Misogynistic porn

[Warda]

I'm rather skeptical of how much that happens. Maybe back in the 60s-70s (80s?) when porn was still heavily dominated by an underclass.

I will admit, I am not knowledgeable on the extent of power pornstars have in their contracts. With all the companies I would assume a lot, but I really don't know.

It's not a contract thing you have a agent and they get videos for you to do. You can say what you want, but that might mean less jobs. Also do you know how much these girls make? It's like 150k per year.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

You aren't trying very hard. It's extremely easy to find.

Then again, you probably watch mostly lesbian porn or porn where the woman is in focus, due to your sexual preferences.

Hell, just Google something like "Hot dudes banging" or something similar, or go to Literotica or something. Very easy to find.

do you have something you want to share?

I see what you did there

[Aurora Novus]

I'm really not seeing the point of this topic. What are we even discussing? Whether or not porn is misogynistic? Whether or not it contains dark elements to it? Whether or not it should be changed or banned?

What's the primary goal of the topic? What are the opposing sides? It seems that a bunch of people are just arguing about...nothing.

Whether or not the industry tends toward misogyny.

That really is too broad a question. What do we mean by that? Porn as a concept, and idea? Or specific pornographic material? Porn as a whole I woud say is not in any way misogynistic. No more than history books which discuss misogyny in history are "misogynistic".

Of course, specific types of porn can portray misogyny. But even that doesn't make them "misogynistic", just that it displays misogyny in it. Which isn't necessarily a problem. It really doesn't mater what is being shown, so long as what is being shown was consented to. And women "degrading" themselves on camera certainly isn't "degrading to women". At best, it's degrading to those specific women. No more.

[The Parkus Empire]

I'm rather skeptical of how much that happens. Maybe back in the 60s-70s (80s?) when porn was still heavily dominated by an underclass.

I will admit, I am not knowledgeable on the extent of power pornstars have in their contracts. With all the companies I would assume a lot, but I really don't know.

It doesn't have to be contracted for them to get on the industry's bad side, or simply told they won't be hired any further if they don't comply, or told no more than, "Gee, we really need this for the shoot. I think if you just do it, it won't be so bad. And you won't have to do it any more after this one time, really."

[The Parkus Empire]

I'm rather skeptical of how much that happens. Maybe back in the 60s-70s (80s?) when porn was still heavily dominated by an underclass.

I will admit, I am not knowledgeable on the extent of power pornstars have in their contracts. With all the companies I would assume a lot, but I really don't know.

It's not a contract thing you have a agent and they get videos for you to do. You can say what you want, but that might mean less jobs. Also do you know how much these girls make? It's like 150k per year.

You're talking about ones at the very top, I think.

[Hathradic States]

I'm rather skeptical of how much that happens. Maybe back in the 60s-70s (80s?) when porn was still heavily dominated by an underclass.

I will admit, I am not knowledgeable on the extent of power pornstars have in their contracts. With all the companies I would assume a lot, but I really don't know.

It doesn't have to be contracted for them to get on the industry's bad side, or simply told they won't be hired any further if they don't comply, or told no more than, "Gee, we really need this for the shoot. I think if you just do it, it won't be so bad. And you won't have to do it any more after this one time, really."

It's a job. These things happen on jobs. Why should pornstar be any different than any other job?

[Aurora Novus]

I'm rather skeptical of how much that happens. Maybe back in the 60s-70s (80s?) when porn was still heavily dominated by an underclass.

I will admit, I am not knowledgeable on the extent of power pornstars have in their contracts. With all the companies I would assume a lot, but I really don't know.

It doesn't have to be contracted for them to get on the industry's bad side, or simply told they won't be hired any further if they don't comply, or told no more than, "Gee, we really need this for the shoot. I think if you just do it, it won't be so bad. And you won't have to do it any more after this one time, really."

I really don't see this as misogyny, so much as the standard problems that arise in a Capitalist system, where people are looking to make money, and view workers as disposable tools to achieve that wealth. Women being told to do things they don't want to do, and being let go if they don't do them, is an economic problem, not a social problem.

[Olthar]

One book. One. Compared to the millions of other bits of porn out there. Yeah, that's pretty damn negligible.

70 million copies isn't negligible.
And it's not the only book. I walk past whole shelves of female-focused ero-lit every time I walk into the local CVS. You know, the pharmacy, not the book-store.

