Quote:
Originally posted by chodadog
Hmm, i disagree! I think it's one of the most important arguements in this industry. Someone always wants to draw a moral line based on what they believe, obviously not realising the hypocrisy of the situation!
.
|
Degradation isn't necessarily a moral argument about the content of the site, rather it can be about the treatment of the model/worker. "buying and selling hahahahas," doesn't leave me feeling too good about that particular exchange.
Just as eliminating the ?max hardcore? sites or label them as distasteful does.
I market porn, among other things, that doesn?t mean I want to participate as a "model" or actively encourage anyone I'm associated with to do so. However, I respect a models choice. Am I a hypocrite because I wouldn?t want to be a porn actor, or any of my family to be, yet I?ll sell someone else?s daughter or son? I?m not quite sure.
Hypocrisy, its present every where...why else would Easton say ?he buys and sells hahahahas like kiko every day.? Both are webmasters, participants in hardcore and program owners right? One is male and one is female. So, we all took that to be a
demeaning comment by Easton.
Is that what you meant by hypocrisy?
Quite a few people have "moral" or philosophical lines when it comes to what products they will sell, alcohol, tobacco, firearms, illegal drugs, erotica is no different.
Specifically in the adult industry, non-nude sites featuring (underage participants by U.S. law), or marketing legal teens like they are underage, bestiality, underage participants in stories, spam, fake child porn sites, usuage of the term ?lolita,? extreme bondage, defecating in people's mouth's. etc.
Plenty of people squirm at various things. The ability to decree someone as a hypocrite for drawing a moral line isn't straight forward, IMHO, as you make it out to be.
What if the subject were bestiality? or famous autopsies? or photos of the gored victims of 9/11? or the corpses of the astronauts?
Or photos of people fucking the corpses of the dead astronauts?
All of it is fairly arbitrary, and subject to the nebulous ?community standards,? yet our reaction is different to each scenario.
To further illustrate this, consider the legal limit for consent across the United States. Last time I checked it ranged from 14 to 17 across various states. So, a girl can consent to sexual intercourse with a man 20, 30 etc. years her senior--potentially creating life or destroying it (pregnancy v. stds). However, she couldn?t consent to topless photos for adult use. Yet, the same photos might be available for a series of artistic nudes. That is arbitrary as hell.
The world is all about subjective judgments. It is all about hypocrisy.