[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

You said it made them that way. It is perfectly logical to believe that something that makes people crazy (or in any way harms them, really) is immoral. Like drugs, whether I subscribe to that logic or not, it is certainly widely believed.
Also I don't want to let it be missed, you did point out that it was not your only reason, or even your primary reason, so I was also trying to be inclusive of your other reasons, even if you don't want to reveal them, you could still potentially answer that question without revealing them.

I very much don't follow the "harm is immoral" line of reasoning, so you kind of threw me.

My other reasons have to do with my experience being in the (non-porn) industry. It's its own kind of ****ed up. Actors are meat.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Do you also counsel people against joining the film industry?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Do you also counsel people against joining the film industry?

Generally, yes. Absolutely, if you want to be talent.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You didn't see the harassment and property damage from the media horde, apparently. All of them were asked many times to leave after the first couple days, but the crews ignored it.

People were harassed? Property was damaged? I had no idea the harm was so extensive. You're right, we need to censor them.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You're too upset and abusive to speak with, at least on this subject.

It's okay, I knew you couldn't answer anyway, so I gave you an out.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

You're too upset and abusive to speak with, at least on this subject.

It's okay, I knew you couldn't answer anyway, so I gave you an out.

That's adorable. You've been ducking me for days, is it because you "couldn't answer" my skepticism of your logic or consistency?

Don't worry, no need to respond to this reminder either, I'll give you an "out" too, your silence will be understood as "couldn't answer"

[raleur]

Thanks Sub, that's very clear.

I was mainly asking for clarification because while you're taking great pains to note that you're not making moral judgments, you're really talking about moral issues when you bring up degradation and abuse. I guess I'm trying to understand why you want to make this distinction.

As for your argument, it makes a lot of sense. I'd only point out that #4-5 is the weak link: Puritans aren't the only people who oppose the proliferation of pornography, for as you have already noted, there are mental (and public) health issues involved, problems with vulgarization of society, concerns about it leading to attitudes of degradation and abuse. Sure, there's a Puritan element in there too, but having a concern for the well-being of others doesn't make one a Puritan.

Just making a guess, maybe this explains why you don't want to make "moral" judgments- you're opposed to "moralizing" a la Puritans? Or did I make the wrong connection here?

Something else you might want to consider is that the "sexual revolution" wasn't simply a revolt against old-fashioned morality. Think of it in economic terms, too- it was the commoditization of sex, the cultural transformation of sex into just one more thing you can buy, use, and dispose of like any other commodity. I wonder if this- the notion that people aren't disposable, that it's wrong to see people only in terms of utility- isn't part of your objection? Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth...

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Sure, there's a Puritan element in there too, but having a concern for the well-being of others doesn't make one a Puritan.

Unless the only reasoning for why that well-being is in jeopardy in the first place is because of judgements that are wholly puritanical.

I wouldn't mind having sex in public. I won't, because of what people would think of me. It would ruin my reputation. But that is not an innate property of the act, that is an innate property of how people judge the act. I don't believe that judgement in and of itself is a good reason to conclude that the thing judged is degrading. Because you could make the same argument against homosexuality: it's degrading, because society judges it to be so. Just stop judging it so, and the problem is fixed!

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by raleur 

People were harassed? Property was damaged? I had no idea the harm was so extensive. You're right, we need to censor them.

Again, you're too busy with your sarcasm to address the issue, mckenna.

Originally Posted by raleur 

It's okay, I knew you couldn't answer anyway, so I gave you an out.

I did answer the question, you took off with the word "contract" and ignored all else, because it's more convenient than trying to understand what I'm saying. Coincidentally, that's how I figured out that you are mckenna, because he has the same personality flaw.

[subego]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Thanks Sub, that's very clear.
I was mainly asking for clarification because while you're taking great pains to note that you're not making moral judgments, you're really talking about moral issues when you bring up degradation and abuse. I guess I'm trying to understand why you want to make this distinction.
As for your argument, it makes a lot of sense. I'd only point out that #4-5 is the weak link: Puritans aren't the only people who oppose the proliferation of pornography, for as you have already noted, there are mental (and public) health issues involved, problems with vulgarization of society, concerns about it leading to attitudes of degradation and abuse. Sure, there's a Puritan element in there too, but having a concern for the well-being of others doesn't make one a Puritan.
Just making a guess, maybe this explains why you don't want to make "moral" judgments- you're opposed to "moralizing" a la Puritans? Or did I make the wrong connection here?
Something else you might want to consider is that the "sexual revolution" wasn't simply a revolt against old-fashioned morality. Think of it in economic terms, too- it was the commoditization of sex, the cultural transformation of sex into just one more thing you can buy, use, and dispose of like any other commodity. I wonder if this- the notion that people aren't disposable, that it's wrong to see people only in terms of utility- isn't part of your objection? Forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth...