You know, that statistic really only helps my case, not yours. Ask yourself: Why is that one book such a big seller? Because there is a lack of options. Just because porn isn't marketed towards women doesn't mean women don't buy porn. With male-aimed porn, there are so many various choices available that one single property never gets such exceedingly high sales. Men have options, and with options, men can pick things more focused on their individual desires. Women have no such capacity for choice and are only given the option of whatever books they find at the supermarket. Speaking of which, that fact is something else you brought up to try defending yourself which has only backfired on you. The reason your CVS doesn't have any male-aimed erotica books is because men don't need to buy books. They can just go on the internet and easily find billions if not trillions of videos and pictures. Women can't do that. The few dozen books at CVS is all we have. That is entirely negligible. A couple hundred or even thousand books compared to a few trillion videos and pictures is so marginally low that when I tried calculating the ratio in my calculator, it just gave me an answer of '0'. That is the very definition of negligible.

[IshCong]

Whether or not the industry tends toward misogyny.

That really is to broad a question. What do we mean by that? Porn as a concept, and idea? Or specific pornographic material? Porn as a whole I woud say is not in any way misogynistic. No more than history books which discuss misogyny in history are "misogynistic".

Of course, specific types of porn can portray misogyny. But even that doesn't make them "misogynistic", just that it displays misogyny in it. Which isn't necessarily a problem. It really doesn't mater what is being shown, so long as what is being shown was consented to. And women "degrading" themselves on camera certainly isn't "degrading to women". At best, it's degrading to those specific women. No more.

I wonder how degrading it really is even to those women.
Is it degrading to do something to someone if they asked for it, consented to it, and derived pleasure and/or pay from that? All without any coercion and while the 'degraded' party is free to leave at any time? I mean, it seems like it would be like rape play isn't actual rape. Degrading play isn't actual degradation.

[The Parkus Empire]

That really is to broad a question. What do we mean by that? Porn as a concept, and idea?

No, as in the industry itself.

Or specific pornographic material? Porn as a whole I woud say is not in any way misogynistic. No more than history books which discuss misogyny in history are "misogynistic".

Uh, one's teaching fact and portraying misogyny as bad.

Of course, specific types of porn can portray misogyny. But even that doesn't make them "misogynistic", just that it displays misogyny in it. Which isn't necessarily a problem. It really doesn't mater what is being shown, so long as what is being shown was consented to. And women "degrading" themselves on camera certainly isn't "degrading to women". At best, it's degrading to those specific women. No more.

Possibly, but it definitely would be healthy if viewers didn't get such material without looking for "degrading porn".

[The Serbian Empire]

...I'm afraid to ask how you know this Geni.

That's really odd though.

It's not its just a type on most sites.

Nor is Wet and Messy and that's considered soft core but it's a "fetish".

[Warda]

It's not a contract thing you have a agent and they get videos for you to do. You can say what you want, but that might mean less jobs. Also do you know how much these girls make? It's like 150k per year.

You're talking about ones at the very top, I think.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-female-porn-stars-get-paid-for-different-types-of-scenes-2012-11

[Carnivorous Flying Lunchboxes]

Porn can be misogynistic.

Can also be the other way around, depending on your tastes.

There's a lot out there.

Yeah and I are not problem with it as long it is conscentual.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

Am I the only male here who think they have a point?

I get bored with straight porn very often.

Then I try to watch with the point-of-view of a straight female and it gets worse.

Feminine behavior is just so unnatural (especially when they are doing oral) and male behavior so caricatured. Not to say that males in those videos are just their sex. And the whole point is just about how they "screw badly and beautifully".

[Occupied Deutschland]

I'm rather skeptical of how much that happens. Maybe back in the 60s-70s (80s?) when porn was still heavily dominated by an underclass.

I will admit, I am not knowledgeable on the extent of power pornstars have in their contracts. With all the companies I would assume a lot, but I really don't know.

It doesn't have to be contracted for them to get on the industry's bad side, or simply told they won't be hired any further if they don't comply, or told no more than, "Gee, we really need this for the shoot. I think if you just do it, it won't be so bad. And you won't have to do it any more after this one time, really."

Again, I doubt the prevalence that has. Kinks like those aren't going to have the market that more mainstream penis-vagina sex is going to have, barring the overseas produced porn that might not be legal and such, I highly doubt pornstars are drawn into kinks or fetishes they don't actually want to do.

