About Those Girls Arrested For Crush Videos

Stephanie Hird
Stephanie Hird

sara-zamoraThere was a story last week that caught my attention, I didn’t write about it because i wanted to think about it for a while, let the emotional aspect of it clear out.

The story is about Stephanie Hird and Sara Zamora. Both were arrested in association with “crush” videos and charged with five and nine counts, respectively, of felony cruelty to animals. The animals involved included fish, rabbits, chickens and pigs.

Hird and Zamora are hired performers on some of the counts and apparently the content producers on others.

The adult press was awash in how “alarming” it was, what surprised me is why they thought it was alarming.

In my lifetime I have killed Many fish, also deer, pigs, feral hogs, chickens, ducks, geese, rabbits, quail, dove, dogs, cats, and various other animals. I have been an avid outdoorsman, hunter and fisherman my entire life. When i was in second grade I took a .22 rifle to school everyday and when school let out I walked home through the woods. If I killed some squirrels or rabbits thats what we would have for dinner. I never killed anything we didn’t eat, or in the case of the dog and cat wasnt a mercy kill.

I had a bird dog named Jewel and when I was fifteen I came out to find her hit by a car, no way she was going to survive and it broke my heart to see her eyes begging me to make it better, it broke my heart to put a bullet in her head but it was the humane thing to do.

One of my girlfriends had a cat with feline Leukemia, I liked the cat, it was laid back and it liked me. She called one day in tears because she was going to have to take it to be euthanized, it had seen its last day. She asked me to go with her. When I got there the cat was indeed in bad shape…couldnt move off its blanket and the vet had told her to bring it in. The cat HATED the vet, it always scared the thing to death and it seemed wrong to me for it to be that afraid during its last hour(s) so I put it in its basket with its blanket i opened a can of tuna for it….it couldnt eat but it was licking the juice and I shot it, ending its life both quickly and hopefully peacefully, much moreso than waiting to die in a metal box pumped full of gas at the vet (or however they do it)

Now you are prolly thinking OK so….. well the point is that animals are property. You may not like that concept but its the way the law here views it and it is the way it should view it. if you think I am wrong about that try to sue the person who killed your dog for anything other than what you paid for the dog. You cant sue for emotional anything or punitive damages or pain and suffering of you or the dog.

With that property comes property rights. Do you not have the right to do as you want with your property so long as it doesnt endanger anyone else or their property? Should I have been charged for killing my dog or Taylors cat?

What if Hird and Zamora had eaten the chicken or the fish? How do you know they didn’t? While everyone in porn is up in arms about requirements to make performers use condoms claiming first amendment rights do Zamora and Hird have a first amendment right to this “artistic” expression? Popular speech doesn’t need to be defended, the only speech worth defending is unpopular speech and as abhorrent as I find this I find the government abridging these free speech and property rights to be way more abhorrent and way more dangerous.

103350cookie-checkAbout Those Girls Arrested For Crush Videos

About Those Girls Arrested For Crush Videos

Share This

111 Responses

  1. Interesting commentary. I feel that crushing an animal is much more cruel than a gunshot to the head but I am not sure what to think here. On one hand you do have the cruelty to animals issue with a crushing death but as you say they are property and people should have the right to use their property as they wish as long as it isn’t completely outlandish (I would never support the production of a video where a human performer is actually suffocated to death for this reason — I know humans aren’t property but it is the closest example I can come up with right now). The outlandish question is in play here but I need to think this one over.

    For the record at the vet’s office today a terminal dog or cat would be injected with a barbiturate in a dose strong enough to end its life and is painless. Gassing animals went by the wayside years ago. I had to have my old Wolf/German Shepherd mix put to sleep (couldn’t walk due to paralysis of the back half of her body and she could not expel feces also due to the paralysis) about eight years ago and the above was the method used. She is now at a pet cemetery with a headstone over her grave.

  2. I actually read up on this issue over the weekend. It’s definitely controversial… Even got into a pissing match with some stupid fucking cunt on Twitter who obviously can’t read English correctly.

    The fact is this shouldn’t even be a fucking debate. If beastiality is illegal, then the killing of animals during sex acts should also remain illegal.

    It’s completely ridiculous to argue that having sex with an animal is crossing the line while killing that same animal is somehow ok because it’s your property. If it’s truly your property to film being killed then you should also be allowed to film yourself having sex with that same animal.

    It’s a stupid, illogical, ridiculous double standard that makes no fucking sense whatsoever…

    I would agree that both beastiality and the killing of animals for sexual gratification should remain 100% illegal, but the argument that sex with an animal is considered obscene yet the filming of killing that same animal should be viewed as acceptable is completely fucking stupid.

    Now, the killing of animals *in general* is an entirely different debate.

    But, that’s what always happens in the porn industry… the sex/porn vs. logical/rational debates almost always overlap each other because in today’s world any single act on earth surrounding the act of sex should be respected and applauded as “empowering” and “liberating.” The fact is debates surrounding “porn” and debates surrounding “general society” very rarely universally apply to both segments. What’s ok in the world of fetishes is not necessarily ok when placed into general society. Currently, we have all of these issues on the table at the same time when they aren’t necessarily even related to each other. Currently:

    Kill an animal for food = Ok.
    Kill an animal to end suffering = Ok.
    Kill an animal for fun/sportsmanship = Ok, but controversial.
    Kill an animal for sexual gratification = Not Ok.
    Have sex with an animal for sexual gratification = Not Ok.

    (IMHO, The filming of any one of these acts should correlate to the acceptability and legality of the act. Although, I’ve always been a proponent of the notion that filming something illegal should make both the film crew and performers guilty.)

    There is absolutely no way to intersect and therefore debate these theories together. It must be completely separate debates or it will NEVER make sense.

    Let’s be honest, in the grand scheme of things there really isn’t much correlation between killing an animal to eat in order to survive and the killing of an animal to get your dick hard.
    It’s 2 totally separate issues.

    Animals will be killed until the end of time. In the most basic argument, they are a huge factor in maintaining the human species. If someone is hungry enough they’ll eat anything possible, including another human, if it will sustain life.

    I don’t want to see animals suffer or die, but I don’t want to suffer or die either. It’s extremely selfish. But, it really just comes down to basic survival skills and those skills don’t require getting your dick hard.

  3. Mike this is the most ridiculous blog you have ever written. Animal cruelty is ok in your book? The difference in putting an animal to sleep HUMANELY or killing an animal for food HUMANELY, and killing an animal causing pain and suffering for kicks, sex, or money is tantamount. So it’s ok to abuse an animal as long as you own said animal? It’s against the law. Unfortunately this law is not enforced enough, or harshly enough, but it is still against the law, at least in FL it is. I know that the shelter I volunteer at, routinely gets citations issued to abusers by working with the sheriff’s dept. I’m so very disappointed in you.

  4. But it is perfectly ok to shove two cocks up a girls ass until she is ripped apart and bleeding, and then shoot blood borne pathogens stright up that bleeding ass. Then drop her off at the urgent care and say you have to pay the medical bills yourself because you consented to the act. Abuse comes in all shapes and sizes. Funny how the porn industry has no problem abusing humans,but hurt a furry little gerbil and all hell breaks loose. ONLY IN PORN

  5. From what I gather from the post Mike finds this practice as abhorrent as you do. His point is that pets are considered property in most areas of the US and his concern is property rights (as well as freedom of speech). I tend to think that this severe of cruelty to animals should be illegal but Mike makes some good points here regarding personal rights and the slippery slope theory (although he doesn’t say it in that terminology). For the record I think that the issue of forced condom usage in porn is much more of a violation of free speech (as the harm level is much lower) than a law not allowing cruelty to animals (to the degree of crushing them to death, anyway) is but I get his point. This is a hard one for me but the above is how I tend to see it.

  6. Of course animal cruelty isnt acceptable but you best be very careful when you allow the government to dictate what you can and cannot do with your property divorce yourself from the emotional aspect of some animal with big eyes and long eyelashes….kinda like you do when you eat a burger or a steak or a chick fil a. does a dog have rights? a cat? ok what about a mouse? a rat? a fly? a cockroach…where do you draw the line….This isnt a simple question legally speaking nor should it be….

    And for the record I do believe that animal cruelty laws are good in general and should be enforced BUT and thats the catch here at what point does the division occur?

    The other question is is that artistic freedom of speech absolute or does it too have limits and where are those limits?

  7. Jilted, there is one thing different here — humans are consenting to the “abuse”, animals are defenseless and unable to consent.

    For the record I already said that a few months ago that if penile, mouth, vaginal or anal bleeding takes place in the middle of a scene than either condoms should be used properly (with change of condom and lube every 5-10 minutes of sex) for the rest of the scene or preferably the scene cancelled/postponed. I would probably do the latter as I don’t trust condoms for the heavy-duty sex common in porn nowadays to actually protect anyone due to breakage concerns and “rugburn” from lack of lubrication.

  8. Porn girl shows up on set thinking its a regualr scene. Producer tells her its a double anal scene, and if you dont do it we will charge you a kill fee. Porn girl is already in debt and desperate for money so she does the scene anyway,,,,,,that called coercion, and exploitation, and the ‘consent’ is given under duress. That girls name is Lara Roxx and she walked away from that scene wit HIV,,,and the industry threw her to the curb because she Consented to do it.

    Taking desperate people, and manipulatin them to do things because you know they are desperate for money is a very thin excuse for consent.

    @Mharris,,,on another site you made the claim that Michael Weinstien is upset with the porn industry because he has to spend money to provide medical treatment for HIV infected porn stars. ARE YOU KIDDING? AHF MAKES money from treating people,. They get PAID to treat people, They have contracts with government funded health programs and they get PAID to provide that treatment. And in your comment you noted the two or three porn performers they provide treatment for,,,again, are you kidding,,,its a little more than 2 or 3,,,as I suspect you well know but when you preach to the choir it sound good.

  9. @Mike,
    That rat, mouse and cockroach have more legal protection when being used in a mainstream film that porn actors do. We have all seen the movie disclaimer that says, “No animal was hurt during the production,,,,,,” Too bad porn cant say the same.

    I bought this subject up once before several years ago and of course it got turned into,,”He’s comparing us to cockroaches.” When in reality it is the porn industry, producersof porn, who treat you with less respect than a cockroach being used in a mainstream film. Its just a simple fact, there are more laws on the books regarding the safety for insects being used in a mainstream film than there are for the safety of porn actors.

  10. I can honestly say I’ve never looked at it in that context, but the truth is you are absolutely 100% correct. Almost all animals on movie sets are treated like royalty. Sometimes better than even the performers.

    That’s fucked up beyond comprehension. Holy shit.