I do have an inherent opposition to puritanical type moralization, but that's only the foundation.

Much later, I came to the conclusion 99% of moral judgements have 0% value. People have no idea what motivates other people's behavior, and their assumptions are almost always wrong.

Further, it's very freeing on a personal level. People waste so much time and emotional energy being judgmental. It's a ridiculous and unnecessary drain.

Unfortunately, this state of affairs isn't natural. We're not wired to think this way. Apart from the biological factors one has to overcome, said factors are so overwhelming they've had an effect on language itself. Language isn't well suited to make morally neutral statements.

That's why I'm bending over backwards. I'm really trying not to make a moral judgement, and even with my best efforts I can fail to communicate such.


Is saying sex work bad for the mental health of its workers a moral judgement? I don't think so...

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It would ruin my reputation.

No it wouldn't. We already know you have tiny junk.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Is saying sex work bad for the mental health of its workers a moral judgement? I don't think so...

It's not if you can support it with data...

Have you ever tried to verify this conclusion, or are you just going by gut feeling?

I seem to recall this same logic being used to justify homophobia, that because (it is believed (by homophobes)) homosexuality causes mental health problems, it's in everyone's best interest to stop it (somehow). That it's not a moral judgement, just that it's bad for you to be gay, despite the protests of people who are proud of being it.

Edit: I'll even take the homo analogy one step further. Would you advise someone to try being gay? Of course not. If the vast majority of people tried it, they wouldn't like it one bit. Only a minority would thrive doing it, and it's probably because they were predisposed to. Just like the way you describe porn acting. So... how is one judgement "moral" and the other merely "rational" (or whatever label you'd use to describe yours as opposed to "moral")?

Originally Posted by subego 

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It would ruin my reputation.

No it wouldn't. We already know you have tiny junk.

Well then there's nothing left keeping me from my outdoor sexcapades. You brought this on yourself...

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

I do have an inherent opposition to puritanical type moralization, but that's only the foundation.
Much later, I came to the conclusion 99% of moral judgements have 0% value. People have no idea what motivates other people's behavior, and their assumptions are almost always wrong.

Ok, now you have me thoroughly confused- tell me what you mean by "morality," because I don't get the "what motivates other people's behavior" part at all.

[subego]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Ok, now you have me thoroughly confused- tell me what you mean by "morality," because I don't get the "what motivates other people's behavior" part at all.

Whether behavior is moral or immoral depends a lot on context, and a vital aspect of that context is what motivated the act.

Most people are horrible at determining other's motivation. Lacking an ability determine a crucial aspect of what defines an act as moral or immoral calls into question the validity of the judgement.

Is that what you're asking? I'll keep plugging away if I'm not getting it yet.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's not if you can support it with data...
Have you ever tried to verify this conclusion, or are you just going by gut feeling?
I seem to recall this same logic being used to justify homophobia, that because (it is believed (by homophobes)) homosexuality causes mental health problems, it's in everyone's best interest to stop it (somehow). That it's not a moral judgement, just that it's bad for you to be gay, despite the protests of people who are proud of being it.
Edit: I'll even take the homo analogy one step further. Would you advise someone to try being gay? Of course not. If the vast majority of people tried it, they wouldn't like it one bit. Only a minority would thrive doing it, and it's probably because they were predisposed to. Just like the way you describe porn acting. So... how is one judgement "moral" and the other merely "rational" (or whatever label you'd use to describe yours as opposed to "moral")?

Gut instinct and empirical data. I can supply more than the aforementioned batshit actor factor if you want, but I warn you, it'll probably end up as a rant.

Maybe I'm missing something, but saying it's in everybody's best interest to stop something just because it's bad is exactly what moralizing is.

My position is there are plenty of good reasons to do something which is bad for you. I can't judge that without knowing details.

I actually would advise someone to try being gay, even if there was objective proof that was bad for your mental health, but you phrased the question in an odd manner. Sure, I wouldn't tell someone who displayed zero interest in being gay they should try it, but I wouldn't tell people who had zero interest in being a professional actor (i.e. the vast majority of people) that they should stay out of the industry. It's not a relevant piece of advice to the person in question.

