wetting, morality, and so on.

[aquarian]

Ok. As we are all here, this might end up a little hard, but how about an ethical debate on the morality of the provision and viewing of the held-dear material. Believe me, I love it, but will try and start the proverbial ball rolling.

Is it right to contribute to the exploitation of women in such a demeaning fashion????

( have fun)

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

"Contributing to the exploitation of women in a demeaning fashion" is despicable. Lucky there's none of that on Sky's site.

Ethics and morals are very interesting, though. I find it amusing how the whole notion that porn (in any of its forms) is somehow "debasing to all womankind" or whatever. A big portion (hehe) of the porn industry is run by women and, generally speaking, we have something that men crave. If there's any "exploiting" going on it's the exploitation of men who need the product so badly.

That ain't degrading, that's empowering. Suck my pissy knickers!! LOL!!

[aquarian]

What an appealing thought, Kate. Was it an offer????

And yes, I agree with you also. As someone who has "degraded" themself from time to time in the nude industry, I can agree do no more than concurr.

Could it however be bad for the world as an whole????...By means of the pretty ladies/men on the internet, is the need for real socio-sexual interaction declining????

As Kant with his categorical imperative would probably argue ( the thought of him here is somewhat risible) , do x if it is universally applicable, not for the purpose of consequences etc, then it is immoral. All cannot be expected to get naked on the internet, due to bonds w/ real life friends and consequent pain caused. Moreover, it would, according to Kant be immoral to pee oneself on the internet, for there is no reason really except gain....kinky feeling/ money/ many new friends/ etc...Finally ( now I have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous), if we were all wetting, there would be little time for anything aside from washing.

Obviously I dont agree with this, just providing more fodder to be torn to warm, urinated in shreds.

Mike/ Aquarian

[jacques]

Ok. As we are all here, this might end up a little hard, but how about an ethical debate on the morality of the provision and viewing of the held-dear material. Believe me, I love it, but will try and start the proverbial ball rolling.

Is it right to contribute to the exploitation of women in such a demeaning fashion????

( have fun)

Since peeing for fun is the game, I'm not sure it's a good idea to have people... being pissed off. ;)

Seriously, it's a free society, people have plenty of opportunities, so I would say that between consenting adults...

And it works both ways: No one is coaxed to wet their pants, and the people who are offended by this are free to surf the web elsewhere.

So I think there's no one being exploited.

On a humorous note, I wonder whether it's a subtle way to say that there should be a male-wetting section as well. ;)

Cheers!

[Ape]

"Contributing to the exploitation of women in a demeaning fashion" is despicable. Lucky there's none of that on Sky's site.

Ethics and morals are very interesting, though. I find it amusing how the whole notion that porn (in any of its forms) is somehow "debasing to all womankind" or whatever. A big portion (hehe) of the porn industry is run by women and, generally speaking, we have something that men crave. If there's any "exploiting" going on it's the exploitation of men who need the product so badly.

That ain't degrading, that's empowering. Suck my pissy knickers!! LOL!!

I fear you are being slightly naive about Sky's site. I suspect most of the models piss their knickers for money because they don't make enough from other work. The fact that they are models and get paid so that other people, mostly men, can wank over their bodies (knowing nothing about their characters as we do) strikes me as not exactly empowering! It would only be empowering if the women genuinely chose, of their own free will, to do it. To claim that they are doing so (ie: they would need to have a wide variety of options available to them) is to deny the reality of the world, and the reality of their world. Indeed, even where they *think* they are doing it of their own free will, there is an argument that says not - one need only consider hostages who sympathise with their kidnappers or victims of domestic violence who protect their violent and abusive partner.

Sure, the men who stump up the cash are also exploited, but I just don't buy into this idea that where women are in charge, they are not being exploited. The foundations of the industry were laid by men and in its general form, it is exploitative of women because it treats them as objects to be used to satisfy (usually) male sexual desires. Just because women are also doing some of the exploiting does not change that basic reality, because, hey, guess what - women can be as mean as men to women (see Thatcher for proof of that).

Sky doesn't have to personally treat the models with disrespect for the basic realities of his business to be demeaning and exploitative.

