Men's Group
Related: About this forumPornstars are psychologically as healthy as other women?
I'm not saying it's true, I'm just pointing out that's what a study has found. And it's reported not in some third-rate publication either.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/porn-stars-and-the-naked-truth-8348388.html
It is just one study. However, it does make this note:
Basing your judgment on one study is better than basing it on zero.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)of assumptions about pornstars being thrown around as if they were facts by certain religious nuts and their radfem supporters on the left.
None of them thought it necessary to actually talk to the people they are supposedly fighting for.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)No significant difference between sexual abuse in childhood between the two groups of women. That's one I would have predicted. It's funny how many anti-porn crusaders willingly share the fact that they were abused. But thank goodness, it didn't effect their mind the way it did sex workers, right?
However there were a few differences between pornstars and the control group:
I'm proud to say, I would have predicted these, too.
Then, at the end we have the feminist Dawn Foster commenting, "The study's main objective seems to be to prove that not all women in porn are exploited: no one has argued that."
Ms. Foster, what do you have in your ears? That's exactly what some people have argued.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)caseymoz
(5,763 posts)At least of people interested enough to answer the survey. I'll admit, a survey size of nine doesn't mean much, except to prove that some would say all porn stars are exploited victims.
4th law of robotics
(6,801 posts)People have made that claim and that doesn't seem to be the purpose of this study.
Also she's discounting it because she doesn't like the conclusion not because she had conflicting data.
Disturbing how angry people get upon hearing that others *aren't* being abused as they'd hoped. They claim to care about the plight of porn workers then get upset when those workers turn your to be doing ok on their own.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)The study doesn't imply that many are, or some are exploited. It says that, taking known measures of psychological health, you can't see that porn stars are less healthy than other women, and might arguably be more healthy. Also, they're not abused any more than other women.
No, it seems the main reason they go into it, besides the money, is that casual sex and exhibitionism really don't bother them. That difference seems to be hard to comprehend for many women, many people in fact.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)The porn won.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Then, no, the war isn't won. It's just become an asymmetric conflict. A guerrilla war. Or something like the Jim Crow stage of the Civil War.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Last edited Tue Nov 27, 2012, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Content industries, adult entertinment such as it is is experiencing a dislocation due to the internet. "Porn" is just as likely to be something done by exhibitionist amteurs for free as anything else.. So "porn worker" sort of becomes like "youtube actor" in that case.
That said, I think this is an important article. My point had more to do with the idea that anyone is ever going to get rid of it.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Where there's absolutely no "industry" involved, usually solo shows no male present for the "exploitation." Patrons tip with tokens bought on the site that the stars redeem for cash, with the site, of course, taking a cut. But they're not involved in management, except in making sure the TOS are followed. If a client gets rude, the performer can ban him herself.
Some of these shows are no more than the woman getting dressed for the morning. I mean, why not run it? Somebody might tip.
It's hard to argue that males are pushing women into any of that, other than by having money available.
Upton
(9,709 posts)Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2012/11/27/tmz-live-angus-t-jones-halle-berry-gabriel-aubry-olivier-martinez-justin-bieber/#ixzz2DWqrUcda
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)But the these initial findings are intriguing.
I'm not going to listen to 24 minutes of TMZ just to get to the pornstars' reactions.
Upton
(9,709 posts)anyway, both porn stars, Dana DeArmond and Bailey Blue, talked about how they made their own choices, love their work, have not been exploited, aren't drug addicts, etc.
In other words, they agreed with the study and knocked down most of the myths the anti porn radfems and fundies direct at the industry,..
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)Or come up with excuses about.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)these folks.
People- and they're becoming more and more the majority- who say "eh. Big deal" contribute to an environment that accepts, as opposed to shames, these peoples' life choices.
Response to caseymoz (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)liberal N proud
(60,945 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)In other words, asking stonemasons, nurses, insurance adjusters and porn stars about their psychological health neglects the out of work or unemployable "stonemasons" "nurses" "insurance adjusters" and "porn stars"
It isn't that porn stars tend to be psychologically healthy, it's that psychologically unhealthy individuals don't make it as porn stars.
It's like this; if you want to poll the psychological health of athletes, a more nuanced answer will be obtained by asking more than just those present in the winning team's locker room at the Super Bowl.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)were that the women make at least one X-rated movie. That seems to set a really low standard for "success" if you can describe it like that. But that says nothing about how they found the women and got them to volunteer.
Objections to porn based on the porn stars being traumatized have always presumed that the ones at the top of their careers were damaged. At least this study counters that much. Unlike athletes, stonemasons, and all the other professions listed, generally people see porn performance as unskilled labor that any brain-damaged addict can do. I wouldn't go that far, but some people who've never had sex on camera before can become hits a month after they get into the business. Try that as a stonemason and a nurse. I'm not saying the work isn't hard. It just isn't skilled. Though, sexual skills might take you further for longer.
It's harder to wipe out in porn than it is in the other professions you name. You don't have a nine-to-five job, for one thing. Which is why sex work is attractive for people with drug problems.
