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:

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.

That's your entire argument then:

you are a woman so you speak for all women. Not only that, but you know not a single woman young (or old) likes "sexual slurs" thrown at her (definitely not true by the way - seriously? You've never heard of dirty talk?). You are the arbiter of "real sex" and "abuse," plain and simple.

Seriously, excuse me, but you are a massive, blow hard idiot.

Nice debating with you.

[Anonymous]

NP here. People get paid all the time to damage their bodies with their consent... boxers, NFL players, etc.

Or look at the people who portrayed slaves in various movies about slavery. That has to be some rough stuff they were acting out, but they consented to it and were fully aware of what would happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. People get paid all the time to damage their bodies with their consent... boxers, NFL players, etc.

Or look at the people who portrayed slaves in various movies about slavery. That has to be some rough stuff they were acting out, but they consented to it and were fully aware of what would happen.

Way back on page 3 or 8 or somewhere, I said that the line is blurry in some movies between consent and abuse, between what an actor agrees to, or should not agree to, or did not agree to.

Epic block quote debater seems to be hinting at that issue. The article in the OP wasn't about that, it was merely about porn. Even arguing that porn is not good for society or for people who watch it is a different discusssion than "OMG, porn is disgusting and those poor girls didn't have any idea they were being filmed!"

[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.

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.

That's your entire argument then:

you are a woman so you speak for all women. Not only that, but you know not a single woman young (or old) likes "sexual slurs" thrown at her (definitely not true by the way - seriously? You've never heard of dirty talk?). You are the arbiter of "real sex" and "abuse," plain and simple.

Seriously, excuse me, but you are a massive, blow hard idiot.

Nice debating with you.

Actually, I've made my argument from the beginning. My "argument" is a fact, which is that what is happening in pornography is wrong. That is preys upon the young, uneducated, and economically vulnerable in order to do shoots which involve and in fact sexualize violence against women. And that this is horrific for the women who are the focuses of the violence and for young men growing up watching their first experiences with sex intertwined with violence against women.

You, as you have been outargued and even admitted to being wrong and misinterpreting several (tedious) pages back, who is STILL unable to answer any of the questions I have asked him today, have, to put it kindly, no standing to call anyone in this world an idiot.

Anyway. It's been fun having to explain things on a third grade level, but until you are capable of forming an eloquent response- hell, actually ANY kind of response at all- to my questions, I think we're done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP here. People get paid all the time to damage their bodies with their consent... boxers, NFL players, etc.

Or look at the people who portrayed slaves in various movies about slavery. That has to be some rough stuff they were acting out, but they consented to it and were fully aware of what would happen.

You seem to be unaware of how movies work. It's not actually someone being punched in the face. Or have you never seen a behind the scenes clip?


Furthermore, MMA fighters, football players, etc- go into it knowing that they are going to be engaging with physical violence. A great deal of these girls have no idea that "sex" apparently means physical violence and degradation until they are there, in the scene.

That's not even dealing with the long term psychological effects of having your sex life linked to violence against you. Nor to the effect of young boys and men watching this and constantly having their sexuality linked to the degradation and abuse against of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

That's your entire argument then:

you are a woman so you speak for all women. Not only that, but you know not a single woman young (or old) likes "sexual slurs" thrown at her (definitely not true by the way - seriously? You've never heard of dirty talk?). You are the arbiter of "real sex" and "abuse," plain and simple.

Seriously, excuse me, but you are a massive, blow hard idiot.

Nice debating with you.

Actually, I've made my argument from the beginning. My "argument" is a fact, which is that what is happening in pornography is wrong. That is preys upon the young, uneducated, and economically vulnerable in order to do shoots which involve and in fact sexualize violence against women. And that this is horrific for the women who are the focuses of the violence and for young men growing up watching their first experiences with sex intertwined with violence against women.

You, as you have been outargued and even admitted to being wrong and misinterpreting several (tedious) pages back, who is STILL unable to answer any of the questions I have asked him today, have, to put it kindly, no standing to call anyone in this world an idiot.

Anyway. It's been fun having to explain things on a third grade level, but until you are capable of forming an eloquent response- hell, actually ANY kind of response at all- to my questions, I think we're done.

You have NO proof or indication of the actual lives of porn actors other than to assert that what YOU say is "obvious" and "fact." Your entire argument is based on your beliefs and your beliefs are frankly, extremely limited to your little bubble of existence. Your ENTIRE argument consists of saying that you know exactly what all women think and feel, never mind all the women here who disagree with you.

Save your insults on others' intellectual levels. You are the dumbest poster on DCUM today and that is saying quite a lot. Your lack of self awareness and your pompous, condescending demeanor speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

That's your entire argument then:

you are a woman so you speak for all women. Not only that, but you know not a single woman young (or old) likes "sexual slurs" thrown at her (definitely not true by the way - seriously? You've never heard of dirty talk?). You are the arbiter of "real sex" and "abuse," plain and simple.

Seriously, excuse me, but you are a massive, blow hard idiot.

Nice debating with you.

Actually, I've made my argument from the beginning. My "argument" is a fact, which is that what is happening in pornography is wrong. That is preys upon the young, uneducated, and economically vulnerable in order to do shoots which involve and in fact sexualize violence against women. And that this is horrific for the women who are the focuses of the violence and for young men growing up watching their first experiences with sex intertwined with violence against women.

You, as you have been outargued and even admitted to being wrong and misinterpreting several (tedious) pages back, who is STILL unable to answer any of the questions I have asked him today, have, to put it kindly, no standing to call anyone in this world an idiot.

Anyway. It's been fun having to explain things on a third grade level, but until you are capable of forming an eloquent response- hell, actually ANY kind of response at all- to my questions, I think we're done.

You have NO proof or indication of the actual lives of porn actors other than to assert that what YOU say is "obvious" and "fact." Your entire argument is based on your beliefs and your beliefs are frankly, extremely limited to your little bubble of existence. Your ENTIRE argument consists of saying that you know exactly what all women think and feel, never mind all the women here who disagree with you.

Save your insults on others' intellectual levels. You are the dumbest poster on DCUM today and that is saying quite a lot. Your lack of self awareness and your pompous, condescending demeanor speaks volumes.

Actually I do. I have read and listened to women who have been in the porn industry. Have you?

Again, you haven't been able to answer a single one of the questions I leveled at you. And then you have the gall to try to call me dumb? Damn. Now THAT's audacity. Straight up delusion too, but I'll give you points for just having the balls to do that after you've been so thoroughly dismissed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

That's your entire argument then:

you are a woman so you speak for all women. Not only that, but you know not a single woman young (or old) likes "sexual slurs" thrown at her (definitely not true by the way - seriously? You've never heard of dirty talk?). You are the arbiter of "real sex" and "abuse," plain and simple.

Seriously, excuse me, but you are a massive, blow hard idiot.

Nice debating with you.

Actually, I've made my argument from the beginning. My "argument" is a fact, which is that what is happening in pornography is wrong. That is preys upon the young, uneducated, and economically vulnerable in order to do shoots which involve and in fact sexualize violence against women. And that this is horrific for the women who are the focuses of the violence and for young men growing up watching their first experiences with sex intertwined with violence against women.

You, as you have been outargued and even admitted to being wrong and misinterpreting several (tedious) pages back, who is STILL unable to answer any of the questions I have asked him today, have, to put it kindly, no standing to call anyone in this world an idiot.

Anyway. It's been fun having to explain things on a third grade level, but until you are capable of forming an eloquent response- hell, actually ANY kind of response at all- to my questions, I think we're done.

You have NO proof or indication of the actual lives of porn actors other than to assert that what YOU say is "obvious" and "fact." Your entire argument is based on your beliefs and your beliefs are frankly, extremely limited to your little bubble of existence. Your ENTIRE argument consists of saying that you know exactly what all women think and feel, never mind all the women here who disagree with you.

Save your insults on others' intellectual levels. You are the dumbest poster on DCUM today and that is saying quite a lot. Your lack of self awareness and your pompous, condescending demeanor speaks volumes.

Actually I do. I have read and listened to women who have been in the porn industry. Have you?

Again, you haven't been able to answer a single one of the questions I leveled at you. And then you have the gall to try to call me dumb? Damn. Now THAT's audacity. Straight up delusion too, but I'll give you points for just having the balls to do that after you've been so thoroughly dismissed.

I'll call bulls*t on this right now. Obviously you are free to scramble, backpedal, and research now.

Up until this point, your entire argument has been to say "no woman would EVER want to participate in this," your argument consisted of announcing it as "fact" and at no point did you ever produce a shred of actual evidence, anecdotal or otherwise. Later you amended it to 99% of women because someone brought up BDSM enthusiasts.

Even if you were to google it now, what does it matter what you can find? I'm SURE there are women out there who DO feel victimized - of course those people exist! Just like there are tons of porn actresses who don't feel like victims and happily take the check for the jobs they land. Your statement that 99% of women in porn are victimized by the porn industry is just something you pulled out of your a$$.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

That's your entire argument then:

you are a woman so you speak for all women. Not only that, but you know not a single woman young (or old) likes "sexual slurs" thrown at her (definitely not true by the way - seriously? You've never heard of dirty talk?). You are the arbiter of "real sex" and "abuse," plain and simple.

Seriously, excuse me, but you are a massive, blow hard idiot.

Nice debating with you.

Actually, I've made my argument from the beginning. My "argument" is a fact, which is that what is happening in pornography is wrong. That is preys upon the young, uneducated, and economically vulnerable in order to do shoots which involve and in fact sexualize violence against women. And that this is horrific for the women who are the focuses of the violence and for young men growing up watching their first experiences with sex intertwined with violence against women.

You, as you have been outargued and even admitted to being wrong and misinterpreting several (tedious) pages back, who is STILL unable to answer any of the questions I have asked him today, have, to put it kindly, no standing to call anyone in this world an idiot.

Anyway. It's been fun having to explain things on a third grade level, but until you are capable of forming an eloquent response- hell, actually ANY kind of response at all- to my questions, I think we're done.

You have NO proof or indication of the actual lives of porn actors other than to assert that what YOU say is "obvious" and "fact." Your entire argument is based on your beliefs and your beliefs are frankly, extremely limited to your little bubble of existence. Your ENTIRE argument consists of saying that you know exactly what all women think and feel, never mind all the women here who disagree with you.

Save your insults on others' intellectual levels. You are the dumbest poster on DCUM today and that is saying quite a lot. Your lack of self awareness and your pompous, condescending demeanor speaks volumes.

Actually I do. I have read and listened to women who have been in the porn industry. Have you?

Again, you haven't been able to answer a single one of the questions I leveled at you. And then you have the gall to try to call me dumb? Damn. Now THAT's audacity. Straight up delusion too, but I'll give you points for just having the balls to do that after you've been so thoroughly dismissed.

I'll call bulls*t on this right now. Obviously you are free to scramble, backpedal, and research now.

Up until this point, your entire argument has been to say "no woman would EVER want to participate in this," your argument consisted of announcing it as "fact" and at no point did you ever produce a shred of actual evidence, anecdotal or otherwise. Later you amended it to 99% of women because someone brought up BDSM enthusiasts.

Even if you were to google it now, what does it matter what you can find? I'm SURE there are women out there who DO feel victimized - of course those people exist! Just like there are tons of porn actresses who don't feel like victims and happily take the check for the jobs they land. Your statement that 99% of women in porn are victimized by the porn industry is just something you pulled out of your a$$.

You can call bullshit on whatever you want, no one cares. As I've said, you've been intellectually incapable of responding to a single point. You've managed to mangle even the most basic points that I've made to the point that I had to drop the discourse down to a third grade level before you were able to understand it and admit you were wrong. You getting things wrong is practically your hallmark.


First of all, the article, which i'm going to go out on a limb and guess you didn't read, because being uninformed and yet droning on anyway seems to be your trademark, contained a scenario which is repellant anyway, to any fair-thinking person. Secondly, here are some stories from actual porn stars: http://fightthenewdrug.org/10-porn-stars-speak-openly-about-their-most-popular-scenes/

I expect, surprise surprise, you to dismiss that as you have dismissed all the hard questions and answers that have been leveled at you. Shock.

The problem, of course, with this strategy is that it's a dead giveaway for both how objectively weak your argument is, and how weak you yourself perceive it as. When you're not even able to ATTEMPT to engage honestly, it's becomes a farce in which the other party has to pretend not to notice your intellectual dishonesty.

And lastly- I'm a human being, which enables me to know that human beings, as a general rule, don't like being subjected to horrifying violence. It's kind of one of the hallmarks of humanity. A small minority of people with a fetish aside.

I eagerly await your next thrilling missive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You can call bullshit on whatever you want, no one cares. As I've said, you've been intellectually incapable of responding to a single point. You've managed to mangle even the most basic points that I've made to the point that I had to drop the discourse down to a third grade level before you were able to understand it and admit you were wrong. You getting things wrong is practically your hallmark.


First of all, the article, which i'm going to go out on a limb and guess you didn't read, because being uninformed and yet droning on anyway seems to be your trademark, contained a scenario which is repellant anyway, to any fair-thinking person. Secondly, here are some stories from actual porn stars: http://fightthenewdrug.org/10-porn-stars-speak-openly-about-their-most-popular-scenes/

I expect, surprise surprise, you to dismiss that as you have dismissed all the hard questions and answers that have been leveled at you. Shock.

The problem, of course, with this strategy is that it's a dead giveaway for both how objectively weak your argument is, and how weak you yourself perceive it as. When you're not even able to ATTEMPT to engage honestly, it's becomes a farce in which the other party has to pretend not to notice your intellectual dishonesty.

And lastly- I'm a human being, which enables me to know that human beings, as a general rule, don't like being subjected to horrifying violence. It's kind of one of the hallmarks of humanity. A small minority of people with a fetish aside.

I eagerly await your next thrilling missive.

DP. All of the women in your article chose their work. When they decided to do something else, then they left that work to do something else.

You're not saying that they made bad choices or that the industry can cross lines (really, their stories don't sound very different from some parts of Hollywood or the music scene). You're saying that those women should not be allowed to make their own choices, that they either don't have agency or shouldn't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can call bullshit on whatever you want, no one cares. As I've said, you've been intellectually incapable of responding to a single point. You've managed to mangle even the most basic points that I've made to the point that I had to drop the discourse down to a third grade level before you were able to understand it and admit you were wrong. You getting things wrong is practically your hallmark.


First of all, the article, which i'm going to go out on a limb and guess you didn't read, because being uninformed and yet droning on anyway seems to be your trademark, contained a scenario which is repellant anyway, to any fair-thinking person. Secondly, here are some stories from actual porn stars: http://fightthenewdrug.org/10-porn-stars-speak-openly-about-their-most-popular-scenes/

I expect, surprise surprise, you to dismiss that as you have dismissed all the hard questions and answers that have been leveled at you. Shock.

The problem, of course, with this strategy is that it's a dead giveaway for both how objectively weak your argument is, and how weak you yourself perceive it as. When you're not even able to ATTEMPT to engage honestly, it's becomes a farce in which the other party has to pretend not to notice your intellectual dishonesty.

And lastly- I'm a human being, which enables me to know that human beings, as a general rule, don't like being subjected to horrifying violence. It's kind of one of the hallmarks of humanity. A small minority of people with a fetish aside.

I eagerly await your next thrilling missive.

DP. All of the women in your article chose their work. When they decided to do something else, then they left that work to do something else.

You're not saying that they made bad choices or that the industry can cross lines (really, their stories don't sound very different from some parts of Hollywood or the music scene). You're saying that those women should not be allowed to make their own choices, that they either don't have agency or shouldn't.

In no way am I saying that, and it's one of the most egregious straw men I've ever heard.

Many of the women in the article spoke about how the work they AGREED to do and signed up for was not the work they received and experienced. You would know this had you read the article, which you obviously did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can call bullshit on whatever you want, no one cares. As I've said, you've been intellectually incapable of responding to a single point. You've managed to mangle even the most basic points that I've made to the point that I had to drop the discourse down to a third grade level before you were able to understand it and admit you were wrong. You getting things wrong is practically your hallmark.


First of all, the article, which i'm going to go out on a limb and guess you didn't read, because being uninformed and yet droning on anyway seems to be your trademark, contained a scenario which is repellant anyway, to any fair-thinking person. Secondly, here are some stories from actual porn stars: http://fightthenewdrug.org/10-porn-stars-speak-openly-about-their-most-popular-scenes/

I expect, surprise surprise, you to dismiss that as you have dismissed all the hard questions and answers that have been leveled at you. Shock.

The problem, of course, with this strategy is that it's a dead giveaway for both how objectively weak your argument is, and how weak you yourself perceive it as. When you're not even able to ATTEMPT to engage honestly, it's becomes a farce in which the other party has to pretend not to notice your intellectual dishonesty.

And lastly- I'm a human being, which enables me to know that human beings, as a general rule, don't like being subjected to horrifying violence. It's kind of one of the hallmarks of humanity. A small minority of people with a fetish aside.

I eagerly await your next thrilling missive.

DP. All of the women in your article chose their work. When they decided to do something else, then they left that work to do something else.

You're not saying that they made bad choices or that the industry can cross lines (really, their stories don't sound very different from some parts of Hollywood or the music scene). You're saying that those women should not be allowed to make their own choices, that they either don't have agency or shouldn't.

In no way am I saying that, and it's one of the most egregious straw men I've ever heard.

Many of the women in the article spoke about how the work they AGREED to do and signed up for was not the work they received and experienced. You would know this had you read the article, which you obviously did not.

I read it. All they had to do was stop, not come back the next day. One woman quit after 14 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You can call bullshit on whatever you want, no one cares. As I've said, you've been intellectually incapable of responding to a single point. You've managed to mangle even the most basic points that I've made to the point that I had to drop the discourse down to a third grade level before you were able to understand it and admit you were wrong. You getting things wrong is practically your hallmark.


First of all, the article, which i'm going to go out on a limb and guess you didn't read, because being uninformed and yet droning on anyway seems to be your trademark, contained a scenario which is repellant anyway, to any fair-thinking person. Secondly, here are some stories from actual porn stars: http://fightthenewdrug.org/10-porn-stars-speak-openly-about-their-most-popular-scenes/

I expect, surprise surprise, you to dismiss that as you have dismissed all the hard questions and answers that have been leveled at you. Shock.

The problem, of course, with this strategy is that it's a dead giveaway for both how objectively weak your argument is, and how weak you yourself perceive it as. When you're not even able to ATTEMPT to engage honestly, it's becomes a farce in which the other party has to pretend not to notice your intellectual dishonesty.

And lastly- I'm a human being, which enables me to know that human beings, as a general rule, don't like being subjected to horrifying violence. It's kind of one of the hallmarks of humanity. A small minority of people with a fetish aside.

I eagerly await your next thrilling missive.

DP. All of the women in your article chose their work. When they decided to do something else, then they left that work to do something else.

You're not saying that they made bad choices or that the industry can cross lines (really, their stories don't sound very different from some parts of Hollywood or the music scene). You're saying that those women should not be allowed to make their own choices, that they either don't have agency or shouldn't.

In no way am I saying that, and it's one of the most egregious straw men I've ever heard.

Many of the women in the article spoke about how the work they AGREED to do and signed up for was not the work they received and experienced. You would know this had you read the article, which you obviously did not.

I read it. All they had to do was stop, not come back the next day. One woman quit after 14 years.

And most of them did, because of the horrifying things they experienced. I'm sorry that youre a compassionless blob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

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.

That's your entire argument then:

you are a woman so you speak for all women. Not only that, but you know not a single woman young (or old) likes "sexual slurs" thrown at her (definitely not true by the way - seriously? You've never heard of dirty talk?). You are the arbiter of "real sex" and "abuse," plain and simple.

Seriously, excuse me, but you are a massive, blow hard idiot.

Nice debating with you.

Actually, I've made my argument from the beginning. My "argument" is a fact, which is that what is happening in pornography is wrong. That is preys upon the young, uneducated, and economically vulnerable in order to do shoots which involve and in fact sexualize violence against women. And that this is horrific for the women who are the focuses of the violence and for young men growing up watching their first experiences with sex intertwined with violence against women.

You, as you have been outargued and even admitted to being wrong and misinterpreting several (tedious) pages back, who is STILL unable to answer any of the questions I have asked him today, have, to put it kindly, no standing to call anyone in this world an idiot.

Anyway. It's been fun having to explain things on a third grade level, but until you are capable of forming an eloquent response- hell, actually ANY kind of response at all- to my questions, I think we're done.

