- Feb 23, 2015
- 3,860
- 4,255
- 693
I ran across that, read up on it. But surely there has to be more than that.In a nutshell.
As a gay guy, I don't watch porn either. It's either overly macho, the pornstars look like 12-year-olds and there's always someone who is visibly not enjoying it, in some cases, you can see that they're distressed. Mutual enjoyment is not a theme in gay porn either, there's always one person getting off and someone else who if you have any idea about body language is clearly not enjoying it, but usually that's a purposeful theme. It's just the norm in Porn. Are people these days really that fucking sick that they prefer to watch porn where someone is being used and in some cases suffering.
I definitely think the porn industry needs to change in that regard. Then again... It's supply and demand.
Sorry for back to back post, was too late to edit. About this above part of my earlier response.
Wtf is this?
(Don't really think any less of her for it, do think it's funny though. Maybe she meant hard shit.)
This article had a powerful ending. Documentaries are about truth, not consent of the subjects when they realize that they may look bad. I do think the maker should be responsible for how they make their subjects look with their film making. If it is inaccurate, vindictive, risks serious harm to the subject, is misleading, or prejudiced we should be able to punish the maker and stop them profiting from it. This article does make a very good point about consent, agree or disagree.
This is so accurate on both fronts.... I can definitely confirm that the interesting and exciting parts of camming do tend to be private for members too.Honestly a lot of the interesting parts are the negative parts. I could tell some really positive and interesting stories about relationships with members but they are private and I wouldn't share them, especially not publicly.
I ran across that, read up on it. But surely there has to be more than that.
Documentaries should come from a neutral perspective
"Daddy issues" is such a gross term and thinking a woman can't have an independent view unrelated to her dad's sex life is also gross (and speculative and irrelevant).Daddy would have loved cam girls, he had a thing for sexy, white, and very young women... you can understand her dislike of sexy. Rashida Jones definitely has daddy issues.
What is wrong with Rashida Jones?
Yes kind of agree with you, it was a bit harsh...so I was removing it. Though in this case I think it may be relevant considering that particular family history."Daddy issues" is such a gross term and thinking a woman can't have an independent view unrelated to her dad's sex life is also gross (and speculative and irrelevant).
"Daddy issues" is such a gross term and thinking a woman can't have an independent view unrelated to her dad's sex life is also gross (and speculative and irrelevant).
But sometimes there maybe an underlining reason for certain morals. When you are familiar with her father's past and affairs, it makes you wonder if it might be.
Though I believe that is up to her figure out on her own and totally speculative.
I pretty much view marijuana much differently than the harder shit like alcohol, opoids, coke, meth, etc., too.Some people don't view marijuana bad like more addictive drugs. Also marijuana is legal where she was smoking. So she wasn't doing anything illegal. I think she meant hard shit too.
If minors can not legally consent, is it time to start punishing camsites/clipsites/pornsites/tubesites/social media sites that make explicit sexual content easily accessible to minors with no more than a "I agree" checkbox (and some not even that)? Is it time to take their profits?If it is inaccurate, vindictive, risks serious harm to the subject, is misleading, or prejudiced we should be able to punish the maker and stop them profiting from it. This article does make a very good point about consent, agree or disagree.
Still don't know what to make of it. In that essay she makes some good points (don't agree with her completely). And I don't really find her tone as objectionable as I think some do.Of course, what is the context to this dated tweet?
http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/...ash-about-stop-acting-like-whores-tweet-27422
“I’m not gonna lie,” she wrote. “The fact that I was accused of ‘slut-shaming,’ being anti-woman, and judging a women’s sex lives crushed me. I consider myself a feminist. I would never point a finger at a woman for her actual sexual behavior, and I think all women have the right to express their desires. But I will look at women with influence—millionaire women who use their ‘sexiness’ to make money—and ask some questions. There is a difference, a key one, between ‘shaming’ and ‘holding someone accountable.’”
Her actual essay explaining herself more: http://www.glamour.com/story/rashida-jones-major-dont-the-pornification-of-everything
Though I do think it's important on influencers to not want overly sexualize. And there is a time and a place for it, but I also do believe in age restrictions. But I think she's incredibly casting judgment. She says she is holding them accountable, but how? By being completely demeaning?