[skymouse]

It has often been speculated that entertainment has some overall effect on the population, but it is a matter of controversy what that effect might be. My own personal opinion is that viewers are both more resilient AND yet more susceptible than often expected. However, I start getting uncomfortable with things that encourage people to be thought of as objects. I find it encouraging that the comments we receive about our work focus so often on things like the models' character, their warmth, their attitude and personality, their motives and thoughts. These are comments that strongly suggest that our customers are not fantasising about objects, but about people. I think it is a good thing to encourage people to have positive feelings about other people, and no less so in a sexual context.

The other area that is often discussed - sometimes, it has to be said, without the burdern of too much knowledge - is the rights and wrongs of the way the work is produced. There is sometimes a presumption (based on newspaper and film stereotypes) that the models are mostly poor, exploited, and stupid. All four of these things are inaccurate. The models come from a wide variety of backgrounds, no less so than any other group of people. Poverty is not a factor; the models handle mortgages, car purchases, running (or contributing to) their households, etc with no more or less competence than anyone else - and it doesn't hurt that their personal incomes are usually above average. The models choose the manner and style of their work, and sometimes have worked hard and with pride to become very good at what they do. I've met models with just about every level of accademic attainment and intellectual capacity - and no, the preponderance of blonde hair is not, in my experience, a reliable indicator of what lies below the cranium.

Really, it's not for anybody else to tell models that their decisions and capacity for working in the way they want to work is somehow not legitimate.

SM

[skymouse]

Ape, with the greatest respect, you have no authority with which to say that the models' own self-worth and satisfaction with their work is illusory. Just accept that they do what they want to do, that they are successful at it, and probably laugh at people who portray them as poor exploited underdogs.

As for comparisons between my working environment and hostages - well, I totally reject that comparison. It is as insulting as it is silly. I have left it on the message board because I think the models ought to know about some of these bizarre and ill-informed things that are being said.

SM

[Ape]

That's fine by me, I would be interested to hear what they have to say, but I think it is equally laughable to imply that a site of women in various states of undress pissing themselves for money, mostly for men to view, is NOT exploitative. Just as some prostitutes and escorts can be highly educated and believe they have freely chosen the work they do, so too do your models. Neither are necessarily right.

[aquarian]

Sorry if I have created somewhat of an over-heated debate here. It was not intended. But, with reference to Ape and Sky's feud, here's my contribution ( minimal as it is).

Perhaps in some circumstances, through a lack of money or other causes, someone might be more pre-disposed towards modeling. Yet this is not an imposition: there are other, equally viable options ( in most circumstances). No-one, who is against the industry, would opt in, even under the direst of circumstances. Moreover, being someone, as I have previously mentioned, who has "been exploited," I hasten to add that I am neither ill-educated, nor from a non-affluent background. No-1 coerced me into being photographed. I understood my model release, and the money was a bonus. The real joy was hearing that other people enjoyed my body, just as i'm sure Sky's models do.

To finish this reply with a pro-"porn" argument, lets look at utilitarianism. We are pleased looking at the pics. The models are pleased making money, and perhaps feeling the same as i did about feedback. Sky is obviously happy sitting on a pile of cash ( well earned, too, if i may say so). The only unhappy ones are the extreme feminists....oh well

mike/aquarian

[skymouse]

Ape, thankfully what matters is what they want to do - not what you insist they ought to want to do.

You may have a very low opinion of the women who model for us, but at least pay them the courtsey of recognising that they are real people with their own lives, intelligence and choices.

And the comparison with "prostitutes" is again just plain insulting.

That's not what this message board is about and I will delete any future slurs about the models.

SM

[Ape]

Why is the comparison with prostitutes insulting? I have nothing against prostitutes, or your models, for that matter. In the same way I have nothing against soldiers who fight in Iraq believing they are fighting for a good cause, but that does not change the reality that they are fighting for a corrupt US presidency and his industrial military oil baron friends. I am not insulting the models' intelligence or their choices, I just think they are wrong decisions, for the reasons I have outlined. Intelligence doesn't have anything to do with it - find any expert who susbscribes to your view and I will find you one who thinks the reverse. It is up to individuals which argument they subscribe to, but as I said earlier, being paid to piss yourself in various states of undress does not seem very empowering, and those who think it is are kidding themselves and others. Of course, it could well be that they choose to think that way because they cannot face the truth of what they do - they wouldn't be the first, they won't be the last to do that.

The fact that you find it insulting perhaps reveals the truth about what you do that you are not prepared to face?

I thought this was a discussion board, but if any comments that go against your own view of what you do are considered insults, obviously it isn't. Prostitutes are paid for sex, your models are paid for masturbation. Dressing it up any different is just that, dressing it up.

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

Ape, do you really belive all this stuff you're spouting? You have absolutely no right to try and take some sort of pseudo-moral highground here. Remember last year when you manipulated me using the fake name 'Louise Martin' in order to deceive me into chatting to you intimately? Remember how you had to admit you were really a bloke only when it got so serious that we were going to meet?

You're being argumentative just for the sake of it. Skymouse is paying you an enormous compliment by even giving you time-of-day here. I'm glad he's made the decision to leave most of your comments on the forum, it'll give more people the opportunity to read what a bizarre and deluded person you are.

[skymouse]

find any expert who susbscribes to your view and I will find you one who thinks the reverse.

But that's just the point - neither expert (the one supporting my view nor the one supporting the opposite) would be speaking with authority. Even my opinion is not authoritative - I'm merely relaying my experience and assessment of what the women tell me. But, what I insist is authoritative is their own free-will and dignity, and my argument is that nobody has the right to gainsay those things.

SM

[Ape]

Hmmm, me delusional? I was gonna say the same to you. I am not taking any moral high ground, I am simply saying what I think the reality is. And somehow it seems not to occur to either of you two that sometimes intelligent people can think they are doing things for one reason when they are doing them for another. I am not disputing the right of these women to do whatever the fuck they like, I simply disagree that they are doing it of genuine free will. No, I don't mean before you take me literally that Sky has kidnapped them, but to think that all things being equal, they would choose to piss themselves so men can wank over the pictures!??! I mean, come on, think about it....

Do I believe what I am spouting? Yes. Do you believe the same of yourself? Again, these women are being paid for wank material - in American terms, like D'UH! What is it about that basic premise that seems so astounding they could be being exploited!?!?!?

I don't know whether I am more surprised at how incredibly unlikely you seem to think that is! I mean, God, politicians do nasty things to stay in power, Santa Claus doesn't exist, religion has been a reason for massacres, and hey, guess what, internet porn exploits women. Wow!

[skymouse]

I guess you could say that all paid work is exploitative and coercive, because people wouldn't work if they didn't have to earn a living. But who who say such a thing?

So why not just accept that a model and a photographer have made a free-will decision to do something that a) they both want to do; b) is an advantage to both of them; and c) doesn't hurt anybody?

SM

[aquarian]

Here here Sky old boy,

I do believe that that is as perfect a summary/ closure as is possible, on a topic which I never intended to have gone to such intensive proportions. Your analagy with all work is perfectly true. Good thinking

Mike/aquarian

[jacques]

"Contributing to the exploitation of women in a demeaning fashion" is despicable. Lucky there's none of that on Sky's site.

Ethics and morals are very interesting, though. I find it amusing how the whole notion that porn (in any of its forms) is somehow "debasing to all womankind" or whatever. (...)
That ain't degrading, that's empowering. Suck my pissy knickers!! LOL!!

I fear you are being slightly naive about Sky's site. I suspect most of the models piss their knickers for money because they don't make enough from other work. (...) Indeed, even where they *think* they are doing it of their own free will, there is an argument that says not - one need only consider hostages who sympathise with their kidnappers or victims of domestic violence who protect their violent and abusive partner.

Sure, the men who stump up the cash are also exploited, but I just don't buy into this idea that where women are in charge, they are not being exploited. The foundations of the industry were laid by men and in its general form, it is exploitative of women because it treats them as objects to be used to satisfy (usually) male sexual desires. Just because women are also doing some of the exploiting does not change that basic reality, because, hey, guess what - women can be as mean as men to women (see Thatcher for proof of that).


Pornography, I see another can of worms enough to filll an entire message board, so I won't touch that, but just to say that pornography in general, and especially the mix of $$$ and sexuality won't win any morality contest, that's for sure. ;)

The problem I see about discussing "exploitation", is that we're putting a moral value to the very thing people do, *AND* there are finger pointings afterwards.

