As a mark of the state of the porn industry, there's a thread of people trying to track down some underage performer video at the top of this very forum.

Can't exactly expect even base-level normal behavior lol

Edited by - Lezzyist on 3/15/2024 2:35:29 AM

[Link]

As long as the content itself was produced in an ethical way, I don't make any distinction.
I respect where you're coming from, but I don't view this any differently from anything else I consume. For example, not going to stop watching a regular non-adult movie because one of the actors happened to pass away, for any reason.

The director going to prison thing is a different situation.
, and performing not of age is straight up illegal and unethical, so i don't understand what that has to do with this.

Edited by - casting_fan on 3/15/2024 9:31:24 AM

[Link]

The thing is there is a difference between profiting from someone's death and exploiting someone's death for profit. The first one i actually don't have a problem with, say for example a recently deceased performer shot a big showcase and a producer invested in locations talent equipment, and marketing the whole nine I wouldn't have a problem with them releasing the showcase. It's up to the consumer at that point. Now if on the other hand the some producer had a bunch of unreleased scenes of the same recently released star never intended to release them for whatever reasons and all of a sudden releases them as such and such last/lost scenes or suddenly companies start moving scenes from years ago onto the front page of their sites and plastering the star face all over the place that's clearly wrong.

It's kind like the episode of Seinfeld (the junior mint) where George hears Elaine's artist friend isn't doing well after surgery and he decides to buy his art on the chance he might die and it would be worth something. That's a scumbag thing to do.

[Link]

Is it moral or ethical? Different people will give different answers (you say no, I say yes) so more often than not the answer to the question of is it legal (yes) is the one that will be taken. As to the profiteering off of the dead performer: well, technically yes, but it is hard to quantify as money comes mainly from people subscribing to sites to access ALL their scenes, so working out who joined just for a particular performer would be difficult if not impossible.

[Link]

Edited by - Flash on 3/15/2024 2:14:33 PM

[Link]

For what it's worth, I don't agree that Jay Sin's videos should be removed by Evil Angel, because his conviction had nothing to do with his work for that company.
He was found guilty of a sexual offence but it was not committed in the course of his work with them. I can completely understand how as a convicted sexual offender, Jay Sin would be sacked by Evil Angel and exluded from the porn industry. But extending that to his past work is another step.

When Kevin Spacey was fired from House of Cards in 2017, the producttion company sued him and won $31 million to cover the costs of having to rewrite the whole of season 6 to omit hi character and reduce the number of episodes in the season. But all the House of Cards series with Spacey continues to be available on Netfix. And his Oscar for American Beauty in 1999 was not cancelled.

Edited by - Hangdog90 on 3/15/2024 11:50:44 AM

[Link]

I don´t have a problem with the companies selling the scenes, movies.. What is the alternative?

[Link]

What if your headline was: "Celebrating the timeless contributions of legendary performers"

Then this thread would have a different tone.
You already set the tone with your headline.

[Link]

Now, if you feel a more...personal...connection to a star in the scenes that you watch, and you don't want to watch that performer's scenes after she passes away, that is absolutely fine, and your prerogative. But to suggest that there is anything, in any way, immoral, unethical, or untoward about selling scenes that a deceased performer shot, years before she died...that's absolutely bonkers.

Edited by - ISD88 on 3/19/2024 6:41:51 PM

[Link]

Tell me, does your employer ejaculate on your face or in your mouth during business hours?

Patron Saint of Porn Stars

[Link]

On Twitter (before that A-hole Musk bought it) there was some porn studio tweeting/advertising their site (can't remember which one). They happened to use a deceased star's picture to promote themselves (I think it might have been August Ames?) I remember every comment was negative along the lines of "Have you no shame?" "Let that poor girl rest in peace!"

Furthermore, I'd say the whole point of porn is that it's a fantasy. There are many lovely ladies who have sex in front of the camera & we all wish we were the lucky co-star. Once a performer has passed away, that fantasy is completely gone (unless you're into necrophilia).

Patron Saint of Porn Stars

[Link]

Don't get me wrong; good folks dying, especially younger than they really ought to, is a fucking tragedy. But without resorting to emotion, anecdote, and whimsy, tell me, factually, what the difference is between selling a scene featuring a particular performer the day before she dies, and the day after? You can't, because their isn't one.

I'm going to stop responding to this thread now.

