[Adult] Sex industry and other things

[Erki]

Had to add the "and other things" to the title because this thread is probably not just about the industry, it's more like "all things sex".

From the certain other thread on this forum, it looks like at least some people have quite liberal views on sex industry and using sex to earn money or a transactional value. I'm not sure of my views on this really. While I probably wouldn't mind if my girlfriend was a model or actor or singer, her being a porn star wouldn't seem right to me. Don't as me why, I don't know, it's just my feeling that sex is something more private and not something to do in front of cameras. Or should I say then "being sexual" as I don't see a stripper being anything else but a porn star. But then why should sex(uality) be something private?

I was also wondering here that as some people really love what they are doing for a living and would do it even with very little pay - would sex industry have the workers even if their pay(the value they get in return; doesn't have to be money) was minimal?

Your views?

[homeboy]

Um... I believe the Girls Gone Wild series has minimal pay for their 'actors'. They either get free shot or just a t-shirt. I think some of them go further than flashing from wat i see in the comercials.

[John Hill]

From a personal perspective I wouldn't want my girlfriend to be a porn star either. Although I do think that as individuals we are all so different on this planet that I think you would find at least some people who would want to work in the sex industry even if they were not getting paid at all.

On top of this I also believe there would be guys out there that would have no problems with their girlfriends working as porn stars, as hard as this might be to believe for most of us.

John

Attracting People.com

[Interpreneur]

Originally Posted by Erki

as I don't see a stripper being anything else but a porn star.
Your views?

That's part of the problem with society. We put labels on people, and a lot of times they are the wrong label. I respect everyone's opinion, but I have more respect for the porn star or the stripper than for the neighborhood slut who sleeps with anyone who asks nicely.

We need to look at the big picture and stop picking and choosing who we want to pick on.

[Jes]

Originally Posted by Erki

But then why should sex(uality) be something private?

Because if you search for years and years and years, in every corner of the earth, under every rock, pebble, or grain of sand, you might just find the ash of a little idea the English once called "morality."

In my opinion, I don't believe the sex industry would be a tenth of a percent as large as it is now if it weren't for the pay, the fame, and all the recent social glorification. There might be a handful of people who "just really love sex," but I think the majority who throw that card aren't really playing with a full deck.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by Interpreneur

That's part of the problem with society. We put labels on people, and a lot of times they are the wrong label. I respect everyone's opinion, but I have more respect for the porn star or the stripper than for the neighborhood slut who sleeps with anyone who asks nicely.

What if the "neighborhood slut" sleeps with those people because she loves people and wants to "spread love"? While the porn star or stripper would just cold bloodedly do her job and cash in?

Originally Posted by Interpreneur

We need to look at the big picture and stop picking and choosing who we want to pick on.

I'm not entirely sure what you meant with this, can you explain a bit more?

@Jes: why should sex have something to do with morality at all?

[coleflowers]

I have fairly liberal view on sex, so when a female friend suggested we go visit a strip club (she is a former stripper) I agreed. I went with my friends, as well as my boyfriend.

I had to use the bathroom when we arrived, so I went off to the lady's room. In this strip club the performers get ready in the girls bathroom (probably since it is infrequently used with the majority of customers being male). I had to wait for an available stall, so while I stood there I overheard a lot of the conversation that was going on. One of the strippers was on the phone with her son, telling him goodnight, and that she loved him and would see him in the morning. Another stripper was trying to finish up her math homework (she was in college).

After seeing the strippers as real people, it made it very real to me that these were woman who were just doing their jobs. I didn't feel comfortable with the idea of watching these woman dance/strip when I knew they had families at home.

For me, I don't want to participate in sexual practices that require me to detach from reality. I could not enjoy a sexual performance from someone who is just doing their job. Plus, I did not feel any connection with the performers, and I need some level of emotional connection or attraction to enjoy a sexual experience.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by John Hill

Although I do think that as individuals we are all so different on this planet that I think you would find at least some people who would want to work in the sex industry even if they were not getting paid at all.

Yup, different strokes for different folks...

But, if I knew a woman who is a very kind and good person and everything, but the only little thing is that she uses her body to earn money - I think I probably would lose a little respect for her for that. But why is that so?

[coleflowers]

Originally Posted by Interpreneur

That's part of the problem with society. We put labels on people, and a lot of times they are the wrong label. I respect everyone's opinion, but I have more respect for the porn star or the stripper than for the neighborhood slut who sleeps with anyone who asks nicely.

We need to look at the big picture and stop picking and choosing who we want to pick on.

What gives you the authority to assign an individual as a slut? I think the term slut is an incredibly stupid, and ignorant term. Can you define a slut? What number of sexual partners makes someone a slut? And does the standard of slut apply to both male and females equally? If you think that sleeping with more than one person makes someone a slut, but I think no number equals being a slut than is anyone really a slut?

I would just be careful throwing around a term that is generally used to devalue women. Just because you believe certain things about sex, does not mean this holds true for everybody. Perhaps the person you so casually call a slut is more comfortable with themselves sexually, does not have any religious beliefs banning them from sex, and is enjoying and expressing themselves. Why is it a bad thing for someone to have sex with multiple partners?

[Jes]

Originally Posted by Erki

@Jes: why should sex have something to do with morality at all?

The same reason any other subject would: consideration for others. Up until a few decades ago, the world operated under a set of spoken and unspoken rules to keep people united. People observed them and had a few less reasons to want to kill each other. Families observed them and stayed together. There is a universal understanding of honor, morality, and respect, or at least there was for the greater majority of civilization's existence. In many different cultures in many different nations, for many, many centuries it was believed that sex should essentially be a topic kept for the bedroom. Yes, there were times where promiscuity and the like among certain classes was considered socially accpetable, but overall it's been a private thing to most people most of the time. While I don't have a huge problem with it not being that way now, I don't think that the most recent sexual liberation has done any good for the world. There are more divorces, more rapes, more diseases, more murders, more heartaches, more perversion than there has ever been, and it's all because we've developed this insane mentality that we can only truly be free if we operate on an individual basis, without any recognition of the universal "rules" of morality. Honestly, it's no wonder why the western world is so frowned upon by so many other cultures at this point in time. We do what we want, when we want, without any thought for the feelings of others, and I think that's just a disgusting way to live. I don't consider sex a sacred act or anything, but I recognize it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, as do MANY other ideas, and I'd rather be less liberal with my views if it means that everyone can live comfortably together. And that's what morality was designed to do: let people live comfortably united. Don't lust after my wife, and I won't lust after your husband. However you get your kicks, and whatever you think of sex, most people would just be happier if you kept it away from the kids and in the bedroom.

::End Bizzarro Rant::

[openeyes]

People with a lot of sexual energy are often some of the most charismatic men/women one ever comes across. The most passionate woman I was with had dozens of partners. She was also one of the most intelligent women I knew. One of the guys I dated had been in a bit of porn, and sex with him was more incredible than with anyone else. I have no problem with how many partners a person has (either in the past or while we’re together) so long as he/she stays healthy. I think the world would be a far happier place if people could safely experience their sexuality without guilt or loss of respect.

I have no interest in watching porn, going to a strip club, or paying someone I don’t even know for sex. Affection and the emotional connection are most important to me at this point, and I find I can get that without going as far as intercourse and usually be much happier, but if someone can be an escort or star in porn without getting messed up from it, more power to him/her. Another avenue for such a person would be regular sales. Sexual energy can be channeled for prosperity in a number of ways.

[Interpreneur]

Originally Posted by coleflowers

What gives you the authority to assign an individual as a slut? I think the term slut is an incredibly stupid, and ignorant term. Can you define a slut? What number of sexual partners makes someone a slut? And does the standard of slut apply to both male and females equally? If you think that sleeping with more than one person makes someone a slut, but I think no number equals being a slut than is anyone really a slut?

I would just be careful throwing around a term that is generally used to devalue women. Just because you believe certain things about sex, does not mean this holds true for everybody. Perhaps the person you so casually call a slut is more comfortable with themselves sexually, does not have any religious beliefs banning them from sex, and is enjoying and expressing themselves. Why is it a bad thing for someone to have sex with multiple partners?

