Is forcing sex on a pornstar the same as rape?

An offer is a promise to be bound if tbe terms of the agreement are accepted. If she doesn't agree, its not an agreement. Generally, noone gets paid in advance. Besides, she would potentially be sued by her employer in a civil court for breach of contract and he may be subject to the criminal code. Either way the court would find for the lesser sentence as it would be habitual and not an act of violence necessarily, as what rape is regarded (its nothing to do with sex; its an act of violence and the facts would need to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thought this might be a nice place to say this:

A contract is a contract but only between ferengi. I mean... Pornstars.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think it depends on our definition of "force". If the porn actrees is threatened with firing, reduction in pay, blacklisting, etc., due to her unwillingness to do something she agreed to do, bound by contract, then that's fair. If they hold her down and force it on her physically, against her will, then that's rape. That would be the same as signing a contract to clean toilets, then, upon seeing the disgusting state of the toilets and attempting to walk out, they bar the door and inform you that you cannot leave until the toilets are clean.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't understand this thread. Isn't forcing anyone to have sex rape?
Why does it matter what they do for a living?

 

Digressions, or, Some Kind of Necessary

Asguard

I think you're aware that I'm perfectly willing to meet your digression.

That said:

Given that your studies include sociological statistics, and that you're willing to include some of those notions in discussions, have you anything to say about the perspectives that lead women to a career in prostitution or pornography?

Along those same lines, we might consider how sexual abuse or a perception of restricted options—and, indeed, what those restrictions are—that led you to choose this course of study and career.

Additionally, I think it's rather easier to say you would let one hundred men fuck you in exchange for not having to deal with another suicide if the notion of being fucked by a man is mere speculation.

To reiterate the point: In what way have common factors between you and a prostitute—e.g. history of abuse, socioeconomic limitation of options or the perception thereof—contributed to your decision to sign on for this work?

On that specific point, we might agree at least in theory. See #38 for a consideration of the specific problem with that theory.

Nonetheless, that the courts would never actually force a porn star to perform considers an act that is in a state of potential.

What of after the fact?

In the United States, at least, courts have frequently found that an employer had no right to hold a person's job as leverage to compel them to do certain work. Given that this work is, technically, illegal at the outset, the employer in this case has even less to stand on.

I probably am. In what way, though, would you suggest I am biased?

Left as a generalization, we could say the same thing about you as regards your partner.

Perhaps, then, you might wish to be more specific: In what way a disservice?

And we might make the point here, in case you are somehow confused: I don't claim to be "gay", in part because the word has too many meanings. Should we go by a lifestyle definition? I don't have long-term relationships with men. I don't get with them very often. By that definition, I am certainly not gay. Perhaps we should go by the Jerry Springer definition? You know, that poor schmuck up on the stage talking about how he had sex with his sister's boyfriend, but he's not gay. And the crowd roars taunting disapproval. Okay. Fine. I'm gay. And the gay population around the world just went way the hell up. (See posts #1575686/1 and 1576060/18, from "The 'homophobic' lie", and read through the quotes from British commentator Mark Steel.)

Lastly, the closet affects those who aren't necessarily gay. Not everyone is willing to talk about the time they played doctor as a kid, or masturbated in front of their best friend, or actually masturbated their best friend, or got drunk and gave a blowjob, or got laid, or whatever. And there are plenty of people who would sublimate sexual experiences with another person of the same gender as being heterosexual; I won't plead that the mere fact that Dr. Lou and I actually agree on something is particularly significant, but the reality is that certain multi-partner sex acts are primarily about two people of the same sex. I thought I'd made that point more explicitly before the recent discussion, indeed thought it was somewhere in the "'homophobic' lie" thread, but all I found there was a post addressing lesbian pornography, pro-gay sublimation in heterosexuals, and the affirmations of those sublimations.

It's a curious perspective, I admit, closeting against such a small fraction of my life. But that fraction is significant: I don't talk about it with my family. My friends? Hell, they all know. But, in truth, I don't ever want to have a discussion with my mother about the ins and outs of oral and anal sex. Hell, we don't delve into such aspects of het intercourse except by absolute necessity. I mean, it's one thing to explain to my father, of my former partner, "And the sad thing is that she was just a bad lay". But no, even then we've never gone into detail about a good lay.

