Ok, let me start by saying that I don't have many positive things to say about radical feminists. I agree to a certain extent with the liberals that women should have the freedom to work, if they so choose, and that they shouldn't be confined to the world of domesticity, etc. Although I don't believe they should have equal pay to men, for example, in certain sports, such as tennis.
However, I fail to see how women are being exploited or oppressed through pornography. It's not as if they are forced into the industry by these evil producers and directors who force them into some kind of slavery. I mean, if 30K a month is "oppression" and "exploitation", I would gladly be "oppressed" and "exploited" for that kind of money.
Another argument that is made is the theory that capitalism is to blame, due to it's commercialization of women as sexual objects. IMO, this is rubbish. It's simply a matter of genetics. Women have always been seen as sexual objects, for better or worse, throughout history. The only difference is capitalism, along with technological advancement, has made it possible to reach a wide audience, which wasn't possible in the past.
In fact, at least women are able to make a very good living nowadays because of pornography, something that wasn't possible 50 or more years ago. In that sense, capitalism can be considered a Godsend.
I'm interested to know what other members think of this, particularly the ladies :)
Where in the hell is my grilled cheese? 575 Posts 3/05
Posted - May 2 2006 : 4:12PM
Radical feminists' method of attack seems to be to reduce the femininity of women down to nothing while demasculinizing men in the process to create some great society of eunuchs. In other words: Don't ask me what they they're thinking.
One man's trash can be the next man's treasure. 1187 Posts 1/04
Posted - May 2 2006 : 4:37PM
Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon were the two most widely recognized man-hating, radical leftist, anti-porn crusaders. Andrea wrote many books on the subject. Andrea passed away last year. She might have been the best friend the porn industry had. She was particularly unattractive, hairy, unkempt, and large. She was mean, snide, rude, and she had particular contempt for women like Nadine Strossen, President of the ACLU who probably doesn't like porn all that much, but decided it is a free-speech issue and besides, the Christian Right fights porn so we must defend it. She was angry at most of humanity, particularly men but she had a special hatred for women she considered to be traitors to her brand of feminism like Nadine or Gloria Allred. She made many enemies on the left, a feat that's hard to do. When colleagues of hers would speak about what a wonderful son they were raising Andrea couldn't resist saying something like, 'He'll abuse women someday' or 'All men are potential rapists', or 'He'll be another in a long line of wife beaters.'
I found out that Dworkin was in an abusive marriage in the Netherlands prior to becoming a radical feminist. No doubt another reason why she hated men so much was precisely because she was so unattractive and jealous of those women and men who were in happy and relatively benign marriages/relationships. She also probably hated herself for being so unattractive.
I think there are two types. As you say, those who are pro-porn and those like Andrea Dworkin who are anti-porn. Certainly the argument about financial empowerment is totally valid. Pornography is one of the few (if not the only) profession(s) where women earn, on the whole, alot more than men.
not over the course of a career a womans career is typically only a few years mens are like 15, also the real money is in owning the company, there are no woman owned porn companies
Ryan, I think that Kami knows that and the fact that you are not a woman is the point of her post.
Get yourself some douple anal penetration, because you WANT it, manage to not feel "oppressed" and "exploited" and while you do some ATM, think of the money you make.
(EDIT, Kami, you were faster then me, I hope it is okay that I had an opinion on what Ryan said to you, too.)
Well, that is not even the point I want to make, I got carried away....
The woman you call "radical feminists" were the ones that made the way for the women of today. Some 50+ years ago a female orgasm was not considered nesessary, and a girl was taught that sex was something tht she had to endure for the pleasure of having children. The double moral did not only oppress the women of that time, they robbed the men of enjoying a ree sexuality, too.
While today equality is still not the norm, things got alot better through feminism. You are now free to beleive that a porn actress does indeed come during a scene, and you can sleep with a gorgeous woman who is secure about her sexuality and who does not fear that you'll think that she is a cheap whore when she enjoys her body and the sex you have.
so don't be so harsh on feminists, they make your life better all the time.
Well, that wouldn't be a bad idea if I was gay, Janet. However, as I'm heterosexual, that pretty much rules it out
Click to expand
Again, I have no qualms with liberal feminists and I don't deny that they've done positive things. I'm specifically referring to the group of radical feminists who think that pornography and capitalism are two evils.
But again, there are some professions where women, for example, are being paid equal money to men yet they don't put in an equal amount of effort. I think this is unjust. If women want to be treated equal, then they have to earn it. Am I being mean? I don't think so, just fair.
Jill never owned that Tara I honestly dont know if she does or not and the third one Ive never heard of
Click to expand
Jill must have owned it because she was the founder of the company. I'm not sure why it should be called Jill Kelly Productions if she's not the owner... I must admit, I'd never heard of Helen Duval either but it shows that there are women who own their own porn companies. So clearly, your original conclusion about women not owning their own companies is false :)
but you seem top have an asshole. Im sure you can get into some form of sex work
Click to expand
Nah, guys don't do much for me
Click to expand
you said the money is what appealed to you, I am not attracted to every person I have performed with
Click to expand
Perhaps I should have explained it about more clearly. When I said that I would gladly be "oppressed" if it meant getting 30K a month, I meant that if I were a female.
no you are the legal documents for Jill Kelly are online You are assuming many things and thats where the problem is.
I don't feel oppressed I love porn and Im grateful for the financial freedom it has given me but this is not a black and white issue. Are women degraded YEs absolutely for me personally is it a fair trade off yes, but I would never speak for all the women doing this every day.
There are many more professions where men are paid more for equal work. The porn business as one of the few examples for the opposite, but I don't think that porn mirrors the reality of todays working world and the situations of females in it in general.Personally, I agree with you here, I don't believe that pornography is evil or per se degrates a woman. Feminists who degrate porn actresses to victims are really grating on my nerves, too. I believe that porn actresses just make their own choices like everyone else, no need to fuss about it.
The thing is, you have not disproven what I've said about women owning their own companies. It's not a matter of assumption, it's a matter of fact, Kami
But how are women degraded? Most sexual acts that professional female pornstars participate in are a part of consensual sex between couples in every day life. Couldn't it also be argued, in that case, that if a woman, for example, sits on a man's face, or ties him up, or pushes her breasts/butt into his face, that they are degrading for the man?
MissJanet wrote:I don't doubt it, Janet. But take this example. In tennis, women (forgive me about the mistake about having equal pay) WANT equal pay yet they only want to play best of 3 set matches. On the other hand, in Majors and in the finals of Masters Series events, men have to play best of 5 sets. Is it fair, in that case, to demand equal pay?Yeah, I agree with you that pornography (at least for me) doesn't degrade the women taking part. I don't think to myself "oh yes, she's being degraded, great" I simply take pleasure from the aesthetic value that the scene provides.
What? you do DAP, ATM or stand in line for bukkake in your daily life?
These are no every day sexual acts, why would people buy DVDs about it when they do them all the time. Porn provides fantasies and the fantasies go more extreme all the time, as far from every day sex as possible.
MissJanet wrote:I didn't say ALL, I said MOST :) But many of these films actually give couples a new spark in their sex lives and they do try them (again, I'm not saying all of them)
About 300 woman in the world make money from playing tennis, and so I don't think that that is a worthy example. I don't care about how many sets they play, I want to be entertained and they entertain me. Male players should play only 3 sets, too, everything else takes to much time anyway :).I believe that. But you don't know if the actresses feel degraded doing the scene and you don't need to care. After all, you paid for it. There is a Max Hardcore, a Khan and more degrading stuff out there.
I said it before, I went and watched a Max Hardcore bonus clip. I felt personally degraded by simply watching it. Maybe that makes me "verklemmt", but I felt sorry for the girl in question and at the same time I was angry with her for doing this stuff. I don't want to even think about Max's motives and I don't want to know the men who watch this and get off because the bitch got it bad (and make Max rich and famous). That part of the industry is build on degrading and to come back to the first post, here you see that feminism is still needed. At least in my humble opinion.
I don't read the works of radical feminists, so I can't really speak about anybody in particular. There is a school of thought, as Saratoga said, that views the sex industry as financially empowering for women. This is true for women who enter the top rungs of the industry, who have their shit together, aren't hopelessly addicted to drugs, don't carry a staggering amount of debt, and don't have abusive boyfriends that intimidate them into doing the work and likely take most of their money.
The thing is, for every 100 girls you see in a DVD that you might select, there are 100 more that truly are exploited and oppressed. If you don't think that's true, then you're truly seeing the world through rose-colored glasses. And by the way, I sure as fuck do deserve equal pay for equal work.
MissJanet wrote:Fair enough, you want to be entertained. Everybody does. But my point is: why should they receive equal pay if they do less work? That simply isn't fair. If males were to play 3 sets, then that's fine but the rules state they have to play best of 5.I've never actually seen a Max Hardcore film but from the dvd covers that I saw, I will not be watching one any time soon. It's the sort of thing I'd never buy. I have a threshold and I won't go beyond it. Max Hardcore surpasses it by a long way.
Again, I'm not saying that ALL women who are in the industry aren't being degraded but I always say: no one is forcing them to stay. They can leave at any time if they are unsatisfied for whatever reason. They have freedom of choice.
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - May 2 2006 : 9:48PM
Why should a DH make more money than a shortstop? Women tennis players should make as much money as men because they draw comparable crowds, regardless of the length of matches. They're far more entertaining (IMO) also.
I think in general, when it comes to industries where sex appeal matter, women make more money because their careers are shorter. It's not only porn. Look at supermodels, victoria's secret, etc. There aren't male supermodels that are equivalent. Also male modeling careers last longer than women's. If you pick up the Sear's catalog, you'll see the same guys in it year after year.
The empowerment thing is very observable. When men gather to watch women feature dance, they are very docile. During the lapdance, it's the man that's passive. When a male stripper is onstage the women in the audience freak out. The roles as people expect them to be are reversed.
With regard to porn, I look at it like signing up for the military. You see girls who do their three year tour and then they're off to college or whatever. You either risk going to war or bukkake. In any case, the public is grateful.
I'd venture to say that guys who watch Max Hardcore are get more of a rush from how he treats the girls as opposed to sex.Because there's nothing sexy about Max Hardcore movies. It's like watching boxing or a car accident. You know it will probably end with a whole lot of brutality in the middle.
I, personally, don't have a problem with feminists...in general. I'm about as liberal a person as you'll find.
What I do have a problem with is the particular group of feminists who actually seem to hate men (and I know that most feminists don't hate men). There's a disturbing sort of thing that happens when feminism gets taken too far. I'm perfectly fine with women wanting equal and fair treatment. I think everyone is entitled to equality and fair treatment. I just think some people want just a little bit more than equality. They want revenge for all the injustices of the past.
But not to stray too far off the topic....I don't know of any line of work that doesn't exploit someone. Almost everybody gets exploited by somebody. That's just the way the world works. Whatever you have that's marketable will be seen simply as goods to be bought and sold. Whether that's your sex, your IQ or merely your hands to assemble products for pennies on the dollar.
So...yes. To some degree, porn does exploit women. But no more so than any other profession exploits whoever goes into that profession.
I guess some will argue that most of what women do in porn is degrading and I can't argue with that. But then, sex is not inherrently degrading. It's in the eye of the beholder. I certainly don't look upon people who do porn as though they're somehow less than anyone else because of what they do. Some people do, I know and it's those people who create the impression that porn is a degrading profession. I don't really feel that it is (Or, rather...I don't feel that it should be considered so).
[Link]
jamesnadt Deactivated User
cambridge, ma 152 Posts 2/06
Posted - May 3 2006 : 2:44AM
jesus people, why are you arguing about JKP? there's something called EDGAR, learn it/live it/love it if you ever invest a cent.
One man's trash can be the next man's treasure. 1187 Posts 1/04
Posted - May 3 2006 : 3:21AM
Hi Ryan81,
Professional tennis is a poor example of equal pay for equal work. The reason most women's tournaments are 3 sets and men's 5 sets are that men serve and volley and women play lots of baseline groundstrokes. Men serve, charge the net, and try to end the point then and there, one way or the other. Women serve, then retreat to the baseline to ready themselves for the return-of-serve. Women's points last longer. A better example might be college basketball. Take a top-flight basketball school like North Carolina. The men's games might draw 20,000 spectators a game and the women's might draw 2,000. The men's tickets will be more expensive too so the school will make money on men's basketball and lose on the ladies. They pay Roy Williams something like 2 million/year and the ladies coach is Sylvia Hatchel who might make $200,000. It would be assinine to expect the University of N. Carolina to pay Sylvia what it pays Roy. Actually, porn pays women much better than men. Men make about 50% of what women make. The guys don't gripe about it all that much, a man can have a longer career than most ladies. The guys know that the porn fan concentrates on the actresses and most don't care much about the actors. Some folks are deluded by the equality thing. Many years ago, the feminists, deciding against all rational thought, believed that men and women do the same things the same ways. When facts were pointed out to them like 99% of sexual crimes are men against women or men against other men, the feminists tried to say that women rape men as much as the other way around, it just isn't reported. And old saying goes something like this, 'It takes an intellectual to believe in something that stupid,' or as Mark Twain once remarked, 'I'd rather be in the company of uneducated men. They haven't been taught to reason incorrectly.'
I agree with you here.This is where I disagree. Let's forget the fine ladies that post here on ADT, and the top 1000 female performers working today. Let's concentrate on the less attractive women that do the really yucky porn. The ones that have visible track marks and are 8 months pregnant. The ones that just turned 18 that day, and are grateful have a few hundred bucks to finally get off the streets. Let's think about all the one-hit wonders that gave it a shot and couldn't live with it. There are pornographers (and suitcase pimps) preying on girls in desperate straits.
Everybody keeps saying that participating in pornography is a choice, and for that reason, the girls can't possibly be exploited. Many women that work in porn view it as a business and will not allow anyone to exploit them. I applaud these women and think other feminists should too. BUT, just because some women aren't exploited doesn't mean that others aren't. Just because nobody has a gun to her head doesn't mean that a woman sees any choices. They think porn is a means of survival. Remember that there's a lower end of the pay scale in porn, and that usually involves performing some pretty disgusting acts by some piteous looking women. Not everybody is raking in the dough. True exploitation does occur in the porn industry, probably moreso than in other industries.
I don't equate being underpaid for your mid-management job at Corporate USA despite your advanced business degree, with being offered just enough money to feed your drug habit or say, your abusive husband's drug habit, if you'll submit to all manner of mental and physical abuse on camera.
I've got to say that I can't agree with that. Regardless of whether they draw comparable crowds, if they want to be treated as equals and get equal pay, then they have to put in the work.
As far as porn goes, women deserve to be earning more than men and it would be scandalous if men demanded equal pay. Women have to work harder, have to endure alot more and also the camera is almost always fixed on THEM, not on the men.
Personally, I think men's tennis is alot more exciting because their serves are more powerful and their all-round game is alot faster.
I do agree with you to a certain extent, budtugley, when it comes to hardcourts and grass. Yes, on the whole, men do have better serves and as a result their rallies tend to be shorter. However, you look at the top women in tennis: Pierce, Sharapova, Henin-Hardenne, etc, they all have fast serves which earns them cheap points.
Clay, on the other hand, is a different matter. Roland Garros is about as gruelling as you can get in any sport and the men's serves aren't anywhere near as effective as they would be on grass or hardcourt (look at how Roddick hasn't fared well in RG) On the other hand, Nadal has a relatively weak serve yet it doesn't hinder him on clay (or hardcourts, by the looks of things)
I don't know much about basketball, so I won't comment.
As far as porn goes, I agree with you that women deserve 50% more in wages than men. It's only logical.
Sexual crimes are the result of men attacking women 99% of the time. I just can't believe it when I hear a case of a woman raping a man, it's just mind-boggling. You think: how the hell is that possible? I think the reason for this is a) physical strength and b) men tend to be naturally more aggressive than women and they know that they can take by force.
It's not all corporate USA out there. You could easily argue that, say, the mining industry is brutally exploitative of men -- and in an equally if not more sexist manner. A lot of those guys die, young and nastily. So do firefighters and commercial fishermen, and those deaths are practically all male.
So while I'll agree that porn exploits some women more than people are exploited in some industries, plenty of industries exploit the fuck out of men, and only men, a lot worse than that. And those guys might not see a world of other choices either.
That's where I part from modern feminism -- where it refuses, out of self-interest, to acknowledge that while there is still inequality in the world, some inequality works to the benefit of women.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - May 3 2006 : 6:28AM
Ryan81 wroteDo you realize how much you contradicted yourself here? First, you say that you "would gladly be 'oppressed' and 'exploited' for that kind of money." But then, when someone proposes that you put your words into action, you create rationalizations as to why you would not so "gladly" do it after all. Do you not see the irony here? If you would "gladly" welcome "exploitation" for money as a female, then what reason do you have for not welcoming it as a male? Could it be that you would possibly see it as actually being exploitative if it were happening to you?
I also think that people tend to always make the mistake of equating money to non-exploitation. I can think of several examples, even outside of porn, where people make tons of money, but still get treated like slaves. Even in mainstream entertainment, how many people are paid lots of money to do demeaning things to make themselves look foolish? Do you think that someone who goes on a reality show to eat maggots and animal phalli for a few thousand dollars is not really being exploited for the sake of network ratings? Do you think that a woman who goes on the Maury Povich show to have the 500th man tested for paternity is not really being exploited? Yes, these people do these things willingly, but it's amazing how easily some people will agree to exploit themselves in exchange for something that a capitalist consumer society keeps telling them that they need (i.e., lots of money). Likewise, do you honestly believe that a girl who eats the jizz of ten dudes out of her own (or another girl's) asshole is not really being exploited? Yes, I enjoy seeing it too, but I'm not about to convince myself of the obvious falsehood that porn is not an exploitative enterprise, not much unlike some other forms of entertainment. Even outside of the realm of porn or entertainment, I'm sure we can all think of alot of other professions (legal or not) that pay alot of money, but that are not exactly honorable. Once people convince themselves that money is all that matters, then they'll do anything to get it, which is exactly how systems of exploitation work- by preying on peoples' desperate desires to have money.
saratoga120 wrote
I'm not exactly sure how "empowering" the money is, considering what they have to do to get it. I know alot of people here may disagree with me, but the way I see it, these women are literally selling their bodies in exchange for money that usually does not last long anyway.
Additionally, when people mention the fact that porn pays women much more money than their male counterparts, I think many people overlook the most obvious reason for this- Because it has to. Women, not men, are the commodity in straight porn. Men willing to work in porn are probably a dime a dozen. While porn companies companies probably have never-ending lines of men wanting to fuck a hot chick for money, finding women requires more incentive. Without a sufficient amount of women working in the industry, the industry will die. Thus, the life's blood of porn relies on having a constant supply of fresh young women, which is exactly why porn companies have to pay women more money. How else will the companies manage to motivate young women to risk all the social alienation that accompanies fucking on camera except by offering them apealling compensation? Porn has a much higher need and demand for women than it does men, so it has no choice except to pay women much more money.
MissJanet wrote
I can somewhat identify. I feel the exact same way when I watch BET.
Uhhh...no, where did I contradict myself? As I'm not a female and as I'm not gay, there wouldn't be a place for me in the industry, would there? I came up with the scenario that IF I were a female (I should have perhaps made this clearer), attractive and all the rest of it, I would certainly settle for 30K a month if it meant being "exploited"
Of course, almost everyone is exploited to one degree or the other but when the terms "oppression" and "exploitation" are used when referring to female pornstars, you would think that they are being enslaved or imprisoned, with no way out of their current plight.
[Link]
realtip Deactivated User
2301 Posts 6/04
Posted - May 3 2006 : 7:14AM
Ryan81 wroteExactly. You missed the entire point of the statement. If you consider 30K/month to be worth self-exploitation, then what difference does it matter what your gender is? If you would do it as a woman, then why not as a man? I read an article in Details magazine a few years ago about some dude who was "gay-for-pay." If I recall correctly, he was saying that their salaries are comparable to those of women in straight porn. After all, whether you're a man or a woman, money is money, right?
I would not do it as a man because like I've stated, I'm not gay and no amount of money will get me to have sex with another man. For me personally, it's unnatural (call that chauvinistic or old-fashioned but it's the way I feel about it). I doubt there are very many male or female pornstars out there who are "gay-for-pay" If you take most women who are being highly paid, I doubt most of them have sex with other females unless they are either bi-sexual or lesbian by nature.
But certainly if I was given the opportunity as a MALE (different scenario) to perform with female pornstars in front of the camera and I was getting excellent money, I would certainly seriously consider doing so.
Posted - May 2 2006 : 3:46PM