[The Parkus Empire]

It doesn't have to be contracted for them to get on the industry's bad side, or simply told they won't be hired any further if they don't comply, or told no more than, "Gee, we really need this for the shoot. I think if you just do it, it won't be so bad. And you won't have to do it any more after this one time, really."

It's a job. These things happen on jobs. Why should pornstar be any different than any other job?

Sex has unique psychological implications that come with it.

[Aurora Novus]

Possibly, but it definitely would be healthy if viewers didn't get such material without looking for "degrading porn".

Are you implying there is some moral wrong with "degrading" porn?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Possibly, but it definitely would be healthy if viewers didn't get such material without looking for "degrading porn".

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

The problem with this assertion right here is that you think that women have to do what you and others think is proper, which isn't true and is still fucking sexist.

Not all women who do degrading things in films are exactly thinking they will be the pilot model for the "misogynists" club.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

70 million copies isn't negligible.
And it's not the only book. I walk past whole shelves of female-focused ero-lit every time I walk into the local CVS. You know, the pharmacy, not the book-store.

You know, that statistic really only helps my case, not yours. Ask yourself: Why is that one book such a big seller? Because there is a lack of options. Just because porn isn't marketed towards women doesn't mean women don't buy porn. With male-aimed porn, there are so many various choices available that one single property never gets such exceedingly high sales. Men have options, and with options, men can pick things more focused on their individual desires. Women have no such capacity for choice and are only given the option of whatever books they find at the supermarket. Speaking of which, that fact is something else you brought up to try defending yourself which has only backfired on you. The reason your CVS doesn't have any male-aimed erotica books is because men don't need to buy books. They can just go on the internet and easily find billions if not trillions of videos and pictures. Women can't do that. The few dozen books at CVS is all we have. That is entirely negligible. A couple hundred or even thousand books compared to a few trillion videos and pictures is so marginally low that when I tried calculating the ratio in my calculator, it just gave me an answer of '0'. That is the very definition of negligible.

Look up "hot guys fucking" or something similar.

[Hathradic States]

Porn can be misogynistic.

Can also be the other way around, depending on your tastes.

There's a lot out there.

Yeah and I are not problem with it as long it is conscentual.

Dissy, how drunk are you?

And that is pretty much my view on it.

[The Parkus Empire]

You're talking about ones at the very top, I think.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-female-porn-stars-get-paid-for-different-types-of-scenes-2012-11

Stars

[Nailed to the Perch]

Porn is not inherently misogynistic, but porn absolutely can be misogynistic (and a great deal of it quite definitely is). Similarly, porn is not inherently racist, but it would be stupid to pretend films with titles like "Oh No! There's a Negro In My Mom!" (which is a real title I just found in a cursory google search, sigh) aren't pretty damn problematic on that front.

Also, I think people get very confused about what is meant when we say that a lot of porn is repulsively sexist, because someone inevitably replies "but the women in the videos choose to be there!" Which is a great defense against "this porn is RAPE" but not so much against "this porn is sexist." The idea that pornos magically become non-sexist if a woman participates in them makes exactly as much sense as claiming that there would be nothing racist about a movie promoting the lynching of black people, provided black actors appeared in it.

(Also, sadly, it's not entirely true that porn actors all make free and uncoerced choices to make the movies they make. I wholeheartedly recommend that anyone who consumes porn take the time to research the porn they choose to consume, and make a real effort to stick to porn where they can verify that the performers actually like their jobs.)

[The Parkus Empire]

Possibly, but it definitely would be healthy if viewers didn't get such material without looking for "degrading porn".

Are you implying there is some moral wrong with "degrading" porn?

I don't like it, but no. I'm saying there is something wrong with it being the default.

[Warda]

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-what-female-porn-stars-get-paid-for-different-types-of-scenes-2012-11

Stars

That's the word for the actors? It said the average is 150k, but ranges from 50-300k.

[Genivaria]

Another thing, apparently the porn industry is kinda racist.
Inter-racial porn is considered to be 'extreme'.

...I'm afraid to ask how you know this Geni.

That's really odd though.

Obviously I work in the porn industry.
Seriously though I watched a The Young Turks vid that reported a study done on this several months ago.
Trying to find the source.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDnehPisfJI