Porn = not vegan

Armchair politics, ethical soapbox and current affairs. Place to discuss vegan ethics and general ethics and politics. Be nice.

Moderators: hardcore iv, bronco, fredrikw, JP, Rochellita

Postby xrodolfox » Wed Oct 14, 2009 2:51 am

Dave Noisy wrote:Taking the 'oh, well any industry has risks' position is a pathetic cop out.

Fucking hell people. Serious dissociative disorder happening here. I might expect this from the general populace, but overall it seems most of you are about as willing to truly confront this situation as a meat-eater their hamburger.


For the record, I am NOT in favor of dominant pornography.

I agree with the facts that pornography is prone to worker exploitation. I agree that dominant porn is dubiously unethical.

However, to place the blame on the sexual images themselves, instead of capitalism is to place the tail on the wrong donkey.

It isn't at all like a meat eater seeking comfort in their hamburger by citing happy pictures of cows. I do NOT defend dominant porn.

However, unlike the animal use industry, there is the possibility, and the existence, of images and film of erotic nature that are ethically produced, and run counter to dominant porn. I am not a porn afficionado, so I really don't know much about it, but like all other industries, I imagine that the problem is the hegemony of dominant distribution and markets.

I do think that we should critique dominant porn, and capitalism. But to lump in *all* erotic images, and *all* sexual media with it is too broad of a stroke. That's akin to environmentalists who boycott or critique soybeans because some of them are grown by logging the rain forests of the Amazon. That's also a valid critique... of Amazonian soy, but not of organic soy grown in Michigan.

If any arguments are to make sense, then the appropriate ideas and terms need to be used. Throwing out the baby with the bath water isn't a good idea.
"The worker has the right to leave his boss, but can she do it? And if she does quit him, is it in order to lead a free life; where she will have no master but herself? No, she leaves to sell herself to another employer. She's driven by the same hunger. Thus the worker's liberty is only a theoretical freedom, lacking any means of realization; an utter falsehood."
-Bakunin
User avatar
xrodolfox
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3579
Joined: Mon Jul 31, 2006 7:29 pm
Location: Eugene, OR

Postby puppydog » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:50 am

Beck Bristow wrote:
helmut wrote:i've never heard of any other industry (particularly entertainment related) with such a potential to abuse its workers.


Start digging more into acting in general, and you'll find that it can be as seedy as porn in many ways.


the music industry is no more 'ethical' at the upper echelons either. i think it's safe to say where there's a promise of money to be made, and some people hold the purse strings, there's going to be some shady shit. happening.

The more money involved, the shadier it gets. Tack on the culture of celebrity and any type of entertainment is going to be ugly.

Hence, xrodolfox's point that capitalism and not all iterations of sexuality is at least part of the problem here.
Arf! Arf! Grrrr! Arf!
User avatar
puppydog
Active Member
 
Posts: 3180
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: nowhere

Postby Andrewc » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:14 pm

Beck Bristow wrote:
Andrewc wrote:Porn may be unethical, immoral, and exploitative, but I do struggle to find an intrinsic link between veganism and the sex industry. Where do you draw the line?

My actions are not dictated by the thought that something may or may not be "vegan". I prefer to make choices based on my own ethics, and those ethics happen to correlate with the ethics of veganism.

With this in mind my choice to not view pornography and to not consume or wear animals are both based on ethics but are separate.


This is the kind of anti-porn stance I can appreciate, one that does not involve redefining a word that has nothing to do with pornography. Nor does it try to make comparisons that are badly-drawn.

One thing to note, there is a growing movement of lesbians who are buying more man-on-man pornography. Not being a lesbian, I do not know the reasons, but I've been hearing more about this over the past year. It's rather comical watching my non-hetero male friends discuss it and be freaked out by the whole thing.


Just to clear it up, I don't take an anti-porn stance at all, as I don't believe all erotic and sexualised imagery necessarily has to exploit or objectify the people in the photos/video.

When I say "pornography" I'm referring to the industry produced material.
User avatar
Andrewc
Moderator
 
Posts: 1467
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 1:32 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Postby Beck Bristow » Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:57 pm

Andrewc wrote:Just to clear it up, I don't take an anti-porn stance at all, as I don't believe all erotic and sexualised imagery necessarily has to exploit or objectify the people in the photos/video.

When I say "pornography" I'm referring to the industry produced material.


I appreciate the clarification!
User avatar
Beck Bristow
New Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:05 am
Location: Hollywood

Postby XkillerX » Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:50 pm

vegabunni wrote:Thank you for posting this! It is incredible! I just know it's not going to stop those who use it to get off...maybe it will with some. I just know when it comes to men they "need" the visuals *barf*


Barf right back at you, you sexist!!!

on the side note:

Helmut -->> please clean up your own back yard first. Is everything you ever did, worked, bought, and thought completely morally and ethically 100% ok? You remind me of a certain banned member who wished certain very bad things to certain member's certain family members.

Beck -->> Welcome, welcome, welcome, and welcome again. Glad to have sane members aboard, VF seems to be running short on sane people lately.

And to Image

Less bullshit accusations, and more vegan pron please!
Next time, I'll spend the money on drugs instead.
User avatar
XkillerX
invisible blonde unicorn
 
Posts: 4272
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: toxic city, yugoslavia (or what's left of it...)

Postby Dave Noisy » Thu Oct 15, 2009 7:58 pm

Beck Bristow wrote:I just have a problem when people take the arguments that suit only one side and thrust it in my face as if it spoke for the entire industry, which is how Dave Noisy was attempting to present it.

And i have a problem with people who misrepresent those they are arguing against.

My main intention has been to raise awareness that very likely the vast majority of those people in the most commonly acquired porn are unlikely to be in situations any of us would want to be in.

This was, and remains to get virtually NO discussion, and few wish to realize this.

Rather, every effort is being made to JUSTIFY their access to porn.

Is that really such an awful thing, Beck Bristow? That people consider the people in their porn flicks?
User avatar
Dave Noisy
Active Member
 
Posts: 6783
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:04 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Postby Dave Noisy » Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:03 pm

xrodolfox wrote:However, unlike the animal use industry, there is the possibility, and the existence, of images and film of erotic nature that are ethically produced, and run counter to dominant porn. I am not a porn afficionado, so I really don't know much about it, but like all other industries, I imagine that the problem is the hegemony of dominant distribution and markets.

I doubt anyone in this discussion intends to target truly respectful and consensual 'fair-trade' erotic film-making. Please raise your hands.

I don't believe i've read anything from anyone indicating this, so thanks to those who further confuse the issue rather than discuss what a few of us have been trying to keep on the surface of this discussion: the vast majority in the industry who are hurt and exploited.
User avatar
Dave Noisy
Active Member
 
Posts: 6783
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:04 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Postby Dave Noisy » Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:09 pm

XkillerX wrote:Helmut -->> please clean up your own back yard first. Is everything you ever did, worked, bought, and thought completely morally and ethically 100% ok? You remind me of a certain banned member who wished certain very bad things to certain member's certain family members.

This is ridiculous and insulting, and not worth countering. I can only assume since you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the topic itself, you have to attack Helmut personally.

Beck -->> Welcome, welcome, welcome, and welcome again. Glad to have someone who i think qualifies the issues i don't want to have to honestly interrogate myself.

There - i fixed that last line for ya. ;)
User avatar
Dave Noisy
Active Member
 
Posts: 6783
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:04 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Postby JP » Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:15 pm

The argument about majority of the porn workers being exploited beyond the normal exploitation in any comparable industry is not supported by evidence (if evidence makes a difference in a moralised opposition). Porn work is pretty low paid for most workers and income from it would be unreliable and not stable - not very good for feeding a drug habit or what ever those stereotypical accusations of those peoples lives are.

This is a very different issue from standard animal rights/vegan issue because of the oppressed parties can organise themselves to fight back and improve their conditions. So you dont have to try to "speak for the sex workers" like you would for animals which cant speak for themselves, you can log on to the sex workers union web site i linked a while back and read what the workers want to change and how they want to go about it. You can also read that they have to waste a lot of their time opposing the moralisting anti-porn opposition which claims to speak for them, instead of focusing on the task at hand of improving conditions for the workers within the industry. So much for the solidarity.

For this simple reason this issue has nothing to do with veganism.

While porn industry workers are exploited in a very graphical way, in many cases and in many production companies it is often said that the mexican porn DVD packers are more superexploited workers in sweatshop conditions than the high paid porn star. But the public reaction is more about the porn star due to the nature of the work and peoples objections to porn in general.
User avatar
JP
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19250
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2004 4:14 pm
Location: Berlin, Germany

Postby XkillerX » Thu Oct 15, 2009 8:25 pm

Didn't your read Dave's last >many< posts, JP? Porn is bAAAAd, aight? Looking at some will kill people, acting in one will make you a raped junkie and last but not least making any will immediately turn you into a genocidal maniac. :roll:

In short:

Image
Next time, I'll spend the money on drugs instead.
User avatar
XkillerX
invisible blonde unicorn
 
Posts: 4272
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:20 pm
Location: toxic city, yugoslavia (or what's left of it...)

Postby Beck Bristow » Thu Oct 15, 2009 11:21 pm

Dave Noisy wrote:And i have a problem with people who misrepresent those they are arguing against.


I have yet to see you make any mention besides complete absolutes. If you'd even suggested that you could accept the notion that maybe not all porn stars are exploited, I would not have had such a problem with your post. But, you insisted on bullying everyone who didn't see this as black-and-white into making us out to be stupid for not agreeing, so I'll call it as I see it.

Dave Noisy wrote:My main intention has been to raise awareness that very likely the vast majority of those people in the most commonly acquired porn are unlikely to be in situations any of us would want to be in.


I'm all for awareness. I'm all for facts. But, all your arguments point toward absolutes where you seem to infer that all porn MUST be bad, all porn is exploitative even when completely concensual, and that it's wrong on all levels. Everything you've mentioned regarding it has been 100% against it in every single way possible, never mentioning that there's even a slim chance that it could be seen differently. That is your personal feeling, and I abide by your choice to feel that way. HOWEVER, you put it out like that's the straight fact, when much of it is your own opinion based on information that caters to your own notions. That's not unbiased in the slightest, and if you can't see that, then I can't discuss this with you. Your choice of the words 'vast majority' are a huge tip-off right there, blatant bias toward only believing the information that says this vs. accepting that maybe, just maybe, many people in porn aren't miserable and aren't exploited more than other industries. Just because your sources for info, which apparently are all anti-porn, say that most people in that industry as exploited and miserable does not make it absolute fact.

Dave Noisy wrote:This was, and remains to get virtually NO discussion, and few wish to realize this.


Not exactly. Discussion comes when people are willing to be open to things other than pre-conceived notions that are based on info biased toward their own opinion vs. absolute fact. You haven't shown the ability to discuss it rationally, as you just show outright anger and disgust with anyone who doesn't side with you 100%. Have you ever considered that maybe you're not always right and all-knowing about situations like this discussion?

Dave Noisy wrote:Rather, every effort is being made to JUSTIFY their access to porn.


Yep, that's why I said I don't watch porn and don't care for it, and I've seen others who share the same sentiment yet you come back with this same flawed statement. I don't know, perhaps you honestly believe that without porn, there will be a major social change toward pro-feminist ideals [you only seem to want to acknowledge man-on-woman porn that has degrading undertones], maybe you think that it will reduce violent crime against women, maybe something else. I don't know what you think, but there's no guarantee that a lack of pornography would make a difference. Porn isn't going away - it's been here in some form or other for a lot longer than we have, and you can't attribute all social injustices to it. You can speculate all day, but let's stick to reality.

Dave Noisy wrote:Is that really such an awful thing, Beck Bristow? That people consider the people in their porn flicks?


Not at all. BUT, we go round and round again. How do you know that the people in a porn movie someone might see are definitely exploited? Just as well, how do I know that they aren't? And therein lies the whole point of my highlighted statement from earlier - we simply don't know, so we have to follow our own preferences for ethics and judgement rather than condemn or condone the entire industry. One final time, say it with me everyone, THIS IS NOT BLACK AND WHITE, THIS IS NOT IN ABSOLUTES, WE DO NOT KNOW THE STORY FOR EVERYONE IN THE BUSINESS.

Really, is that too difficult to consider? If so, let me know now and I'll kindly disregard anything you post from now on that is in response to what I say. It'll tell me right quick if you're able to discuss things rationally, or if you can only dictate orders to people who don't agree with your notions from the get-go. It might just save us both a whole lot of time.

You've dodged accurate parallels and only manged to call them 'justifications for porn access' instead of accepting them. Why is porn such an exceptional hot-button for you in this case while, say, the plight of the underpaid and overworked stockperson at a mega-chain grocery is not worthy of acknowledging as exploitatave in comparison[you dodged all similar comparisons in the past]? I've noted you tend to attack people for purported speciesism in other threads, but somehow, you single out one industry while avoiding acknowledgement of the plight of people in many others, minus the sex that's a target here. Rather hypocritical, don't you think? Had you at least had the ability to acknowledge the potential unfortunate parallels via porn and other industries, we may have never gotten this far, but you've skirted them quite well for this thread. And the beat goes on.
User avatar
Beck Bristow
New Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:05 am
Location: Hollywood

Postby helmut » Mon Oct 19, 2009 12:40 am

JP wrote:The argument about majority of the porn workers being exploited beyond the normal exploitation in any comparable industry is not supported by evidence (if evidence makes a difference in a moralised opposition).


that site you linked to earlier was definitely a good resource. sad to see how the sex industry is being pushed further underground as a result of criminalization. really depressing in particular a comment from a sex worker when she described going to the police after being raped and tortured by a client; the police officer said 'you're a prostitute. you can't be raped.' :shock:

the stats on HIV and other serious STIs are there, and i think that constitutes exploitation beyond the normal levels. i have worked some shitty jobs and i have certainly never got HIV, hepatitus, been raped or held at gunpoint. whether or not you want to believe the stories from the first link as being in the extreme minority is fine, but their existence is still worrying.

like i said; perhaps, not really a vegan issue. but definitely one worth exploring.
*take me to the mediocrity dungeon*
User avatar
helmut
Active Member
 
Posts: 1153
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:20 am
Location: Australia

Postby Dave Noisy » Mon Oct 19, 2009 7:08 pm

Beck Bristow - why are you picking and chosing what you read from me?

Below counters your first argument, which you conveniently skimmed over.

When you're going to pay attention to those you're arguing against, then let me know. Otherwise i have no intention of defending myself from false accusations.
Dave Noisy wrote:I doubt anyone in this discussion intends to target truly respectful and consensual 'fair-trade' erotic film-making. Please raise your hands.

I don't believe i've read anything from anyone indicating this, so thanks to those who further confuse the issue rather than discuss what a few of us have been trying to keep on the surface of this discussion: the vast majority in the industry who are hurt and exploited.
User avatar
Dave Noisy
Active Member
 
Posts: 6783
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:04 pm
Location: Victoria, BC

Postby Beck Bristow » Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:52 pm

Dave -

It's been a bit tough to really know what this whole thread is about, because it seems to be skipping around a bit. I think we've both made some assumptions about each others' posts that may not have been fully on the mark, which is why we're at this place right now.

I agree, porn workers should be treated better for those who are working under bad conditions. I doubt you'd find anyone to disagree and say that they're undeserving of it, and nobody has stated that or alluded to it. I still have a problem with you using the term 'vast majority' because it's geared from sources that are certainly against porn overall vs. being objective, but if that's the way you wish to view it, that is your choice. It doesn't make it any more correct than someone citing a link that says that the majority of porn stars are happy in their work, no matter how much you may want it to be. I was simply making a point that the anti-porn stances being stated around here have been citing information from sources whose agenda is to make porn look as bad as possible. I don't think that there's much denying the lack of obejectivity in some things said here, but people will believe as they wish.

We will never really know what percentage of porn actors and actresses are treated badly and are exploited to a great degree. My entire point being, it's all speculation regardless of whose sources you choose to cite, there is no concrete evidence. And, as we all have different ideas of what constitutes someone in that field being exploited, it's a subjective issue and can't be proven in a pro or con stance. That's all I was ever trying to say here, but you came at me with a cross stance of inferring that I was justifying exploitative porn, which was completely false. That's what set me on the offensive - perhaps had there not been any misinterpretations early on, we could have avoided this whole mess.

To summarize:

Exploitation - bad, but subjective in regard to porn as to who truly is exploited as we can't know every story and speculation leads to assumptions which could be inaccurate.

Porn - vegan in definition. Like it or hate it, that's your choice, but it's a personal issue moreso than a 'vegan' one that can be proven to be good or bad via a few choice links to one-sided stories.

Can we simply agree that people in the porn biz should all be treated fairly in their work as should be in ANY industry? Beyond that, all discussions aside seem to be geared toward people wanting to either say porn is great or that it's terrible based on their own feelings rather than anything that can be proven. That never leads to anything except people getting pissy with each other as it's akin to debating over whose local sports team is more awesome.

Maybe it's time to put this thing to bed.
User avatar
Beck Bristow
New Member
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 5:05 am
Location: Hollywood

Postby Johnboy74 » Tue Oct 20, 2009 8:32 am

You two still slapping dicks :roll:
****** Vegan Atheist ******
Most atheists see themselves as realists - their atheism is a part of their willingness to square up to the world as it is and face it without recourse to superstition or comforting fictions about a life to come or a benevolent power looking after us.
User avatar
Johnboy74
Active Member
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:00 pm
Location: Liverpool

PreviousNext

Return to Ethics, Politics and Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest