Is forcing sex on a pornstar the same as rape?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Upheaval, Nov 11, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    What would be simpler is to make that type of a contract illegal. I myself have only recently started to actually read everything in an employment contract (which aided me greatly on Monday, as I was apparently going to have to pay the temp agency I was considering to work for 5000$ if I left them within the first 3 months).

    Immoral contracts should be illegal, period. We shouldn't have to be reading the devil's fine print.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Asguard, you mistook what I was trying to say. I can certainly agree that if you don't want to be in the sex industry, don't sign up. What I'm saying is that if you -do- want to be in the sex industry, the contracts should be ethical.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    It's not in one way: you're right, a porn star can't be forced to have sex with anyone, only sued for not doing so. I would argue, however, that facing being sued for not playing on a team one signed up with is not the same thing as being forced to have sex with someone you did not agree to have sex with. Or even with someone who mistreated you (in a way not agreed upon) -after- the contract was made to have sex with them.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Mr. Hamtastic whackawhackado! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,492
    mistreatment is breach of contract, something that could be shown in court. Facing being sued for not playing on a team is exactly like being sued for not putting out for whatever reason. If Joe shows that playing for the Angels was impossible because the team had been calling him names and harming his self-esteem, the court may find that the team is in breach of contract, and thus has to pay him some or all of the contracted amount. Same deal for the sex worker. Go to the bunny ranch in Nevada and ask to rent a girl, you just want someone to tie up and beat the shit out of, they'll have you removed from the property, even if you offered a million dollars. You have to consider, also, that legal sex workers are selling a product, and should be bound by ethics. No spreading herpisyphilits because you need twenty bucks. Of course, for twenty bucks, you get what you pay for. As it is now, you pick a girl up on the corner, let the buyer beware, some are cops, some plan on tazing you and taking your car, clothes and wallet.
     
  8. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785

    I think it could be said that if you have trouble getting into bed with a woman the normal way but feel you really need it, I think your best bet is to go to a country like Mexico, where it's legal in most areas. It may be easier if you have more money, but it's clear that even high profile people can get into trouble for it since it is generally illegal, unless you're in Vegas.

    In any case, even a prostitute can't be sued if she doesn't want to have sex with a client; the idea that porn stars don't even deserve that consideration is silly.

    I suppose the argument for the idea that contracts shouldn't be able to force porn stars into accepting any guy/girl is that in some way, they would feel mistreated by accepting this person. I think this is common sense. I can fully agree that if they don't accept x person, the producer can hire a different porn star. But the idea that the producer can sue the porn star for not accepting x or y person to me sounds like a contract made up by the devil.

    As a society, I simply believe that we shouldn't allow devil like contracts to be legal.

    Another thing: despite the dark side of capitalism trying to turn people into commodities, people are not commodities. They can render services, but they are not products. And the services they render should always be conditional on their willingness to do so.

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that if an employee doesn't want to provide a service that seems reasonable, no one else should be able to do it either. But I am saying that no one should be able to be sued for not wanting to provide a service.
     
  9. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    They shouldn't have signed it in the first place, you know? Or are we talking about an illiterate Cuban who didn't realize what signing a legal document means?

    Sorry you're so weak that you need a nanny state to look after you. I would prefer not to waste my resources on you, though.

    More ignorance.
     
  10. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Also if there are extraordinary circumstances the contract may be held in abeyance. For example, you don't have to meet delivery schedules during extreme weather. I'm sure having sex with some one known to have STDs would fall under this.
     
  11. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I suppose next you're going to say we should read every word on these online documents we have to agree to before joining online places like this forum. If a contract is unethical, it should be illegal, period.


    Call me weak all you want; it only highlights your inability to stick to the issues. It is, as they say, a personal attack, something that is apparently only not allowed if you're doing it to a moderator. Unethical contracts should be illegal. I don't feel that making it so would be a 'waste of resources'.


    Prove to me that a person is a commodity.
     
  12. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    I agree swarm. However, I think that you shouldn't be able to sign away your body and be sued if you don't deliver. It smacks of the devil writing contracts and really, is this what we want?
     
  13. Roman Banned Banned

    Messages:
    11,560
    You mean you don't?

    Don't be dense. You're advocating a nanny state so you don't have to read contracts. That's pretty pathetic, imo.

    Show that we're not.
    Is there any meaningful quality or characteristic that differentiates us from commodities?
     
  14. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Roman
    there is such a thing as an unreasonable contract and one which expects someone to perform where it is a physical impossablity is such a contract.

    However in general your right, if you dont like the terms dont sign the contract
     
  15. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    No, I don't. And I'll bet most people don't either.


    I'd advocating fair contracts.


    You're the one who seems so sure we are. Prove it. Or are you all talk?


    I hadn't really known what a commodity was until now. Apparently, neither did you. Straight from wikipedia:
    ************************************
    A commodity is anything for which there is demand, but which is supplied without qualitative differentiation across a market. In other words, copper is copper. Rice is rice. Stereos, on the other hand, have many levels of quality. And, the better a stereo is, the more it will cost.
    ************************************
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodity

    Even a stereo isn't a commodity.

    Advice for next time:
    1- stop insulting people with base insults; all you're showing is that you dislike it when people disagree with you and have little respect for those who do.

    2- Do your research.
     
  16. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Just because a contract is possible to fulfill doesn't mean it's ethical to do so. You'd think everyone had forgotten the Nazis who were 'just following orders'.

    I think I've made it clear from the above example that if the terms are clearly unethical, legally the contract should be void.
     
  17. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,850
    It's this sudden insistence on pretending sex is just like chewing bubble gum

    It's not a matter of being the worst job out there. In the first place, there are differences between working as a stripper, a porn star, a brothel tag, and a street walker. To the other, well ... okay, check This American Life, "#62 — Something for Nothing", which includes a discussion of medical test research subjects. It's an interesting segment that originally ran over a decade ago.

    That part aside, there seems to be disagreement about how people regard sexual intercourse. Additionally, we don't seem to be agreeing on the idea of ordinary and extraordinary conditions. Both of these are important in considering how to force a porn star to fulfill the contract.

    For instance, you and I can agree that Americans—to take a population at random—have some fucked up ideas about sex. We are, as a culture, neurotically—at least—prudish. However, that does not mean that there is nothing of value—psychologically or even evolutionarily—in the outlook insofar as the counterproposal would oblige us to throw all of that out.

    So let's start with something simple. Is there a difference, in your opinion, according to your experience, between ...

    • ... running a mile and having sex?
    • ... having your back massaged and having sex?
    • ... cleaning the dishes and having sex?
    • ... finishing a large sculpture and having sex?​

    Any of those things—running, massage, cleaning, finishing—can be gratifying, whether physically or emotionally. Sexual intercourse can be gratifying, both physically and emotionally. But does that mean they're the same thing?

    And what about the negatives? Is there a difference, in your opinion, according to your experience, between ...

    • ... being shoved by a belligerent classmate and being raped?
    • ... pulling a muscle in your back and being raped?
    • ... cleaning up the vomit in your bathroom after a night of excessive drinking and being raped?
    • ... finding your car has been broken into and being raped?​

    What I'm getting at is that societies in general—including your wonderful land of Oz—tend to view sexual intercourse in a different context than other acts both pleasant and unpleasant. We let kids run around and play soccer or basketball. Would you say that I should let my five year-old daughter fuck? Would you say that I should teach her how, just like teaching her to throw a basketball?

    If your answer is no, why not?

    We view sexual intercourse in a different context from other activities. While religious and other social outlooks can be perversely restrictive about what those differences are and mean, does your rejection of those standards go all the way to the root? Would you say that sexual intercourse should not be viewed in any special context whatsoever? In other words, if you don't like the movie you're watching, is the solution to throw the DVD player in the trash?

    Personally, I don't have a set and solid answer to how much I would throw out. I do know that there is something wrong with any social standard that compels a rape survivor to apologize to her lover for being raped. And on that one, yes, I have received one of those apologies before, and the echoes of memory still horrify me. But, no, I don't have a perfect solution to societal demonization of sex. Trust me, if I ever figure it out, I'll let you know.

    Nonetheless, I am not prepared to chuck away the psychological and emotional impact of sexual intercourse as some silly sentiment; I can't prove that the value is purely a product of conditioning—indeed, the conditioning may arise as a product of evolutionary selection in the context of either the species itself or society. The end result, then—the operating condition—is that sexual intercourse is held in a different esteem from labors and endeavors we would consider more mundane.

    Mundane. Ordinary. My problem with comparing sex work with other work is that, presently, sex work does not fall within the range of ordinary consideration. I find it fallacious to apply ordinary criteria to extraordinary conditions. In doing so, we assess the situation according to fallacious standards.

    Medical testing is an interesting proposition. To the other, humans do not have an evolutionary predisposition toward being medical test subjects. We do, however, have a predisposition toward sexuality. (Or, to paraphrase Mark Steel, put a kid in laboratory conditions, so he sees no other human beings, and see what he figures out first, transubstantiation or masturbation.)

    It's not a matter of being the worst job out there. Rather, it's a matter of fallaciously applying mundane standards to something which is not regarded in a mundane context.

    What are you willing to throw out in order to make sex just another act like playing with a yo-yo or mowing the lawn?

    Pretty much any sex worker would probably say, if you told them you'd just gotten back from scraping up an accident victim, "I'm glad I don't have your job." But if you ask them how they got to where they are, very few will tell you that they wanted to fuck for money since they were knee-high to a junebug. And just like the homeless wandering Seattle's chilly streets tonight picking soda cans and beer bottles out of the bins—what, is that a regular, paid job Down Under?—more often than not you'll find the route to the sex industry far different from becoming a doctor, or a lawyer, or even a city rubbish collector.
     
  18. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    Unethical is not illegal. There are basically people who think just about everything is "unethical."

    I've no problem with consenting adults entering contracts concerning their bodies, even when there is some risk, like say law enforcement, boxing, football or sex. People take risky jobs and sometimes they die. Welcome to life.

    But a contract is not slavery to your boss. There are limits to what can be agreed, when it is enforcable and what redress is possible.
     
  19. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    Not necessarily, no. But it should be.


    I'm not one off those people. Aside from this, clearly society has to come somewhat to a consensus as to what is and is not unethical before it can be put into law.


    I agree. All I'm saying is that unethical contracts shouldn't be allowed.


    Again, I agree. I simply think that there may need to be a few more limits (as in, I don't think that one should be able to be sued for not having sex with someone one didn't agree to have it with, whether or not there was a contract that said you had to).

    I think Tiassa's points on the issue that sex work is not just any old work are quite relevant.
     
  20. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    tiassa, the fact that not many people would say they wanted to do it as a child isnt indicative that it should be outlawed. For a start how many kids actually understand what sex is?

    in a westen culture i would wager zero (who havent been abused) would have any concept of sex and sexuality PRE adolesants. The reason i qualify this is because im still not convinced that this is biological (pagiets theory of cognative development) and not culturally influenced.

    The argument against cultural influance is that there is so much blatant sexually explicit advertising that goes straight over kids heads. Then to complicate things there is the shame that we enforce on our children. For instance where our psych lecturer asked her children in class (one of our lectures actually

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) what the difference between boys and girls was they refused to answer, yet they did when she had them alone at home. When she asked her daughter why she didnt say that to the class (rember we are all health students so talking about sexuality and reproduction is part of the course for US, not for her 10 year old children of course) her answer was "its rude"

    now i doubt any child would say they wanted to be a proctologist or a gynocologist either (and alot of the slightly older children who would say thats what they wanted to do should be prevented from doing it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ) symply because they dont KNOW what that is.

    Above all i respect automony which means unless it DIRECTLY hurts a NO CONCENTING paticipant it should be alowed. Futher more no matter what we do prositutes will exist, they have out lasted any other proffession. Regulation and normalisation is what we should be aiming for, not prohabition
     
  21. OilIsMastery Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,288
    There was an instance where this actually happened involving porn producer Max Hardcore and porn star Roxy Jezel. There was no legal case because she signed off on it, however he is now in prison on "obscenity charges" which basically means the First Amendment doesn't exist anymore because of scumbags like him.

    Link
     
  22. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,207
    No. "Unethical" just means "I'm offended." Being offended is good for you. It helps build character and you will be less provincial in your attitudes.

    Unlawful, in theory at least, is preventing unjustified harm to others. Making a law simply because you think something is "unethical" pollutes the legal system and creates disdain for the legal system.

    They never are.

    If I think something is unethical I won't do it and I might not associate with those who do, but I don't think there should be a law against it as long as its mutually consensual and isn't hurting other people.

    The line is coercion, harm, force, ... things where there is not mutual consensus.
     
  23. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    swarm not nessarly

    for instance would it be ethical for a doctor (or any other medical person) to just drive past someone who was bleeding to death if they saw them?

    morals and ethics arnt just about what offends you
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page