Going for the money is all that bad? Here's an example. It's a bit off-topic, but close enough, since it's about modeling. I've no idea whether it's still the case today, but during my college years, students usually aren't all that rich and many ladies and some men (it's flattering that I was considered ;)) were told there were "easy money" to be made..

How? Many clothing stores and major chains need models for their catalogues, from underwears to winter clothes. Someone has to wear them in those catalogues, and hiring reasonably nice looking young adults do not cost much.

I know several female and male friends who went to these photo shoots and things went fine. Today, one person I know is now in the computer business, the other in an accounant. So, to my knowledge, they have a successful life and where not ashamed of what they did.

(I was reasonably wealthy that I could afford to turn down the offer, I didn't extra cash, but yes I would have gone for the money if I were poor, and I wouldn't be ashamed whatsoever.)

Now, is this exploitation of poor students in need of $$$ by those big wealthy stores who don't want to pay for professional models? Should we put some kind of moral values to these students who "lower" themselves by wearing just underwears... just for the money? Or questioning the moral values of these stores, who use "skin"to sell their clothes, especially underwears?

I'm a non-English native speaker, so web sites like webster.com is at the top of my big heap of bookmarks. ;)

When I look at the definition of exploitation, it sends me back to exploit, and I see this definition:


To make use of meanly or unjustly for one's own advantage <exploiting migrant farm workers>
- ex·ploit·able /-'sploi-t&-b&l/ adjective
- ex·ploit·er noun


Meanly? I don't think it's the case here. However, what is "just" and "unjust"... sooner or later, morale issues will come up, and at this point, it gets irrational, because anyone will see through their coloured glasses, using their definition of moral and the discussion will never end.

In case of SKy business, the points are:
1) the morality of someone being hired to pee in her clothes in front of the camera,
2) presumably, for the sexual arousement of adults viewing these photos and videos,
3) and for Sky, making money.

People who are uptight about urine will scream, other people will see it's just another "blatant" case where these models are used as sexual objects, and finally some people will put moral values on the way money is earned.

I'm rather libertarian on those things. People are free to do whatever they want, and when people come on their own, *fully* understand what they're doing, and agree, and hopefully enjoying what they're doing, I can't see where there's a "mean" and "unjust" advantage from anyone, the models, clients (us) and Sky business is legitimate, like any law-abiding businesses.

So much for exploitation, exploiter and being exploited. ;)

My 2-cent, and sorry for that long winded response. ;)

[jacques]

Oops, after I posted my last message, I see a lot more messages have been posted.

I'll make it short this time by just saying that I agree with Sky. :)

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

Hmmm, me delusional? I was gonna say the same to you.

Do I believe what I am spouting? Yes. Do you believe the same of yourself?

What was that?? The grown-up version of "I know you are but what am I?" when someone calls you a name in the playground?

Seriously, though, if we take your definition of exploitation - ie. woman paid to pose in certain way and consumer enjoys end result - then yes, the models are being exploited. But, by that rationale anyone who works is being exploited. You say "all things being equal, they would[n't] choose to piss themselves so men can wank over the pictures". Well I sell computer accessories all day and, although I enjoy that job a lot, there's no way I'd do it if they weren't paying me. Looks like I'm being exploited!!

---> EDIT <---
While I was typing this, Skymouse has jumped in and said pretty much what I'm saying here.

Also, jacques, thank you for your fantastic post reminding us all the actual definition of the word "exploit". I love it that it was left to someone who is admittedly not a native English speaker to absolutely smash Ape's arguament into a cocked-hat! :)

[Ape]

1. Was the choice free? If you read my responses above, it is clear I do not think their choice was free. Yes, most people who work are being exploited - they are being used so that someone else can make a profit. That is one of the bases of capitalism. Sky uses models so that he can make a profit. The added aspect with Sky's models is that they are being used on the basis of their bodies - as much as he doth protest about viewers enjoying the character and humanity of his work, is that really the case for the majority of people who use his site??

2. Mean and unfair - if ever two such subjective words were used - MEAN? - that sounds like a playground dictionary to me. Is it mean and unfair? Well, see above... That will always be an individual judgement, but I think those who do not see porn in such a way are kidding themselves.

