Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Sat Aug 23, 2014 1:47 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience" 
Author Message
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
Leena wrote:
I disagree with those that think there's no acting in porn. Sasha is a great example of this. She's far from the best looking girl in the business. She's earned her rep with her ability to act and put on a performance.

I think you put too much stock in physical appearance as a prerequisite for a woman to get work in the porn industry. Besides, with modern plastic surgical techniques, lack of physical appearance isn't necessarily the obstacle it would have been 30 years ago.

Quote:
But, even I couldn't get past the fact that I've seen Ms. Grey do vile things that I shouldn't mention on this board. And her notable anal warts.

Women don't need to be beauty queens to get into a porn film. Sometimes, all it takes is a willingness to do things or have things done to them that most people wouldn't imagine.

Quote:
Also, if a porn star wants to be taken seriously, they should drop the stage name.

A lot of the most famous porn actresses nowadays don't really use crazy stage names. Jenna Jameson is a perfect example. Sasha Grey for that matter doesn't exactly have what I'd call a name that automatically makes one think she's a porn star.


Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:17 pm
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
Ragnarok73 wrote:
I pretty much agree with what Patrick stated: there is a reason that porn is looked down upon as an "art form". It requires little real talent, unless you're talking about the talent of the plastic surgeon in putting in the necessary implants to turn a girl into a sexpot. It acts to stimulate a basic instinctual impulse in humans: the need to reproduce. I mean really, how hard is it for a girl to fake an orgasm or give the impression that she's enjoying the sex? Basically, porn is an easy form of entertainment with which to evoke an almost guaranteed human response (and thus to make tons of money from).

I'll enjoy watching sex because I'm a guy with needs just like any other. I'm not going to try to justify watching it by claiming that it's some sort of art form ("performance art", my ass).


I think applying the notion of 'art', or even trying to, is hazaardous inasmuch as the concept of what constitutes art is an ongoing battlefield, many people, for example [to stray solely into painting] consider that master works by de Koonig, Rothko or Pollack are not art because 'they don't look like anything'.

That being said, I'll vehemently disagree with with your central thesis that 'It requires little real talent...' insofar as, like a lot of mainstream films, there is a difference between going through the motions, which any halfwit can do, and producing a performance that either, transcends the genre (unlikely)or, in the case of porn, generates a case of arousal that is more than a simple, hormonal/ organic response.

Certainly, it may be harder to judge the artistic merits of the 'sex act' if you'll excuse the pun, because of the intrinsic visceral reaction to such (unusally instinctual and uncontrolled) but once that initial reaction has passed how long does a pornographic performance hold one's attention - esopecially once one has reached an age of greater that 16 and/or had actual real/ live sex for oneself?

It takes something pretty special to geenrate and retain that interest.

To me, however, that is no different to anything else, there are good examples of a genre/ activity/ ehll - even a bottle of wine and it is in our experience of those good examples that we interpret and place the mroe mundane examples.


Mon Jun 08, 2009 11:27 pm
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
iscariot wrote:

Certainly, it may be harder to judge the artistic merits of the 'sex act' if you'll excuse the pun, because of the intrinsic visceral reaction to such (unusally instinctual and uncontrolled) but once that initial reaction has passed how long does a pornographic performance hold one's attention - esopecially once one has reached an age of greater that 16 and/or had actual real/ live sex for oneself?

It takes something pretty special to geenrate and retain that interest.

To me, however, that is no different to anything else, there are good examples of a genre/ activity/ ehll - even a bottle of wine and it is in our experience of those good examples that we interpret and place the mroe mundane examples.


Very good. Although I challenge you to find a performance in a porn film that commands the viewer's attention with something other than the short-lived delight in seeing an attractive person having sex. Porn films have become much like the ________ Movie franchises (fill in the blank with Epic, Date, etc.) in that they're farcical imitations of recognizable major films, never once concerned with connecting to the audiences other than through the interactive experience of lusting after the stars. This isn't a bad thing, exactly, but it doesn't lend any of the credibility to the genre to raise it above the conception that it's depravity caught on film. It's not depravity and it's not art, either. At best it's a moment caught on tape... a sustained note before a predictable finish. Pornography can't have many surprises because it's commodity. Introducing an Iraq War theme (or something else with weight) to a porn film acts as window dressing for the sex. As such, the best examples are still likely memorable for how impressive the sex scenes are and how far they go in pushing away the recognizable in favor of something that could, in fact, be called depravity.