    You’ve got the dog being fed steak and then you’ve got this chick over here getting electrocuted and having her head shoved into a toilet… this is such a strange world we live in…

    I’m somewhat speechless. I don’t even know what to say.. that’s fucking insane if you really think about it…

  11. AHF gets paid some for treating people but since most of his patients are likely on Medicaid the cost isn’t anywhere near fully covered (research Medicaid reimbursement rates for yourself sometime). For each HIV positive Medicaid patient he takes as a patient it costs him big bucks on top of the Medicaid reimbursement to actually medicate and treat his patients. The fundraising that covers this expense, is the same whether he takes in 1000 or 5000 patients. Weinfuck makes more money if he has fewer costly patients, the AHF is his creation and he created it to make money in the guise of charity. Worse yet, his non-Medicaid patients are likely on a sliding fee scale based on their income (this is where the former porn performers come in, most have too much income at least in the short term to be covered by Medicaid but not nearly enough to cover the cost of their care) that covers even less of the expense than a Medicaid payment would. This is why Weinfuck is pissed at the adult industry, he is too afraid adult industry patients are going to cost him a few hundred thousand more dollars each year that he can’t put in his pocket. If my estimate is wrong and he took in more than two or three patients from adult it costs him more money making him even more pissed off (I am not privy to his figures, I estimated about half or a bit less of the patients supposedly created by adult film since 2004 actually went to AHF and received treatment assistance from them, some probably receive treatment at another facility such as a Federally Qualified Health Center that isn’t connected to Weinfuck and some are likely to be able to afford or have private insurance to pay for treatment at a regular HIV specialist’s office). AHF does not make money from treatment of patients, they use those patients to fundraise and make the money to treat them and put hundreds of thousands of dollars in Weinfuck’s pocket. As a likely Medicaid provider through your lab testing company you should already have known this.

  12. Lacey, I understand your opinion about animals on a mainstream movie set being treated better than Bobbi Starr in her pornos. However, Bobbi is human and can make that decision for herself. Bobbi Starr claims she gets off on having her head dunked in a dirty toilet by Rocco Reed. I don’t get it either (toilet dunking doesn’t turn me on) but she has the right to get off on it if she feels the need IMO. If she makes money off of her good time it is just a bonus to her.

  13. I don’t agree with the practice of a kill fee for porn performers. I get the problem of a small subset of performers accepting a job and then not showing up but the practice of agents or production companies charging a kill fee in all but the most asinine cases of repeat absence from a job is embarrassing to me and asinine in its own right.

    Also, if Weinfuck would stay out of politics I would probably donate to them myself. I just don’t want my money fucking with people’s lives and finances.

  14. This is one of the funniest, and least accurate posts ever made on Mike Souths site.
    This is what I mean by an industry apoplogist.

    Harris, where do you get this stuff from? A sliding scale? LO effing L.
    Your,’not privy to the figures’ estimates are about as funny as a recent Saturday Night Live episode.

    Old saying,,,,When you dont know what youre talking about its better to keep quiet and let everyone think youre a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt of your foolishness.

  15. Wait now you are all anti-Government again? You are flipping and flopping more than the fish you catch. You’re like the “Get your Government hands of my Medicaid” people. “I want a mandate”, “Mandate is best”….. “should we really let government protect animals”. Yeah, have them step in for consenting humans, but if they step in for animals it’s overreach. That pesky big government. A less principled Libertarian has rarely been heard from, congrats.

  16. I understand where you are going with this Mike, but it really isn’t open to question or debate. It is a no-brainer.

    If my dog or cat gets sick it is against the law for me to put it down on my own. I just can’t pop it in the head. If you live in the country people may not report you for it, but it isn’t legal. It was in the past, but not now. It is also against the law for me to bury it on my property. I have to dispose of it properly which means paying someone to incinerate it. There are laws on the books for that in my area and all over the country. Most people don’t know about them though.

    Crushing an animal that you purchased for a film should be illegal. Otherwise what would stop me from going to the pet store daily, purchasing a guinea pig, and hammering a railroad spike through its head just for kicks? (Or “art” if I get busted for it) You can’t kill property for art. That would be considered wasteful and abusive to the animal. That goes back to killing your property because it is sick. I could be killing 30 dogs a day then because they are sick. The days of Old Yeller are long gone.

    You need a license to fish and hunt. That makes it easier to bust you for just pulling a fish out the water, smacking its head on the side of the boat, and dropping it back in with no intention of eating it. That’s animal cruelty. There are even seasons set aside to do this. There isn’t a season to step on a fish.

    Now, if a woman has her naughty bits covered as required by the health department and was looking sexy crushing crabs intended to be used for human consumption at Harry’s Crab Shack then one may be able to make a video of it and sell it. However, the health department wouldn’t let one use their feet to do it and a lot of customers would think Harry is a creep and would refrain from going to his establishment.

  17. What a article. I can understand killing a cat or dog or any other animal because its suffering, but for fun or video shooting animal snuff films. Wrong.

  18. Dont presume im going anywhere with this Im really not. For me it raised interesting questions and indeed I flip flop on this because i am uncomfortable with BOTH sides of it, which made it interesting for me and hopefully for yall as well.

  19. @mikesouth

    Uncomfortable with both sides? I’m confused.

    Killing an animal aside from eating it is wrong unless it is a “poisonous” animal or being like a rat or a roach. Health concerns arise. Like a rabid dog. It is OK to shoot those morally. Legally? Depends on where you live and gun laws.

    If you’re killing animals for financial gain then that is wrong unless the state has approved you of being able to do so. I’m not an animal activist or anything like that because I love to eat meat and I hate pests in my yard. I understand killing animals in certain circumstances as does the law.

    People aren’t killing deer in my area. As a result I have at least 9 domesticated deer walk through my yard each night and eat plants. I can walk up to them. They won’t run. I could even jam the claw-end of a hammer into their skull if I chose to. I understand the reasons why doing so would be illegal and I don’t feel uncomfortable with that.

    Owning it would not make it better.

    These are people who got busted for using a fetish as an excuse to kill an animal and then make money. Basically, some women killed animals to help some people jerk off.

    Why would you be uncomfortable with the opposing side to that? They’re right.

    Shooting your dog to put it out of misery is one thing. While it is illegal and burying it on your property would be illegal I would not knock you at all for doing so. I may do the same. I can very easily let that slide. That’s understandable.

    Having a sexy nude woman shoot a dog on video so it could be sold to gratify others is wrong. It doesn’t matter how you kill it or why. I’m comfortable with knowing that is wrong.

  20. heres my thoughts….Im with you i wouldnt kill the deer either i no longer deer hunt, havent in many years…Im not that fond of venison…so no point….but it isnt my ideology of conservationism that concerns me…its others…people who hunt strictly for sport or for trophies, and people who do it for sexual gratification. Its legal but Im not comfy with it. but at the same time Im not comfy with making it illegal either.

    I dont like giving the government more power because they always end up abusing it….though others try to characterize me differently I am NOT for a condom mandate through legislation…I think we should have an industry mandate to use condoms untill we come up with a viable solution to the rampant STD problem.

    I also get that self regulation rarely works….though ideally I would like for it to.

    There is no easy answer here, if the government has the right to dictate what I may and may not do with my property, on my property where do we draw the line? Will I have to go to the government to get a license to own a cat? at first glance that may seem to be a good idea but is it really?

    and if they can dictate what i may do with one thing I own what about my tomato plants, can they now dictate how I may harvest my tomatoes? While that may sound absurd 100 years ago this argument would have sounded equally absurd. AND the legal principle is the same.

    This isnt a new argument either, it even popped up with Michael Vick. Is adella right in that animals shouldnt ever be property? if thats the case and I am raising cattle whats to stop you from taking the cattle…if they arent my property I have no legal redress.

    Its a complex issue that shouldnt be decided on emotion but on logic and reason.

  21. “I dont like giving the government more power because they always end up abusing it….though others try to characterize me differently I am NOT for a condom mandate through legislation”

    Oh, please. I’m not sure you said directly “I want a legislated mandate”, but you know full well the direction you have been pushing. I’ve seen you say porn can’t figure it out so we need people stepping in. You’ve been slurping the local politicians pushing condom laws. It looks disingenuous to now walk it back. You literally copy and pasted Isadore Hall stuff with no editorial commentary, but if the other side has statements propaganda/head in sand. Your stance or at least your lean was very clear. The Huge difference here of course is consent and consequence. Humans can consent, animals can’t. Also, one scenario ends in an animal brutally being killed the other in potential STD’s. The difference is quite a lot. Also, the idea that limiting the most extreme things like killing/hurting your living property is some sort of over reach is silly.

  22. If you read back through all of my personal opinion postings you will see that I have been consistent in this ideology. From my POV its the only way the biz could have avoided the condom law.

  23. @Mikesouth

    You don’t want government telling people they can’t kill animals for sexual gratification?

    What if I pick up roadkill and screw it on film? I didn’t kill anything. That shouldn’t be illegal?

    That’s kinda what you are saying.

    Government is a bitch, but making it against the law to kill animals for financial gain isn’t a bad thing. There are sick people out there. As a result some laws have to be made.

    If the end result means scantily-clad women with sexy high-heeled shoes can’t crush animals then I am fine with that.

    Tomatoes aren’t living mammals, reptiles, crustaceans, or anything aside from food. It really isn’t a complex issue. You can’t kill animals for porn films let alone mainstream Hollywood films.

    Why is this concept being questioned? Using an example of fetish films isn’t exactly helping.

    I see what you mean, but sex is kinda involved in this along with killing animals. It isn’t needed.

    It is not a bad law.

  24. Jilted, look up Federally Qualified Health Center sometime. I go to one and they actually have a sliding scale on their office charges, lab charges, medicines, etc. based on income if you do not have insurance. Obviously I have insurance and the income to pay my share (it has already been revealed here that I am of Medicare age) but please do not call someone a liar unless you can prove it. My now former doctor (he moved away from my area) has said many times that even in Michigan Medicaid does not cover the full cost of medical care. Since he was in a poor area of the county the Federally Qualified Medical Center program covered some of the extra costs (but not all) for Medicaid patients and those paying on the sliding scale program. Please research Medicaid reimbursement rates and the Federally Qualified Medical Center program for yourself and you will see I am not lying or delusional in my post. A Google search is your friend here. I think your post deserves the LO fucking L remark, not mine. Also tell Izzy Hell and Michael Weinfuck to go fuck themselves.

    Here are some links:

    Federally Qualified Health Center: http://www.hrsa.gov/healthit/toolbox/RuralHealthITtoolbox/Introduction/qualified.html

    Medicaid Reimbursement (North Carolina):http://www.ncdhhs.gov/dma/bulletin/1009bulletin.htm#rate (note that an office call for HIV management is only reimbursed about $13).

  25. I guess there is space for interpretation, but to me it seems very clear you have been cheerleading or at the least very welcoming of a legislated condom mandate.

