I don't know about that. Most women who are consensually in the porn industry get paid really handsome sums of money for what they do. That, to me, doesn't sound like being exploited, but rather, like business.
That is true, of course, yet it's still called exploitation, self-exploitation of their bodies and having the target audience gawking at your body and the vulgar sexual intercourse and the close-up of positions it offers, which many would agree that it should remain a private thing. We'll agree to disagree on that, but there's also this reality of being exploited without being aware of that.
Thus, that's a whole different spiel, and that's not the kind of pornography we're talking about here--we're talking about the kind which is mainstream, legal, between consenting adults, etc. Therefore, I'd say, these women are free--no one forced them to do what they do, they get paid nicely for doing something easy, and if they become really famous, they basically get to call the shots as to where/when//how often/with whom they work. So, judging by that, they're not any more or less free than the rest of us.
Right. But see above, some still call this as being, say, willingly submitted to exploitation. To public display. Not on the poster down the street, but still by means of media tools. That is stooping down to a low level, in many people's minds. And objectively and literally speaking, it's stooping down to a low level for the adult public to see. And when a child is not really monitored by his parents/parent, and left to freely navigate on the net, they'll sure find pornographic sites that will haunt their psyche forever. That's what happens, but this thread is not about child psychology. Just say that porn, even erotic films have got a haunting, perverse quality about them that allows them to remain in one's mind for a long time. Which can be uncomfortable. For me it was. I actually think, though, that soft porn films or erotic films are even more perverse, for they're showing sex in a more delightful manner, where the man's penis can't really be seen and there's not that much explicit imagery. They get stuck in your mind a lot, they also attack one's subconscious mind. And I've met people that can attest to that.
As to the shame statement, why should anyone be ashamed (or proud, for that matter) to show their nude body, or feel guilty because they did? It seems illogical to feel ashamed of and guilty from something that is just a natural part of life. There's nothing either shaming or empowering about having sex or displaying your nudity--it just is.
Some people, indeed, have no shame or guilt. A natural part of life? I, as well as others, would beg to differ. It's a mutilated part of life, very counterfeited and perverse, and while it exists in every day life, that's not natural: meaning the many excentric positions and the fakeness of one's orgasm, although they do happen in real life, they're certainly not natural and have no substance to them. Am aware of tantric sex and the varied sex positions it involves, but I'm referring to sex positions in porn, whether on the screen or in one's bedroom.
Mystery? I don't think it's a mystery as to what the male and female bodies look like.
I didn't refer to the mystery of not knowing how a human body looks like, which is not the case. However, as it happens in erotic films, the male sexual organ is not really shown, so there's some mystery left, as opposed to pure, blatant porn. Something many can appreciate.
Dignity? I don't think having sex makes you lose your dignity.
When you film it and have people watch it and adults buy it, you lose your dignity, yes. You allow the viewer to watch you in your every bit of carnal part and cause and reaction. Some of right see dignity differently.
Dignity is defined as, "bearing, conduct, or speech indicative of self-respect." (dictionary.com)
Or too much self-respect that could go as far as become the total opposite of it. Too much of something can kill you, and porn is an excess. It can kill one's self-respect without them having to know it, and I've explained how.
If she didn't respect herself, she'd just do it for free!
Agree, but there's more to it than this just being about being paid for what you do. Yeah, I know, morals intervene, and some don't really have any, so... And am only referring to these porn actors by saying that, and those promoting porn and producers. Not the viewers.
It's only because societal views have become entwined with stereotypical Christian values that we look down upon the ladies who perform these services. Unfortunately, such an incorrect merger is wholly unavoidable, since most people are religious and unable to really think for themselves, thus following a book full of historical and time-space inaccuracies, blatant impossibilities, etc.
This can have nothing to do with religion. Not even society in many cases. Some people Are indeed able to think for themselves, and if they say they feel sick if watching porn, that's not a cultivated attitude, they feel it in their intestines. And I don't think most people are religious, to be honest. There are people who are Not religious, but have common sense or are ethical, that can feel disgusted by porn. Again, very fine line between expressing an opinion and actually offending somebody. If I am religious, I certainly am not incorrect or stereotypical, as I used to believe the same about porn before my becoming a lover of God, of purity. Because I always loved purity. And I still thought that these ladies and gentlemen performing these kind of services are not really ladies and gentlemen for the mere fact that they're exposing themselves in such completely free, uninhibited manner With others to watch them. Couldn't care less about their private life. When it becomes public and vulgar, that's a different story. Some don't consider that vulgar, but should respect those who value purity more. And I respect those who watch porn, by the way, my best friends watches it, and I still love er. I still like you, Blood.
And I can respect a porn star that has, for instance, a good heart, or who does admirable things in her spare time. I just don't respect porn and if the persons engaging in porn are simply sex-obsessed people in real as well... can't respect that either.
As to there being "love" to the aspect of sex--well, biologically, no such thing exists. Love is a human romantic concept, purely based upon fanciful fantasies, and glorified by the romanticist movement in the late 19th century.
Love has nothing to do with porn. It can have to do with loving to have sex. But how can you say sex and love can't coexist when you have a loving couple, even better, one married couple who love both having sex and making love. Which Is very much possible. Sex is a more selfish-driven activity, but love often isn't. When you have two people who love each other deeply from the heart, you can have both.
In centuries prior to our modern times, there was no such thing as love in either sex or marriage. Marriage was used as a social ladder, so that families with lower social status, but high wealth could hope that a broke aristocratic family would show interest in joining in marriage, so that it became a win-win situation where the aristocrats were no longer strapped for money, and the wealthy family's children would have an aristocratic title, and therefore be better off socially. The husbands and wives would only have sexual relations with each other as means of procreation. In aristocratic families, the husbands and wives would each have separate lovers with whom they had affairs, whether by infatuation or just casual sex.
I am perfectly aware of the above, had also studied this in depth in our antropology class. You are a human enciclopedia. But how does that apply to the new age, though? For there are actually couples in this world who very much marry because of being simply in love with their partner. Plenty of them. If it doesn't last, that's a whole other issue, but there are still some people with feelings left in this world, you know?
So, the idea of "love" behind either sex or marriage is a wholly modern concept, popularized by Christians since the 1950's.
And what's your point with saying this? Besides insidiously attacking Christianity, and in vain, in this respect..."Love" is different than love. Goodness, are you saying that love is merely an idea? Most lovers/friends/husbands who are deeply in love I can bet they have no idea on that their love was actually popularized by Christianity since the '50, and they certainly did/do not need Christianity's approval or opinion on how they should love. You're getting lost in too much cold, unfiltered information.
Sex is an animalistic and biologically driven action--therefore, why should "love" have anything to do with it?
Only when the partners aren't emotionally attached, which can't possibly be expected in porn.. actually, it may happen that some of them become in love with each other, it can, but porn is where the flesh and pleasure and the love of money and of exhibitionism is king and god and the rest doesn't exist. It can bring a lot of money, but it's very much zen-oriented, one living the pleasure of the moment, the time when having sex brings about forgetfulness and the disregard of anything else. The case is different when two people are deeply in love, though, not really including flings.
Sorry, your post was a long one, and I can't find the time to review all my wordings and paragraphs, so either mispellings or unfinished words/nuances etc are bound to appear.