The audience of porn brings in expectations just as the audience at a David Hockney exhibit does. The difference is that porn gives no more or less than what you see. That the actors have to use method acting (a guess) in order to find the right note for sustained moaning and panting may make it seem like art but, as porn currently exists, it couldn't possibly hope to provoke anything in the viewer other than a need to find a napkin.

This is all a long winded way of saying that porn is as simple as it gets. I would argue that porn done well or porn done poorly is much the same -- it's all about the hormonal response for the viewer and it doesn't likely have to be convincing to succeed.


Tue Jun 09, 2009 1:03 am
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
majoraphasia wrote:
Very good.


Why do I get the feeling I've just been patronised? :lol:

Quote:
Although I challenge you to find a performance in a porn film that commands the viewer's attention with something other than the short-lived delight in seeing an attractive person having sex.


If I watched a significant amount of porn I would perhaps be able to answer that better - from an acting/ personification viewpoint...however, as I have an attractive wife....etc. However, I will note that you are taking my post out of context - I was specifically replying to, and disagreeing with, the notion that turning in a 'winning' pornographic performance takes little talent: I didn't compare pornographic performance to theatrical performance other than to suggest that there are superior and inferior examples within each genre and, further, that achieving that superior level of performance takes a degree of talent/ charisma


Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:22 am
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
iscariot wrote:
majoraphasia wrote:
Very good.


Why do I get the feeling I've just been patronised? :lol:


Can I answer your question? It's just a guess but here goes: you feel you've been patronised because you skimmed through my post and missed how 95% of what I'd written agreed with what you'd written. I'd even go so far to say that I risked being accused of stealing your point, rewording it, and claiming it as my own. Did you mean to type "plagiarized" instead? But it's all good. Oh, LOL. LO-fucking-L indeed.

iscariot wrote:
majoraphasia wrote:
Quote:
Although I challenge you to find a performance in a porn film that commands the viewer's attention with something other than the short-lived delight in seeing an attractive person having sex.


If I watched a significant amount of porn I would perhaps be able to answer that better - from an acting/ personification viewpoint...however, as I have an attractive wife....etc. However, I will note that you are taking my post out of context - I was specifically replying to, and disagreeing with, the notion that turning in a 'winning' pornographic performance takes little talent: I didn't compare pornographic performance to theatrical performance other than to suggest that there are superior and inferior examples within each genre and, further, that achieving that superior level of performance takes a degree of talent/ charisma


What are you, eleven? That opening reminds me of the shame kids felt, in my early school years, when they were 'accused' (correctly, even without proof) of masturbating. "I don't need to," they said, "cuz I have a girlfriend." It's funny, I've got a wife, too and... yet... still... somehow... look at pornography once in a while.

Anyhow, I liked your original post and understood, as well as appreciated, the point you'd made regarding the viewer-actor relationship. My point of disagreement was that, within porn acting, one wasn't likely to find a 'good' example of acting that was appreciably different than a 'poor' example. Granted, the exposure I have to porno is limited to things that don't feature "top shelf" actors/actressess ... such is life on the internet when you aren't willing to part with a credit card number. I've no doubt that, somewhere, there is a porn film that features acting that truly eclipses what might be featured in "Caught on Tape #7: My Crazy Day At The Mattress Store". I've also no doubt that even if the acting might rival that of Meryl Streep the porn viewer won't care or even notice.

**EDIT: After reading through my response a second time it's clear that I responded too hastily and thus the hysteria. Let it be a lesson to read through those histrionic replies and debate if there's any merit in hitting the 'Submit' tab. Let the second lesson be that "if it sounds ironic, it's meant as ironic."


Last edited by majoraphasia on Tue Jun 09, 2009 10:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Jun 09, 2009 6:03 am
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
....must ......control...resist....RESIST!!...



....must........ remain ....quite.....


AAAAGGGHHHHH!!!!!!


screw it


majoraphasia wrote:
iscariot wrote:
If I watched a significant amount of porn I would perhaps be able to answer that better - from an acting/ personification viewpoint...however, as I have an attractive wife....etc.


What are you, eleven? That opening reminds me of the shame kids felt, in my early school years, when they were 'accused' (correctly, even without proof) of masturbating. "I don't need to," they said, "cuz I have a girlfriend." It's funny, I've got a wife, too and... yet... still... somehow... look at pornography once in a while.


well, major. i do find you are at fault here. and i must point it out. you see while you merely have a "wife", iscariot here has what we philanthropic biologists like to call an "attractive wife", a very rare kind in the species. and therein lies the difference. as you may feel the urge to, well, "look at pornography" as you put it, fed up of your ugly fungal wife as it is, the people like the iscariot here, have a mate that diminishes any such needs. so there is full justification in his (her? i'll go with 'his') claim that he does not, indeed, feel this very common need.

common to you, that is. i only speak in the professional capacity. i wouldn't personally know. ive got a hot girlfriend.


-------------

PS- key word "hot".

PPS- yes, i did say the phrase "philanthropic biologists".

PPPS-and sold it.

PPPPS-maybe not


PPPPPS - this post needs emoticons. so here they are, in full. revel in the mediocrity that we must choose from:-> :D :) ;) :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :twisted: :roll: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen: :geek: :ugeek:

PPPPPPS - i am what they call :long pause: "aameen".:cue epic music. i mean EPIC:

















i have to stop posting these types of posts.


Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:29 am
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
iscariot wrote:
I think applying the notion of 'art', or even trying to, is hazaardous inasmuch as the concept of what constitutes art is an ongoing battlefield, many people, for example [to stray solely into painting] consider that master works by de Koonig, Rothko or Pollack are not art because 'they don't look like anything'.

Yes, and so this is why I am amused when porn-film makers try to justify what they do by calling it "art".

Quote:
That being said, I'll vehemently disagree with with your central thesis that 'It requires little real talent...' insofar as, like a lot of mainstream films, there is a difference between going through the motions, which any halfwit can do, and producing a performance that either, transcends the genre (unlikely)or, in the case of porn, generates a case of arousal that is more than a simple, hormonal/ organic response.
If I watched a significant amount of porn I would perhaps be able to answer that better - from an acting/ personification viewpoint...however, as I have an attractive wife....etc.

So you don't watch a lot of porn, but you feel like that's enough for you to make a valid point on it. Ok- please allow me to retort.

If you watched a significant amount of porn, you would indeed see that most porn performers would indeed fall into the "halfwit" category that you refer to. Hollywood is mostly composed of hacks and those halfwits; why should the porn industry be any different?

Acting in a porn film is like eating a delicious meal and "acting" like you're enjoying it. Sex is pleasurable because it's a part of a species' biological imperative. Engaging in sex acts on film does not require much in the way of acting skill for the same reason: orgasms are fun.

Quote:
Certainly, it may be harder to judge the artistic merits of the 'sex act' if you'll excuse the pun, because of the intrinsic visceral reaction to such (unusally instinctual and uncontrolled) but once that initial reaction has passed how long does a pornographic performance hold one's attention - esopecially once one has reached an age of greater that 16 and/or had actual real/ live sex for oneself?

It takes something pretty special to geenrate and retain that interest.

I see, and this is why the porn industry in the U.S. is a multi-*billion* dollar giant? Because no one over the age of 16 watches porn films? Every single porn film is "pretty special"? You know this from the few porn films you've watched?

Quote:
To me, however, that is no different to anything else, there are good examples of a genre/ activity/ ehll - even a bottle of wine and it is in our experience of those good examples that we interpret and place the mroe mundane examples.

This is a theory that you can attest to from your own extensive experience with the genre, I see.


Tue Jun 09, 2009 12:58 pm
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
majoraphasia wrote:
iscariot wrote:
majoraphasia wrote:
Very good.


Why do I get the feeling I've just been patronised? :lol:


*shrug* Bemusement/ irony doesn't actually translate well to writing in email/ post response...next time instead of indicating amusement I'll do this [i]/irony[/]

iscariot wrote:
majoraphasia wrote:
What are you, eleven? That opening reminds me of the shame kids felt, in my early school years, when they were 'accused' (correctly, even without proof) of masturbating. "I don't need to," they said, "cuz I have a girlfriend." It's funny, I've got a wife, too and... yet... still... somehow... look at pornography once in a while.


OK - as I said to you in email, I was being humorous, clearly in too oblique a fashion. To summarise...

Your original point noted that (and I generalise) that porn generated a response due to it being about watching
'Attractive people having sex'

I said I didn't watch much porn because
'I have an attractive wife' (I used the word attractive for a reason).

Now - the linear assumption is that I am not watching porn because I am busy banging the mrs like ascreen door in a hurricane, however, if you read the subtext the xcorrect response would be:
'Why are you watching your wife having sex?'

Oh well, sometimes people get it, other times that don't. (And that includes my wife, who says people need a book of context analysis to get my humour sometimes.)


Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:47 pm
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
Ragnarok73 wrote:
So you don't watch a lot of porn, but you feel like that's enough for you to make a valid point on it. Ok- please allow me to retort.


So you contend that you must do a lot of something to make a valid point about that subject? Well, there goes intuitive deduction and logical inference for a start...(I am so tempted to break Godwin's law just to beat you about the ears with it...)

I've never met a tiger but I know that stepping into a tiger cage is a bad idea. I would consider this a valid point, You, clearly, would not.


Quote:
If you watched a significant amount of porn, you would indeed see that most porn performers would indeed fall into the "halfwit" category that you refer to. Hollywood is mostly composed of hacks and those halfwits; why should the porn industry be any different?


Misses the point. Talent and intelligence are not contingent. Further, to turn what appears to be your favourite position back somewhat, you clearly know every (or the majority of) porn star(s) in order to be able to adequately assess their intelligence - I must be watching the wrong porn, you know, the porn without the SAT marks (for what a standardised test is actually worth) posted on the side of the screen. I am also not aware of too many porn films where they pause to propose solutions for a grand unified theory or a discussion of the merits of Auden vs Rimbaud.

Further: Intelligence and occupation are not contingent

Further still: The presence of hacks and halfwits in a given set does not indicate - given your use of the term 'mostly - that all are halfwits and hacks and, given your continuation that pornland is no different from movieland then their must be people of intelligence and talent in pornland...logically speaking, that is.

Quote:

Acting in a porn film is like eating a delicious meal and "acting" like you're enjoying it.


You've acted in a lot of porn films, then?

Quote:
Sex is pleasurable because it's a part of a species' biological imperative.


My anthropology may be a little out of date but the pleasure principle and biological imperatives are not contingent. IIRC - only humans and dolphins can derive (as far as science knows - my memory may be a bit shakey on this) directed, that is, they perform the sex act, solely for pleasure - but that has nothing todo with the biological imperative.

Quote:
Engaging in sex acts on film does not require much in the way of acting skill for the same reason: orgasms are fun.


You're confusing the mechanical with something else.

Quote:
Quote:
It takes something pretty special to geenrate and retain that interest.

I see, and this is why the porn industry in the U.S. is a multi-*billion* dollar giant? Because no one over the age of 16 watches porn films? Every single porn film is "pretty special"? You know this from the few porn films you've watched?


Again, you miss the point and, I am starting to think, you're doing it deliberately. How many mainstream films have you seen (mainstream film is also a multi-billion dollar industry IIRC) and how many scenes from those films have indelibly marked themselves on your consciousness. Why should porn productions be any different - while I may not have watched the millions of porn films you have I can remember one film from about 9 years ago that I could give you a blow-for-blow [dear god that's bad *wince*] account of, including the names of the actors and actresses.

But...whatever...


Tue Jun 09, 2009 5:15 pm
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
iscariot wrote:
So you contend that you must do a lot of something to make a valid point about that subject? Well, there goes intuitive deduction and logical inference for a start...(I am so tempted to break Godwin's law just to beat you about the ears with it...)

I've never met a tiger but I know that stepping into a tiger cage is a bad idea. I would consider this a valid point, You, clearly, would not.

You really like to use a lot of words to say nothing at all of significance, don't you? Experience beats theories in most instances any day of the week. All you're doing is talking in terms of possibilities- fine, if that's your cup of tea, have at it.


Quote:
Misses the point. Talent and intelligence are not contingent. Further, to turn what appears to be your favourite position back somewhat, you clearly know every (or the majority of) porn star(s) in order to be able to adequately assess their intelligence - I must be watching the wrong porn, you know, the porn without the SAT marks (for what a standardised test is actually worth) posted on the side of the screen. I am also not aware of too many porn films where they pause to propose solutions for a grand unified theory or a discussion of the merits of Auden vs Rimbaud.

Further: Intelligence and occupation are not contingent

Further still: The presence of hacks and halfwits in a given set does not indicate - given your use of the term 'mostly - that all are halfwits and hacks and, given your continuation that pornland is no different from movieland then their must be people of intelligence and talent in pornland...logically speaking, that is.

See what I said above about talking a lot without saying anything. Or to paraphrase: "The lips are flapping, son, but nothing's coming out.".

I used the term "halfwit" as a response to your original comment, "...there is a difference between going through the motions, which any halfwit can do, and producing a performance that either, transcends the genre (unlikely)or, in the case of porn, generates a case of arousal that is more than a simple, hormonal/ organic response." Since I'm talking about the rule in porn and not the exception, it seems that you're the one missing the point.