Reason I would suggest being gay even if it was bad for your mental health? Because I'd imagine being sexually frustrated is worse for your mental health. Just ask a priest.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Well then there's nothing left keeping me from my outdoor sexcapades. You brought this on yourself...

popcorn.gif

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

Whether behavior is moral or immoral depends a lot on context, and a vital aspect of that context is what motivated the act.
Most people are horrible at determining other's motivation. Lacking an ability determine a crucial aspect of what defines an act as moral or immoral calls into question the validity of the judgement.
Is that what you're asking? I'll keep plugging away if I'm not getting it yet.

Thanks, I think I got it now.

You're right, a very great deal depends on context. But there's an important distinction between "a lot" and "all," and I'm wondering what your opinion is about that.

It's related to the question that Shaddim was unable to answer: do things have value because we decide they do, or do they have value in themselves? It's not a debate trick- if things (or only just some things) do have value in themselves, that is, entirely apart from their relationship to us, then you have an objective standard that can be used to make judgements that have nothing to do with motivation or context. Not in every case, of course- context is still important- but it allows us to make a legitimate distinction between the act and the actor.

On the other hand, if nothing has value in itself, then why be concerned about pornography? What happens to people who perform it or watch it is irrelevant: all is permitted.

Anyway, that's what comes to mind from reading your arguments. Again, sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth.

[Shaddim]

Oh look, now he's trolling for attention. "It's related to the question that Shaddim was unable to answer". C'mon mckenna, that's pitiful.

/ignore

[raleur]

Yeah, you caught me- I'm trolling for attention.

It's the way I constantly mention myself, things I want you to think I own, and people I want you to think I know into posts instead of making rational arguments, isn't it? Dang, I knew that was too much.

[Shaddim]

Raleur? Isn't that a smelly kind of cheese?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Gut instinct and empirical data. I can supply more than the aforementioned batshit actor factor if you want, but I warn you, it'll probably end up as a rant.

How about just a taste? I can accept a rant if necessary, but I prefer a hint at this point.

Maybe I'm missing something, but saying it's in everybody's best interest to stop something just because it's bad is exactly what moralizing is.

You're right, I was sloppy when I said that. I should not have said that we all should do something about it, but rather that there is nothing wrong with them trying to do something about it on their own. The logic goes that the scorn is for their (the gays') own good, not just out of prejudice.

Is your "disapproval" of porn qualitatively different than a homophobe's "disapproval" of gays? If so, in what way?

I may very well still be not splitting a fine enough hair for you on this; I'm ok with that, just point me in the right direction to fix it.

Reason I would suggest being gay even if it was bad for your mental health? Because I'd imagine being sexually frustrated is worse for your mental health. Just ask a priest.

Makes perfect sense, but how does it not also apply to porn acting? If X% of porn actors thrive in it, and the alternative for them is languishing in failure, then why is it more risky to support their attempt than it is to support the attempt of potential gays from finding out if they're in their own Y%? Is it just a matter of Y being a bigger number than X (and I don't know if it even is)?

popcorn.gif

So... somewhere along this thread I'm going to have to object to the whole "these videos degrade our society" and "people will copy the videos" thing. Because that strikes me as waaay more puritanical than trying to protect the sex workers themselves. This is getting into "thought crimes" and "free will" territory. I was waiting for the other exchange to end. Is now a good time?

[subego]

@Skeleton and raleur...

All kinds of good stuff for me to get too, but I've got a NYE thing happening which is going to suck-up most of my time between now and then, but I want to get to all of it. This is a primo thread IMO.

I'll try to shoot off quick bits here and there.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'll try to shoot off quick bits here and there.

So will teenagers with access to porn.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ow, my virgin ears!

[raleur]

Originally Posted by subego 

@Skeleton and raleur...
All kinds of good stuff for me to get too, but I've got a NYE thing happening which is going to suck-up most of my time between now and then, but I want to get to all of it. This is a primo thread IMO.
I'll try to shoot off quick bits here and there.

No worries, Sub, I'm traveling for the next week or so, too- but hey, something else will come up, I'm sure there will be other things to blab about.

[andi*pandi]

Do boys not have access to Cosmo and Harlequin romance novels? That's pretty tame.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Do boys not have access to Cosmo and Harlequin romance novels? That's pretty tame.