I don't think sex workers have an addiction problem. I think addicts have a sex-work problem. I think the people who should never get into that business are the ones who are in because they're too crippled with a drug habit to do anything else, and sex work is the only thing that pays enough for the fix. Those are the people who are most likely to be in despite any moral or sexual aesthetic objections. They are the ones who commit the most risks, and the ones most likely to end traumatized and hating the general clientele.
Okay, though. It's not a bad objection you have. I'd just call this study preliminary You would have to test your hypothesis statistically before you could say it's anything but conjecture. You could check further into the study to find out if it were controlled for "dropouts."
However, that's not why I reported this. Personally, I'm just happy somebody, anybody, actually asked these women about themselves before reporting to the public, rather than relying on the stereotypes and prejudices that have dominated the discussion of porn. I think that's a step forward. I don't actually care what other studies find, as long as they actually study the porn stars and not the stereotypes, and are fair and don't tamper with the data.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I mean, one thing to do for people in that line of work is to de-stimgatize it. And I think that's happened significantly in recent years.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)You talk about insulting.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Gee, one would almost think that trial balloon didn't go over so well.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)or, ummm, rock music?
No exploitation, drugs, alcohol, or abuse?
caseymoz
(5,763 posts). . . the stereotype legitimizes the pariah status people give them just for being openly promiscuous. It gives the slut-shamers a way of saying that, no, it isn't the sex that bothers us, the sex they have is really just one symptom of a sickness. And then say, look, we're not judging them on their sex lives, we're showing pity because they're sick.
You don't have that perverse motivation connected to rock music. Over movies or rock music, people don't conceal what is really slut-shaming and harassment and then make those sound socially redeeming and even laudable.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)Otherwise, though, I completely agree with you. Only authoritarians have anything to gain by reviling or pitying sex workers.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)there's slut shaming. The authoritarians might benefit from it, but people of every class, of both sexes, and of every alignment commit it.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Have been accountants and stock brokers.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)It's like, abandon data and reason, prepare ye for an unending cavalcade of goofy anecdotal nonsense and spooky-sounding strawmen.
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)But I'm afraid hearing the actual position of the person proposing it is rampant would make my head spin.
I realize there was entendre there.....
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)and usually what happens in these "discussions" is, the folks making the anti-argument, such as it is, latch onto the most egregious examples of whatever they're trying to find, and say "see! this is porn!"
Or else they're trying to argue that "porn" programs the fitzwardles of impressionable young mens' frimhammits into terrible contrortions of snizwafflery. Except, fact being, that the diverse media menu which is available (and isn't going away) now via our interconnected world, allows folks to find what they like, and some people seem to like snizwafflery. (Lest the inevitable derailment train try to go off the tracks at this point, please assume all the snizwafflery involves consenting adults).
No one, I would think, would try to argue that there isn't a lot of bad porn out there, a lot of stupid porn out there, and certainly some negative or racist porn out there as well. The same could be said for music. Good grief, there's a lot of bad music out there. But no one tries to make broad, ham-fisted general arguments about "music" (like "music" is bad!), do they?
They're capable of distinguishing, for instance, Mozart from Pavement from Frank Zappa from the Nuge.
So lacking a definition short of Potter Stewart's "I know it when I see it", what, then, is mainstream, readily available, legal "porn"?
Porn is still pictures or films of consenting adults, either naked or having sex. (personally, I do seem to prefer them to be physically attractive, but I'm funny that way) That's the broadest, most simple definition I think one can come up with, and when you cut through all the noise, that is what the people who have a problem with "porn" seem to have a problem with, first and primarily.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)There are certain sectors of folks who have a pathological aversion to the male sexual response, and anything which is even remotely designed to appeal to said response is problematic. "Those pictures are fine, unless they're designed for men to jerk off to!!!"
Of course, many of those folk have suffered trauma, which was directly associated with a fucked up, illegal, abhorrent form of male sexuality/control, so a certain amount of empathy for any PTSD issues is warranted. But then, I think those same issues generally render them wholly incapable of having any kind of rational, healthy discussion on such topics as well.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But when you are talking about people who take their cues on human sexuality from Andrea Dworkin; whose celibate relationship with John Stoltenberg is held up as the ONLY model for a permissible M/F arrangement, who could only envision non-oppressive hetero sex if it did not involve an erect penis... I mean, clearly you're not talking about the mainstream of opinion.
I've expressed my speculation as to the larger biological (dare I say, "evo-psych" roots of some of this drive of some in small hunter-gatherer bands to control the general level of group sexual availability-- a drive which is totally not prepared for the wide-ranging, open, uncontrollable media rich modern information environment, much of that stubbornly uncontrollable information consisting of pictures of Aria Giovanni's boobs, even.
...the perpetual slow-mo shitfit over stuff like pictures of naked women on the internet, hot celebrities, what-have-you... it's old. It was old a long time ago. Now it's just like beating the horse's skeleton, there's not even much dead horse left anymore.
Off the subject, did I see on FB that you lost another pet? I'm sorry, man.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)Not to mention, all the wailing and gnashing of teeth in that thread about men "whacking off"...
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)It's really amazing what goes on in people's heads.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Sometimes I wonder about this place...
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Unfortunately, I just peeped into that thread via your link, and no shock, found said stalker in the middle of it!(It was not the person you quoted)
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)This was after the aforementioned poster got locked out of a thread. I wasn't the one who alerted, which makes it all the more amusing. I did alert on the PMs, but evidently this one is still up to more of the same behavior which says more about their own pathology than anyone else.
YES.
Mail Message
Now that Wussie boy alerted on me,
I guess I'll just have to answer personlly, lol.
Was it the little Wussie boy in you who needed to 'alert' on me?
Mail Message
I can SEE why you're threatened by strong women.
You've probably not gotten laid in a year, LOL.
whathehell
I'd suggest you stay in the shallow end of the pool, "Major", lol
Mail Message
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Somebody needs a little break I'd say... Did anything come of your alerts?
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)I forwarded it to the admins and let them take any action they felt necessary. But those were from a while back and said poster is still posting and evidently hasn't changed their bad behavior.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Clearly, it's crossing into homophobic bullying, which is supposedly verboten on DU and should be offensive to all here. I guess who says it is what really matters.
Glad to know I'm not the only one facing attempted verbal assault by this individual.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)If someone thinks their opinion is so important they have to engage in silly insults, alert trolling, or any of the other half-fast grammar school games that people like to play, they probably aren't all that relevant to begin with.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)people with goggles on talking past each other.
Much as I would like to say that there was idiocy on both (I think there were two) sides, it became clear that behind a lot of the anger and (deliberate?) misunderstanding was this deep disturbance about the fact that men do indeed masturbate to depictions of sex, and naked women. For some reason we are designed to get aroused visually and anything can trigger it, with porn having a guarantee when you're in a hurry. I can't help remembering Woody Allen getting a call on Sunday morning-- "What are you doing?" "Just masturbating to the lingerie ads in the NY Times Magazine."
There's also that phenomenon of elderly men suddenly showing an interest in porn, possibly nostalgic for the real thing.
It' complicated, and misplaced angst and anger have mo place in the discussion. Properly placed anger over criminal acts does, of course, but it helps to remember just what those criminal acts are.
BTW, did a few people in that thread just lose a job, a pet, a relative, or something else important? Seems some have a lot of time on their hands to post, and great personal loss would explain the attitude.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Forgot it was in here.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Good to see you, Lady! How's things?
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)I went into lurk mode after the levels of stupid in GD went toxic, and it's left me with a bunch of free time. I've been finding things to fill up the time with.
I remember now all the reasons why I hated Arizona . We're getting some lovely weather though, it's been in the 70s/80s since I got here: it would be perfect riding weather if my bike battery hadn't croaked. Dammit.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)Typical AZ, where the state mascot is the Wild Desert Bigot.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Moving is right up there with root canals, in my book.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)This should give you a good idea of my stress level during the move: I took up smoking again, after more than 2 years. I'm having to take up *quitting* again, this week. I've spent the past 2 weeks within 90 miles of the grandchildren and have yet to see them, because I refuse to go visit them reeking like tobacco smoke.
Also my cat dislikes the new quarters and is pissed at me.
I almost hate to admit it but I miss Utah.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Who should we save first from themselves, Kate Upton or the future Duke graduate?
whathehell
(29,798 posts)Except there are WAY more studies that say otherwise...Sorry boys.
https://www.google.com/search?q=majority+of+prostitutes+abused+as+children&sitesearch=#q=most+prostitutes+abused+as+children
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)whathehell
(29,798 posts)Uh, yeah, I guess so.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)So much for "preponderance of evidence"
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)I can't say I'm much impressed by your contradiction.
whathehell
(29,798 posts)I can't say I'm much impressed by you're critical thinking skills, either.
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)Brilliant!
Speaking of which if your objective is to flame people in the MG, and I'm pretty sure it is, then I'll invite you to leave. Consider this your only warning.
whathehell
(29,798 posts)Good try, bro, but lots of us DO forget the spell check once in awhile!
You are "Warning" me?....Knock yourself out, honey, I'm "inviting" you to Ignore!
Major Nikon
(36,900 posts)Consider yourself ignored.
opiate69
(10,129 posts)Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)opiate69
(10,129 posts)Blue_Adept
(6,436 posts)I saw this on XFinity on Demand the other day, I think it was Showtime on demand;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aroused_(film)
It had a couple of stars that I like so I checked it out and it was interesting as the woman who was doing the documentary stated she didn't want to see their films prior to the shoot and discussion itself. She wanted to talk to the women, not the stars, to hear about their lives and stories.
Some interesting stuff.
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)She's paying her way through Duke making porn and loves it.
Exultant Democracy
(6,595 posts)The girl who was the total drug addicted porn star fuck up was from my high school and was raised by fundy xtians. The other I met in college and she was raised by some die hard hippies from Ithaca and not only does she say that porn has empowered her (like the Duke girl) but it is also obvious how she has been empowered by working in an industry that celebrates her for her personal sexuality.