Quote:
You've acted in a lot of porn films, then?

No, I paid attention in biology classes.

Quote:
You're confusing the mechanical with something else.

You're not reading my posts before you start yakking. The whole point of my posts has been that talent doesn't breed in places where it isn't required ("Use it or lose it."). Porn film "acting" involves engaging in an act that is pleasurable (an evolutionary development to encourage species to reproduce, to use your method of speaking). It doesn't take a large degree of thespian talent to convey to an audience that you're enjoying a sex act when you are physically engaged in one. Hopefully, this will make it clearer for the pretentiously unenlightened.

Quote:
Again, you miss the point and, I am starting to think, you're doing it deliberately. How many mainstream films have you seen (mainstream film is also a multi-billion dollar industry IIRC) and how many scenes from those films have indelibly marked themselves on your consciousness. Why should porn productions be any different - while I may not have watched the millions of porn films you have I can remember one film from about 9 years ago that I could give you a blow-for-blow [dear god that's bad *wince*] account of, including the names of the actors and actresses.

But...whatever...

Ah, pot calling kettle black- sorry, I haven't seen "millions" of porn films. You know, your points might be taken better if you didn't come across as such a condescending ass.

When I watch porn, I don't have scenes "indelibly marking themselves" anywhere on my consciousness- it evokes a physical reaction that meets a biological need. Porn evoking my imagination like a well-done mainstream film? I suppose it's possible, but there's a long mile's worth of difference between "possible" and "likely".


Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:22 pm
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
Its been 2 weeks since a Reelthoughts post...

Just thought I'd post something other than guys talking about watching porn...

wait, that gives me an idea while I wait for James to dust off his pencil...


Tue Jun 09, 2009 7:26 pm
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
Ragnarok73 wrote:
You really like to use a lot of words to say nothing at all of significance, don't you?


Trans: You like to say stuff I don't agree with.

Quote:
Experience beats theories in most instances any day of the week. All you're doing is talking in terms of possibilities- fine, if that's your cup of tea, have at it.


It's wholly context dependent. Most historical analysis, for example, is theoretically dependent (unless Historians have discovered time machines and haven't told us). In discussing a subject like the response to pornography and, further, what pornography means/ transmits etc interpretation is going to be solely theoretical - this is an entirely different idea than saying: Porn is people having sex. Well d'uh.

Quote:
See what I said above about talking a lot without saying anything. Or to paraphrase: "The lips are flapping, son, but nothing's coming out.".


Or simply, you don't agree, and that's fine. But rebut the argument and save the ad hominem

Quote:
I used the term "halfwit" as a response to your original comment, "...there is a difference between going through the motions, which any halfwit can do, and producing a performance that either, transcends the genre (unlikely)or, in the case of porn, generates a case of arousal that is more than a simple, hormonal/ organic response." Since I'm talking about the rule in porn and not the exception, it seems that you're the one missing the point.


Quality and standard of performance [or the rule and not the exception as you state] are not concepts solely intrinsic to Porn - the exact same argument is valid for mainstream film. Books. magazines. Theatre etc - the majority of such things will always be dross and that makes those things that do epitomise the exception that much more exceptional and I do not think you can argue that some genres are capable of transcending the rule and others are not.


Quote:

You're not reading my posts before you start yakking. The whole point of my posts has been that talent doesn't breed in places where it isn't required ("Use it or lose it.").


...and I disagree. I think that because you appear to solely equate a pornographic performance' solely with respect to the physical act and apparently don't believe that pornography is capable of transcending that physical act. I contend that the performance aspect is mroe than the simply physical act.



Quote:

You know, your points might be taken better if you didn't come across as such a condescending ass.


Coming from someone who breaks out the personal abuse when they're not agreed with I think that's pretty funny. To mangle the oft-used quote from Mrs Ex-President 'The only person who can make you feel inferior is yourself' ...(Now...that's me being condescending - I thought I'd provide an example for comparison :twisted: ).

Anyway, this is going nowhere...to those who're sick of this, sorry for carrying it on, not my intention.


Last edited by iscariot on Wed Jun 10, 2009 5:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:09 pm
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
Some interesting discussion, but please stop with the personal remarks and antagonistic tone guys.


Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:13 pm
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
Quote:
Snipped another wall of text for sake of brevity.