Males are more stimulated by visuals. While a steamy story might get a young man's blood up, it requires a lost discipline (book reading) and there isn't any instant gratification involved. Back in my day we had airbrushed chicks in Playboy, or the Sears lingerie catalog, and it was good enough for us.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ascii porn, now there's a lot of discipline. Oh "lost" discipline... I hope not.

[subego]

Hey y'all. I'm still here, and will start digging in to my New Year's pile of interesting discussion, but let me ramp up a bit. I was on the clock for about 21 hours yesterday, so I need some recovery time. My whole body still hurts.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Males are more stimulated by visuals. While a steamy story might get a young man's blood up, it requires a lost discipline (book reading) and there isn't any instant gratification involved. Back in my day we had airbrushed chicks in Playboy, or the Sears lingerie catalog, and it was good enough for us.

How old are you?

They used not to do much airbrushing in Playboy. They'd get models with good skin (among other attributes), really good photographers, and take three days worth of setup and shooting to make a single pictorial.

[subego]

Originally Posted by andi*pandi 

Do boys not have access to Cosmo and Harlequin romance novels? That's pretty tame.

Well, my politically correct side made me use the gender-neutral "teens". We're talking mainly about teenage boys, for whom neither of these are targeted at.

[subego]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Thanks, I think I got it now.
You're right, a very great deal depends on context. But there's an important distinction between "a lot" and "all," and I'm wondering what your opinion is about that.
It's related to the question that Shaddim was unable to answer: do things have value because we decide they do, or do they have value in themselves? It's not a debate trick- if things (or only just some things) do have value in themselves, that is, entirely apart from their relationship to us, then you have an objective standard that can be used to make judgements that have nothing to do with motivation or context. Not in every case, of course- context is still important- but it allows us to make a legitimate distinction between the act and the actor.
On the other hand, if nothing has value in itself, then why be concerned about pornography? What happens to people who perform it or watch it is irrelevant: all is permitted.
Anyway, that's what comes to mind from reading your arguments. Again, sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth.

I've been thinking this through for a few days now.

I'm not a particularly spiritual person, so I have trouble thinking there's inherent value in anything.

But OTOH, to shield myself from the existential abyss, I operate somewhat under the notion that if enough people perceive something to have value, then it has value.

I guess when I say "perception is reality", I really mean it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

I operate somewhat under the notion that if enough people perceive something to have value, then it has value.

I find this line of reasoning troubling. Firstly, I'm inclined to think that there are plenty of cases where if one person perceives something to have value, then it does. Secondly, this logic would imply that Jersey Shore and Here Comes Honey Boo Boo have value.

[subego]

Hence the "somewhat".

[subego]

This is supposed to be about boobies and stuff. I'll start a new thread.

[subego]

http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/496698/what-gives-things-value

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I find this line of reasoning troubling. Firstly, I'm inclined to think that there are plenty of cases where if one person perceives something to have value, then it does.

But what if the only reason you're inclined to believe that is because "enough" people believe it, thereby inclining you towards the same thing. Mind. Blown.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

How about just a taste? I can accept a rant if necessary, but I prefer a hint at this point.

In its simplest form, actors are professional liars. Your skill is to stuff away how you would actually relate to other people and replace it with someone else's fantasy.

What's worse, is the more successfully you do it, the more you have total strangers wanting to relate to you as that fantasy person.

The people I've seen who cope with this the best are basically empty. They need someone else to make a persona for them. That's also pretty ****ed up. Most handle it the way a "normal" person would deal with having to suppress their own emotions, have fake relationships with people, and be noted for their skill at lying. You go batty as all your relationships with others lose any real meaning.

No one wants to be your friend, they want to be the friend with the idea of you, and even if they did, you, as an actor, are so full of shit to begin with, and most of the people you deal with are so full of shit, it becomes hard not to think that person is full of shit too.


Working as a crew member is a lot different. You're basically skilled labor, and it's not an easy job (though it beats the **** out of construction). You can build some serious (real) bonds with these people, even though you're working in this fantasy land.


To be clear, not every actor is whacko, and not every crew gets to feel the soul brother/sister deal, it's only that the prevailing conditions tend to push things in those directions rather than others.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Ok, you convinced me of that part, but I thought I was responding (here) to your line about sex workers. Does all of that apply to sex workers too? They have to "over-lie" about their attraction, but not about their intellect or beliefs like film actors do. Is over-lying about attraction (or even emotion in general) more damaging than over-lying about intellect and belief? For that matter, is it still bad for the actors if they only agree to play characters they actually agree with (like if they direct, they get to direct themselves to do only what they want to do)?