  26. You gotta admit it would be crazy if you filmed a bunch of dogs in the same room and had someone taze them, piss on them, shove their face in their own vomit, have them eat their own shit, shoot cum loads into their eyes, shove baseball buts up their asses, spit on them, punch them in the face, throw them around the floor by the tail, choke them, etc. and then have to hear how utterly inhumane that treatment is………..

    EXCEPT when it comes to filming humans having sex…. *facepalm*

  27. I don’t get how the concept of consent is hard to understand at all. A dog can’t say “stop”, a animal can’t sign a contract to allow filming. This is utterly stupid comparison. Also, have you not argued for mandated condoms? But now protecting animals seems weird? Trying to have that both ways is beyond hypocritical. Where is the argument that the porn you are describing is morally great or lovely? Who’s making that argument? This is about legal protection, the animal has no say. NONE. The human doing the degrading porn gets a say. The person doing the degrading scene doesn’t deserve some pedestal, but to argue that b/c they are allowed to do it = we should be able to to do it to animals is insane. It seems your whole point is degrading porn is degrading. Good find Sherlock. The adding this point in comparison with animal abuse is ludicrous. Who is saying it isn’t “crazy” or whacky when humans film the scenes you describe? Either you are trying to break your back to make Mike’s point look halfway sane or you are halfway sane. The ability to weigh consequences and consent matters completely. There is literally thousands of examples of legal human behavior that forced upon an animal would be morally incomprehensible if not illegal.


  28. I guess in conclusion, what exactly was your point? It seemed you were saying that if humans can do very questionable why can’t we do them to animals? I don’t see where else you were going given the context of the the post.

  29. Lacey, I’m quite positive that there have been plenty of times when a porn performer didn’t want to shoot a scene, and was pressured into it. After all, people get pressured into doing work they don’t want to do ALL THE TIME, and in virtually every line of work. And it always sucks when that happens– and indeed it might be especially pernicious when it happens in porn. But to be sure, if you can prove you were really coerced into doing something you didn’t want to do, then you very often are in a position to press a civil lawsuit or even file criminal charges. There are lots of labor laws in place to protect workers from “bait and switch” practices, even if it is the case that porn performers don’t often take advantage of them. And if a director or producer or actor does something to an actress that she did NOT agree to, then she can definitely file assault charges.

    But the point is that we have to treat people AS THOUGH they were rational adults–capable of making rational decisions on their own. Even if that’s not the case! If we don’t, if we say to a performer, “Well you did this porn scene that I personally find gross, so clearly either you were forced into it, or else you just are too stupid to make reasonable decisions for yourself,” then we are treating the performers as though they are not even human beings, or at least as though they are not rational adults. And that is a WAY worse thing to do to them than shooting a scene that they knowingly agreed to where someone ejaculates on their face.

    A seemingly dehumanizing sex scene, where all the performers willingly and freely agreed to it and no one was in any way coerced to do it, is much LESS dehumanizing than someone coming along and saying to them, “Well clearly you need me to make decisions for you, since you decided to do this thing that I personally find obscene, and since that must mean you are not able to think rationally for yourself,” etc.

    In other words, Lacey, some people really DO like getting things shoved up their ass on camera. They really really like it–and it is completely irrelevant whether or not you personally can imagine why or how. That you don’t understand their thought process doesn’t entitle you to think FOR them, or to tell them they can’t do it, or otherwise to treat them as though they were not capable of making rational decisions.

    And that is the difference between a human and an animal doing a sex scene: A human performer can make a rational decision to do something seemingly humiliating on camera in exchange for money or fame, or even just because he/she really just enjoys it. An animal, not having human language or reason or any conception of humiliation or cameras or human sexuality or porn, etc–cannot agree to it.

    We must ALWAYS assume a performer in a porn scene made a rational decision to do it (unless the performer claims s/he was coerced). We can NEVER assume an animal in a porn scene made a rational decision to do it.

    If you fail to make those assumptions, then you are treating the human performer as if s/he were not fully human, and you are treating the animal as if it were.

  30. @Erik –
    My point was your exact reaction… Good job. Don’t act all offended by me pointing out the fact that animals wouldn’t “consent” to being abused… and we all know they wouldn’t… that’s just basic common sense. But, we are expected to applaud humans for the same shit? If they’re willing to do it for some cash or for fun then go for it. No one is stopping them. There’s no regulations and basically no rules… have fun. But, don’t get all fucking offended if someone thinks you’re insane.

    The guys on Jackass consent to physical abuse for the humor and entertainment of the audience… doesn’t mean I should be labeled anti-consent or judgmental for thinking it’s fucking stupid. I’m not trying to stop them or censor them.

    Some porn performers find getting punched in the face empowering. I find it rather stupid and completely hilarious. There’s no winner or loser here.

    If they’re willing to consent to it being filmed then my reaction should be respected as much as their opinion on how they feel performing it….

    The guys on Jackass aren’t running around trying to convince the world that their scenes are somehow advancing the human race and saving people.

    Both opinions hold equal value. I’m sick and fucking tired of being lectured on how I’m supposed to view any and all types of pornography in some kind of metaphorically “correct” way. It’s fucking ridiculous and hypocritically judgmental.

    And, technically, animals do have a form of consent. It’s called animal instinct. Humans have the same instincts. We’re all animals.
    Go punch a dog in the face with no leash on or restraints and he’ll bite your fucking arm off… animals aren’t stupid. They have an unbelievable ability to protect themselves in the wild. Humans are bigger. It’s an unequal fight. If 2 stray dogs are fighting to the death on the side of the road then which one is the abuser? Get it?

    As society evolves people are finding more extreme ways to “get off.” Many have become almost desensitized to any act revolving sex at this point… Shit, I’m probably one of them.

    It doesn’t make it wrong. It doesn’t make it right. It is what it is… and half of it is fucking ridiculously stupid and the best at providing humor… so what? It’s all subjective.

    At this point, animals would rip your face off for abusing them and humans have an orgasm and then jerk off to it… You have to admit it’s a little on the strange side.

  31. Why must we ALWAYS assume a performer made a rational decision? Can a person under the influence of drugs and or alchohol make a rational decision? Is a girl with an abusive pimp boyfriend making a rational decision? Is a girl desperate for money to feed her children making a rational decision?
    As the person who personally handled tens of thousands of performer laboratory specimens, I can state unequivocaly that the rate of illicit drugs, and alchohol(not an illicit drug) is sky high in the porn industry. (when you submit a sample to the laboratory that lab has the right to use those specimens for quality control testing. When ever we needed drug or alcholol specimens for QC purposes we went directly to the AIM specimens.).

  32. @Alex Bettinger –
    I 100% understand and even agree with you!!
    My issue begins at the point where the public is somehow required to have this “accepting” reaction to it…. just because they’re willing and can consent to do it doesn’t mean someone’s personal reaction to it should be down played or judged. It’s ridiculous.

    I routinely laugh at degrading porn and that seems to offend people… I’m not exactly sure why? It’s entertainment. There is no right or wrong reaction.
    The performer feels empowered. Half the public is questioning their consent along with the performers mental status and I’m over here just cracking up laughing at the whole thing… so what.

    Then the question becomes who’s reaction is “right?” It’s an impossible question to answer, but the public is supposed to silence their opinions or be automatically labeled anti-porn, anti-consent, judgmental, etc. etc. etc.

    My personal opinion is THAT is the main issue not whether someone consents to it or not. Although, I also think most of the public questions consent because in their own mind the idea of getting abused during sex is such a foreign concept that they aren’t psychologically capable of actually understanding it… it goes against almost every basic human instinct known to man. You can’t just call people stupid for not understanding something they are *literally* incapable of understanding. And, if they are unwilling to try BDSM/degrading/abusive sex then they’re never going to actually “get it.” No amount of screaming “empowering liberation” is going to change that… meh.

  33. Isnt free speech great. The right to criticize, the right to remail silent, the right to disagree, the right to call people on their bullshit, the right to agree. And then you have those people who think their opinion is superior because they participate in what ever it is being discussed, ie, “I know more about porn because I am a porn actor” or “I know more about raising children simply because I have children.” These types of arguments are made to belittle others opinions because you dont like them. Funny how many porn stars use this argument when talking about porn,,,but when talking about things like MEDICAL issues they are also experts, even thought they dont work in the medical field. I guess cathing multiple stds makes someone an expert on these issues. Or NEVER cathing an std makes them experts too.

  34. jilted–I think someone who is actually under the influence of drugs or alcohol often is NOT capable of making good rational decisions.

    And to be sure–in contract law, if you can show that you were under the influence of drugs or alcohol when you signed a contract–especially if the other party knew it–the contract can often be nullified, etc.

    Being under the influence of drugs or alcohol does indeed directly impair one’s cognitive abilities, and I would be all for a general rule or even a law that says that if you shoot a porn scene with someone who is plainly under the influence, then you can be held criminally liable–for exactly the same reasons that if a frat boy fucks a girl who is blitzed out drunk, he can be found guilty of sexual assault, etc.

    But the point of the assumption I laid out is this: If you assume that all porn performers are NOT making rational decisions, just because what they do seems gross to you, then you are treating them like children. Like lesser beings who need your help in order to think, in order to make rational decisions, etc. And THAT is grossly dehumanizing.

    So yes, drugs and alcohol MAY complicate the issue (in situations where performers are under the influence while performing). But they don’t in any way refute the ASSUMPTION that, barring some obvious chemical impairment or overt coercion, we must treat people as though they were rational. Because if we don’t, then we are treating them as if they are not even human beings.

    If a pimp coerces someone into doing something she didn’t want to do, then by all means he can be found guilty of all sorts of crimes. Doesn’t matter if it’s a boyfriend, either. If a girl is just pressured into doing things by a boyfriend, then that is surely unfortunate–but ultimately if you don’t assume the girl is making rational decisions to comply with the boyfriend’s wishes (until genuine coercion is shown), then once again it is YOU who are treating her as if she were a helpless child and not an autonomous adult. Until you have evidence that she is truly being coerced, you should assume she is not, otherwise you are visiting upon her the very harm you were trying to save her from.

    But just because someone uses drugs in general, or uses alcohol, cannot possibly mean that they lose their ability to think rationally for themselves. If that were the case, then millions of alcohol and drug using lawyers and doctors and stock brokers and professionals of every stripe would be incapable of thinking rationally, and every single one of their judgments must now be held in suspicion.

    Surely you don’t believe that? Surely you don’t believe that, if a person uses drugs, then he/she is no longer capable of making rational decisions?

    So again, the idea is that we must ASSUME the performer is rational, until we have real evidence that something truly made that impossible–chemicals, threat of force, blackmail, etc.

    Your example of a girl desperate for money to feed her children is hollow. People take jobs they HATE all the time because they HAVE TO in order to make money. That they find themselves in dire straits in no way means they become incapable of making rational decisions. In fact, if you are desperate for money, then it might be truly RATIONAL to take a job in porn, since it takes up very little time and pays much better than most unskilled jobs.

    A worker who is desperate for money might also take a job on an assembly line–a stultifying, dehumanizing, mindless horrible job. That doesn’t mean the worker was not making a rational decision in taking the job. It simply means that the jobs that are available to him are not very good.

    But if THAT is something you want to eliminate from society–if what you want to get rid of is the very structural situation whereby some people are desperate for money and so have to do work that they despise–then I applaud you. But of course you need to recognize that in order to accomplish that, you would need a massive revolution and a complete transformation of our entire social form, our mode or production, our class relations, and so forth.

    But that has nothing to do with whether or not porn performers, or a worker taking a horrible assembly line job, are autonomous and rational decisionmakers.

  35. Lacey–if your point was simply to express disapproval of dehumanizing porn, then I misunderstood. Of course you have a right to express that opinion, just as people who don’t like your view have a right to disagree with you or try to show you why your opinions are bad or short sighted or whatever.

    What I THOUGHT you were implying was that, if it’s illegal to do something to an animal, then surely it should be illegal for people to do it to each other. And if THAT was what you were saying, then I think there are very good arguments that show that position to be genuinely mistaken–as in, simply incorrect and having no basis in law or philosophy or science or morality, etc.

    But if you are just expressing disapproval of porn scenes where, say, a baseball bat is inserted in someone’s ass–I’ve never seen one, but I’m sure they exist–then by all means you have every right. And people have every right to defend those practices too.

  36. @Alex,
    I see your points, but those other jobs do not require you to expose yourself to disease without any remedy. If the assembly line worker gets his hand crushed on the assembly line, the employer pays for it. In porn, the injured person is told, “Too bad, so sad, take care of it yourself.’

    And if you think an assembly line job is stultifying(?) dehumanizing, mindless, and a horrible job, then what adjectives would you use to describe working for Kink, Facial Abuse, or any porn company? Empowering???? LOL. you used foue adjectives to describe an assembly line job, lets see four adjectives to describe a job ak Kink, or Facial Abuse.

  37. @Alex,
    But you do have to draw the line somewhere. Certainly a person cannot consent to being murdered in a movie, murder is illegal, and any so called contract to do this would be null and void. Ive made this comparison before,,,,if I want to make a movie and cut off the tiny tip of someones finger is that ok,,,,what about half a finger, a whole finger, a whole hand, the whole arm,,,,,where do you draw the line. MMA fighters bash eachothers heads in, but there are still rules they must follow, like no eye gouging, or strikes to the throat,,,they draw the lines the fighters have to abide by. But porn has no defined lines. There used to be the Cambria list, which these days is more of a script to follow for porn, not a list of no no’s.

    What if the person consents to having their hand cut off, does that make it legal? Seatbelt laws exist because people were routinely making the bad choice to not use them,,,are seatbelt laws dehumanizing?

    In porn, NO is supposed to mean NO. As someone else pointed out here, the animals instictive reaction to what is happening to it is can certainly be interpeted to mean NO. When an animal is being murdered, and is trying to get away, or turning on its attacker, that could certainly be seen as saying NO. But this is porn we are talking about here, and all porners are SELF REGULATED, meaning everyone makes their own rules, and nobody’s rules apply to anybody except themselves. In these videos, obviously NO does not mean NO.

  38. Again, there are lots of jobs where injuries happen where one will have no remedy. There are lots of harms that an assembly line worker might undergo for which there will be no remedy (including the way it limits his ability to look for better work–coming home exhausted, mind zombified, etc.). That does not mean that one cannot make a rational decision to engage in those types of work. For some people, the work ain’t so bad. For others, the work is downright lovely.

    In porn, if a performer is able to show that s/he contracted a disease on a set because of the producer’s negligence, then absolutely s/he DOES have a legal remedy. Not sure why you think s/he doesn’t.

    And yes, I DO think assembly line work is stultifying. I’ve worked on one–worst job I ever had by a factor of a million. I would honestly rather resort to crime than work on another one–standing there performing mindless, robot-like tasks all day, the units coming too fast to think about anything else, too slow to be challenging… Worst work ever, will never do it again.

    Now, I personally have no desire to work for Kink or anyone else as a performer–that work is not for me. I would find it very difficult to be degraded even in a fantasy context, because I’m not into fantasies of being degraded. But I’m not sure what you think you’re able to conclude from that. SOME people might LOVE working on an assembly line. Some people might LOVE being tied up and whipped.

    The point is this: If someone takes one of these jobs, it would be dehumanizing for me to ASSUME that they are just not thinking clearly…they must just need someone smarter or better situated (like me) to think FOR them. That is paternalism and, as Kant said, the worst form of tyranny.

    In other words, it makes no difference to me, and it shouldn’t to you, whether or not a particular worker finds assembly line work empowering, or boring, or horrible, or so bad that they would never even entertain doing it. That is THEIR decision. Not yours.

    To try and make it YOUR decision, and not theirs, is what I object to.

  39. Yes, we’ve had this exact same discussion before, and I’m afraid I find your analogies completely irrelevant.

    It is illegal to murder–it’s not illegal to have sex, even crazy sex where people role play and enact rape fantasies and so forth. Bad analogy.

    It is (I assume) illegal for people to engage in unregulated bodily mutilation–and if it’s not illegal, then it shouldn’t be illegal to film it. Same with sex. (I would say, however, that if someone wants to cut off his own hand, then yes, it’s completely absurd for people to say he can’t. Should Van Gogh have been arrested and imprisoned for cutting off his ear?)

    Porn has plenty of defined lines–no idea why you think it doesn’t.

    Seatbelts is a better analogy–but ultimately it’s weak too: The government saying you need to take safety precautions before operating a machine in public that is extremely dangerous to you and to others when mishandled, is really a world apart from saying that sex which is completely legal and permitted when done in private should suddenly be illegal or forbidden when done on film.

    I’ve read your paragraph about no meaning no, and how it doesn’t mean that in porn–I really don’t understand what you are saying. It SOUNDS like you’re saying that you know better than the porn performers what they really mean–that YOU know that they mean to say “no,” even if THEY think they mean to say “yes.” You know what they mean better than they do. If that’s your position, then yes, that is paternalism at its worst, and I think you need to reexamine your right to think and speak for others. If that’s NOT what you were saying, then I apologize, I just truly didn’t get it.

  40. All this talk about performer “Choice.”
    Producers make choices too,. The producers makes the choice, decision to produce porn, When the PRODUCER makes the choice to hire someone, and makes the choice that the employee must pay for pre employment testing, and then makes the choice to not offer legally mandated POST EXPOSURE testing and treatment, then the coercion and illegal acts by the producer put the rest of any contract in question.
    When a producer makes the choice to hire people for a job that he knows has inherent health risks,(why else does the producer require testing if not for the fact that he knows there is a risk invovled) and the producer makes the choice to not provide any protection from those known risks, and makes the choice to not follow the law regarding those known risks, then i would certainly think that any employee could challenge that contract.

    Can you give us any examples of jobs with known risks that provide no rememdies?

  41. No meaning no was in reference to the animal videos only. The reaction of the animal could certainly be seen as saying no. All animals have a self preservation instinct, just like humans.

    Can you cite any of those defined lines, and who enforces any of those lines in the self regulated industry.

    There are plenty of things that when done in private are completely legal, but when done in the WORKPLACE are not. You can cut wood with your circular saw at home with no protective eyeware, or a blade cover, but in the workplace you are legally required to use protective gear.

    You can swing from the chandeliers at home while having sex and thats perfectly legal. But in the workplace you are legally required to ensure that the chandelier is securely attached to the ceiling.

    But when you film that body mutilation with the intent of making profit from it, and you pay the person to mutilate themselves, they you have the burden of paying for the consequences of that mutilation. That is one of the aspects of the law that makes porn legal,,,,,it is not for the gratification of the performers, it is for the profit of the producer, and the “speech” belongs to the producer, not the performer.

    I will say this again to. I am not in favor of mandatory condoms, never have been, never will be, I believe in the right to make the choice to producer porn, and the right to perform in porn, without condoms. But those rights come with costs, and disease is one of those costs, and the person who owns the speech, and owns the PERFORMANCE, should also own the costs of the ramifications of HIS speech. If YOUR speech gives me a disease, YOU should be responsible for that. And there are simple ways to determine if that happened in your workplace, IF YOU FOLLOW THE ALREADY EXISTING LAW.

  42. Again, I’m not sure what you mean by no remedies. Tons of remedies for people injured in porn. Porn performers are almost certainly going to be found to be employees for labor law purposes, and therefore can absolutely sue for work-related injuries.

    Likewise, I absolutely agree that if a producer requires a performer to take a risk and the performer is injured as a result, then the performer has a cause of action.

    This has nothing to do with what we were originally discussing–namely, whether or not a performer can make a rational decision to film a porn scene. A performer might very well consider the risks, and, weighing the alternatives (horrible minimum wage jobs, or better-paying but body-destroying manual labor jobs, etc.), rationally decide to shoot porn.

    That was my point–that it’s not up to you to tell them that, if they choose porn, then it must be because they’re not as smart as you, or not as informed as you, or not as rational as you. If you take this position claiming where you paint yourself as being needed to save performers from their own inability to think rationally, then yes, you are being paternalistic.

    Whether or not a producer can be sued, or whether or not condoms ought to be mandated, really has nothing to do with that.

  43. Your points about eyeware in private and at work are well taken–but even still, I’m not sure what you think you can conclude from any of this.

    You seem to be stuck on this idea that a producer can be held liable for injuries sustained by performers while in his employ. I agree 100%. That is NOT what we were discussing.

    We were discussing whether or not we ought to assume that porn performers are making rational, autonomous decisions to act in porn. I said we should so assume, because not to do so would be to treat them as if they were children or inhuman. You seemed to take issue with that.

    Now you are talking about holding producers liable–I don’t see how this has anything to do with what we were talking about.

    Defined lines in porn? We must not be understanding each other, there are millions–you can’t assault someone, you can’t murder someone, you can’t hire minors, you can’t fuck an animal, no necrophilia, you can’t shoot in public without a permit, etc etc etc. What is it that you’re not understanding, or that I’m not understanding, about this issue?

  44. I completely see your points Alex, but I think you are leaving something out. This industry is notorius for taking vindictive action against any performer who tries to assert these rights. Do you think any performer would ever be hired again if they instested that a producer pay for pre and post exposure testing? We both know full well that any performer who does this will never work again.

    Ernest Greene wrote some very interesting articles back in the early nineties about the pysical threats and intimidation that he endured when the industry was mulling over these exact topics. And if people were willing to make threats of physical violence against someone like Ernest Greene, what do you think the average 18-24 year old starlet would have to endure if she spoke up? Just look at the way just about every single performer in the straight industry who caught HIV is treated by people in the industry.

    We’re all big boys here Alex. Lets not pretend that these things dont happen regularly in this industry. This industry relies on performers to not make a stink. Holding the position I did had I had conversations with TONS of performers about health issues, and condom use. And there was a very similar theme with MANY of them, and that is, speaking up about these things is the fastest way to not get hired again.

    All I am trying to say is, Lets not pretend these things dont happen. Lets not pretend that coercion and exploitation dont exist in this business, Lets not pretend the vast majority of performers have any real choice when it comes to using condoms.Lets not pretend that the producers follow the law, and lets not pretend that a Harm Reduction testing program is sufficient to provide protection for performers..

    Alex, you make alot of valid points, I think i do too. There were times when doing my job I felt exactly like Sharon Mitchell once said,,”I feel like I am fattening them up for the kill”

  45. @Alex –
    Absolutely not. I don’t “disapprove” of degrading porn AT ALL. I both understand and occasionally watch it for both sexual and/or humor purposes. I accept the “consent theory” on every level possible. You will VERY rarely hear me questioning someone’s consent in relation to porn. I’ve learned it’s basically pointless to question someone’s consent at this point. It’s also not my concern. Honestly, I couldn’t care less…

    But, it’s interesting how you interpreted my comments. Most people have the same reaction, to be quite honest. I never once said I disagree with degrading porn, but you seemed to conclude this just from the fact that I publicly expressed I find degrading porn funny. This doesn’t mean I disapprove of degrading porn, it *literally* means I find some of it absolutely hilarious… there should be nothing wrong my reaction and it shouldn’t be written off as “disapproving.”

    My issue with porn at the moment has little to do with consent and more to do with the silencing of various reactions to it…. it’s a little more psychologically driven than you’re giving it credit for… dig a little deeper.

    I have a horrible habit of expressing psychological viewpoints and expecting people to see my views psychologically instead of just your typical surface reaction. I’m trying to correct this… I really am… But I’ve found I’m not really good at it… hahaha.

    I can completely understand how you would conclude that I somehow disapprove of degrading porn, but that’s far from the truth. I accept an individuals right to do whatever they want within the law. But, I will fully admit I get slightly offended when someone expects me to react to it in a certain way… or tries to silence my personal reaction. It goes both ways.

    Individuals can choose to do what they want and other individuals should be allowed to react however they so choose. It shouldn’t be a fucking travesty if someone finds degrading porn questionable… just as it shouldn’t be a travesty if someone jerks off to it… or someone else (generally me) laughs their ass off at it…

    This isn’t in relation to you, but I’m fucking over being lectured on how I should react to porn. It’s as if the industry finds it necessary to overly defend all genres of porn to place the filming of pornography in some kind of complicated vision of an art form that basic humans aren’t capable of understanding. People jerk off to it. It’s not that fucking serious and the porn industry isn’t saving the world one dick and vagina at a time. When did porn get so serious? It’s supposed to be exciting and fun!!!!

    The simple fact is that there’s a large segment of the population who does “get it” and they think it’s fucking stupid. But, they don’t get the same freedom to express this opinion without being told how close-minded they are… I’m just calling out the hypocritical bullshit.

    I always try to listen, respect and consider all opinions, so this debate is interesting and also enlightening. 🙂

  46. http://www.lukeisback.com/2012/10/ernest-greene-supports-condoms-back-in-1993/

    here is the ernest greene article from 1993. YES, this was before there was a centralized testing system, but that doesnt change what he said. Note the part where Ernest talks about the potential liability of relying on a harm reduction program,,,which is exactly what AIM was, and PASS is today. The “Tribal Epidemiology” aspect is also very interesting,,,,,Once the disease eneters the tribe is spreads quickly woth in the tribe,,,,that kind of negates the whole,,,,disease comes from outside the industry,,,,,,the fact is, the tribe has been infected for a long time now, the disease is in the tribe, and the tribe members are spreading it amongst themselves.

    And then take note of how the people who tried to speak up were treated, and nothing has changed since then. Yes, the industry has a little more centralized testing program,,,but it is still just a harm reduction program, it has NOTHING to do with prevention, it is an after the fact program, that is all, nothing more, nothing less.

    And this is what I am talking about. All of these issues are related, and leaving out the parts of the issues that dont bode well for the industry does not further the cause of providing information to assist people to make informed consent.

  47. I also love how Ernest Greene called a harm reduction program, “A miserable excuse for a policy,” Yes, this was written before AIM, but the fact is, AIM was just a centralized Harm Reduction program. The only difference between 1993, and now, is the program today, and AIM provides verification of test results, nothing more.

    “A miserable excuse of a policy” Couldnt have said it better myself.

  48. Yo jilted –
    Umm, hello?, we’re not ALL big boys here… I’m a girl. I even have a vagina. Just reminding everyone.
    (Sorry, I just kind of felt it necessary to state this fact… hahahaha!!!!)

  49. Sorry Lacey,
    I hereby grant you membership in the “Ole Boys Club,” Your vagina is a welcome distraction.

  50. Oh goody!!! I’ve always gotten along better with boys anyway… they’re just SO god damn uncomplicated… Well, at least most of them. 🙂

  51. I honestly still don’t see how this has anything to do with what we were talking about. But regardless, what you describe is true of tons of industries. An attorney that sues his firm is gonna have a hard time getting hired by another; a doctor that sues the hospital is gonna find it hard to get hired by another. Conversely, there are always also going to be principled firms and hospitals that won’t care, as long as the lawyer/doc is good at his job. Same in porn: I’m sure lots of producers would be reluctant to hire a seemingly litigious performer; then there are producers (like myself) who don’t care and will be happy to hire anyone who performs well and brings sales in. There are also plenty of options in the adult biz- softcore, fetish, glamor, which don’t require any fluid transfers. Tons of models making a fine living doing that.

    so- I don’t see that what you are saying has anything to do with what we were talking about ( whether or not we should assume performers are rational when they choose to perform), and even taken by themselves I find these last arguments very unconvincing.

  52. Lacey, who is silencing you? When people reply to you, even if only to take issue with something you’ve said, that is a way of *engaging* you in debate. That’s not censorship- it’s the opposite.

  53. Again Alex,
    I think you are intentionaly sidestepping some serious issues here. Trying to silence someone comes in all shapes and forms. Constant riducule on a particular board, with the intention of trying to get people to just give up, is a roundabout way of trying to silence someone.
    Tweeting that you are trying to find out who an anonymous poster is in order to “notify their bosses” or family members that they are participating in a PORN forum.
    Again, lets not pretend this doesnt happen, we all know full well that it does. I have had pictures of female relatives photoshopped and put up on websitles, family members have recieved anonymous phone calls with veiled threats, have had my emails hacked and printed on websites(OF COURSE they didnt print all of them, like the ones with names of HEP C positive performers)

    So if someone photoshopped porno pictures of your sister and hacked your email, I am sure you would agree that this is not just to *engage* you in debate,,,it is meant to intimidate you into silence, just like those who speak up for health and safety standards.

    The truth is the one thing that the porn industry fears more than anything. Every single month I would do a statistical anyalysis of AIM’s results, simply because my computer system made it easier for me than the clinic to do. Years of data is available, but you know they never made it public, and you know why, because the truth would have killed them…..If those stats made the industry look good you know they would have no problem publishing them,,,,hell, they published every name and test result on the world wide web for everyone to see in 2004.

    Censorship comes in many forms, and the porn industry is very good at using these tactics to silence dissent. Tell me printing arrest records of HIV+performers who sought assistance from AHF isnt a form of intimidation.

    All of these issues are related. and I appreciate the ability to debate the issues without the usual name calling bullshit that usually happens on the internet.

    And of course there are many other industries that have major problems, that doesnt mean the porn industry problems are any less major. Two wrongs dont make a right.

  54. “applaud”????????? You are a dope. Not illegal doesn’t equal applaud. Your point seems to have almost nothing to do with the posted topic.

  55. I take back “dope”. It was rude. I wasn’t making the case to laud or applaud it. You pulled that out. I simply said I think there’s a huge difference legally between humans agreeing to something and doing it to an animal. And no, not ripping your face off doesn’t equal consent.

  56. Yes, all those things do sound very different from engaging in debate. I may have skimmed Lacey’s post too quickly–I must have missed the part where she complained of that kind of thing.

  57. @Alex,
    Lacey shouldnt have had to mention these things for you to take them into consideration. I think you have been around long enough to know that these tactics are standard procedure in the porn biz. Hell, Ernest Greene was writing about it 20 years ago. It is no secret. I dont think you are, but I will ask anyway,,,,are you in any way implying that you are unaware of these tactics being used against dissenters,,,i mean I guess it is possible that you have never heard of such things, but i doubt it,. I could be wrong, but i dont think I am. I have been wrong before, as has everybody.

  58. I guess I still don’t see how these issues are really related.

    The only point I was intent on making was that we do a disservice to porn performers when we treat them as though they were just stupid or childlike or incapable of making autonomous rational decisions for themselves. And that that kind of condescension can actually be far more dehumanizing than any agreed-to porn scene.

    And I still insist that, if a performer is truly uncomfortable with the risks entailed by hardcore sex movies, then s/he is more than free to pursue a career in other areas of the adult industry where fluid exchanges and the potential of exposure to disease are not required at all. Fetish, glamor, solo cam, softcore, solo phone lines, etc.–there are tons of ways to make a good living in the adult industry without actually engaging in hardcore sex.

    We shouldn’t assume that performers are so stupid that they can’t make those decisions for themselves. If you have evidence that a given performer was truly coerced, or was blackmailed or otherwise forced or tricked into doing something s/he didn’t want to do, then by all means that should be exposed and talked about and if a legal cause of action lies then it ought to be pursued. But we just shouldn’t assume that that is what is happening as a matter of course–to do so is to treat performers like children, or like non-autonomous, less-than-human beings who need the protection and guidance of smarter, better-situated people. That kind of attitude results in that “worst form of tyranny” that Kant talked about.

  59. To answer your question above–I certainly accept that that kind of thing happens. Again, it just seemed like Lacey was implying that when people (like me) take issue with her opinions, it felt to her like she was being silenced, when in fact that’s what debate is all about.

    I’m sure there are people who are not interested in debate, and just resort to the scare tactics that you described. If Lacey has been the victim of such tactics then I definitely feel bad for her.

    When I asked her who was silencing her, she could have related some such account. Maybe she doesn’t need you to answer for her?

  60. When you have a large group of people who make the choice to have unprotected sex with multiple partners,,,,partners who in turn are having multiple partner unprotecged sex with guys in gay porn, johns, and other sex workers,,,,yes, I will challenge the intelligence of said people.
    And when people in postitions of authority in the industry, like board members of the industry testing facility is telling people that NOT using protection is BETTER than using protection, yes, I will question the intelligence and decision making process, as is my right.

    alex, I think you indicated that you hire performers,,,do you, as the law requires, offer POST exposure testing and treatment to your emplyees. Do you consider the performers you hire to be employees? Just wondering.

  61. maybe she doesnt need me to answer,,but I will any way. I think your answer here is a little,,,,,,,well lets see,,,,you say you “accept” that this kind of things happen,,,,and you are sure there are people who just resort to scare tactics,,,,,,,,Are you implying that you have no personal knowledge, or have never seen these tactics used, or you just accept it as true but dont have any person knowledgeof it ever happeneing.
    It just seems like a very Lawyer type answer to the question. Maybe I am wrong again, but I dont think so. Free speech sure is a bitch isnt it?

  62. To answer your first question, I don’t know of any specific cases of what you’re talking about, no. I mean, we had our address posted on Porn Wikileaks at one time…that wasn’t particularly nice. But I’m not up to date on all those who are being harassed by pro-porn hackers and cyber bullies to stop them from voicing, say, pro-condom sentiments. I’m sure that happens, though. I still don’t think it has anything to do with what Lacey and I were talking about.

    Is that especially astonishing to you? Not sure what periodicals I ought to be reading to stay caught up on the latest on who is being so harassed.

    To your second post: EVERYBODY with an active sex life, who is having sex with multiple partners, is thereby having sex with people who are almost certainly having sex with multiple partners, etc. etc. And the amount of people today who refuse to use condoms is truly astonishing. I hear all the time (non-porn) guys say they refuse to wear condoms. It is shocking to me how many guys say that. And of course I for one think they are foolish to have sex without a condom. But I do NOT therefore conclude that I have any right to step in and say, “Okay, you’re not smart enough, I will do the thinking FOR you from now on when it comes to this…” Even if I know I’m right on the dangers and the risks–because if were to do that, if I were to insist that they must do as I say, then I would not be respecting their autonomy. You have to treat people with respect–you have to respect their autonomy. If you don’t, then they have no reason to respect yours. And maybe they will step in and make YOU do what THEY want.

    Jilted: People need to be free to make bad decisions. If they are only free to make the decisions that YOU approve of, then they have nothing even close to freedom.

    To answer your second question, When I shot hardcore scenes (which I only did on a handful of occasions), I always included in the pay plenty of extra money for testing, yes. Nowadays I only shoot softcore, or the occasional toy scene where the person using the toy is wearing barriers (gloves, as well as latex gloves underneath the gloves, with the penetration shots done separately so that they are done in like 5 minutes, the gloves then thrown away immediately after the scene is shot and replaced with new ones, etc.). And I still include extra money for testing for such shoots, yes.

    But really I much prefer softcore anyway. But that’s just me.

    Anyway, I feel you have missed the point again. You have every right to challenge the intelligence of anyone you want. And you should! You should tell them–Hey! You are doing something dangerous here!!

    But where you wind up becoming a tyrant is when you basically step in and say, “You’re all too stupid to think for yourselves, so I, being much smarter than you, will think for you and make sure that the government intervenes and prevents you from making decisions on your own.” That kind of attitude is dehumanizing and paternalistic and is fraught with a truly terrifying hubris. Do you really want the government to make decisions for you?

    So by all means, criticize! Condemn! Counsel! That is by all means your right.

    Free speech sure isn’t a bitch. No idea what you meant by that.

  63. For the record in most states MMA, wrestling and boxing are self-regulated just like porn was until a few years ago. Some states like Washington, California, Nevada and New Jersey have a boxing commission that makes up the rules and regulations for MMA, boxing and wrestling but in a state like Michigan (and probably Georgia, home of Mike South) there isn’t any organization to make up the rules so either there are none (other than don’t kill anyone or bite their ears off like Mike Tyson is famous for — that would be murder or maiming and could be prosecuted) or the promoter and participants have to agree on what the rules are themselves.

  64. I find your mischaracterization of my points offensive. I have never told anybody what they should or should not do. Pointing out to someone that what they are doing is inherently dangerous, and downright stupid is not the same as telling them you can or cant do something.
    Governments make all sorts of decisions for individuals, and workplaces. The government tells the construction worker he MUST wear a hardhat, and a harness when working ontop of a building. The police department tells its officers they MUST wear a bullet proof vest, even thought the most dimwitted person can see that its the right thing to do.

    The gay porn industry knowingly hires HIV+ performers, and lawmakers cannot discriminate between the “two industries.” It is the same industry. McDonalds, and Taco Bell are not seperate industries, they have the same rules. How can you not mandate condoms for an industry that knowingly hires HIV positive people to have high risk sex with eachother? And when board members of the industry testing programs tell its members that condoms CAUSE more stds in porn, well, somebody has got to step in to end the stupidity. If the industry wont do it themselves, then someone will do it for them.

    I completely agree that their is the right to make condom free porn, as long as the responsilbe paries pay for the consequences.

    Funny how no one ever went after Sharon Mitchell when she said “if OSHA ever decideds to do their job i will be right behind them tooting my horn.”

    Isnt the fact that the industry, producers, MANDATE that performers be tested is kind of ‘Paternalistic.” Why is it ok for producers to mandates on performers but not lawmakers? Producers are in no physical danger,,,why do PRODUCERS mandate testing,,shouldnt the ADULT performers be allowed to make that choice for themselves, or do they need big daddy producers to tell them to do it?

    Or is it that producers dont mandate testing out of concern for performers health, they mandate testing in order to sheild themselves from liability.

  65. Jilted, I want to reassure you that I think it was wrong and insane that someone photo-shopped pictures of your female relatives to make it look like they were porno pictures and having your (I assume personal) e-mail hacked. Someone attempted to hack my e-mail recently as well (I was informed of it by my e-mail provider and had to change my password), I have to assume since I don’t have any enemies closer to me that would be doing that it is one of the enemies of this site that doesn’t like me or what I stand for and I have a good idea who did it (one of two people with competing websites that do not post on here at least using names we can connect to them) but can’t prove it. Unfortunately the price of speaking freely in the US is shit like this done by people that disagree with you. Hell Peter Acworth and a friend of his were likely arrested and locked up in San Francisco County Jail likely due to someone who disagrees with what he does lying about him shooting firearms in his building! I wouldn’t be surprised if those drugs he was accused of having were a lie made up by the cops in an attempt to get him convicted and deported (considering the court dropped the charges quite quickly for some reason after they were filed which an honest judge would do if he thought the charges were made-up). I guess that is just the way things are, if I could change it I would.

  66. I don’t disagree with most of what you said. So I am baffled as to what you were disagreeing with me about in the first place. Once again, I think you have badly lost sight of what we were originally discussing.

  67. I got one: President of the United States. JFK was killed on the job by a nutcase without any remedies available to him or his family. I can almost guarantee if JFK were a carpenter he would not have been killed that day.

  68. Alex, You make very valid points, thank you. Civil people can agree to disagree, and have differing opinions. Its just that not everyone in the industry is as ‘polite’ as you. I will admit that I have been projecting my displeasure with others onto you in this thread.

  69. Producers, by the way, don’t mandate anything. Performers can accept the terms of their offer or no. If your employer requires you to wear a suit that is not a mandate. That is a contractual term or condition.

    as a producer I don’t care what other producers do- I make offers to talent that I believe is in accord with the law and is fair and honest according to my conscience. There are tons of producers like me. If the big companies treat talent badly then no one has to work for them. As I understand it, I pay more than they do anyway lol. Lots of decent well paying producers.

  70. Not sure I follow you here Alex. You, as a producer have your own standards, and it sounds like you hold yourself to a higher standard than most, kudos to you.
    But I think we both know that for the vast majority of the straight porn industry, no test means no work. If a perforer shows up at Vivid, or Wicked, or Kink, Zero Tolerance, or Porno Dan with no test they will get sent packing. Even statements from PASS, Dianne Duke and others speak of ‘no test no work” and to me, that is a mandate.

    “Performers can accept the terms of their offer or no” TRUE,,,and I interpet that to mean, either you agree the producers mandates or you dont get the job. When that offer includes the person be tested, and usually means pay for it yourself, i call that a mandate. What else would you call it, either accept my terms or you dont get the job, sounds like a mandate to me.

  71. @Alex –
    You must not engage in many porn debates? I now play a game to try and see whether I’m going to be called a slut shamer, whorephobic, feminist, anti-feminist or even a straight up idiot fucking retard every single time I get into a discussion surrounding porn.

    It NEVER fails… mostly with girls involved who are so defensive I’m not sure they could even have a “rational” debate on the subject. I’ve recently tried to stay clear of those debates because they’re not even real debates and are basically worthless.
    It’s usually certain girls who automatically respond to every viewpoint with “you don’t understand/you’re an idiot/stop judging/you don’t get an opinion/blah blah blah….”

    My silencing references were more aimed at certain groups as opposed to you, me, jilted, mike or whoever… it wasn’t even directly about me, per say, but about the general debates surrounding the industry.

    There’s a HUGE difference between stating an opposing view, trying to help someone understand your own viewpoint better and just blatantly screaming, name calling and bullying people who have a different opinion than yours… it generally centers around maturity levels.

    Your replies to me have been extremely welcomed. I don’t mind if others don’t agree with me. But, if someone wants to “take issue” with something I’ve said then reply like an open minded human being without automatically writing others opinions off as stupid or retarded or close minded, etc. It’s perfectly acceptable for two people to have different points of view while respecting the opinions of each other… Needless to say, that almost NEVER happens in porn debates….

  72. @Mharris,
    thank you for the post about the hacking and photoshopped pictures. I have known that several of me emails have been hacked several times, Here is how I deal with it.
    I write emails to myself and list the names of HEP C positibe performers, and other information about people who have been known to do the hacking. That is why you will never see my hacked emails printed on line anywhere, because I would then print the other emails myself. The big aHF hacking a few years ago, they NEVER printed all of the emails, which I just might do one day myself. Then maybe someone will try to sue me,,,LOL,,,,,which would mean i get to ask them questions under oath. Nobody is ever going to sue me, no matter what I say, despite the numerous threats I have recieved to do just that. I have answered every single lawsuit threat with the same answer,,,,”FUCK YOU, go right ahead, looking forward to it.” It aint happend yet, and it wont ever happen, You see, its not libel or slander if its true. And there are exceptions to HIPPA laws when someone feels that the activity of someone puts another person in danger.
    Thank you Harris, and Alex for the spirited debate today, We all have valid points, its refreshing to see things debated in a civil manner, which is all to rare in this industry. Thank you.
    In a little while I am going to post a story about an old industry ‘event.’ i hope you all find it interesting

  73. And, jilted is absolutely correct when discussing the personal intimidation tactics. I’m not even IN the industry.. I just follow it, debate it and occasionally write on it and even I’ve been harassed, had multiple devices hacked and threatened.

    I can’t even imagine what actual performers and those in the industry have to go through… damn.

  74. @Alex –
    Refer to post above.
    Again, I don’t think you questioning my opinions is or was in any way disrespectful or trying to silence me… I would kindly suggest that you’re making it a little too personal??

  75. Fetish porn using animals & insects has fallen under “really people get off on that” category until these arrests. It’s truly difficult to stake a position on this because of everything from leash laws to PETA literature and wondering if I’m any way qualified to chime in on something so foreign to me.

    A lot of states are revamping their beastiality laws, some because farmers are upset over their livestock being used by strangers, others from moral outrage.

    Vick got bagged for dogs and cock (altered chicken) fighting. Personally from puppy mills to caged livestock for fighting it was easy to draw a line so why not for porn too? Is the thrill of a gamble somehow less personal than a sexual thrill?

    Nearly a week in and if anything I’m farther than when I started in coming to any kind of a conclusion.

  76. When the requirement becomes specific it becomes even more of a mandate. IG plenty of workplaces require black pants and color shirt but once they start saying it has to be x brand from x store they get bagged and have to pay up for uniform like it has donut trees on it.

    This test panel is all about protecting the employer from liability in the workplace even if it benefits the workers with early treatment options.

  77. I’m so confused by how the comments on this post dissolved. Are all of you MikeSouth regulars just trying to bend over backwards to make his point half sane? Or are you legitimately trying to compare willing humans to animals being killed? Most confusing comment thread yet. Lacey and Jilted somehow managed to lock this into some sort of human porn debate. Are people saying that b/c porn with humans can cross moral lines or be gross that killing animals in porn should be legal? I’m failing to see it.

    For Lacey it seemed to start when Jilted made the point that animals on movies are treated better than porn performers. Lacey goes ‘oh, golly I never thought of that’. Of course this point is beyond idiotic and wrong factually. Animals die on mainstream productions due to negligence quite often and no performer has had that fate. So, you say performers are treated worse than animals and yet the group you say is treated better is the one dying. This set Lacey in a direction of look at these gross porn scenes people do…. but with animals it isn’t okay. Yep, no one yet has had a solid argument to the point that one group has consent and risk/reward thinking ability. Well, Lacey did try to argue that the animal had some form of consent/non-consent based on whether it attacked. Another brilliant case. So please can someone be straight, are you arguing that killing these animals should be legal? Intentionally killing of an animal for the reasons within Mike’s post. Should it be legal? And are some of you trying to directly compare it to human consented porn (no matter how gross it seems)?

  78. Different people have different ideas about things Eric, sometimes the idea is that you dont know…not everyone accepts the whole consent thing, pretty much everyone agrees that using animals in this manner is wrong, the question becomes how to delineate that which should be illegal from that which should never be illegal. Sometimes the point is to learn from what everyone else has to say, not to insist that you have all the answers….

  79. I don’t even know why I’m doing this because you never seem capable of keeping up with the conversation, but here you go. I genuinely hope this helps:

    1. The theory about the animals being treated better on movie sets as opposed to how porn performers on adult sets are treated is the simple fact that society actually cares enough to ensure the animals well-being. There are regulations in place to directly protect the animals.

    Porn performers aren’t given these same rights. In the eye of society, they’re not even worth the same protection given to animals being used on set. There are more regulations in place on how to safely handle a cockroach then there are for actual human beings in the adult industry. The industry will say they don’t need them, but that’s not really the point. I was just explaining that the differences are fucked up that animals are worthy of regulations to protect them yet porn performers don’t even get the same rights… Not that difficult to ascertain from my comments.

    2. The animals vs. Porn performers comparison is completely different than anything you’ve even mentioned??
    To sum it up in the easiest way possible for you:
    -Animal abuse is recognized as horrible by the majority of the planet. This is just common sense. Yet, the public gets admonished for not fully understanding why someone would want to be physically abused during sex as if they’re the fucking weird ones??
    Abusing someone at any point, even during sex, goes against every single animal instinct there is and we’re all animals. People questioning these acts, mental status or consent isn’t some horrible thing… they care. They just want to be assured no one is getting hurt. Only the porn industry would twist it into some grand scheme that people are treating them as sub-human and disrespecting them by just stating concern about safety because they’re in an industry with absolutely NO regulations. And, the 1 law that was just passed for the safety of performers isn’t even acknowledged.
    The public just questioning safety concerns aren’t always the bad guys here. They’re not trying to shut the industry down or censor them… they’re just concerned and want to ensure the performers aren’t being harmed. Of course porn would turn that into some delusional defensive debate where people are somehow trying to control them and treating them as children.
    They’re questioning performer safety because they care about the well-being of performers not ordering performers into a fucking time out.
    I can’t think of another industry on earth who would get so grossly offended by the public showing concern over safety.

    3. My entire point in the beginning of this discussion was so unbelievably simple I’m not even sure how you don’t get it yet?
    -The filming of a person having sex with an animal is illegal and considered obscene. This is a fact.
    -So, why in the fuck are we even discussing whether killing an animal during a sex act is acceptable or not? If you can’t have sex with an animal then what the fuck is the point of even discussing whether you can kill that same animal during sex. It’s fucking ludacris. It’s not even a debate. It’s common fucking sense.
    Take the killing of an animal DURING SEX ACTS out of the picture because that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this debate.

    THEN we can discuss whether the killing and filming of animals is considered free speech or not… this entire article revolves around killing animals during sex acts and filming it. My response correlates directly to that subject.

    Everyone else is throwing in the legality of killing animals in general. I’m directly giving an opinion on the exact subject of the article and you don’t get it?

    The killing of animals DURING THE FILMING OF SEX ACTS should be illegal just as beastiality is illegal. Not even worthy of a fucking debate…. that was my original point.

    If that somehow interferes with the killing and/or filming the killing of animals IN GENERAL then we can get into a debate… that’s not what this article is about.

  80. @Lacey,
    I dont think these videos involve any “sex” with the animals. They are called ‘crush’ videos. I havent seen these videos myself, but crush videos usually involve a pretty girls squishing and animal to death usuall wearhing high heels or a sexy outfit. There is no beastiality involved. The animals are not killed during a sex act.

    Theres alot of sick people out there. Some people enjoy abusing animals, some people enjoy abusing other people. Would you want someone who enjoys these videos dating your daughter?

  81. Please just confirm that you slightly get my point that if sticking your dick in an animal is considered “obscene” then the act of killing it in the same context is fucking ridiculous.

    We have to start the debate somewhere and that seems like a pretty good starting point in relation to crush videos… I sincerely don’t want to watch one even for research purposes… but, obviously sexual gratification plays an essential role?

    Then we can start the debate on whether killing a chicken for fun or killing a chicken for food is acceptable… there has to be some consideration of beastiality laws in this debate. They shouldn’t just be ignored. They’re law. They’re specifically on the books. It would be like throwing out animal abuse laws or the laws surrounding the killing of animals for food…

    Do you see where I’m going with this? So, you can’t actually fuck a chicken as it’s considered “obscene,” but you can kill it for fun? This is like the dumbest debate on earth from a legal perspective…. and so god damn hypocritical it’s ridiculous.

    Maybe I should start a new campaign “If you can’t fuck it then you can’t kill it.”
    Law says you’re not allowed to fuck a deer for fun? Then you shouldn’t be allowed to kill it fun.
    If the law says you can’t fuck a dog for fun? Then you shouldn’t be able to kill it for fun.

    I’m not debating ethics necessarily.. I’m debating the hypocrisy of the laws here…

    The legal debate and the ethical debate are 2 separate debates.

    If the law says deer hunters can kill an animal just the fun of it (and make it suffer) than why the fuck are there laws dictating whether you can have sex with it or not? The debates surrounding the laws are fucking ridiculous.

    If someone wants to defend the rights of citizens to be allowed to kill animals and make them suffer just for fun then those same individuals should be perfectly ok with people having sex with them for fun.
    It sounds really fucking creepy if you just apply the laws backwards….
    I doubt you’re going to be seeing a big movement from hunters trying to overturn beastiality laws, but it’s the same exact principle.

  82. I get your point Lacey. Its legal to kill it but not to fuck it. On the surface it seems pretty hypoctitical.
    But its based on something a little deeper. It is not natural for a human to fuck a dog, or a deer or a horse,,but it is natural to kill a dog or deer or horse. Mankind is just one animal member of the animal kingdom, and as such it is natural for us to kill for food. Killing, in order to survive is just nature being nature. Fucking animals of another speicies is not natural, and has no benefit in the natural world, like killing does.

    I dont get the whole, killing just for the sport thing either. I love fishing. I only keep what I will eat, and throw the rest back. Is it cruel to the fish to ‘torture’ them like this,probably yes, but they’re just fish, not humans. Do I enjoy animals suffering, no, but I dont loose sleep over it either.

  83. Lacey, I think you are confusing two qualitatively different things in #1 above. You write that, because there are lots of regulations applying to animals on movie sets, and not as many that apply to humans on porn sets (I honestly think you might be mistaken about that, but for present purposes it’s not important), that therefore “[i]n the eye of society, they’re not even worth the same protection given to animals being used on set.”

    I think this is a genuine error on your part. Let me illustrate with an example: There are almost certainly way more regulations that exist to protect CHILDREN on movie sets than there are to protect adult movie actors (not talking about porn, of course, just regular movies). But one cannot possibly conclude from this that therefore our society values children more than adults, or thinks adults aren’t “worth the same protection” as children. Rather, the reason we have more rules for protecting children than we have for adults is because children are more in NEED of protection than adults. Adults have the ability to make all sorts of rational decisions for themselves, whereas children do not.

    Likewise with animals. Animals are completely incapable of even speaking for themselves. Therefore they will need lots of protection–if we value them at all, and don’t want them to suffer needlessly.

    Does that make sense? I think you’re too hasty in concluding that, if there are a LOT of protective regulations that apply to a group, it must mean that we value that group a whole lot. Actually, it doesn’t necessarily mean that at all. As a society we do NOT value animals very much, and the rules and laws that are currently in place to prevent their suffering are doing a terrible job protecting them (just ask any animal rights activist about how much horrible suffering animals undergo in this country).

    In a nutshell, don’t confuse quantity with quality. In the law as in almost all human affairs, the two have precious little to do with one another.

  84. Alex is right, there are laws to protect porn performers, Problem is, very few producers follow those laws, and the talent does nothing to make producers follow them. Actions speak louder than words, When you are willing to have unprotected sex with multiple partners, including IV drug users, guys who fuck HIV+ guys, etc,,,it gets pretty hard to take you seriously when you say you are concerned about health and safety. The actions, and risks, that performers are willing to take speak loud and clear, they dont give a fucking flying shit about health and safety. If a picture is worht a thousand words, then one single porn video will tell you all you need to know about how performers feel about health and safety.

  85. Understood. I wasn’t necessarily looking at it in that context, but it does make perfect sense. I think it just changed my views on a segment of the issue, so thanks… this is the exact reason I love debating. It makes you think and it challenges ideas.

    Sometimes I get tunnel vision on an issue because the debate never seems to acknowledge basic common sense issues. Ok, at least we agree on the fact that fucking an animal and killing that same animal are AT LEAST somewhat related and completely hypocritical from a legal standpoint.

    Now we can continue… hahaha!!!!

  86. @Alex –
    I don’t know anything about you. Jilted mentioned you were a producer. I quickly looked you up on Google. It seems you shoot soft core with choreographed scenes. I have family and occasionally work in mainstream stunts. With that said, I’m going to use that connection here.

    As I’m sure you know there’s a huge difference between choreographed fight scenes and 2 people just beating the shit out of each other…. especially with no regulations in place or regulations that are almost never followed…

    The mainstream porn industry repeats this motto that “it’s all just fantasy… it’s not real.” But, that’s bullshit.
    The plot lines in porn are fantasy. The “action” is anything but fantasy. Performers aren’t choreographing sex. They’re *literally* fucking each other, shoving things into orifices, getting electrocuted, bleeding and a number of other things.

    This isn’t an HBO movie. It’s hardcore fucking that can have serious consequences. There really is nothing necessarily “fake” about the action. No one is saying performers are children who need someone to hold their hand.

    But, the fact is in the majority of porn produced today there isn’t one single protective measure in place other than mandated condoms which they don’t follow anyway. The testing system is an after-the-fact harm reduction program.

    It’s the same theory as citizens bitching because they have to wear seat belts. I couldn’t imagine a movement where people protested in the streets about having to wear seat belts because the government is treating them as sub-humans who aren’t capable of making their own decisions.

    The mainstream stunt industry follows every rule, OSHA regulation, SAG rule on the books and they perform some of the riskiest shit on the face of the earth. Those car chases are choreographed, performers aren’t jumping out of 10 story windows onto a car, the guns are fake, the blood is fake, the fight scenes are choreographed. Every single one of these rules is done for one purpose and one purpose only: Safety.

    The porn industry doesn’t even require a medic on set…. and then they sit around bitching because people are concerned about their safety while complaining that people being concerned is treating them as children? Are you serious?

    If you took the rules and regulations in porn and applied them to any other industry on earth, you would have an entire revolution on your hands.
    But, it’s just porn. Who fucking cares. Someone has to do it.

    No one is trying to shut the porn industry down. There are plenty of performers who have stated the fact that they would like to have condoms used during their scenes..
    These same performers aren’t stupid enough to recognize the fact that they probably won’t get hired again if they speak up. To think otherwise, would be calling those same performers stupid for wanting to protect themselves…

    And, we all know the answer is “then they shouldn’t do porn.” Says who? What if they enjoy doing porn while being protected? They just won’t get any work then… is that necessarily fair? That’s generally where this debate leads…

    Performers who would like to use condoms, but know they won’t work if they speak up are players in this game to. They shouldn’t be discarded simply because they want some form of protection….

    I could never imagine a day where someone told a stunt performer: you’re required to do this stunt and you’re not allowed to protect yourself or you’re fired. Even stunt performers aren’t that stupid… Shit, even wrestlers and MMA fighters are required to have doctors on site to assess bodily injury because they understand that fighters or performers aren’t always going to make the best health decisions in the middle of a fight. It doesn’t mean they’re treating those people as sub-humans who aren’t capable of making decisions for themselves… everyone recognizes that it’s dangerous and the people involved don’t get offended because the public worries about their safety.

    But porn performers… who fucking cares. That’s the sad truth.

  87. Hi Lacey–I don’t disagree with the basic gist of most of what you said here, which, however, has nothing to do with my last reply to you.

    I’m all for reasonable protections for workers in every field. I personally don’t oppose a condom rule; I would never in a million years pressure any performer to not use a condom or to do anything that s/he wasn’t completely comfortable with or that wasn’t safe. I would love it if other companies were required to be as conscientious as I am.

    My only point, way back when I first posted, was that it does no one any good to treat porn performers as if they are not behaving rationally when they agree to shoot a porn scene, whether there are condoms being used or not. Risks and benefits are things that everyone has to weigh. And if the alternatives to working in porn are really really bad–and for a lot of people they truly are WAY worse than the downsides to working in porn–then a lot of performers will be invested in and support anything that helps the adult business stay alive and profitable. This is not stupid–it might be perfectly rational and self-interested for a performer to oppose, say, condom rules, if s/he believes that a condom rule will mean s/he will not be able to support him/herself in porn any longer, and will have to take some horrible 50 hour a week, minimum wage paying manual labor dead end job.

    Now, having said that, I reiterate that there are TONS of ways to make a living in the adult business that have none of the risks we’ve been talking about here–markets that don’t involve any fluid transfers at all. Fetish, glamor, solo cam, solo phone calls, softcore, etc. I would be more than happy if more mainstream porn performers took an interest in that side of the business–they are certainly free to. It might even be the most rational thing for them to do.

  88. I hear you. The economics of the situation are not lost on me. I fully understand how performers would be willing to risk their own safety to keep the industry from going under if a condom mandate was enforced.

    I get it. I also think there has to be some way to protect performers while giving the audience what they want… concessions have been made to accomplish this.

    One of the major reasons Kink.com is popular is for the simple reason that they conduct (paid for) interviews before & after scenes insuring the public that no one was actually hurt or forced to do something they didn’t want to do… This shows just how much the public wants to ensure no one is actually being intentionally hurt or forced to do anything they don’t want to do…

    The flip side of this is whether kink.com would actually put up videos of performers complaining? I’ve personally never seen one?

    But, the fact is the public WANTS THIS.. even while jerking off to the fantasy aspect of rape. It makes many of them feel better to know that no one was purposely hurt and it was just a fantasy plot line of hardcore kinky “real” sex.

    But, do you honestly think Kink is going to film an interview with Cameron Bay regarding sucking on a bleeding penis? The entire crew decided this was appropriate without consulting medical professionals. Is the public not supposed to find this disturbing?

    This is generally the point where the questioning of consent comes in…

    She fully consented to suck a bloody penis. She is an adult capable of making her own decisions. Am I honestly supposed to think she’s not fucking insane for sucking on someone’s bloody dick? That’s a little ridiculous.

    The public recognizes that these situations actually happen and the porn industry sits around complaining about people being concerned for their personal welfare…

    All because the public isn’t delusional enough to believe these kinds of incidents don’t happen… in porn or any other industry on earth.

    Maybe I just don’t find the questioning of consent as offensive as you do? I guess I just view it as a normal human reaction to other humans being involved in dangerous situations as opposed to some kind of behavior trying to imprison or control people.

    My personal opinion is that the questioning of consent in a scene and an active fight to actually stop the scene from happening, based on opinions or assumptions, are vitally different.

    For example, I wouldn’t find it offensive or insulting if someone questioned the consent and/or safety aspects of a stunt that was performed. Many people think stunt performers are fucking insane for what they do and most performers would readily agree!! It’s dangerous. You can get hurt. You may even die.

    Believe me, they’re not sitting around acting offended because someone questioned their mental abilities… Hahahaha… 🙂

  89. Are you joking? The end of my post is all questions. None of which you answered. Questions signify the opposite of having answers. “the whole consent thing”??? Wait, what does this mean? People don’t believe that humans can give consent to do weird things? Please clarify this “consent thing” that some don’t agree to. Your post was about whether killing the animals should be legal. You clearly were leaning/arguing that it should be. I was asking the commenters to clearly state agreement.

  90. “goes against every single animal instinct there is and we’re all animals.”

    This way of trying to equate our brains as equal with other animals is bad basic biology. We have evolved well beyond “animal instinct” in many scenarios. You make the case that liking something sexually that goes against “animal instinct” is so weird. Lots of our behaviors go way outside those basic “animal instinct” lines. You also have a very hard to understand streak of acting like porn is more accepted than it should be. This just seems silly. They aren’t accepted by society in any large way at all. Doing any porn is still a giant black mark.

    Again, your whole point about “Animals have protections, performers don’t” misses the basic idea of levels of need and vulnerability. It isn’t apples to apples. Without these restrictions the animals lives would mean NOTHING on many sets. As you state (I disagree) performers have no rights and are not in anywhere near this level of danger. The group that has no ability to make decisions and will be killed without protections (animals) is at greater risk than the group that has consent and risk/reward thinking and is not in mortal peril (performers).

  91. @erik

    For me the consent thing never even entered the picture despite the great lengths to which it has been commented on through this thread.

    For me the questions I’m trying to wrap my head around have more to do with how we have treated animals in commerce, specifically gambling that is absolutely acceptable in other countries but we outlaw as abhorrent.

    IG cockfighting is illegal in the US but widely accepted in Latin America. Living in Florida we had neighbors who raised chickens and goats for Santeria sacrifices, as long as they didn’t sacrifice the animals with in town limits it was legal and despite a few neighbors disgust and fears in 15 years they proved to be great neighbors who never once tried to co-opt or convert my kids to anything beyond how to toss chicken feed.

    Where do we draw the line? Is it okay to squish roaches, spiders or beetles barefoot or with stiletto heels? Squish mice but not squirrels or chickens..piles of maggots but not fish?

    Is it okay for film but not gambling? Would it be okay for filming or gambling in a controlled environment like MMA or greyhound racing? If so how would it be sanctioned with groups like PETA who would fight it?

  92. @Lacey

    I think I got your point when I equated the thrill of gambling to sexual thrill and wondered how it would be okay or legal to satisfy the sexual in ways that extend even beyond what’s illegal for gambling.

    As to performer safety vs props (animate or inanimate) I get what you’re saying…why the fuck are we making a stink out of some chickens/fish when every labor law is tossed out the window in general with the industry?

  93. @erik

    I disagree! Been to the circus lately?

    Existing labor laws and BBP regulations are not enforced to nearly the degree that animal welfare is in this country. Even trash & lawn height is more enforced than porn performer safety with few towns not opting to remove debris or mow a lawn/swale and place a lien on the property for the service.

  94. @Lacey,
    Your third sentence here should read,,,,”I understand how performers would be willing to risk THEIR FELLOW PERROMERS SAFETY to keep the industry from going under…..”

    The question isnt what YOU are comfortable doing,,its what your partner is comfortable doing,,,,,,and no performer knows this answer regarding the person they are working with,,,,,and that is why the harm reduction program is a fucking joke,

Leave a Reply