One way of looking at it is to consider my brother. He is, in any moral, ethical, or judicial sense, as fair to gays as anyone can be. But he is markedly homophobic in his aesthetics. I've recounted before, in general terms, an episode in which my brother, a friend of ours, and I were sitting in the bar at the Hard Rock Hotel in Vegas, stopping for one last drink before I flew home to Seattle. Our friend raised the question of my sexual orientation, having heard from another about the fact that I do men from time to time. My brother, having never heard of this, took the, "What the hell are you talking about?" route and slipped immediately into denial, proclaiming on my behalf that I am not gay. Note taken: don't bring it up around him. And we recently had a discussion about using the word "gay" as a general pejorative. He pointed out that I call things "gay" as well. Yes, but look at what I call gay. Tiki Barber doing football analysis on Sundays? Seriously, that suit with that tie? Absolutely gay. The look Samwise gives a bedridden Frodo at the end of the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Doesn't get much gayer than that. To the other, I don't understand how excessive house fees charged by a local casino are "gay". It seems no more appropriate than saying he was "Jewed".

Add to that the curious aspect of masculine bonding through sexuality. It isn't enough that one had good sex. That tale, as related, needs to be in some way affirming and arousing. Talking about how she deep-throated? Right on. Talking about how he deep-throated? Oh, God, stop! Yech! Jesus, I don't want to hear about that!

Probably best, then, to skip the story about getting busted by campus security at the University of Oregon giving a sloppy, drunken blowjob. Freakin' hilarious, even more so since I was drinking the fifth of Beam he left with me on his way down to California, but it's not a story he wants to hear.

And that's curious in and of itself; the obligation of relating sexual experiences between men is that the story must titillate in some way—the gay equivalent is a turn-off.

It adds up. But that's also a result of my own decisions. I'll bother "coming out of the closet" if I ever decide to enter a longer relationship with another man. In the meantime, it's not exactly a scarring experience to keep my mouth shut about it around my family. Still, though, there are plenty of closeted people I'm glad I'm not. It's hard to imagine that slight anxiety inflated ten- or hundred-fold. And I can't conceive of never being able to escape it; that would drive me crazy.

Crazier.

Something like that.

And? Don't get me wrong, I won't condemn BBCboy for his outlook. In fact, I would celebrate it. Still, though, I wonder what your point is. Perhaps it has something to do with the next part:

That your partner enjoys being fucked by you does not mean she will enjoy it by the next man. That she consents to have sex with you does not mean she automatically consents to have sex with the next man.

And this is a troubling aspect of what you've expressed, Asguard. I don't believe for a second that you advocate rape, but I would ask you to consider an aspect of the topic post's construction—it is built specifically to blur the lines, as if trying to create a situation in which having sex with a woman against her will is not rape. Much of this discussion has sought to work around the fact that the proposed scenario is, simply, unrealistic; the point was acknowledged early on, but the discussion persists nonetheless.

I don't understand the need, both here at Sciforums and in society abroad to, establish conditions under which a man should be able to have sex with a woman against her will and not call it rape. Given that you have advocated even stricter standards—a woman of age cannot consent if she's had a drink, for instance—your role in this particular subtext is puzzling.

At the root of the question of whether or not you have been penetrated is a curiosity about the relationship between experience and outlook. We might theorize as a generalization that unsympathetic male voices have never been entered, and are thus looking at sexual intercourse from only one end of the stick. But there are problems with that generalization, not the least of which is its presumptuousness. Apparently, though, one must tip the hand and explain why the question is important before some folks are willing to answer it. One wonders why. It would seem foolish to think the issue of justifying rape is important enough that suddenly a number of het men will "confess" to having a gay experience in order to pretend greater credibility for their perspective. Still, though, I do wonder why the question rubs you, as such, the wrong way.

On the one hand, the guilt is a psychological product of generations of social conditioning. To the other, the fact that people like sex is a curious point to include in the discussion. As I noted earlier, that one consents to and enjoys sex with one person does not mean he or she will enjoy or automatically consents to the next.

It's not just gay men, Asguard. Dennis Miller actually made a good joke about that. Seventy-two virgins? Wouldn't you get tired of that after a while? I don't know about you, but sometimes I want a woman who knows what she's doing, maybe slip a finger in once in a while.

And in the context of this discussion, what does that have to do with ... well, what? Connect the dots, please; the point sticks out like a boner at a lesbian convention.

 

Orleander, that would depend on if your actually forcing them to perform or seeking finantial for breach of contract.

If the second then no its not rape to see redress for a freely entered contract any more than it is if a builder you contract to build your house fails to turn up and build it

 

If an actor signs a contract and drops out of the movie, they get sued. I don't see how it would be any different for a porn movie.

 

Right; so if they didn't want to have sex, but didn't want to get sued more, and ended up having sex, some people think that would be rape.

 

Nope. Its not rape.
if I don't want to do something at work that I agreed to do, I would get fired. Same for a porn star. If an athlete signed a contract and didn't show up for the games, he'd get taken to court. Same as a porn star.

 

my tiassa my point was that you keep bringing up "have you been penitrated" like it was somehow something women (and gay men) dont want. All i ment was that it seems you dont enjoy the sex your getting and somehow feel that its wrong. Wether that means that deep down your truly not atracted to guys or not i shouldnt have speculated on. if i offended you i apologise

You do raise a good point here
"To reiterate the point: In what way have common factors between you and a prostitute—e.g. history of abuse, socioeconomic limitation of options or the perception thereof—contributed to your decision to sign on for this work?"

Your right, lots of sex workers, strippers, porn stars have been abused and\or come from low socioeconomic homes. Ironically enough so do most cleaners and garbos and most of the people who do the other jobs we concider "benieth us". Most probably have server mental problems as well but the same aplies to the guy who gets to clean toilets at a nursing home.

The problem with your statement is a) it assumes that all women (and men for that matter) in the sex industry are like this and none of them chose that life which is a blantently false generalisation

b) it assumes that all the jobs done but the low socioeconomic are immoral because they are doing them.

As to the second point your free to make that point and i wont dispute you, i agree that sociaty in general tends to abuse those of the underclasses

as for the first your just plain wrong, not all people who work in the sex industry are basically slaves (or totally) and the more the industry is brought into the open the LESS abuse will go on because of the same basic regulations which we all enjoy. Rember, it wasnt to long ago that children of poor families were sent down into the mines to dig for coal. Most died in those mines. Was that immoral HELL YES, does that mean that running a mine today with labor laws, OH&S laws, VERY good pay ect is immoral? of course not

Rather than saying the whole industry is immoral because some people are taken advantage of you would be better off calling for across the board legalisation and regulation.

Now lastly is it immoral to either expect someone to forfill the conditions of a freely entered into contract or provide finatial redress through the courts? No in my opinion its not. You will notice the "FREELY" in there. That rules out the people you are worried about because they havent freely entered into the contract

 

Huh. I agree with most of what you're saying asguard. Weird.

 

No, the question doesn't presume that penetration is something people don't want. Rather, I would suggest that the question arises most in consideration of what we consider negative sexual experiences.

We have seen, for instance, some expressions in various threads about sex abuse and rape discussion of how a boy might appreciate a female teacher asking him to have sex with her. And in the multi-thread discussion of a woman's responsibility for being raped, at least one male expressed distaste at women who are too sexually forward with him.

Both of these perspectives are legitimate in and of themselves. But the basic root of perspective is different depending on which end of the equation you occupy.

The negative connotations of sexuality are inherent to the discussion: Is an act rape? It seems rather egocentric to invest a dismissive outlook that compares unwanted sexual penetration to making fries at the local McDonald's when one's perspective on sexual intercourse is wholly contained within the outlook of the penetrator. I have had sex with women before when I didn't really feel like it, or when the terms of consent were violated. I didn't feel violated on those occasions. Indeed, I'm sure you've encountered before my remark that masturbation was more fulfilling than sex with my former partner. And I received last spring some unexpected insight. Having sex with a friend of mine for the first time, as soon as he touched me, he said, "Really? Well, maybe that's why _____ was complaining." Don't get me wrong, dude; I don't have some monster whale of a cock. On balance, only two of my former lovers have said it was too big for comfort; they're a minority. Okay, we can add in there a couple of guys who wanted me inside them, but ... well, frankly, that's fine with me. I don't do guys in order to penetrate them.

But there I was, wishing the penis inside me was at least a bit bigger, spinning off on some random tangent in my head about what it would feel like if it was too big. Only once has it been even close. I have, in terms of being fucked by men, been rather lucky. I've never been torn up or bruised inside, and the closest thing to a violation was when I asked a lover where the condom went, and he said, "What condom?" Nobody's sick, nobody's dying, life goes on.

I can tell you, though, that the experiences are vastly different. And the way you feel afterward is vastly different. I'm not talking about shame; to each their own on that. But I don't recall ever spending a day so moody and aware of my body in general after entering someone for intercourse as I am after being fucked hard. And, yes, there were nervous days and even months after the incident with the condom that never was. I have never experienced that from entering a woman, even in dangerous—e.g., unprotected—sex with a well-traveled woman.

The notion that the sex trade, when unpleasant, is just like any other work, seems rather superficial. My outright horror at cleaning a restaurant bathroom goes away as soon as I've scrubbed away the dirty feeling on my skin. But a good hot shower doesn't wash away the introspection and physical sensations after having a penis inside me. Trying to project that notion to a context of violation is an exercise in futility. Until it happens, it's beyond my reach; that is, I cannot in my mind increase so exponentially the awareness of body, the focus on sensation, or even the state of mild fear about disease I've experienced.

To the other, having had dull sex with women before, I can see quite easily how one might equate it to paperwork or the drudgery of making pizza.

It does not make that assumption. Rather, I would point out that pretending those issues have no effect on the comparison to mundane labor overlooks those realities is fundamentally erroneous. It's a job, one might say. She can quit. You know, market aside, there are plenty of relatively decent jobs I could probably get; indeed, we'll see soon as, since my kid is in school it's time to return to the job market. But this isn't true of every prostitute or porn star. For some, it's all they know.

Huh?

This is a very important point in terms of the scenario described at the outset.

Think of it this way: Even setting aside the idea that the contract described in the topic post is unrealistic, there are plenty of objections that might arise. Consider the most obvious, disease. So Starlet agrees to do the film, and on the day of shooting the first scene, her partner arrives with suspicious white spots and lesions on his penis. She refuses to have sex with him, and is faced with dismissal and a breach of contract suit.

This is unacceptable duress. With reputable—whatever that word is worth—porn companies, the health of the performers is paramount. If word gets around that you're forcing your talent to risk disease, you'll be out of business, or else reduced to pushing Gnutella clips of "Some bitch we picked up and promised fifty bucks if she would fuck Joe in the alley behind the bar" and hoping someone comes to cumsukkerzilla.com to buy the ten-minute DVD for ninety bucks.

There's a bit of irony about that point. (Click here for the irony.)

The key difference between your point at the subject of discussion is found in the latter question:

"... does that mean that running a mine today with labor laws, OH&S laws, VERY good pay ect is immoral?"​

Those things are lacking in a lawless industry like hardcore pornography. Sure, the pay might be okay, but the respect for talent is a necessity the producers only fail to recognize at risk to their profits. We'll get back to the producers in a moment.

Would you say the conditions of textile sweatshops in Los Angeles are moral and proper? After all, the undocumented immigrants who make up the vast majority of the workforce "freely" choose to be there. Thus, why should employers have to bother with reasonable shifts, minimum wages, workplace safety, or laws about sexual harassment?

The notion of free choice, as you have expressed it, is insensitive to the reality of exploitation. That people feel they have nowhere else to turn does not oblige them to forfeit their humanity.

One aspect of this issue the discussion seems to disdain, though, is that of the producers themselves. Specifically, the producers have certain responsibilities.

In the first place, even in mundane film, talent can be a headache. Supermodel cameos, for instance, are an endeavor of insanity. Apparently, getting a supermodel to simply hit her mark—that is, walk to the X taped on the floor and face the right direction at the proper time, speak nothing of delivering her line with any competence—can be the kind of experience that makes you want to slap the shit out of her, shouting, "Get ... it ... right ... damnit!"

In the flesh industry, it is even more important to coddle the talent. Replace a Tracy Lords or Jenna Jameson with some unknown twat off the street and your profit projections collapse. At that point, the film isn't worth making.

Should profit projections be the arbiter of how one treats the talent? What if you start with the unknown twat off the street? At that point, it seems to depend entirely on why you are in business. If you're in it for the money, you accommodate your talent. If you're in it just to abuse women, well, you treat them like the schmucks in the random clips floating around the internet.

