Porn or prostitution?

Guy:Incognito

Not sure if this belongs here or where. Theres a program on C4 now about people leaving their jobs to start out in the porn industry. Theres a woman who sent pictures of. an agency rang her and set up a meeting with two men. shes meeeting them in a tran station and they are going to take her to an address that she hasnt been told yet. Shes getting £300 to be filmed having sex. They have said the film is for their own private use.

What is the difference between this and prostitution? Where exactly are the lines?

LadyJ

Beats me! Jesus,gotta see that!

Only Human

Stekelly wrote:

Not sure if this belongs here or where. Theres a program on C4 now about people leaving their jobs to start out in the porn industry. Theres a woman who sent pictures of. an agency rang her and set up a meeting with two men. shes meeeting them in a tran station and they are going to take her to an address that she hasnt been told yet. Shes getting £300 to be filmed having sex. They have said the film is for their own private use.

What is the difference between this and prostitution? Where exactly are the lines?

The camera.

LadyJ

Prostitution becomes porn when fimed though I guess!

Guy:Incognito

LadyJ wrote:

Prostitution becomes porn when fimed though I guess!

Can't see the guards agreeing with that if the catch you in the car with your camcorderand a brasser.

LadyJ

Stekelly wrote:

Can't see the guards agreeing with that if the catch you in the car with your camcorderand a brasser.

I know,tell me about it!

Ro: maaan!

Oh LadyJ, You are too much!

LadyJ

Ro: maaan! wrote:

Oh LadyJ, You are too much!

You know you love it Ro!

skye

prostitution & porn are much the same if you ask me. Porn is prostitution - does the fact that it is filmed make it any different? Money is exchanged for the act of sex - the lines are blurred in the porn industry to make it appear "acceptable" - don't get me wrong - not against good porn - quite enjoy it and it's good for a healthy sex-life, each to their own I guess. Depends where you stand on the argument.

Kernel

Stekelly wrote:

Not sure if this belongs here or where. Theres a program on C4 now about people leaving their jobs to start out in the porn industry. Theres a woman who sent pictures of. an agency rang her and set up a meeting with two men. shes meeeting them in a tran station and they are going to take her to an address that she hasnt been told yet. Shes getting £300 to be filmed having sex. They have said the film is for their own private use.

What is the difference between this and prostitution? Where exactly are the lines?

Watched that program myself, was pretty disturbing really when you think about it. I thought there was more of a difference myself, but really there isn't, especially when you look at the ****ty money the girls were paid. They were also treated like absolute ****, and even slightly forced into doing some things against their will (at the very least they were pressured).

The girl in question was a bit of a tragic case IMO. She was married to a guy for one thing! She gets brought to a house, ****ed and filmed for 8 hours getting roasted by 3 guys, sucking their cocks, ATM (ass to mouth), DP every kind of **** imaginable. Then she gets 300 quid and away with her. She seemed happy enough at the end, probably because she was a slag, or stupid, or both.... Would you like your wife/girlfriend or even daughter to do some **** like that?!?

Makes me look at porn in a different way though - it's a lot sleazier than the slick porn barons would lead you to believe.

sprinkles

Kernel wrote:

Makes me look at porn in a different way though - it's a lot sleazier than the slick porn barons would lead you to believe.

I don't know, my local porn baron seems like a very nice guy

sprinkles

Damn it, TBH when I saw the thread I though I'd be giving someone career advice. Oh well.

seamus

Cleary not an AH issue. Moved.

Zombrex

Stekelly wrote:

What is the difference between this and prostitution? Where exactly are the lines?

Well I think technically the idea is that neither the guy or the girl having sex are the ones paying for it. They are both supposed to be paid for being "actors" in the film.

But I think the lines get very blurred if the guy (or girl) having sex is also the one paying for the film. Then it is really just prostitution with the guy making a movie out of it for himself.

I didn't see the program but what was the girl like who took part? Was she thinking quick way to make £300 or did she think this was going to be something that would launch a career or something. I saw a program about porn before on either the BBC or Channel 4 and the girls in it came off as incredably niaeve.

Sleepy

TBH, I don't see any difference between porn and prostitution. The camera hardly makes the act of being paid to have sex any more classy does it? In fact, when you think about it, there's probably more class in the call girl who arrives at a hotel, performs a service and leaves discreetly with a few quid in her purse.

To quote the great Bill Hicks: "What business is it of yours what I do, read, buy, see or take into my body as long as I don't harm another human being whilst on this planet?". I think this is exactly the same thing tbh. If a woman is prepared to do a three way for a couple of hundred pounds, that's her choice. If she's stupid enough to allow someone to pressure her into doing things she doesn't want to do for that money, that's her own tough luck. We all learn from our mistakes.

Why bother trying to classify porn and prostitution as two seperate things? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. What difference does it make? At the end of the day, both should be legal and regulated (regular STD checks, ensuring that the men/women involved are doing so of their own free will etc).

If the short-sighted moral majority want to prevent the horrors of sex-trafficking, they only have to legalise and legislate the already thriving sex industry in this world. As it is, they're turning a blind eye to a black market being run by criminal thugs who are potentially putting the girls, their clients and the public at large in danger while earning small fortunes to be used in other criminal activities (drug running etc).

The Corinthian

Traditionally prostitution has been criminalized on a point of morality, typically religiously based, and pimps are still charged on the basis of their ‘immoral earnings’. Ultimately this school of thought argues that sex for money is immoral and should be criminalised, while conversely in modern Society prostitution is largely opposed on the basis that it encourages exploitation of women.

As a sideline, some feminist theorists argue, pointing to religious prostitution in ancient Mesopotamia, that the criminalisation of prostitution was an attempt by men to control women who were able to use sex as currency within Society - but this is another debate, TBH.

That pornography slightly differs to classic prostitution is simply a fudge used by both the porn industry and Society so as to escape the legal net. Ultimately pornography is essentially prostitution in that it is sex for money and can be viewed as ‘immoral’ as prostitution. Additionally exploitation of women takes place in the porn industry.

Of course, is it right or wrong? The porn industry is not the only one to exploit people or treat them as human resources and the issue of sex for money is questionable as well if you consider the number of kept women (and men) out there. Ultimately the bottom line is whether engaging in sexual acts for payment is immoral to the point that it should be criminalized - if not it simply becomes a question of regulation and education, just like any other industry.

RuggieBear

I watched it and was absolutely shocked. I always assumed that the "actors" got decent money...why else put yourself in such pain and bodily risk. Just seemed so exploitative. And then the woman drove of in a porche...she (or the hubby) must have been earning decent money to have one of those so why earn a pittance doing porn :eek:

There was a program on last night about a HIV incident within the porn industry in LA that nearly had myself and my girlfriend in tears....some poor canadian girl got infected in practically her first job...and then got shunned by the industry.

rubadub

Kernel wrote:

****ed and filmed for 8 hours getting roasted by 3 guys, sucking their cocks, ATM (ass to mouth), DP every kind of **** imaginable. Then she gets 300 quid and away with her. .

Yeah 8 hours hard labour for under £40 an hour. She would be better off just being a normal unfilmed whore. It seems she doesn't consider herself a prostitue if it is being filmed. The first 2 guys were filming her for their own use, a normal prostitute would have charged more for being screwed by 2 guys alone and charged more again for filming (so my granny tells me), she is either an idiot or just fooling herself that she is a "star".
The terminology was brilliant the narrator saying she was "spit roasted, doggied and cowgirled". I'll never look at an ATM machine without a grin now.

The other girl had it pretty easy, piss your pants for £250, she didn't even show anything. I'd **** my own pants for €10 and a bag o chips!

seamus

RuggieBear wrote:

I watched it and was absolutely shocked. I always assumed that the "actors" got decent money...why else put yourself in such pain and bodily risk. Just seemed so exploitative. And then the woman drove of in a porche...she (or the hubby) must have been earning decent money to have one of those so why earn a pittance doing porn :eek:

A woman can get paid well and have a relatively long career. Men, not so well (there are so many lining up), and their careers are normally shorter (with the obvious exceptions).

There was a program on last night about a HIV incident within the porn industry in LA that nearly had myself and my girlfriend in tears....some poor canadian girl got infected in practically her first job...and then got shunned by the industry.

Yeah, that was a bit mad. There's a very good article about the whole incident on www.wikipedia.org. Seems that one male actor made an obviously dumb mistake, and ruined a few people's lives.

RuggieBear

seamus wrote:

A woman can get paid well and have a relatively long career. Men, not so well (there are so many lining up), and their careers are normally shorter (with the obvious exceptions).

Aye but not this woman....
She was 38 and had seemingly just started. I mean she was an attractive lady but she was never going to be the next Jenna Jaminson or whoever and she also wouldn't have (do) anal sex. The other actress did and only got an extra £50!!!! I suppose i'm just shocked at the small sums of money involved. Maybe it's just the small scale british (porn) industry...Can only assume that the big name american porn stars are on good money.

Yeah, that was a bit mad. There's a very good article about the whole incident on www.wikipedia.org. Seems that one male actor made an obviously dumb mistake, and ruined a few people's lives.

I beleive there was another case of a male pornstar who kept working while he had HIV....think it was a while back and was one of the reasons that Pornstar clinic was set up.