Obviously I failed miserably at getting my point across. My apologies if I offended anybody. My point was we shouldn't judge or label people. Whether it's the stripper, or the fun-loving lady who sleeps with all her neighbors, because we really don't know the skeletons in people's closets.

So I guess I should have said "I respect all women the same, whether your name is Paris Hilton, Heidi Fleiss, or Betty Crocker".

[dulaney0330]

Originally Posted by Erki

Had to add the "and other things" to the title because this thread is probably not just about the industry, it's more like "all things sex".

From the certain other thread on this forum, it looks like at least some people have quite liberal views on sex industry and using sex to earn money or a transactional value. I'm not sure of my views on this really. While I probably wouldn't mind if my girlfriend was a model or actor or singer, her being a porn star wouldn't seem right to me. Don't as me why, I don't know, it's just my feeling that sex is something more private and not something to do in front of cameras. Or should I say then "being sexual" as I don't see a stripper being anything else but a porn star. But then why should sex(uality) be something private?

I was also wondering here that as some people really love what they are doing for a living and would do it even with very little pay - would sex industry have the workers even if their pay(the value they get in return; doesn't have to be money) was minimal?

Your views?

I wouldn't want my boyfriend to be a porn star and I know he wouldn't want the same for me either. I have always believed that pornography is wrong but most of society disagrees with me. But its funny that most fathers and husbands would not want their daughter/wife being a porn star, even though they view it themselves. I remember watching "Gene Simmons: family jewels" and Gene is a big time pimp and yet he does not want his daughter dressing immodestly or even near a guy. Why is that? Well, I do not know for sure but my guess is that Gene knows that deep down inside you should treat a woman with respect, not drooling over her like an animal.

[somaziro]

Originally Posted by Jes

The same reason any other subject would: consideration for others. Up until a few decades ago, the world operated under a set of spoken and unspoken rules to keep people united. People observed them and had a few less reasons to want to kill each other. Families observed them and stayed together. There is a universal understanding of honor, morality, and respect, or at least there was for the greater majority of civilization's existence. In many different cultures in many different nations, for many, many centuries it was believed that sex should essentially be a topic kept for the bedroom. Yes, there were times where promiscuity and the like among certain classes was considered socially accpetable, but overall it's been a private thing to most people most of the time. While I don't have a huge problem with it not being that way now, I don't think that the most recent sexual liberation has done any good for the world. There are more divorces, more rapes, more diseases, more murders, more heartaches, more perversion than there has ever been, and it's all because we've developed this insane mentality that we can only truly be free if we operate on an individual basis, without any recognition of the universal "rules" of morality. Honestly, it's no wonder why the western world is so frowned upon by so many other cultures at this point in time. We do what we want, when we want, without any thought for the feelings of others, and I think that's just a disgusting way to live. I don't consider sex a sacred act or anything, but I recognize it makes a lot of people uncomfortable, as do MANY other ideas, and I'd rather be less liberal with my views if it means that everyone can live comfortably together. And that's what morality was designed to do: let people live comfortably united. Don't lust after my wife, and I won't lust after your husband. However you get your kicks, and whatever you think of sex, most people would just be happier if you kept it away from the kids and in the bedroom.

::End Bizzarro Rant::

Isn't this just the old 'it was better back in the ole days' argument that always pops up whenever people talk about whatever problems they think are around today? I think your perception of the good ole days isn't exactly true. You seem to have some view of history that suggests that puritans ruled the world for the past few thousand years. People really don't change much and the vices of today are the same vices that have always been present. you say there are more x,y and z today than there were in the past... well 89% of statistics are made up on the spot, 3 outta 4 people will tell you that =)

I think your 'universal sense of honor, morality and respect' flies in the face of history. Human rights are a modern invention, there has NEVER been any sort of universal rules of morality. People were treated as property. Women were treated as property. Prostitutes have been around since day 1, courtesans were popular for thousands of years as a respected profession (hi thats pretty obvious in your face sexuality). Your claim that sexuality was somehow a private thing I think is completely incorrect. Look at ancient customs and rites having to do with marriage - there is no marriage until it is consumated (sp), ie having witnesses watch the marriage bed? the whole wedding party being about have the marriage consumated (sp). I don't think sexualty was something that was that taboo nor hidden, especially in the poor and/or aggrarian regions of the world. It was something that was natural and out in the open. It was only with the puritans in America that sexuality got all wacky.

With every facially society full of whatever you define as morality, there is the same people that would be around today being immoral, except they were immoral in secret instead of out in the open for fear of being killed unless they were rich then they could buy their right to be immoral. People don't act different today than they did in the past.

And what does divorce have anything to do with morality? Divorce means that your marriage didn't work out for whatever reason - are there more divorces today than in the past - probably, why is that? because people are more immoral? because somehow there is more sexuality out in the open? maybe. how about there are more divorces today because marriage is hard and alot of people get married to quickly and are incompatible, how about your precious morality from the past (that you laud) looked down on divorce so people were stuck in unhappy marriages instead of getting a divorce and looking for someone that was right for them - thats why there are more divorces today.

As far as the OP's Q

I don't think the sex industry would be as big today as it is if there was not good pay. I doubt most sex workers do it just because they like having sex in front of other people or because they like having sex with strangers etc, although i know there are some, but not the extent we see today.

I have no problem with what people decide to do with their lives, I don't think I would ever date a stripper or porn star though. I just don't find people who seek attention attractive.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Jes

Because if you search for years and years and years, in every corner of the earth, under every rock, pebble, or grain of sand, you might just find the ash of a little idea the English once called "morality."

Dao De Jing, Excerpt of Chapter 18, Johnathon Star translation:
"If you need rules to be kind and just [...] this is a sure sign that virtue is absent"

Morality is about societal convention, not doing what's right. The morality you cite comes from a society where it is inappropriate for a woman to be a 'slut' because a woman's sex (sorry, I mean "virtue" ) is a commodity for men (first her father, then her husband) to own and control.

"Good" decisions must flow naturally from compassion and understanding, not an archaic set of rules bound to a particular time and place.

Originally Posted by Jes

We do (a) what we want, (b) when we want, (c) without any thought for the feelings of others, and I think that's just a disgusting way to live.

IMO there's nothing wrong with (a) or (b) and (c) has nothing to do with rules of morality, and everything to do with compassion.

[EDIT] P.S. I added the letters to the quote for reference - they weren't there originally.

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by Erki

Yup, different strokes for different folks...

But, if I knew a woman who is a very kind and good person and everything, but the only little thing is that she uses her body to earn money - I think I probably would lose a little respect for her for that. But why is that so?

Without any of the social/religious stigma toward sex, how would "using her body" to earn money in that way be any different than using your body to earn money as a model, or even "using your body" working at a warehouse loading boxes or etc?

Not meant as an argument but as a serious question.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by mlc82

Without any of the social/religious stigma toward sex, how would "using her body" to earn money in that way be any different than using your body to earn money as a model, or even "using your body" working at a warehouse loading boxes or etc?

Not meant as an argument but as a serious question.

Yeah, indeed. Maybe I should have said "using your sexuality". But I see your point very well and was actually thinking exactly the same thing. We use our bodies all the time, why should certain parts of our bodies be not used to earn money?

[mlc82]

Originally Posted by Erki

Yeah, indeed. Maybe I should have said "using your sexuality". But I see your point very well and was actually thinking exactly the same thing. We use our bodies all the time, why should certain parts of our bodies be not used to earn money?

I think the only reason you would "lose respect" for someone in that situation is either due to a religious upbringing which has taught you that sex is inherently "evil", or good old societal conditioning that either sex in general, or providing sex as a service, is "bad". Of course you may have a different reasoning and neither of the above may apply to you, just my opinion.

Of course, if you're in the US as I am, also keep in mind that in this society, any depiction of sex or nudity on prime time TV is of course awful and will "scar the children!" and assist in the "downfall of morality", while gratuitous violence is just fine and without problem.

[Chet]

A very interesting article on how, just maybe, the way we deal (or fail to deal) with sex as a natural part of being human effects society. A worthy read.
Article: Body Pleasure and the Origins of Violence

[elainevdw]

I find this topic fascinating. There was a while when I was frustrated and in debt and started researching stripping as a fast way to get out of the hole. An online forum called Stripper Web was particularly fascinating, as most of the community members are strippers, ex-strippers, or bouncers/DJs in strip clubs. I have a lot of respect for these women.

I considered it but ultimately decided not to because it probably would have ended the wonderful relationship I have with my boyfriend. It was a matter of priorities, and my relationship won out over the quick money scheme! If I was the only one to have to deal with the reprucussions, I'd have been willing to put up with it.

And as far as pay goes, I'd say that nobody would be in the sex industry if they didn't get paid for it (unless they were forced/coerced into it). Girls who compulsively enter the sex industry because of past abuse could have an anonymous string of one-night stands without ever stepping foot in a strip club or porn studio. On top of that, there's on-the-job nastiness that no one would put up with if it wasn't for the money. For strippers, it tends to be guys who grope what they're not allowed to grope, and who basically spend the entire evening sexually harassing the strippers. (Yes, it's possible to be a gentleman in a strip club.) Then there's the possibility of stalkers, of the other strippers stealing your personal belongings, your clients, or both, and the general disdain the general population feels about strippers.

That said, I don't think a stripper who didn't enjoy their job could be very successful. A pissed-off looking girl never looks as attractive as a relaxed and happy girl. In fact, I'd say that anybody who hates their job doesn't do as well as someone who loves their job, no matter what industry they're in.

And, I'd like to note that I see a BIG difference between stripping and prostitution... with the exception of full-contact lap dances. (Ew!)

[Erki]

Welcome back, Elaine. Where were you for so long?


I'm actually surprised that people's views are so liberal. Makes me feel as if I'm 100 years old...

[elainevdw]

Hey Erki! It's nice to be remembered. I've been busy getting back on my feet after a move and getting a promotion to web editor.

I think this forum in general is pretty liberal -- but I know what you mean, I'm pretty surprised that MY views are so liberal, lol. Then again, I'm also a born-and-raised Nevadan, so maybe I'm a little bit dulled to the subject. I've been hitting up casino restaurants since infancy, and even the cocktail girls' work uniforms are hardly modest. And now that I'm older, I'm sure a decent number of my fellow young Nevadan women are working as the aforementioned cocktail girls, bartenders, masseuses at gentlemen's clubs...

[agnostic]

We still live in an anti-sex culture. We still think that sex is something to do "in private". Why?

The answer which nobody wants to admit is that it is still accepted (and promoted) within our culture that sex is something dirty and evil and something to be ashamed of for wanting it or doing it, because it's a sign of weakness and "moral depravity".

A nice theory of how this came to be (which doesn't just blame it all on religion) is Saharasia by James de Meo. In oversimplified terms: Harsh times in human history created a culture in which sensual pleasure was seen as something unhonorable. This served the culture at that time, but it solidified in the character-structure of the parents (in a literal sense: it causes people to have all sorts of muscular tension to block information-flow from body to brain) who passed it on to their children by child-bearing methods they (in their tensed-up state) believed to be normal or good for the child.
One thing that this culture always creates is a morality (religious or secular) that sees the biological need for pleasure as something weak and something to be ashamed of. It is, in a fundamental sense an anti-life morality, because it makes you feel guilty for being who you are.
The result is a culture where most people feel uneasy in their own skin, which then provides a fertile soil for utopianism, dogmatism, facism, sadism and masochism. This works both in religious and non-religious people.

I also believe that porn (and romance novels) wouldn't be so big if our culture didn't suppress our biological urges.

[Chet]

Even food falls into this 'its pleasurable' so its bad area to some degree. A better attitude might well lead to less overweight people.

[agnostic]

Another thing:

Nymphomaniacs/Porn addicts have the problem of not deriving enough pleasure out of the sexual act, so they need to do more of them.

Similar things can be said about overweight people and food. Food doesn't fulfill them in small doses. There are even diet-approaches focused on "just" eating more consciously and slowly that work pretty well.

It's the lack of pleasure derived even when the act is indulged in (because it's believed to be sinful in some way) that makes this very sad.

[Matthew Shea]

Agnostic, I'm not sure that lack of pleasure is what causes addicts in general, whether they're addicted to food, sex, alcohol, drugs or anything else, to pursue their weakness with ever greater vigor. In my experience, addiction typically starts with a painful void or issue that a person is trying to avoid. The pleasure pushes the painful thoughts out of the way for a while but eventually they come back and the person turns back to the pleasure in higher and higher doses to compensate for an ever-increasing need to avoid the feelings or issues they're trying to get away from. In this way, addictions can really only be successfully treated by facing the issues that caused the longing for a pleasurable replacement.

I definitely agree with your statement that porn's prevalence is partly attributable to a repression of sexuality. I think a lot of that is due to a sense of rebelliousness, which is the first step in moving away from a repressive view of sexuality to a more open one hopefully to be followed by a more balanced view. I think porn will always have its place, as people always like to fantasize and escape reality from time to time, but as society becomes more comfortable with sex in general, it will cease to be so much of a "problem."

Concerning pleasure in general, we have to keep in mind that pleasurable things are pleasurable for a reason. With sex and food, for example, it helps ensure the survival of the human race. The problem comes in when we either unnecessarily suppress that pleasure due to a perceived moral problem or use that pleasure excessively for purposes it was not designed to suit, such as using sex to avoid problems in life instead of for procreation or expressing love for a partner.

[agnostic]

That's a good theory, too. I'm hardly an expert on the subject.
Feel free to criticize.

[Michael Chui]

From: David (Michelangelo) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



From: Phallus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh, wait. If some old dead guy did it, it's art.

Originally Posted by Alan Moore

Sexual openness and cultural progress would seem pretty much to have walked hand in hand throughout the opening chapters of the human story in the West, and it wasn’t until the advent of Christianity, or more specifically of the apostle Paul, that anybody realized we should all be thoroughly ashamed of both our bodies and those processes relating to them. Not until the Emperor Constantine had cut and pasted modern Christianity together from loose scraps of Mithraism and the solar cult of Sol Invictus, adopting the resultant theological collage as the religion of the Roman Empire, did we get to witness the effect of its ideas and doctrines when enacted on a whole society.

If we take a traditional (and predominantly Christian) view of the collapse of Rome, then conventional wisdom tells us that Rome was destroyed by decadence, sunken beneath the rising scum-line of its orgies, of its own sexual permissiveness. The merest skim through Gibbon, on the other hand, will demonstrate that Rome had been a heaving, decadent and orgiastic fleshpot more or less since its inception. It had fornicated its way quite successfully through several centuries without showing any serious signs of harm as a result. Once Constantine had introduced compulsory Christianity to the Empire, though, it barely lasted for another hundred years.

Largely, this was because Rome had relied on foreign troops, on cavalry from Egypt for example, to defend the Empire against the Teutonic hordes surrounding it. Foreign soldiers were originally happy to enlist, since Rome at that point took a pagan and syncretic standpoint that allowed recruits to worship their own gods while they were off in Northern Europe holding back the Huns. Once the Empire had been Christianised, however, that was not an option. Rome’s new Christian leaders had decided it was their way or the stairway, and so consequently, off in distant lands, recruitment figures plummeted. The next thing anybody knew, there were barbarians everywhere: the Huns, the Franks, the Visigoths and worst of all the Goths with their white single contact lenses and Cradle of Filth collections. Rome, effectively, was over bar the shouting.

So, to recap on what we have learned so far: sexually open and progressive cultures such as ancient Greece have given the West almost all of its civilizing aspects, whereas sexually repressive cultures like late Rome have given us the Dark Ages.

MAGPIE » ALAN MOORE ON PORNOGRAPHY (hah! Google cache ftw.)

[Brutha]

One thing that this culture always creates is a morality (religious or secular) that sees the biological need for pleasure as something weak and something to be ashamed of. It is, in a fundamental sense an anti-life morality, because it makes you feel guilty for being who you are.

It actually results in those people who follow the moral code to feel superior to those that don't follow the code.
While the nobility weren't morally surpressive but had the power in society, the bourgeoisie had no power but moral codes.
A bourgeois could say: I am better than the nobels because I follow that moral code.

[agnostic]

Originally Posted by Brutha

It actually results in those people who follow the moral code to feel superior to those that don't follow the code.

Yeah, that follows naturally. "All the damn hedonists are weak losers."