So what you're saying in a long-winded fashion is that you think that porn performers can transcend the simply physical act. If you'd read my previous threads, you'd have seen that I've already acknowledged that I'm open to the idea. My opinion is that such an occurrence would be exceedingly rare and much less likely than one would find in mainstream film.

BTW about the whole "transcending the physical act" point -what else is porn about but highlighting this act? Perhaps you've talked so much that you've lost sight of the basic point I'm making. If so, distill your thinking down to basic concepts like *need* and think about how porn serves it. Hormones come into this too, so don't be shy about hitting your biology text if you need help.

Oh, and while you're at it, can you come up with some specific examples to support your argument? I'd have asked sooner, but that was when I gave your opinion more credence than it deserves.


Tue Jun 09, 2009 8:24 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3136
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
Ragnarok73 wrote:
Oh, and while you're at it, can you come up with some specific examples to support your argument? I'd have asked sooner, but that was when I gave your opinion more credence than it deserves.


While I have appreciated the substance of this interaction, the personal insults have to stop. Trevor already mentioned it. If I see it happen again, I'll warn you (or anyone else in this thread guilty of it) then, if necessary, take more drastic action.

Sorry to pick on you Ragnarok, since you're not the only guilty party, but yours is the most recent post.

There is no reason why this debate/discussion cannot continue in a civilized, reasonable fashion. Both sides have made good points, but I will not allow it to descend into nastiness and name-calling.


Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:31 am
Profile WWW
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Ragnarok73 wrote:
Oh, and while you're at it, can you come up with some specific examples to support your argument? I'd have asked sooner, but that was when I gave your opinion more credence than it deserves.


While I have appreciated the substance of this interaction, the personal insults have to stop. Trevor already mentioned it. If I see it happen again, I'll warn you (or anyone else in this thread guilty of it) then, if necessary, take more drastic action.

Sorry to pick on you Ragnarok, since you're not the only guilty party, but yours is the most recent post.

There is no reason why this debate/discussion cannot continue in a civilized, reasonable fashion. Both sides have made good points, but I will not allow it to descend into nastiness and name-calling.

No worries, James- Iscariot and I have decided to keep any further discussion on this topic to private messages. Perhaps it may be time to close this thread also since it's proven to be a fairly volatile topic of discussion for some of us, myself included.


Wed Jun 10, 2009 11:50 am
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
Ragnarok7 wrote:
No worries, James- Iscariot and I have decided to keep any further discussion on this topic to private messages. Perhaps it may be time to close this thread also since it's proven to be a fairly volatile topic of discussion for some of us, myself included.


Wot he sed [/genial]


Wed Jun 10, 2009 4:48 pm
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
This caught my eye when reading the headlines a few minutes ago:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5519313/US-porn-industry-hit-by-Aids-fears-as-16-cases-of-HIV-revealed.html


Sat Jun 13, 2009 5:42 am
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"

I'm sure few of us would find that article shocking even in this day and age when porn performers are generally required to provide clean bills of health from their doctors as part of working on films. The problem is that the industry is so large because there are many amateur and freelance porn filmmakers out there who don't go to the same trouble to screen out STD's than major companies like Vivid.


Sun Jun 14, 2009 2:58 am
Post Re: May 29, 2009: "The Porn Star Experience"
Ragnarok73 wrote:
I'm sure few of us would find that article shocking even in this day and age when porn performers are generally required to provide clean bills of health from their doctors as part of working on films. The problem is that the industry is so large because there are many amateur and freelance porn filmmakers out there who don't go to the same trouble to screen out STD's than major companies like Vivid.


I wonder if there's even minimal testing for those amateur/freelance porn shoots. Is there a general standard of production that mandates testing? How could there be? You've got to guess that much of the porn out there -- there being the internet -- is produced without concern for anything other than proof of age and whatever else may be required to pass the muster for distribution. I don't know a thing about Vivid or any other of the major companies that operate coincidentally with the freelance producers making videos in their own bedrooms but I'm assuming that the health of actors/actresses within those major companies is something that's a high priority. They may have health insurance through Vivid, for all I know. I bet they do.

I'd like to offer the 'well, duh' point of asking why those freelance pornographers don't bother with a condom. I've looked only a little bit but, no surprise, the presence of condoms is detrimental to sales. At least for those movies that are available only as downloads on pay sites. Who knows how many unmentioned cases of STDs are treated each year among the pornographic actor set? Vivid and the other big companies may run a clean operation but what percentage of the market do they represent, really?


Sun Jun 14, 2009 6:13 am
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr