Playing Devil's Advocate

[Guest Thunderbuns]

Since the Mat Rush thread has been locked down I can't post this there. Just as well as I think my comments are more appropriate in the Lounge rather than the Deli.

 

I do not think that being a porn actor makes you a prostitute.

 

For example - let's assume that the script for a regular Hollywood movie called for Benjamin Bratt as the male lead to have real sex with his co-star who will for the sake of this scenario be Jennifer Lopez.

 

Would you then consider both of them to be prostitutes? Probably not. More likely they would be considered as actors who acted out a sex scene.

 

So why, all of a sudden, when the movie is "gay porn" and the actors both are men, does it suddenly make them prostitutes. It doesn't in my books!

 

Thunderbuns

[guyinsf]

I don't think that JLo and Benjamin would actually have sex when shooting the film, though they might have sex with eachother off the set. I don't think porn is comparable. A porn "actor" is being paid to actually have sex on camera, not act.

 

Still, this doesn't mean that because someone will have sex with others on camera that they will have sex for money OFF camera.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>For example - let's assume that the script for a regular

>Hollywood movie called for Benjamin Bratt as the male lead

>to have real sex with his co-star who will for the sake of

>this scenario be Jennifer Lopez.

>

>Would you then consider both of them to be prostitutes?

 

Yes.

 

However, there's a point that people are missing as they twist themselves into gordian logic knots: the tense of the verb. If Benjamin and Jennifer were paid to have actual sex then they became prostitutes at that moment. If they then say, "you know, that wasn't for me and I'm never going to do that again," then the correct thing to say is that they once were hired as prostitutes.

 

Now let's take porn stars. If someone is currently working in the industry and not "retired" then they are still available to be paid to have sex. Therefore, they are prostitutes. Instead of blowing married men in their cars by the West Side Highway, they are doing it on video with "hots guys". Many (most? alot?) porn stars aren't comfortable with this messy little factoid but it doesn't change their occupational "status". It's not "name calling" when you're calling someone what they are.

 

Let's talk about porn stars IN GENERAL. There are some (please note I said SOME) who are simply insecure exhibitionists who want to know that the masses want them and they have no interest in having sex for pay with guys they aren't attracted to. That's fine with me. It's a free country (contrary to what some on the Left are saying) and you can do whatever you want. However, don't be shocked or dismayed or annoyed or saddened or whatever when someone wants to hire you for a "private". By being in a video, you have told the world that you don't have a problem with being paid to have sex. Once you do that, it's going to be very difficult to get the toothpaste back in the tube and convince people otherwise. Someone in a previous point said something about "no meaning NO" and why don't people understand that. Well, because, Person A might get a "no" to their offer but Person B might get a "yes". You never know unless you ask and as long as you continue to work as a prostitute on video you're telling the world you're "for sale".

 

I have said time and time again on this board that "actions have consequences" and I often point out those consequences and take to task those who are in denial about them. Often, I'm accused of being vitriolic when I do this but I'm pretty much use to it by now. People don't like to hear the truth when it's uncomfortable.

 

ACTION: Have sex for pay on video

CONSEQUENCE: People think you're a whore.

 

There are many porn stars who want to live off the perceived fabulousness of being a porn star but try to put themselves beyond (above?) the inherent tawdriness of it. Try as they might, they can't. It's impossible. Do I like to watch porn? HELL YES! Am I glad there are guys who do it? HELL YES! I also like to watch guys skydive but I think those who do it are out of their minds. It doesn't make me any less glad that they do it though. I don't think someone who does porn is out of his mind - unless, of course, by doing it he knows that he will jeopardize his real job or the hope of getting a job in an industry that will not allow porn in someone's past. Then I think they're simply idiots.

 

That's all for now, but I do want to clear up one last thing: I have heard the sayings "Shooting fish in a barrel" and "Shooting ducks in a barrel" and I never understood why someone would shoot fish. You "catch" fish and "shoot" ducks so I have always opted for "Shooting ducks in a barrel". But maybe someone with "asperations" knows better.

 

Forever yours,

 

FFF

[guyinsf]

I won't add much, since the other thread was apparently locked because of how it degenerated into nastiness. I would, however, like to add the following now that I've read the other thread:

 

Getting paid to allow someone to film you while you are having sex is not the same as "escorting." A porn "actor" is really being paid for the potential profit that can be made by marketing the film/video, not for having sex with his partner(s) in the video. I have heard from someone in the biz that there is a California law which separates making porn from selling sex for money. I don't think that the porn industry would have flourished like it has without some legal intervention if it was viewed the same as "prostitution." Yes, prostitution has been around for a long time and many engaged in this activity, whether buyer or seller, have not encountered any legal ramifications, either. But have you EVER heard of someone being arrested JUST for making porn? I haven't. I HAVE read and heard about people being arrested for both selling sex for money and for attempting to pay sex for money.

[Bilbo]

From the earlier posting, which was over and closed so fast that I didn't get in on it having been gone about two days, FFF, it was clear to me that what was really bothering people, (besides your attitude which I can't respond to without resorting to calling you names I'm afraid), was that when Person A is told no, and then asks again and then asks again, etc. Person B having to be told no once is, as you assert here, perhaps not so bad a problem, if one didn't have to put up with A's attitude and the possibility that B might become another A.

[BewareofNick]

>It's a free

>country (contrary to what some on the Left are saying) and

>you can do whatever you want.

 

FFF, I agree with what you said 100% but I have to take exception to this little statement. If the left is a little louder right now, it has everything to do with our Attorney General, John Ashcroft. He operates from the position that he is infalliable and that the Constitution doesn't apply to him or the Bush administration. Ashcroft said that it was treasonous to question W on anything regarding the War. That smacks of demagougery. Be thankful for the Left. They are what keep our freedoms from being undermined by the extreme Right.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>A porn "actor"

>is really being paid for the potential profit that can be

>made by marketing the film/video, not for having sex with

>his partner(s) in the video.

 

Huh?

 

A porn "actor" is paid to have sex on video so it can then be marketed for a profit. There would be no porn industry without sex. I don't think you meant what it sounds like you're saying. Wanna try again?

 

>I have heard from someone in

>the biz that there is a California law which separates

>making porn from selling sex for money.

 

It probably has to do with the language of the contract. I'm sure it mentions nothing about sex so that's how they get around the prostitution thing.

 

Sorta like you're hiring a whore for his "time".

 

Yeah, right.

 

Legally yours,

 

FFF

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>Ashcroft said that it was

>treasonous to question W on anything regarding the War.

 

Would you please share with the class the exact quote you're referring to and not your interpretation of what he said.

 

Patiently yours,

 

FFF

[Rod Hagen]

FCubed,

 

I actually agree with you about Porn being just another, more respected, form of prostitution.

 

Curious though, where you draw the line on what type of sexual activity on Film for profit translates to prostitution? Are Michael Douglas and Glenn Close prostitutes (or former prostitutes) because he massaged her mammary glands, and she his pecker, in "Fatal Attraction"?

[phage]

>Getting paid to allow someone to film you while you are

>having sex is not the same as "escorting."

 

So what makes this different? The camera? The fact that the director, camera man, etc. aren’t getting off on it? (At least at that moment.)

 

If you hire two men to satisfy a voyeuristic fantasy and have sex in front of you, is that prostitution? Yes, if you masturbate, and no, if you only film it? What if you film it and masturbate?

 

I know this is just a bunch of questions, but it illustrates the problem with your logic. I don’t think the venue really matters because it doesn’t change the fact that the participants are having sex for money. It’s not the form of prostitution we commonly call “escorting” but it is still a form of prostitution.

[Guest Thunderbuns]

>I know this is just a bunch of questions, but it illustrates

>the problem with your logic. I don’t think the venue really

>matters because it doesn’t change the fact that the

>participants are having sex for money. It’s not the form of

>prostitution we commonly call “escorting” but it is still a

>form of prostitution.

 

After all is said & done - what the hell's wrong with prostitution?

 

Thunderbuns

[phage]

I don’t think anyone is really talking about right or wrong. I happen to like both porn and prostitutes and don’t feel the need to sugarcoat either. It’s about logical thinking.

 

I understand why it might be easier to have sex with a hot porn star than it would be to plow a paying client. I also understand why many escorts would never want to be in a video that creates a permanent record.

 

What I don’t understand is the need to differentiate or the attitude that some porn “stars” cop. They are both prostitutes (not a bad thing) with different limits. The porn stars don’t do the less-than-beautiful while many escorts will not allow themselves to be filmed. Two sides of the same coin if you ask me.

[Guest JON1265]

Apparently a case similar to what FFF is talking about WAS brought before the courts in California, and it was found that the two people (in this case - two strippers) getting paid to have sex WITH EACH OTHER - but the person paying not being directly involved in the sex - IS NOT prostitution....

 

 

http://www.thelongpoint.com/national/two_girlshow.shtml

 

BUT....

 

In Florida the legal definition of prostitution is:

 

PROSTITUTION: The giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses."

 

http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p190.htm

 

So according to this defintion - porn stars are ho's - unless they are a married couple in porn - in which case they are not ho's. BUt I guess that excludes all of the actors in gay porn - even the ones married to women.

 

I guess it depends where you are in the U.S.

[FrancoDiSantisxxx]

Civil Path

 

When I was in art school we referred to ourselves as cultural workers. Of course, art is in the eye of the beholder. Apparently, in this case, we are talking about more than the proper labels as well as the correct use of language. However, as with many things, it is far more complex. Sex workers come in a variety of forms and anyone in adult film, be it the photographer taking the stills, the script writer (and yes, they do exist), the director, or the on screen talent who is unwilling to agree that he is in the adult entertainment industry is simply unwilling to accept reality. However, beyond that we do get on a slippery slope, particularly when it becomes an issue of resorting to questioning the integrity, personal or professional, of anyone, either in this community or elsewhere.

 

Sex work is any work, generally persued by adults for the entertainment of other adults. As such it is both regulated, taxed and legal. Some sex work, due to morality, historical context and common law practices, is viewed as illegal activity. There are permutations within this industry. Someone who is self-described as a heterosexual (and please, let us not go down THAT road for this thread) who takes his clothes off in a gay bar in New Orleans is certainly providing adult entertainment. He may be both compensated for stripping and also receive tips. He may be touched and groped, certainly in clearly sexual ways, by other dancers and by members of the audience, both male or female, heterosexual or homosexual. Therefore, he receives renumeration for sexual activity, albeit not the same as may exist between two consenting adults in the privacy of their own home/hotel/whatever or which may be engaged in by two perfomers in an adult film.

 

Going back and forth does not accomplish much. Some individuals are going to define what they do in any number of ways. I would imagine this is how some Chief Executive Officers of certain large multi-national corporations in this nation both live with themselves and face their children and loved ones.

 

I say let us respect our differences of opinions and interpretation and move forward.

 

Love is no substitute for sex.

[Bilbo]

RE: Civil Path

 

Are we talking semantics? It would certainly seem that we are. When a number of people are interested in roughly the same thing but the differences become important to them, they develope a lot of words for what to other people might seem like the same thing.

 

I have a few bromeliads on my balcony. I have no idea what kind of bromeliads they are. I have an acquaintance who judges bromeliad shows. Boy what a jerk I would be if I walked into one of those shows and for boredom or whatever reason suddenly started ranting that "For Heaven's sake, people, it's a bromeliad. Call it what it is! It's nothing but a fucking bromeliad!!"

 

Who in the USA could have gotten out of public school without having heard that the Alaskan Indians have gazillions of words for different kinds of snow. So do skiers. Look out the window, it's white, fell out of the sky, and if you get to it when it's still white you can probably eat it safely and build a snowman out of it. If you don't know anything else about it, do you get frustrated, shake a skier's shoulders instead of his hand or weewee and yell "Powder! Hard pack! Call it what it is, it's nothing but freaking snow, dude!!"

 

"Linoleum! It's lineoleum!! I don't care what shape it is, it's lin-o-leum! .... Now, where did my fiestaware get to?"

 

:+ }>

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

>What I don’t understand is the need to differentiate or the

>attitude that some porn “stars” cop. They are both

>prostitutes (not a bad thing) with different limits. The

>porn stars don’t do the less-than-beautiful while many

>escorts will not allow themselves to be filmed. Two sides

>of the same coin if you ask me.

 

My point EXACTLY! Whew! Someone out there is with me.

 

The reason I initially made this observation was because there seemed to be a hint of "holier-than-thou-ness" coming from certain quarters. "Oh my my my, I wish people would leave me alone and stop assuming that just because I do porn I must be an escort." I felt, for clarity, the players needed a reality check regarding what they REALLY do and not what they like to conveniently call it. The moment you point out to a porn star that they were hired as a prostitute and not as an "actor" ("But-cha ARE Blanche - ya ARE!) they can get a little testy. It's sorta like actors who don't like it being pointed out that their film credits consist entirely of extra work.

 

ouch

 

Continually yours,

 

FFF

[Rick Munroe]

The Story of My Life

 

"I'm not a prostitute...I'm a model and an actress!"

-Barbra Streisand as Doris in The Owl and the Pussycat

http://www.bjsmusic.com/O&P-DVDpic1.jpg

[BewareofNick]

>>Ashcroft said that it was

>>treasonous to question W on anything regarding the War.

>

>Would you please share with the class the exact quote you're

>referring to and not your interpretation of what he said.

>

>Patiently yours,

>

>FFF

 

I stand corrected, at least partly. Ashcroft said it was treasonous to question the Bush administration.

 

Ashcroft made these widely publicized and much-criticized comments in his opening statement:

 

We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering. To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens against non-citizens; to those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty; my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.

 

The "to those who" formulation explicitly equates critics of administration actions with terrorists. In addition, Ashcroft's comments makes unfair and inflammatory insinuations about the motives of critics: To describe genuine concern about the loss of liberties as a scare 'tactic' imputes ill motivation without any evidence to Ashcroft's legitimate critics on both the left and the right.

[tedbear]

RE: Civil Path

 

I recently hired a porn actor (for his time only, of course!) and during the course of the evening, he was talking about some of his latest work. He mentioned that the real money isn't in the movie--it's in the increased demand and higher prices that the movies bring to his escort work.

 

Of course, some mega-starts do get good money and don't escort on the side. And some get the money and do "tours" and still don't escort. But in many, many cases, they're in it for the increased bookings and hourly charges in their escort enterprise.:o

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

This is almost more than I can bear but I'm going to give it a shot.

 

 

>Ashcroft made these widely publicized and much-criticized

>comments in his opening statement:

>

>"We need honest, reasoned debate; not fearmongering.

 

So far so good. In crazy times, people can become irrational so he's saying, "lets keep out heads while we figure this out."

 

>To those who pit Americans against immigrants, and citizens

>against non-citizens;

 

This should have made the anti-profiling crowd happy since he was saying not to think all Arabs are terrorists.

 

>to those who scare peace-loving people

>with phantoms of lost liberty;

 

Here's he's talking to the nuts who think book burning is just around the corner.

 

>my message is this: Your

>tactics only aid terrorists - for they erode our national

>unity and diminish our resolve.

 

So far, no claims of treason. He's saying, be responsible in what you say and don't exaggerate the facts because if you do, you could possibly hurt a unified approach to handling the terrorists.

 

>They give ammunition to

>America's enemies, and pause to America's friends.

 

(See above)

 

>They

>encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face

>of evil."

 

Don't freak out the weaker among us because we need everyone to defeat this scourge.

 

 

>The "to those who" formulation explicitly equates critics of

>administration actions with terrorists.

 

Uh, no it doesn't. You're seeing the face of Elvis in a tortilla.

 

>In addition,

>Ashcroft's comments makes unfair and inflammatory

>insinuations about the motives of critics: To describe

>genuine concern about the loss of liberties as a scare

>'tactic'

 

He didn't speak to "genuine concern" - he's nicely referring to the civil rights ambulance chasers who come out of the woodwork at a time like this. He said NOTHING about their motives. He said their ACTIONS have CONSEQUENCES and the terrorism issue is a little more important than a fat person having to pay for two seats on Southwest Airlines. The ambulance chasers can get on their soap boxes all they want about something like that and it doesn't have world-wide repercussions but if they use the same irrational arguments on terrorism, they can REALLY do some damage.

 

>imputes ill motivation without any evidence to

>Ashcroft's legitimate critics on both the left and the

>right.

 

Once again, no he doesn't.

 

Please note that Ashcroft has gotten pretty much everything that he requested and the last time I checked, my civil liberties haven't been eroded.

 

It's time for the ACLU types to pull their shirts back down from over their heads, take a deep breath, and get over it.

 

Philosophically yours,

 

FFF

[taylorky]

the civil rights ambulance chasers as a young GAY man i thank god for all the "civil rights ambulance chasers" that have fought over the years to give me the few freedoms i have. the freedoms that allow me to express myself as who i am. my mom and dad have been members of the KCLU for many years and i have just last year become a member.they both do a lot more than expected amount of PRO-BONO work;so i guess that makes them "civil rights ambulance chasers" and i'm damn proud of them for what they do, for those they help....you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Guest Fin Fang Foom]

> as a young GAY man i thank god for all the "civil

>rights ambulance chasers" that have fought over the years to

>give me the few freedoms i have. the freedoms that allow me

>to express myself as who i am. my mom and dad have been

>members of the KCLU for many years and i have just last year

>become a member.they both do a lot more than expected amount

>of PRO-BONO work;so i guess that makes them "civil rights

>ambulance chasers" and i'm damn proud of them for what they

>do, for those they help....you should be ashamed of

>yourself.

 

ouch! I guess you really told me! I'm just gonna go sit in my corner and give some hard thought to what you said.

 

...........................................ok, I'm back.

 

Since you have only a "few freedoms" here in America, it shouldn't take too long to list them. Would you please enumerate them for the class so you can enlighten us about your oppression.

 

Expectantly yours,

 

FFF

[guyinsf]

This underscores my argument and illustrates why so much of the porn available in the US is made in California. From a "moral" standpoint, one can view a porn "actor" as a prostitute. There is even some logic behind arguing that since they are getting paid and having sex, they are prostitutes. I maintain, however, that what they are being paid for is exhibitionism (sex with another hot guy being videotaped so others can get off on it).

 

The bottom line for me is this: A prostitute or escort or whore or whatever term you want to use is someone who is selling sex to basically everyone (or at least basically everyone of a certain gender). A porn actor who only gets paid for sex while being filmed does not do this; he is unavailable for hire except to producers of X-rated material and he does not generally have sex with the producer but another "actor."

 

Then again, maybe I have this definition because I live in California.

[Guest]

RE: Civil Path

 

Well, I would think that doing porn work would hurt most careers, with the exception of escorting (which it would definitely help). Although there are apparently some porn stars who don't escort in private, I think that in most cases it's bad judgment to do a porn flick, unless you're planning to escort...

[+ Axiom2001]

RE: Civil Path

 

Who's Roddy?