As for moral values, do I think exploitation is bad? Yes. But, I also have been a subscriber to the site, which is why I have never claimed the moral high ground (despite Kate's attempt to put me there). I just accept the reality of what it is. It seems to me that others are trying to claim the moral high ground more than I - why is that? When you eat an egg, you are eating a forced aborted chicken foetus. That is a reality whether people like to dwell on it or not.

Consider the cocked hat empty still.

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

When you eat an egg, you are eating a forced aborted chicken foetus

The eggs that end up next to your beans and bacon are not fertilised first, they do not contain foetuses. Hens lay eggs every day, naturally, and are not forced to do this.

If you put the cocked-hat on your head it would still be empty.

[Ape]

egg (FOOD)
[Show phonetics]
noun [C]
the oval or rounded object with a hard shell that is produced by chickens, collected before a baby bird can develop within it, and used as food

That sounds like a forced aborted chicken foetus to me. Seems you have egg on your face.

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

Your alarmingly ignorant and inaccurate insistances about hen eggs really goes to show your true colours. You will argue about anything, until you're blue in the face, and even when you've been proven wrong.

I can't understand why you quoted me saying something I never said in that last post, but never mind...

I'm pretty sure that anyone reading this thread will by now have come to their own conclusions about the various people who've contributed, and I see no reason to take this argument further now that you've dragged it into the realms of the absurd. I was planning on locking the thread after posting this reply but it occurred to me that you'd no doubt accuse me of disallowing you your voice, so instead I'm just not going to make any further replies.

[Ape]

Y You will argue about anything, until you're blue in the face, and even when you've been proven wrong.

I'm sorry. I seem to have missed this mythical *proof* So far all I can see is an assertion made by you, rebutted by a quote from a dictionary from me. I consider a dictionary a more reliable source of information than yourself. Bad form, I know, but there we go...

[Adrian]

I find myself largely in agreement with Kate over this particular issue. Too often the legitimate adult entertainment industry gets an unnecessarily harsh press, the point often being urged that it degrades people in the images it creates. Surely, so long as only consenting adults are involved, doing what they want to do within the law and on their own terms, nobody is being degraded?

[Val]

Ape: Keep chickens before telling us what they do. Likewise, innit fascinating that nearly always the people who whine about women being exploited for men are either men who or homosexual women with some deep ancient fear of all relations with men as exploitative. There was a time when "Women's Liberation" meant women getting up to say they were sexual beings just as entitled to enjoy thrills and pornography as men. One of the many thrills women enjoy that they don't allow to men is showing off, like one of my first lovers wanted to be a stripper for the power-thrill of controlling all those male eyes. Women don't have the same directly sexual response because less has changed than we think. Feminists just put the clock back for all the women brought up to feel second-rate and afraid or ashamed of sex to justify it in some eternal self-pitying moan about being the underdog. When they find women providing free porn or involved on porn groups they go into Victorian righteous mode that the Mighty Male Monster is so all-powerful that it controls these women's thoughts about themselves: if they were free 'respectable' women they would be ashamed of themselves; since they aren't ashamed, they must be too stupid to know what they're doing and are 'fallen women' in need of Feminist re-education (in a camp maybe?).

Having said that, yes some porn is vicious and degrading. So is most mainstream entertainment if you consider watching people appear to kill each other vicious and degrading. I like 'degrading' Insex. Not because I enjoy watching women sexually assaulted but because I wish I had, and somebody would or could do for me, their capacity to enjoy sensation beyond where their first instinct might be to deprive themselves of going so far - just like going to the loo deprives of the sensations of going beyond the limit.

And yes, work is exploitation and has become more so, or we'd all be doing what we want in some sort of liberal gift economy (Hey went fishing this morning, got some extra, car to swap for some of those tomatoes getting over-ripe?).

[SNIFFER17]

Whoa here !!

A few months ago, I wrote a reply to an already - established topic. I do not remember the particular thread, and that doesn't even matter.

What is of importance in recalling the situation was the end result. My observance was........ "there appear to be members of this forum who believe that the importance of their opinion(s) is / are based on seniority of membership or number of posts" -- or words to that effect.