Edited by - ISD88 on 3/21/2024 9:03:26 PM

[Link]

I'm not sure why you're so worked up about this. I thought the whole point of this forum is to have a discussion. It's not like the Supreme Court ruled that all deceased performers' scenes have to be deleted. They're all still up there. I just think selling scenes from a deceased performer is akin to profiting off the dead. And as I mentioned, the fantasy part is ruined. At least for me.

Patron Saint of Porn Stars

[Link]

Really done now. :)

Edited by - ISD88 on 3/21/2024 9:55:21 PM

[Link]

Edited by - Night man on 3/22/2024 8:21:46 AM

[Link]

^Shit, Sophia Leone, too?!?!

[Link]

Porn in any sense is not mere software. Watching the images of performers having sex, showing emotion (even if fake/acted) and whatnot, in an effort of self-pleasure is not in any way reflective of, say, the use of Twitter or Excel or doing a Google search, and so on and so forth. There is no demonstrable similarity -- outside of reducing the acts of each to mere job-doing -- between a person in a cubicle writing code and a pornstar getting railed on set. That said, I do agree, if the grounds are this kind of extreme reducibility, that there's no reason to reject the uses of software programmed by someone now deceased and the video of a pornstar who is now deceased. However, I don't think this is the case. In most cases I don't know the engineer writing the code, feel no connection or relationship to them in any obvious way, and they're often part of big, nebulous teams that are mostly anonymous to consumers, whereas in the case of porn, I can see and hear the performer and relate, in some way, to the enjoyment and pleasure they're emoting. I might get some kind of pleasure (but probably not sexually, unless you're Dinesh, and you're gay for Gilfoyle's code [Silicon Valley reference, sorry]) when using a software that is particularly aesthetically pleasing or find some beauty in the way that it helps me perform some task, but this seems very different from the kind of direct and obvious [typically sexual] pleasure I am seeking when I watch porn. So there are some obvious differences.

Rather, I think there's much more to the situation, and we can look at it on a spectrum of how people tend to use porn. On one end you have those who watch a specific pornstar or scene because they feel a parasocial relationship to the pornstar and vicariously live through the actor(s) and imagine themselves performing the act they're watching. At the other end is the person who watches porn to get themselves in a horny mood and, through the image and performance of the pornstar, is able to achieve some amount of self-pleasure. In the middle are all sorts of others: those who self-pleasure to aesthetics they enjoy, those who use the videos educationally (perhaps to improve their IRL performance), those who use it to explore, express, or enjoy a kink they can or cannot participate in IRL, and those who may not feel they're in some kind of parasocial relationship with a pornstar but who enjoy imagining themselves with the performer, nonetheless, among many other options that would fall on the spectrum (this wasn't meant to be exhaustive). And, apart from the consumer, you have the company who releases scenes, and/or maintains accessibility of scenes, featuring deceased performers. The question is: do any of these run afoul of morality?

To your point, Lord Lucifer, those who are on the portion of the spectrum reflective of someone in a sort of parasocial relationship, who watches the scenes in an effort to maintain some kind of parasocial relationship with the performer, might be in a morally sketchy area. It could be seen as some kind of pseudonecrophelia or paranecrophelia. That said, I think this probably leans toward some kind of clinical psychopathy, and so blaming someone for their mental affliction is also sketchy, and it perhaps makes more sense to suggest they seek mental health treatment rather than say their act is outright immoral. So this doesn't seem to quite fit the narrative that it's unethical to continue this kind of act, but it probably isn't a healthy way to live, even if the performer was still alive.

For most others, though, I don't think there is anything very obviously unethical about continuing to use scenes featuring deceased performers. We take pleasure (albeit probably not sexual, in most cases), for example, in the music of deceased musicians, the paintings of deceased artists, and movies featuring deceased actors or by deceased directors. These mediums are also used to elicit pleasure, and, among other things, what you are likely getting from the use of these artforms is pleasure by way of the song's message, the movie's acting performances and writing, and/or the painting's visuals, plus all sort of other things, like directly relating to the art, eliciting memories, exploring new things, and whatever else. If you're using porn in similar ways -- again, going back to the spectrum -- like to enjoy their aesthetic and passion and self-pleasure to it, then I don't see this as being all that different from enjoying other forms of art, even if the kind of pleasure might be arguably or obviously different (depending on your flavor of things).

Now, one could say that, mutatis mutandis, if one is seeking pleasure in those ways, that one ought to choose a living performer over one who is deceased. But, then, we're back to why we ought to see this as unethical in some way. Some here have seemingly said or implied that the use of these scenes may in some way tarnish or deprecate their image. Perhaps this depends on why they're now deceased. If they're deceased as the direct result of porn -- arguably, for example, in the case of August Ames, whose being bullied by (among others) those in the industry seemed to have contributed to her suicide, then I think you have a plausible case. Less obvious might be those whose death was drug use related to the industry, but I can see a case being made there, too. If nothing else, they're both plausible positions.

But I think I'd probably still lean toward seeing their scenes as a way to continue celebrating them and/or appreciating them and their performance. As such, using their scenes in [most of] the above ways/for the above reasons doesn't seem obviously wrong to me, but rather is a good, or at least morally permissible, way to continue appreciating them.

As for the companies, similarly, I don't see anything obviously wrong from profiting off of the images and performance of deceased performers, especially since, presumably, they own the rights to the materials, and, presumably, there will be those viewers/consumers who want to use the scenes in the above permissible ways. I don't know if porn performers get any kind of royalties/residuals for sales (though in most cases I doubt it), in which case obviously their estate should continue profiting, as well. I think the only time I'd say it's arguable if a company should not continue selling or maintaining a scene is if that company and/or scene was related in some way to the reason the performer is now deceased, though this, too, is a gray area, as in the case of Brandon Lee in The Crow, or finishing Rust despite the death of Halayna Hutchins. In those cases, it too seems like allowing the movie to continue is a way to celebrate and appreciate the now-deceased performer. So this might be a murky area, but it still isn't so obvious to me that there's anything inherently wrong with it.

Anyway, that's my dissertation length explication of some of the issues, and where I tend to lean.

Edited by - veridical on 6/12/2024 11:31:14 PM

[Link]

Edited by - damaster on 6/13/2024 9:22:22 AM

[Link]

So basicially all the people who are against watching the scenes of performers who are sadly now deceased are also against watching non-porn movies or TV shows (heaven forbid, do these really exist) like Friends, Cheers or Harry Potter just because one of those actors has also passed away?

Why would porn be any different to non-porn (damn theres that word again) or even music?

[Link]

There is no relation to pulling the content because the director is a felon vs the performer has deceased.

Think of all the porn made in the 70's. Many of those performers have passed on. Do we delete their entire body of work? Work that they may have been proud of.

What about the other performers in the scene, or the production people? Their work would also be erased.

You may personally find it distasteful but we can't just remove whole libraries of work every time a performer dies.

[Link]

IIRC in the film & television industry there are residuals. Mainstream actors still make money (how much & for how long is a different question) if a show is syndicated, for example, or at conventions, etc. Musicians receive royalties. If the actor or artists passes away, I'm sure their kids or whoever they included in their wills still receive said residuals or royalties.

Porn performers are only paid once. The producer profits from everything else. It's a pretty fucked up business model IMHO. Much like what comic book artists were like back in the golden age of comics. Some of these artists created multi-billion dollar characters (think Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, etc.). The creator(s) of Superman almost died destitute. It was the fans pressuring the movie studios/conglomerates to compensate them for their works so they don't die in poverty. For the most part, I don't think the situation in porn is that much different. Or wasn't until OnlyFans came along.

Patron Saint of Porn Stars

[Link]

I didn't start this thread to pick a fight with people, I'm just offering a different take to our hyper-capitalistic, profit-driven, greedy corporate world out there. Not that it will change anything, except maybe offer an alternate perspective. So many porn stars die at a tragically young age. Many of them are exploited & deal with mental health and/or substance abuse issues as a result. More so than in many other fields. I just find it sickening when said producers/studios still keep profiting from the performer's scenes. But I guess many people on here are A-OK with that.

Patron Saint of Porn Stars

[Link]

Rushing a compilation of the performer's scenes to the market after their death, or a retailer putting the performer's movies or scenes on sale after the death: Very poor taste. To my mind, that is what constitutes profiting off of someone's death. And if a compilation, new material star showcase, or other big project starring that performer was already in the release pipeline, it might be better to delay that release, by at least a few weeks or months. Solely to improve the optics of it.

But to ask directors or producers to never release a movie at all because a performer in it has died is asking way too much. Not after they've paid performers' rates, location rental fees, videographer's rates, possibly hair and makeup artists' rates, possibly outfits for the performers if it was not a production where the performers bring suitcases of their own clothes to choose from, et cetera.

[Link]

Edited by - Takeo on 6/18/2024 6:35:53 AM

[Link]

Patron Saint of Porn Stars

[Link]