For instance, I remember once watching this one film, the name of which escapes me, about "F-TV". The cable guy comes over, installs the new sex channel, and then fucks the client. Anyway, the priceless look on a friend's face when he realized what he had rented, bought ... whatever ... notwithstanding, there was a curious aspect about the film that bears some relevance here.

The videotape box billed Ron Jeremy; that was probably the reason he chose the film in the first place, as neither of us had actually seen The Hedgehog perform before. But it was a diverse film. The cable tech, some hot starlet, arrived to install the channel. The first scene, then, was an "F-TV" program that featured adult babies who started masturbating themselves and then proceeded to deliberately clumsy intercourse. It's fair to say my friend was unnerved.

And then Ron Jeremy entered (heh) the scene. He came (heh) into the room, saw the sexy cable tech and the male client, and instantly threw a huge hissy-fit. The whole, "I knew it! You're cheating on me!" bit. It was hilarious, and ended with Ron Jeremy, playing an angry gay man, storming out on the line, "That's it! I'm going to my mother's!"

My friend had no idea what to say at that point. His expression at that point was one to remember. To the other, though, he recovered, and it was a fine joke we told on occasion for years.

In Jeremy's career, he did encounter circumstances where the female talent stipulated in their contracts that they would not fuck him. I can't say this was one of those films, but they gave him prominent billing for all of thirty sexless seconds.

In other words, there are ways to work around any particular objection by the talent. Recast the scene, shuffle the unwanted talent into another role. It's not like writing a porn scene requires three staff meetings, dinner with the director, and four rewrites. The dialogue can be spun out in less time than it takes to type, and less than the actual, finished scene will take to watch. If she doesn't like the scene, throw it out and write a new one. It will probably take less time than coaxing her onto some festering cock.

The producers' responsibilities come from two obvious directions. One is the market, the other is the law. Given the precarious position of pornography in relation to the law, no producer or director of reasonably sound mind is going to attempt to force the talent. It's too much legal exposure, and can knock one off the A-list of porn production.

 

i agree with you, US labor laws and health care system SUCKS, futher more i come from a state which not only legalises but REGULATES the sex industry. Brothals are a legal buiniess in victoria (and as i pointed out to shorty i think, listed quite clearly in the phone book

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

)

This regulation comes with lots of things, tax for one, duty of care for another.

as far as your diseased dick senario is concerned, NO judge would accept (here at least) would acept that saying no would be breach of contract in that situation any more than refusing to climb a building without scafolding would be concidered breach of contract. In fact that would sort of breach of OH&S would be reason to shut down a buiness and send the employer to jail potentually.

As far as the sweet shop industry is concerned i dont condcider that much different from forceing someone into the sex industry and they should be shut down. This is why both unions and the goverment spend so much time investigating these issues (oh a side note, you do know there is a sex workers union here dont you?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) and procuting offenders.

your point on how "talent" is treated is interesting, i wonder how you feel about the modling industry which is just as bad (if not worse here) than the sex industry in that regard.

 

Ugh, that sounds bloody awful.

 

Its even worse when its 2 people and you have to try and decide which body part belong to which person.

 

thankfully that wasnt one of my cases it came to me through another student. The worst thing about the incident was that there had been a car crash and so the emergency services were on site dealing with that. Well this caused the traffic to bank back and so this MORON decided it would be a good idea to sit across the train tracks. personally i feel no pitty for them, i feel for the emergency service workers who it happened right in front of while they could do nothing

 

A pornstar is not a slave. He could just walk off the set. Also, illegal provisions in a contract are not enforceable.

Finally, it is forcing another to have sex that is rape. The occupation of the victim is irrelevant.

 

Walking off may have future employment consequences, and I think that's the kernel of the debate.

Actually, the kernel of the debate is the fact that Tiassa seems to have some sort of love-hate relationship with the cock that he is projecting on everyone else, that his experience with a dick inside him is the same as everyone else's experience.

 

But have you the courage, or the intelligence?

Oooh. Sounds fascinating. Explain yourself. Support that point. I dare you.

 

That.

Something else I missed in those sloppily written tangents:

If they're human beings, why aren't you willing to allow them to enter contractual agreements?

Furthermore, why do you continue to refuse to address the real issue that you continue to ignore: