Katja Kassin

In our society, porn falls within those boundaries and there is a plurality of opinions about it that are all perfectly legal. Therefore I think you are wrong to apply your ad hoc set of ethical rules to your interpretation of a term and deem all who have a different one as hypocrits. I for one don't agree at all. I have no problems buying a porn movie and hence pay for the services that pornstars provide, but I would never go out and buy sex from a street hooker. To me they are two completely different things, and I don't see why it's hypocritical to think so. Neither from the customers nor the performers point of view.

That said, as a believer of moral relativism, I have no problems with your views. It's more that I think you lack respect for opposing ones. You beliveve there is moral equality between porn and prositution and hence all that don't are hypocrits...that's to me pretty prejudicial. But all in all, I find your arguments both resonable and challenging, and those accusing you of argumenting ad hominen are IMO way off.

[Link]

Good luck on your next campaign.

(Did Chocolate Cougar return?)

Edited by - DenverDon on 10/17/2005 8:35:32 AM

[Link]

You claim that you are sticking to the "facts", but you're sticking to a small, arbitrarily chosen subset of the facts. There are people all over the world who disagree with your choice of relevant facts. Aside from the examples I've already given, the state of California says that a different set of facts are relevant. It appears to be legal to make porn in some EU countries where prostitution is illegal, so those countries also say that other facts are relevant. In Norway, the opposite is true; prostitution is legal, but it is illegal to make or distribute porn. Everyone, including Katja Kassin, is dealing with the facts to exactly the same degree you are.

So explain why your choice of facts is superior to anyone else's choice of facts, or concede that your emperor has no clothes.

[Link]

I'm assuming that bumlover was deactivated for something other than what we see here.

BSD

[Link]

if he knew the slightest about this woman we all love he'd know that she was highly intelligent and not some pin cushion to be stuck time and again.

I'll have to asy it once again, the ratio of dumbass to fan is as large as rich to poor.

[Link]

Well, it was an interesting discussion to me.

While I agree that the discussion had gotten circuitous and no new ground was being covered, bumlover had made some interesting points, I don't think he'd been particularly rude or malicious in his delivery, (even as others were to him), and people were still responding to him, and more importantly, questioning him. I thought he had a right to respond to those inquiries.

I'm one of Katja's biggest fans, (My Katja love here), but in this setting she is another forum participant. One who should be treated with decorum and respect to be sure, but still, one who's words and expressed opinions are open to consideration, debate, and question. I didn't see where bumlover did anything wrong in that vein, and as Katja herself said, I hope no one is muzzled for having a different opinion.

Since the discussion was just treading the same water, I could see the thread being locked as was threatened, but since bumlover got shown the gate, I'm thinking there must be more to it than just what's evident here.

BSD

Edited by - BSD on 10/17/2005 2:29:35 PM

[Link]

As for Bumlover, I think it's a shame if he got booted because of his participation in this thread. He did have a controversial standpoint, but I think he argumented in an orderly fashion, making valid points and refraining from personal attacks, even when he was subjected to them himself. I'm pretty new here, and don't quite have a "feel" for what's accepted and not as of yet, but I hope there is room for debate and dissident views even in this part of the forum. It would make things a whole lot more interesting.

Edited by - Dither on 10/17/2005 3:44:44 PM

[Link]

Edited by - Huggins293 on 10/17/2005 6:13:30 PM

[Link]

Huggins,

Do not do a reply w/quote on a long post by someone, and then add absolutely nothing to it.

[Link]

Thanks
Dark Voyeur

[Link]

I don't know Norwegian law in all its details. I only know what gets reported in Norwegian newspapers. And I only made statements about what I knew. If I said something incorrect, please point it out instead of stating that I'm not quite correct and then repeating what I've already said.

[Link]

Years ago, on Politically Incorrect, a segment of the show mentioned a lawsuit that a porn actress had which tried to get the Screen Actors Guild to cover x-rated movies. Garey Busey ridiculed the idea that porn acting is the same as mainstream acting. Busey imitated orgasm noises. Being conscious of the camera is something that makes sex on camera similar to mainstream acting. If someone was having sex with a prostitute, they wouldn't be changing positions every 5 minutes so that the camera could get a different view of the sex act. The camera being there can also influence what facial expressions that a woman has during a scene. Even non-verbal acting effects the way someone views a scene. The debate about whether x-rated actresses are prostitutes is similar to a Manager at the videostore where I work aruing that re-stocking fees are not late fees. When I said that you could make an argument either way, he was demissive of that point of view.

In the Carnal Comics Yahoo group, I mentioned this thread.
Jay Allen Sanford (the former publisher of Carnal Comics)
has written about his view of the connection between being a porn star and prostition. He published during the 1990's so his experiences may not reflect what the current x-rated industry is like.

According to Jay Allen Sanford:
Jamie,
In several moments of thinking about it, I cannot think of a single women I got to know well (enuff to confide in me) in the porn or stripper industry who wasn't willing to exchange sex for money OFF CAMERA on at least a semi-regular basis. And I include in that assessment a porn set makeup artist and a woman who worked behind the bar at a strip joint but didn't strip, they both had "gentlemen friends" who paid for their company sometimes. I even include my old boss at a strip club, she had two wealthy "patrons."

I can't think of a single Jolar girl who didn't/doesn't turn at least the occasional trick on the side (either with customers met at the club or met on their own elsewhere). Not even Bunny, who was married and had a house and kids, she still prostituted on the side sometimes (minus vaginal or anal penetration but that's still prostitution). I only
dated a few porn ladies but all had at least a coupla "regulars" who financed their endeavors on occasion. I can't even exclude Hyapatia, as she was set up for "private shows" by her husband in San Diego, just a few days after they were married! Sex = $$$ would seem endemic to the
sex profession - - -

Maybe Aja didn't turn tricks on the side while I knew her, but she talked about having done it before. I still can't think of a single exception - - - -

I'll admit I was kinda stunned when I was first dating Christina Angel, who was the first porn girl I really got involved with, and I saw how often she got propositioned while appearing as a feature dancer at various clubs. Particularly in the so-called "VIP Booths," most
of those customers paying $100 for a bottle and a private dancer for three songs were actually getting the girl alone to make a prostitution deal for later (hopefully off-premesis). The first night I worked a club with Christina, I was playing bodyguard and catching the clothes - at the end of the night, she told me about all the offers she'd gotten in VIP Booths for a "private show" the next day and she wanted my opinion on who she should call and say "yes" to. This was not part of my previous dating relationship choices, choosing a sucker to give
my girlfriend $500 for a lingerie show and handjob ($750 if they talk her into a blowjob).

While I appreciated my new girlfriend giving me the "final say" over who she turned tricks with, it was still an odd moment for me - I told her that I was new to this sort of thing and asked her to wait until our next tour stop before asking me to agree to and help her make a "date" with a John. She was cool (tho bummed about losing the money)
and, yep, by the time we hit Galveston I had acclimated - I watched all the VIP guys she danced for, went over their business cards and offers with her at the end of the nights and we generally chose together one or two lucky "johns" she'd visit during off-hours at each of our 4-5 day stints. I took the cab with her to the meetups, met the "John"
formally and told him the rules and then I waited outside with a stopwatch, ready to bust in if someone tried to keep her too long or if she called for help - essentially the job description of a pimp, tho Christina kept her money, I got paid by the agent booking the dance gigs (who, for a time, was her husband, ie her hubby was paying me to sleep with his wife on the road, right down to giving me a box of
condoms when I'd pick her up, which was a whole 'nother odd hurdle for me to get past at first....)

Rereading the above, I state again for the record how VERY happy I am to no longer be dating women who work in the sex biz - with just a coupla exceptions (like Marilyn Star's mindblowing blowjobs), "regular" women are much better sex partners anyways!!! And the sex MEANS something to most women, whereas to the women of erotica, virtually all sex has been reduced to a commodity with no more intrapersonal import than a handshake (if even that).

I was once quoted saying "When a regular girl swallows your sperm, she probably loves you. When a stripper swallows, she's probably just too lazy to get a paper towel" - - - -

Jay Allen

http://www.demicomix.com/Carnal01.htm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carnalcomics

Edited by - Jamie Gardner on 10/20/2005 6:56:06 PM

[Link]

Sanford's argument is that women who enter porn are either predisposed towards prostitution, or that their experience in porn disposes them towards it. But he also says that Aja didn't turn tricks when he knew her, in spite of having done it previously. Assuming that he was talking about the porn star Aja and he knew her when she was active, then something in her experience caused her to stop tricking. So being in the porn industry doesn't automatically lead to tricking, and it may have the opposite effect.

Sanford claims that all the women he knew in porn, without execption and including the makeup artists, were also prostitutes. It's impossible to check this to see if it is true. Katja Kassin and some other female performers have claimed that they don't engage in prostitution. It's also impossible to check their claims. But it's probably safe to assume that even if female performers do, in general, engage in prostitution, there are exceptions. Not all female performers do it. And I personally have no way of checking if the majority of female performers do it.

Sanford's claim that all the females in porn he knew were prostitutes depended on including Aja as a prostitute, even though he admitted that she might not have been tricking when he knew her. The implication is "once a prostitute, always a prostitute". Even if she wasn't turning tricks, the fact that she had done so in the past (in his belief) allowed him to lump her with women who were currently tricking. It seems to me that "ex-prostitute" and "prostitute" are two different things. It's not really fair to say that someone is currently a prostitute if they are not currently turning tricks. Since I'm dating an ex-prostitute, that may be my bias. But I think it would be inaccurate to call me an auto mechanic just because I spent two years working on cars many years ago. I don't see any moral problems with either mechanics or prostitution, but I don't see the point of calling someone either one if that's not how they currently earn money.

By implication, Sanford also makes the claim that there is is a clear difference between the attitudes towards sex of women in the sex industry and women outside it. I disagree. While there are women who completely subscribe to conventional morality in regard to sex, there are many women who don't. I was married to a woman who felt entitled to demand that I buy her things in exchange for sex. She was offended when I compared that to prostitution, but I didn't and still don't see the difference. There are women who don't demand that men pay for sex, but show their appreciation when men spend money on them by giving blow jobs. They're not demanding payment for sex so much as showing honest gratitude, but it is still very different from conventional sexual morality, and very close to the attitude of sex workers. The women in the sex industry are drawn from a much larger group of women whose attitudes towards sex are not the conventional attitude. Which brings up the question of how widely conventional sexual morality is really followed. Nobody is forced to do porn or strip in this country and few people are forced into prostitution, so there must be a ready supply of women who already have non-conventional attitudes towards sex. Somewhere out there are a large number of women who don't ask themselves what Jesus would do before they have sex. (Jesus would use a condom, in case you're wondering.)

I don't have as much experience with women in the sex industry as Sanford, but it seems to me that there's a lot of variation in how the women view sex. For example, there may be women who swollow because they're too lazy to get a paper towel. But in general, women don't enjoy swollowing. If you're not paying and she's swollowing, chances are she likes you. How much she has to like you before she swollows varies a lot. I've had the same experience with women who were never involved with the sex industry. A few don't think twice about swollowing and others won't swollow no matter how much they love you.

With out denying the truth of Sanford's experiences, it seems to me that the stark black and white picture he paints represents his feelings about his experiences. The facts about women in sex work seem to be more ambiguous.

[Link]

When Jay mentions his experiences with porn stars, you have to take into account that he knew most women through phone conversations or their doing store and convention signings. He hung out with porn actresses such as Alicia Rio, Marilyn Star, Christina Angel, Jezebel Flair, Sunshine Blue, etc.. The people he knew very well may not be representative of most porn actresses. I disagree with many of Jay's views on the x-rated industry. I think his views are overly cynical and simplistic. Jay had a much more positive view of porn when he started Carnal Comics. I think some people have negative experiences that influence them to develop prejudices.

http://www.demicomix.com/Carnal01.htm http://groups.yahoo.com/group/carnalcomics

Edited by - Jamie Gardner on 10/21/2005 5:21:28 AM

Edited by - Jamie Gardner on 10/21/2005 5:24:03 AM

[Link]

I'm not denying that your friend experienced what he describes. I'm also not denying the feelings he had. Many guys would probably have strong reactions to being paid by their girlfriend's husband to have sex with their girlfriend, or towards being their girlfriend's unpaid pimp.

As I said before, I'm questioning the assumption that people in porn are different from people outside of porn. The vast majority of prostitutes have never worked in porn, and drug use and sexual abuse aren't predictive factors in determining who becomes a prostitute. Prostitutes come from all walks of life. So it seems that a large number of people aren't squeemish about trading sex for money, and some of these people become porn performers, and some become prostitutes. And some get married and demand goods and services in exchange for sex.

Another problem is that Sanford says that only some of the women he knew admitted to tricking, but he assumes that that is because they were the ones who knew him well enough to confide in him. It's possible that other women didn't confide in him because they weren't actually tricking. There's no reason to assume that because some women confided that they were tricking, that all women in porn are doing it.

Being willing to be paid for having sex isn't enough to make a performer willing to be a prostitute. Prostitutes usually have to negotiate with customers, while most performers have agents. The best paid performers tend to be the ones with good negotiating skills, but a woman can often support herself with the fees her agent negotiates. Also, prostitutes have to be alone with their customers, while performers have sex in front of witnesses, which gives them some protection. As Kassin has pointed out, there's also the issue of disease, and the issue of having sex with someone you've never seen before and will never see again. Abusive male performers quickly get reputations, so by sticking with established performers, female performers can avoid a lot of abuse. Prostitutes can't do that with customers they don't know.

So while those of us outside of porn may think that a person who has sex for money under one set of circumstances will do it under all circumstances, female performers may be able to think of lots of rational reasons why they don't want to trick. Just as wives who demand goods and services in exchange for sex usually have good reasons why they don't want to trick.

Like any other profession, there's a lot of variation in what performers do. People tend to hang out with people who have the same attitudes and behaviors. Performers tend to work with the same group of roughly twenty performers over and over, and the groups tend to consist of people with similar behaviors. So you may read an interview with one performer who talks about all the alcohol consumed on set, and another performer may say, in complete honestly, that she rarely sees alcohol consumed on set. Two performers working with two different groups of fellow performers may have different experiences.

In the same way, Sanford may have had contacts with a group of performers who tricked, while many other groups may consist of performers who don't trick. So even if Sanford never had close contact with a performer who didn't trick, that doesn't mean that all or even a majority of female performers trick.

I doubt that anybody outside the industry would ever become close enough to a large enough group of performers that they could make blanket generalizations about performers. And even people in the industry tend to work with a relatively small group of like-minded people. So I'm dubious about generalizations, espessially when they suggest that people in porn are fundamentally or morally different from people outside of porn.

However, I owe you thanks for posting Sanford's story. The life of a porn performer's boyfriend isn't something I know anything about, so you've given me information I probably couldn't have gotten any other way. I doubt that all porn boyfriends experience what Sanford experienced, but it seems likely that some do.

[Link]

I think there is a difference between porn and prostitution, though you can argue that porn is a form of prostitution - I accept bumlover's point of view on that.

A major difference in porn that I haven't seen mentioned is that the whole idea is that it is pleasurable to the viewer, even if not to the performers.

I have to say I have liked all the Katja scences I have seen. For this reason I can only say:

Katja you ROCK!

Edited by - joel on 10/21/2005 7:52:03 PM

[Link]

Edited by - bono-ONE on 11/9/2006 11:11:32 AM

[Link]

Edited by - paulob93 on 11/9/2006 12:29:11 AM

[Link]

Edited by - KatjaKassin on 11/9/2006 2:41:42 AM

[Link]

I'll rest my case now, and wait for the inevitable ban/thread lock/post delete.

Ivor Biggun aka bumlover.

Got your wish.

Edited by - bono-ONE on 11/9/2006 11:13:31 AM

[Link]

Edited by - pauloh on 11/9/2006 4:20:08 AM

[Link]