Just because some people choose not to be modest with their body, should you "hold them accountable" by casting judgment. Or having a discussion? Maybe making sure your child understands what being appropriate means. How not to conduct yourself in public, and explain that sometimes people do things for show and entertainment. Maybe take the third commandment to consideration when parenting. Worshiping false idols?
Ms Jones in a nutshell:
View attachment 69981
What documentaries are you watching?! I really like documentaries. I think they're awesome and interesting and I watch a lot of them. Almost none come from a neutral perspective?
.
I like to think that documentary series was shot on any profession would not have people in that profession feeling they were not represented correctly..esp another profession that does not have a clear cut definition or a list of duties/responsibilities/tasks.
But maybe I am wrong.
Also--I just watched the last esp...and I can't tell if I am supposed to feel bad for this girl or what. I wanted to be all "omfg she doesn't deserve such harsh charges" and then watch her pretty much say she still doesn't understand what she did wrong. She is literally equating the other content she saw streamed on periscope (specifically fights) to what she streamed. I am not into the idea of people physically fighting, or people streaming it either---but if this girl can't see the difference between a planned consented fight between two people, and the rape of an underage girl.....there is clearly a bigger issue.
I imagine that both religious conservatives and the Anti-porn feminists would complain, that not enough scenes were shown of sex-workers being victimized, exploited, doing drugs, and committing unspeakable sins.
https://reason.com/blog/2017/04/26/hot-girls-wanted-docu-series-exploits-se
Has a little more about the alleged shenanigans by the producers.
Porn producer and performer Jay Taylor concurred with Knight. "They lied about the nature of the project to get us to sign releases," Taylor told me Tuesday on Twitter. "We ASKED if it was HGW, and they swore up and down it wasn't."
I am not anti-SW, not calling you a pimp . No agenda here; just an observation.I have been accused multiple times by anti-SWs of being part of the "pimp lobby" because I talk about SW from the perspective of a white college student who grew up middle class, so obviously my experience is not representative of REAL sex work which is all tragedy and violence.
have been accused multiple times by anti-SWs of being part of the "pimp lobby" because I talk about SW from the perspective of a white college student who grew up middle class, so obviously my experience is not representative of REAL sex work which is all tragedy and violence.
The funny thing is, I don't totally disagree with them and I think drawing lines between the various types of SW is a vital part of acknowledging that certain sects are more dangerous, more prone to exploitation, and more full of vulnerable women. But, I don't think anyone saying "my SW experience has been ______" should be silenced or told it doesn't count just because it isn't the worst. Everyone's got something to add to the convo and it's dishonest to me to write off someone's opinion because it doesn't support their agenda. Especially bugs me when it's a white college-educated woman who's never done sex work telling me not to speak for sex workers. What the fuck are you doing then?!
That goes both ways though, I've unfortunately seen pro-SW activists at times dismiss or silence those who are critical by saying "just because you had a bad experience, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the industry" or implying it's an anomaly or whatever. Like @IsabellaSnow said, acting like the industry is perfect and anyone who disagrees is wrong is just silly. And in that case it especially bugs me when it's someone from a safer sect of sex work dismissing someone from a less safe one.
(As an aside, this thread has been a really interesting discussion and I'm glad to be reading all your thoughts, everyone.)
On the other hand, as Isabella says, much of what camgirls do isn't that exciting.
Somebody like @Booty_4U will happily throw sex worker number 2's pain in to her victim statistics under the the SW flag; but when is her poor black ass going to start popping up in the all the informative links Guy is posting? Or do we need to set her up in a cam room and get her on Twitter before that can happen?
It means that sex worker number 2 in my comparison has a clear place in the statistics used to justify some of the doctrinal positions you have shared.WTF is that supposed to mean?
I question the wisdom of that.Free Speech Coalition's letter to HGW.
http://www.xbiz.com/news/219336
If they are overreaching, they could be opening themselves up to a vicious counterattack.How?