[quote="Dave Noisy"]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."