral. The decision to try to exploit someone is.

But we already debunked your strategy didn't we? The constant "I have no argument so I'm just going to rephrase things and repost them 10 times thing" is tedious and easy to answer to. Talk about floundering.

But WHY is it exploitative when a porn actor agrees to be in a film? Why are you equating women in pornography with bums on the street?

I am comparing the person who asks a homeless person to damage their body for money to those who ask young, uneducated women to do the same.

It's a great question, one that seems to have completely flummoxed you, since we're going on 3 pages now and you haven't been able to answer it.

Still waiting.

Why so condescending?

It IS a great question, actually the basis of your argument, only you haven't been very clear about it at all. YOUR assumption is that all women in these films are basically "bums on the street" who are incapable of consenting based on some sort of inherent power imbalance.

So in order to forward your argument, you're going to need to show that these women ARE actually powerless, and not because you assume them to be so.

Most people here are arguing that no, these are paid professionals who know exactly what they are getting into.

Putting your fingers in your ears and insisting the opposite with no supporting facts doesn't mean you are right.

So, go ahead.

I fail to see what's wrong with being a "bum on the street" which I believe you mean to be a homeless person? I guess you intend this to be an insult? I think that says more about you than either homeless people or the girls in these films.

Many of these women are economically disenfranchised- overwhelmingly poor, uneducated, and young. Their lack of economic power is a fact.

It's hard not to be condescending when you have found yourself utterly flummoxed and unable to answer the questions I've lobbed at you. Hard to consider someone a worthy opponent (to put it kindly) in that case, is it?

Ouch, boy, you really hurt my feelings

I actually find you to be a poor debater. You are very confused by what is assumption and what is proven, personal prejudice and fact. You have an idea in your head that all porn actresses are poor, disenfranchised, and do not do porn willingly. But you discount that many women today have an extremely relaxed attitude when it comes to sex and being on camera. And you haven't provided a single example of these "disadvantaged women" and your entire argument is "It is inconceivable to me that women would do these porn videos willingly, therefore it is wrong."

But I suspect you know the main basis for your argument is based on conjecture and your personal beliefs. Which is why you lead everyone on these extremely convoluted and circular arguments while insulting those who disagree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And do you really call them "bums on the street"? What a pejorative and heartless term for the homeless.

Actually, you used the word "bum" as in "bum fights" earlier in this thread. You don't need to grasp so desperately for an upper hand by making me out to be a villain.

I actually put it in quotes, as a "bum fight" is the term for these exploitative videos. A term which is meant to show disrespect, selected for the same reason you selected the word.

But speaking of- 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?

I'll happily address whatever this is but you'll have to give some details. What are Bum Fights? And please, no need to further puff yourself up by insulting other people's intelligence.

[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.

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.

Stop answering a different question (you're floundering here). You asked ME whether I'd be okay if someone paid me to watch me have my teeth pulled. I'm the one with the teeth in your question. Why is it immoral if I agree?

Your strategy seems to be asking the same questions repeatedly in the hope that somehow the answers will change? If there's a definition of floundering, I think that might just be it.

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.

Truly, you seem like you have a point of view here but you've been really unclear about it is you're arguing. One minute it's about the actresses, the next it is the audience. I'm just asking specific questions to see what your point really is. There's some overlap of posting back and forth so that's why it seems repetitive.

I am not trying to be patronizing, and I mean this- but I'm truly unclear how you could even come to that conclusion. Did you think when I posted the article, that I was horrified with the actress's behavior? I mean... honestly?

The first post in the entire thread is "women don't WANT to be abused and tortured"... and you thought this was a condemnation of women?

I'm simply not buying that anyone could be that... lacking in mental capability. I think you tried an argument strategy which failed. But anyway, now you know.

Yes, but here, women WANT to be in these films for money. Just like if I wanted to have my teeth pulled for money, there's nothing wrong or immoral with that.

YOU said this:

"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?"

And you agree, yes, consent makes it all right. If a woman consents to be in theses films, then it is all right, and certainly it does not make her decision immoral.

No, many of them DON'T. No more than a homeless man wants to dump hot coffee on himself for money.

You never did answer whether that was immoral, did you? (Quelle surprise)

HER decision is not immoral. The decision to try to exploit someone is.

But we already debunked your strategy didn't we? The constant "I have no argument so I'm just going to rephrase things and repost them 10 times thing" is tedious and easy to answer to. Talk about floundering.

But WHY is it exploitative when a porn actor agrees to be in a film? Why are you equating women in pornography with bums on the street?

I am comparing the person who asks a homeless person to damage their body for money to those who ask young, uneducated women to do the same.

It's a great question, one that seems to have completely flummoxed you, since we're going on 3 pages now and you haven't been able to answer it.

Still waiting.

Why so condescending?

It IS a great question, actually the basis of your argument, only you haven't been very clear about it at all. YOUR assumption is that all women in these films are basically "bums on the street" who are incapable of consenting based on some sort of inherent power imbalance.

So in order to forward your argument, you're going to need to show that these women ARE actually powerless, and not because you assume them to be so.

Most people here are arguing that no, these are paid professionals who know exactly what they are getting into.

Putting your fingers in your ears and insisting the opposite with no supporting facts doesn't mean you are right.

So, go ahead.

I fail to see what's wrong with being a "bum on the street" which I believe you mean to be a homeless person? I guess you intend this to be an insult? I think that says more about you than either homeless people or the girls in these films.

Many of these women are economically disenfranchised- overwhelmingly poor, uneducated, and young. Their lack of economic power is a fact.

It's hard not to be condescending when you have found yourself utterly flummoxed and unable to answer the questions I've lobbed at you. Hard to consider someone a worthy opponent (to put it kindly) in that case, is it?

Ouch, boy, you really hurt my feelings

I actually find you to be a poor debater. You are very confused by what is assumption and what is proven, personal prejudice and fact. You have an idea in your head that all porn actresses are poor, disenfranchised, and do not do porn willingly. But you discount that many women today have an extremely relaxed attitude when it comes to sex and being on camera. And you haven't provided a single example of these "disadvantaged women" and your entire argument is "It is inconceivable to me that women would do these porn videos willingly, therefore it is wrong."

But I suspect you know the main basis for your argument is based on conjecture and your personal beliefs. Which is why you lead everyone on these extremely convoluted and circular arguments while insulting those who disagree with you.

Oh gosh. What a shot to the heart it is to hear I'm a "door debater" from someone who has been utterly out argued to the point that they've utterly given up on answering the questions lobbed at them.

What I posted are the realities. I am a young woman. Young women don't have a relaxed attitude when it comes to being called sexual slurs and had physical violence enacted on them while others film it so that still others can jerk off to it. That's almost the opposite of real sex, it is abuse pain and simple.

And you know it, which is why thus far you've been completely unable to answer any of my assertions, you've dodged every question, and you've resorted to name calling.

I suspect even you are aware that you've utterly bungled this, and that's why you cannot even try anymore. If you manage to rally and are able to actually engage in the debate again and answer questions, I'm happy to entertain you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And do you really call them "bums on the street"? What a pejorative and heartless term for the homeless.

Actually, you used the word "bum" as in "bum fights" earlier in this thread. You don't need to grasp so desperately for an upper hand by making me out to be a villain.

I actually put it in quotes, as a "bum fight" is the term for these exploitative videos. A term which is meant to show disrespect, selected for the same reason you selected the word.

But speaking of- 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?

I'll happily address whatever this is but you'll have to give some details. What are Bum Fights? And please, no need to further puff yourself up by insulting other people's intelligence.

You need to get yourself to google, my friend! Surely even you can figure out how to do that?