Let's make this even more on-topic, there are porn sites where the performers don't even have to lie, they just monetize the relations they have with their monogamous (so they say) parter. There are occasionally pro actresses who also have exclusive (on screen at least) partners. So in this case, they're not really lying about who they want to bang, they're just letting people watch it happen. Does the publicity influence your decision that this career is "damaging", or is it only about professional lying? These examples are exceptions, I grant that, especially if you include non-screen sex workers, but does that put them outside your disapproval? For the purposes of this topic, you can consider me defensive about a sweeping indictment of porn, official or personal, asking about "well what can we still have if we're going to be all 'correct' about it?" You know, as opposed to just busting your balls for the fun of it.

[subego]

Well, I think right off the bat, in the aggregate, how being a sex worker affects you is going to have some gender dependency.

Secondly, I think banging is a multiplier. Even if a particular form of sex work has only a small relation to the situations you have with actors, the fact you're having actual sex is going to magnify those effects with most people.

Even in the "ideal" situation you mention above, it factors out the lying, and the publicity involved with that is a different animal, however I still hit this snag where it comes to monetizing your sexuality.

Is there an argument to be made monetizing your sexuality is good for you? I'm having trouble seeing it.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

however I still hit this snag where it comes to monetizing your sexuality.

Is there an argument to be made monetizing your sexuality is good for you? I'm having trouble seeing it.

That's a hard question. Either the answer is "yes of course, the money part is good for you," or you mean for us to exclude the money in which case nearly all careers are not good for you and most range from slightly bad for you to extremely bad for you. In fact, one of the careers that many people would probably name as "good for you" disregarding the money, would be being a famous actor, because people tend to think of their role models or idols when you ask that question, and what could be more idolatrous than a movie star?

But with all that out of the way, an answer to your question could be "prestige." A (successful) sex performer is demonstrably good at sex, and that is something most people want to be. Having people know you are good at it is a good thing, and we only think it's bad (sometimes) because of our puritan prudishness. In general, it's human nature to benefit psychologically from people knowing when you're good at something. A more objective way to answer your question is to ask does anyone do that behavior without getting paid for it, like for fun? Some do, like releasing a "sex tape," even non-celebs do this. Of course, if you want to do something anyway, and have the choice to get paid or not get paid, a lot of people are going to choose to get paid.

[subego]

I agree with your prestige argument, but I debate its ultimate effect on your self worth when the prestige is part and parcel with being a target for aggressive puritanism.

I imagine prestigious porn actresses get called "whores" (or worse) a fair amount. That of course represents only a fraction of the people who think that, or give them the stinkeye.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

I agree with your prestige argument, but I debate its ultimate effect on your self worth when the prestige is part and parcel with being a target for aggressive puritanism.

I imagine prestigious porn actresses get called "whores" (or worse) a fair amount. That of course represents only a fraction of the people who think that, or give them the stinkeye.

Ok then, isn't that like blaming nerds for getting bullied, blaming rape victims for being attractive, or blaming gays for gay-bashing? (the latter not being the best analogy if you believe sexuality is no choice, but I left it in as homage to my previous posts in this thread)

I say the blame for any harm caused by this scenario rests on the puritans, and being (debatably) 99% of the population is no excuse for that sort of cruelty.

[subego]

A quick addition.

Most people know on an intellectual level it's a losing proposition to care what other people think about them.

Of course, an intellectual understanding does not equate to practical application. Further, those who pursue celebrity, almost by requirement, do care what other people think about them.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Ok then, isn't that like blaming nerds for getting bullied, blaming rape victims for being attractive, or blaming gays for gay-bashing? (the latter not being the best analogy if you believe sexuality is no choice, but I left it in as homage to my previous posts in this thread)
I say the blame for any harm caused by this scenario rests on the puritans, and being (debatably) 99% of the population is no excuse for that sort of cruelty.

How am I excusing the cruelty?

I'm saying the fact people are cruel in this situation affects the value of the prestige WRT how fulfilled it makes you feel.

I'd say the bullied nerd would make a similar calculation about how fulfilling they find it being a nerd.

As a bullied nerd myself, I can say being bullied made the nerd experience less fulfilling, and definitely pushed me to be cagey about it as an adult. My six shelves of D&D shit are in a closet. I don't blame myself for this (well, the part which didn't involve me being irritating).


I do have a set of dice out in the open.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

How am I excusing the cruelty?

I guess I don't know if you are, but it sounds that way if you suggest to work around it instead of condemn it.

I'm saying the fact people are cruel in this situation affects the value of the prestige WRT how fulfilled it makes you feel.

I'd say the bullied nerd would make a similar calculation about how fulfilling they find it being a nerd.

So now you disapprove of nerdism too?!

Well I think two things. One, puritanism is fading in this day and age. And resisting it per se is surpassing "cliche" to approach "admirable." It may not be actual feminism depending on the pedantry of the person you're talking to (), but it is following the same trajectory: own your shame in order to nullify it. Feminists don't have to settle for being "just a woman" and hedonists don't have to settle for being "just a slut." And two, I think it's still more prestigious all things considered to be a good porn actress than to be a bad waitress (or whatever they would otherwise end up doing). Better even than being a trophy wife... maybe. Trophy wives still get no respect. Nerds find a way to surround themselves with birds of a feather, and sex workers do too. Both might be miserable at thanksgiving with the parents, but that's not really a problem that can be solved. My point is they have enough of a sub-culture to reach that critical mass where they don't have to bow to "society" if they don't want to.

Entourage did a story arc looking at Sasha Grey's attitude about being a (fantastic) porn star in the face of puritanical judgment from her boyfriend (the Entourage guy; Sasha played herself). Have you seen it? Obviously I don't know whether the Sasha character believed the same thing as the real Sasha did/does, but it was eerily relevant to this thread. My guess is that if she wouldn't keep doing it if it wasn't fulfilling her.

Aaand, just to balance an anecdote that I think supports my POV with one that doesn't, do you remember this little gem from 5 years ago: http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/341479/funniest-porn-line-ever-maybe
While undeniably hilarious, I do disapprove of whatever circumstances put those people together. I just don't think all smut should be considered as one big inseparable entity. (heh, I said "tity")

I do have a set of dice out in the open.

How many faces?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

But what if the only reason you're inclined to believe that is because "enough" people believe it, thereby inclining you towards the same thing. Mind. Blown.

Hmmm. That begs the question, how many is enough?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I guess I don't know if you are, but it sounds that way if you suggest to work around it instead of condemn it.
So now you disapprove of nerdism too?!
Well I think two things. One, puritanism is fading in this day and age. And resisting it per se is surpassing "cliche" to approach "admirable." It may not be actual feminism depending on the pedantry of the person you're talking to (), but it is following the same trajectory: own your shame in order to nullify it. Feminists don't have to settle for being "just a woman" and hedonists don't have to settle for being "just a slut." And two, I think it's still more prestigious all things considered to be a good porn actress than to be a bad waitress (or whatever they would otherwise end up doing). Better even than being a trophy wife... maybe. Trophy wives still get no respect. Nerds find a way to surround themselves with birds of a feather, and sex workers do too. Both might be miserable at thanksgiving with the parents, but that's not really a problem that can be solved. My point is they have enough of a sub-culture to reach that critical mass where they don't have to bow to "society" if they don't want to.
Entourage did a story arc looking at Sasha Grey's attitude about being a (fantastic) porn star in the face of puritanical judgment from her boyfriend (the Entourage guy; Sasha played herself). Have you seen it? Obviously I don't know whether the Sasha character believed the same thing as the real Sasha did/does, but it was eerily relevant to this thread. My guess is that if she wouldn't keep doing it if it wasn't fulfilling her.
Aaand, just to balance an anecdote that I think supports my POV with one that doesn't, do you remember this little gem from 5 years ago: http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/341479/funniest-porn-line-ever-maybe
While undeniably hilarious, I do disapprove of whatever circumstances put those people together. I just don't think all smut should be considered as one big inseparable entity. (heh, I said "tity")
How many faces?

All the Platonic solids and a pair of 10-siders. So, 70 faces total.

I'm lost otherwise. Am I suggesting to work around it?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by subego 

Am I suggesting to work around it?

Yeah, aren't you? How would you describe it?

Let's see, a work around of X consists of: awareness of X, awareness that X + Y = trouble, interest in a course of action to prevent X from meeting Y, and a lack of interest in getting X gone. Right?

[subego]

It's only a workaround if you do the math and decide it isn't worth the risks. If you decide it's worth the risks, then it isn't a workaround.

[subego]

Is discussing with an applicant for a nuclear waste disposal job the risks involved a workaround?

Note, this is an extreme example for the purposes of illustration. I'm not saying being a sex worker is like working with nuclear waste.