For that, I garnered the wrath of more than one whp member. I became the instant "bane o' the board"..........

Well -- it may not be for seniority of membership OR for number of prior posts, but there are certainly those who (AGAIN) seem to value their opinion(s) alone. This particular topic has far exceeded the realm of interesting, and has become nothing more than a session of "bashing" among certain forum participants.

There have even been some "personal" digs thrown in for special effects......

Not wishing to fall into the same category that I have drawn attention to, I would offer (only) this suggestion to continue the banter at another location. It's merit as a subject of "panty-wetting" discussion has dried up more quickly than those pissy knickers offered to be sucked.

I commend Sky for offering a thoughtful, insightful moderation of the subject -- obviously based on model information and histories that he alone is privy to. Sadly, some have chosen to ignore what has proven the most rational -- unwilling to look beyond the nose(s) of their own face(s).

It takes little time and effort to realize that most here are of above-average intelligence. Reading many of the posted topics and replies affirms that fact -- in short order. However, the "back and forth" displayed on this page has done little to add credibility to same.

An opinion is purely that........And the disagreement of (yours) by someone (elses) need not be met with such acrimony. Feel free to "state your case", but let it end there.

As I will now do............

Can I just come in because I love a punch up?

We humans have been gifted with so many great advantages over the rest of the animal kingdom (which we now mercilessly dominate):why do we have to expend such a huge proportion of our intellectual energy keeping this great gas-ball of hypocrisy in the air?

We are pack animals, and we persist in behaving so even though we no longer need to. Every pack has its inner circle and its outer fringe, and the stations between are interspersed with all sorts of different specialities and skills. Every member has, in their way, a contribution to make. In any other than a human pack fecundity is prized and the gift of physical strength and beauty a high privelege - inner circle, a prime component of natural selection and all that.

Only in the human pack, though, I suppose because we have too much time on our hands destroying other species to feed ourselves, do we have this sort of "fecundity for fun" classification, and I guess we still don't quite know where in the pecking order it belongs.

"Morality" was originally invented to stabilise a societal structure and prevent the spread of disease. The churches elevated it to its present level where it has become an excuse for bigots to consign anything or anyone they see as a threat to themselves to the outer fringes of the pack. The internet is the biggest pack yet.

I see pornography (and I don't necessarily class fetishism as pornography) as an essential function within the pack and a very real means for population balance and control. It enables a fantasy world within which many harmful persons can be harmlessly contained. In a balanced society its proponents would be honoured as well as recompensed, but in our sadly unbalanced manner of thinking the frightened people hold sway - for now.

1. All work is exploitation. The only way to judge the degree to which it is exploited is by the value placed upon it.

2. Pornography is love for the dispossessed, comfort for the depressed,
a haven for those more fortunate than they know. So it can be used cynically - but so can anything. Look at politics! The most cynical pawn star I know goes by the Christian name of Tony.

3. Let's stop giving ourselves airs! We are just animals who got very, very lucky. We should celebrate all aspects of our luck, every day. And perhaps we should try to find ways to be more kind to those we have trampled on our path to supremacy.

love

Osiris

[Anthcrazy]

Been lurking here awhile, and thought I would put in my two cents.

I think it's naive to suppose that women are not treated like objects in the pornography industry - in the sense that they are trading access to their body for money. However, the same goes for men in the industry. I personally think feminism has failed to overcome the ubiquitous nature of our consumer industrial society. Rather, though, I think feminists have succeeded (with the help of consumer society) in achieving equality for the sexes - both men and women are objectified now. This is important to consider morally, because the biggest moral issue I see in the industry is equality of the sexes. Is the comodification of human sexuality alright in a moral sense? YOU decide - but at least society appears to treat both sexes equally as a comodity. :lol:

But everyone is treated as an object - the only difference is the medium. Catwalk models show almost as much flesh as glamour models and sometimes more, spend a few minutes in the dressing rooms at the back and see how objectified they are. Yet they are given a higher social standing because they are not directly perpetrating s-e-x. Film stars do desperation scenes (very well: I just saw one by Cameron Diaz) and take their clothes off, but no-one considers them to be exploited - until you read and fully understand what they did before they were famous. We are terribly hypocritical about this.

We get offended by porn (disregarding the cynical fringe) because of our own inhibitions. We don't like sex to be so "in your face" and we shrink from it. It is our own fear which stimulates the "moral stance".

Face it, we are afraid of the animals we were (and still are). We try to keep s-e-x under wraps because we are reluctant to admit to having animal instincts. The reasons for despising public urination may be just as simple - we try to justify them by citing public health (quite forgetting the cleansing influence of a little rain) but we are really saying: "How can she get away with it when I can't?" We fear the overt, are scared that it may be us squatting down there, and how humiliating would THAT be? Our Victorian christian morals would never let us do THAT! We couldn't even confess it to the priest!

"Father, I pissed myself in the street the other day.."
"Really my child? Well, say seven Hail Marys and er......how do you feel right now?"

I am interested in the psychology which leads to a belief that women are the exploited ones in the sex industry. Has it something to do, I wonder, with their perceived sexual role? After all, most men still do their best to exploit their own women in the home - do they see the act of sex in a photograph as an extension of this?



[/i]

[Anthcrazy]

I am interested in the psychology which leads to a belief that women are the exploited ones in the sex industry. Has it something to do, I wonder, with their perceived sexual role? After all, most men still do their best to exploit their own women in the home - do they see the act of sex in a photograph as an extension of this?
[/i]

THAT is a good question! My wife would say yes, and I would have to agree with her. Gender roles, more than anything else, are responsible for the way we perceive sexuality. I think that female porn stars today are generally perceived as rather slutty. I think that men, on the other hand, are seen as verile studs if they hump for cash. These social attitudes, in my opinion, are informed by the idealized role of men and women in society. A feminist (and myself as well) would say that these gender roles are used to control women socially by constraining their sexuality. Perhaps, my wife conjectures, female pornographers are abhored most because they appear uncontrollable - antisocial. What do you think about that inference? I suppose there is quite a lot of truth in it.

[Val]

There are circles involved. For some, sex is sluttish, particularly in prudish area like the USA that dominates the I/net and porn, so in turn the porn they want is sluttish. I think most young women have liberated themselves from the feminist restatement of sex as something nasty that men force on good little girls but that was probably always the case and they might grow up to be as ashamed of their youth as their mothers. As for domestic domination, who says? Rather, who says that if men would prefer women to do what they want, women don't feel exactly the same? In most situations you can guarantee that anybody will justify their particular predeliction with appeal to Higher Authority, from God to Andrea Dworkin. But in the end, all these 'gods' "are our gods, we aren't their people.

Anthcrazy wrote:
[/quote] Perhaps, my wife conjectures, female pornographers are abhored most because they appear uncontrollable - antisocial.


In other words, feared? Porn is a destabilising influence - but only in the eyes of those who are insecure in their own sexuality. Another apparent imbalance is also interesting (if true). Porn primarily appeals to a sexual vulnerability in the male - in spite of sexual liberation females appear less responsive to it, in the sense that - at least as far as I am aware - few women have been discovered in broom cupboards furtively masturbating over a scantily-clad male model? How come women are reluctant to use porn in the same fashion as men, even when it is geared to their needs?

For men, porn seems to be an enthusiastic hobby, at worst. For women, it represents something entirely more threatening and sinister. And I'm being as specific as possible in the use of those terms. Interesting stuff...

Yuk! That worked!!! What the hell did I do there? Anyway - you get the point.....

[Justme]

Ape, being the voice of morality, in here, registered in a wetting site, is the epitomy of the old cliche--

THE MORAL MAJORITY-- IS NEITHER.

[Crazyhorse]

Bloody hell!!

All this just because someone thinks that Sky's models are exploited?

I must admit that at times during webcams, I do sometimes wonder if any of the women in front of the camera are wondering about the fact that 'here they are, pissing themselves for money'. I dont watch live webcams much, often because I am working, but also because I do find something slightly uncomfortable about a woman at one end of the link and a hoard of (mostly) men in various places at the other end, doing whatever they are doing.

Maybe I am just frightened by my own feelings which become stirred up by watching. This has always been a big question for me - where does the fun/entertainment stop and temptation just take over.

I dont want to insult anyone, but I can see (a bit) where Ape is coming from regarding hostages. The models choose to come, and dont have to if they dont want to - I accept all that, but for 3 hours they cant help but feel a little trapped, if only emotionally. Their every move is being filmed and monitored by others, and they must feel obliged to drink more than they would naturally do for fear of not satisfying the customers.

Maybe some are complete exhibitionists and are loving every minute of what they do, which they see as live flirting with those at the other end of the computer link, but I cant help thinking that in many cases for the viewers, the temptation element is over-riding the entertainment one.

As for eggs, well yes the hen is being exploited in a sense as continuous egg laying is not her natural state, but then humans exploit many species on the planet for food. As long as you purchase free-range organic eggs, and not those obnoxious battery varieties, then I dont think you should be too hard on yourselves.


And I'm afraid the notion, that humans are the dominant species on the planet, is way off line. I think you will find that the species that is far more dominant than humans, always has been and always will be, is bacteria.

[anony-mouse]

Who wants Ice Cream?

[Ape]

Ape, being the voice of morality, in here, registered in a wetting site, is the epitomy of the old cliche--

THE MORAL MAJORITY-- IS NEITHER.

Christ almighty! Just because I think the women are being exploited does not make me moral (read my earlier responses and I make clear I am not ascribing myself any kind of moral high ground, I am fully aware what I do!) nor do I give a toss about being in a majority (I doubt I am).

As for someone asking why women are the ones being exploited - it's simple. Who has the power, the money etc... men usually in the porn world. Ergo, women are being exploited. Sky makes more money than the women do - they perform so he can make a profit. That is exploitation, whether he or anyone else wants to accept it.

I just think it's funny (but not at all surprising) how so many people here like to kid themselves about what this place is about.

Dream on...

[Justme]

It's not exploitation. It's business. However, they have something we want, and it's up to them whether or not they give it to us, which EMPOWERS them, not exploit them. Just as it empowers any other worker. Just because they (as well as those who patronise them) enjoy their work, doesn't make it exploitation. Does that then mean if I give someone a job helping me set tile, that I'm exploiting the fact that I've put the sweat into my business and therefore I should be making money off of his labor?? Everyone can have their own opinion, but if you're going to take a stand, accept the label that comes with it.

[Ape]

You chose that label, not I. Just because you choose to call something does not make it so (surely the point many are trying to make with me here!). However, your argument falls down as it assumes choice in a situation where there may not be choice (or choices may be limited).

[leahfl1976]

So Ape, what you are saying is that you want Sky to be a bum on the street because he is 'exploiting' women for money. Am I wrong? Not the way I am seeing it. He is only making a living out of something you wank off to.

What do advertisements do? Do you consider the commercials/billboards/whatever else they have for advertisements with hot girls in them exploiting so the business itself can make a profit? Probably not. What is the difference between the porn website and the non-porn commercials and such? There is no difference from the way you are coming off.

So you should be appreciating what Sky is doing for you, not cutting it down to size.

Leah


anony-mouse Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:15 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who wants Ice Cream?


Now I bet we are going to have a whole discussion on Ice Cream now like there was on eggs.

[Ape]

So Ape, what you are saying is that you want Sky to be a bum on the street because he is 'exploiting' women for money. Am I wrong?

Completely wrong, as it happens. I have NEVER said Sky should not be doing what he is doing. I am simply pointing out that what he is doing is exploitation (if you read back over the thread, I also point out that I wank off to it, which is why I have not taken any moral high ground, despite concerted efforts by many posters including yourself to push me there.) Personally, I don't care about Sky, other than the fact that I don't hold his work in high regard because of the crap artistry (see previous threads), which is why I no longer pay to be a member. Clear?

(Now, how many replies before yet another person tries to ascribe me a moral high ground position....?)

[Justme]

You chose that label, not I. Just because you choose to call something does not make it so (surely the point many are trying to make with me here!). However, your argument falls down as it assumes choice in a situation where there may not be choice (or choices may be limited).

Of course, the exact reverse could also be said-- you're assuming NO choice, where there is plenty of choice, and the girls have the option to work as they like, not to mention the ability to negotiate their own price, due to their ability to diversify their talents. Candice Paris is a perfet example.