You have NO proof or indication of the actual lives of porn actors other than to assert that what YOU say is "obvious" and "fact." Your entire argument is based on your beliefs and your beliefs are frankly, extremely limited to your little bubble of existence. Your ENTIRE argument consists of saying that you know exactly what all women think and feel, never mind all the women here who disagree with you.

Save your insults on others' intellectual levels. You are the dumbest poster on DCUM today and that is saying quite a lot. Your lack of self awareness and your pompous, condescending demeanor speaks volumes.

Actually I do. I have read and listened to women who have been in the porn industry. Have you?

Again, you haven't been able to answer a single one of the questions I leveled at you. And then you have the gall to try to call me dumb? Damn. Now THAT's audacity. Straight up delusion too, but I'll give you points for just having the balls to do that after you've been so thoroughly dismissed.

I'll call bulls*t on this right now. Obviously you are free to scramble, backpedal, and research now.

Up until this point, your entire argument has been to say "no woman would EVER want to participate in this," your argument consisted of announcing it as "fact" and at no point did you ever produce a shred of actual evidence, anecdotal or otherwise. Later you amended it to 99% of women because someone brought up BDSM enthusiasts.

Even if you were to google it now, what does it matter what you can find? I'm SURE there are women out there who DO feel victimized - of course those people exist! Just like there are tons of porn actresses who don't feel like victims and happily take the check for the jobs they land. Your statement that 99% of women in porn are victimized by the porn industry is just something you pulled out of your a$$.

You can call bullshit on whatever you want, no one cares. As I've said, you've been intellectually incapable of responding to a single point. You've managed to mangle even the most basic points that I've made to the point that I had to drop the discourse down to a third grade level before you were able to understand it and admit you were wrong. You getting things wrong is practically your hallmark.


First of all, the article, which i'm going to go out on a limb and guess you didn't read, because being uninformed and yet droning on anyway seems to be your trademark, contained a scenario which is repellant anyway, to any fair-thinking person. Secondly, here are some stories from actual porn stars: http://fightthenewdrug.org/10-porn-stars-speak-openly-about-their-most-popular-scenes/

I expect, surprise surprise, you to dismiss that as you have dismissed all the hard questions and answers that have been leveled at you. Shock.

The problem, of course, with this strategy is that it's a dead giveaway for both how objectively weak your argument is, and how weak you yourself perceive it as. When you're not even able to ATTEMPT to engage honestly, it's becomes a farce in which the other party has to pretend not to notice your intellectual dishonesty.

And lastly- I'm a human being, which enables me to know that human beings, as a general rule, don't like being subjected to horrifying violence. It's kind of one of the hallmarks of humanity. A small minority of people with a fetish aside.

I eagerly await your next thrilling missive.

These women are women. They are not children. They do not need you to make decisions for them, or to tell them they can't take a certain job because you just *know* it's too horrifying and violent for them.

Thanks for all the ad hominem attacks - it's because you had a bunch of really brilliant substantive things to say, but chose to throw personal insults instead, right? The irony is lost on you, moron.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
First of all, the article, which i'm going to go out on a limb and guess you didn't read, because being uninformed and yet droning on anyway seems to be your trademark, contained a scenario which is repellant anyway, to any fair-thinking person. Secondly, here are some stories from actual porn stars: http://fightthenewdrug.org/10-porn-stars-speak-openly-about-their-most-popular-scenes/

New poster here. I have no surprise that an anti-porn organization produced an article about porn actresses claiming about sub-standard working conditions. You can probably pick any occupation, then pick the organization against their industry, and you'll find the same thing.

I have no doubt that porn, like every industry, has a few bad apples. However, I think porn producers are motivated by one thing: money. Because of that, they don't want to use underage models (it's illegal and no content provider would buy it), nor do they want to trick actresses into doing something they didn't want to. There's no incentive to do so -- why trick an actress into doing X, and hoping she'll not only do it, but do a good job at it (and not walk off) as opposed to hiring an actress where everyone is clear on expectations? Why would a porn producer spend thousands to set up a shoot, with all the equipment, location rental, and technicians, and then decide to take a risk that the actress won't agree to something not already agreed to? It just doesn't make sense business-wise.