EDIT: here is that article on the poor candian girl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Roxxx

Commissar

I saw some of both those shows on C4.
Iirc the older of the two women on last nights Diary of a Pornstar show was earning £50,000 sterling a year after 15 years managment experience, was married and had a 12 year old daughter.
Personally I was amazed that she would dream of becoming a porn-star. Granted she might not have had much job satisfaction before this but to think that pron could give her such satisfaction is unbelievable.
in any case she didn't make it. I missed a good portion of the show but at the end I she was in tears. Apparently she plans to create a website of errotic photos.

It was allready mentioned, I know, but I was even more amazed that the asian girl, Sahara, was paid £250 for pissing herself 3 times on webcam. :eek: I can't believe people were actually paying money to see that on-line.

edit: I was just reading about Lana Roxx on those links and it occured to me that pornstar must be one of the most inaccurate ways of describing those women.

Sleepy

Another interesting point is that many of the women see *themselves* as prostitutes as much as pornstars. Sunset Thomas would be the most famous of these women. She's worked in (and I believe now owns a share of) the infamous bunny ranch out in Nevada.

magpie

Its hard to feel sorry for someone called Lara Roxx

RuggieBear

magpie wrote:

Its hard to feel sorry for someone called Lara Roxx

That's pretty offensive

magpie

It's also hard to feel sorry for someone that

planned to retire after an expected short stint in the industry just to build up a nest-egg.

through

a double-anal penetration scene with James and another actor

If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. And its not like she was forced to do it through poverty. It was just a get-rich-quick scheme.

RuggieBear

while i don't agree with you...i see where you are coming from... i think.

Zombrex

magpie wrote:

If you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. And its not like she was forced to do it through poverty. It was just a get-rich-quick scheme.

I read a very good article in response to attitudes like this on the blog of an independent film maker in LA (not a porn film maker).

Basically he pointed out that if you wish to make an film in LA, for every location you film you need about 4 cops, a health and safety inspector, a firemarshel and a stunt co-ordinator for every 5 stunt men or something.

Basically 5-8 people looking after the well being of the people involved in the shoot before you even have done anything. He also singled out the stunt men. You have to have fire officers and safter personel from the state watching over all the stunt men to make sure they don't take any risks and are protected at all times. They cannot volunteer or be pressured into doing something dangerous because the movie would simply be shut down by the safety inspectors

If you are making a porn movie, involving very risky and dangerous acts such as double anal penentration you need absolutly no one to be present while filming. No one looks after the actors at all, no one is present to stop them, willingly or under-pressure, doing something dangerous and stupid.

I read and interview with Lara Roxx (which isn't her real name btw) in which she said she believed that the porn industry was perfectly safe and that the actors would be cleaner than normal folk. Now you can say that is very stupid of her, but she was a 19 year old girl, and she wouldn't have expected that an industry would be allowed get a way with the health and safety risks that the porn industry does.

There needs to be proper regulation in LA, but so far in the increasingly conservative and religious no one will touch that issue with a barge pool in case they look like they are supporting porn.

pickarooney

Wouldn't it be against the law, though, to have sex for money in front of a cop?

Zombrex

pickarooney wrote:

Wouldn't it be against the law, though, to have sex for money in front of a cop?

No more or less than to have sex for money not infront of a cop

magpie

Porn in 'not safe' shocker.

Gurgle

my 2c:
None of the participants is actually paying for sex - It's not prostitution

Assuming working 5 days a week, with bank holidays off and 20 days annual leave - thats equivalent to a salary of €69k.

Thats not bad at all for a job where the only qualification required is willingness.

pickarooney

Gurgle wrote:

my 2c:
None of the participants is actually paying for sex - It's not prostitution

Assuming working 5 days a week, with bank holidays off and 20 days annual leave - thats equivalent to a salary of €69k.

Thats not bad at all for a job where the only qualification required is willingness.

There are other qualifications:
- not being a hideous troll (for female stars)
- not having a small langer (for the boys)
- not going soft despite performing all day and being watched by lots of people

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Basically he pointed out that if you wish to make an film in LA, for every location you film you need about 4 cops, a health and safety inspector, a firemarshel and a stunt co-ordinator for every 5 stunt men or something.

While I’m not defending the lack of safeguards in the porn industry but you will however have to concede that this is a rather extreme example as it is an overkill brought about by years of lawsuits and unionisation in the entertainment industry.

I read and interview with Lara Roxx (which isn't her real name btw) in which she said she believed that the porn industry was perfectly safe and that the actors would be cleaner than normal folk. Now you can say that is very stupid of her, but she was a 19 year old girl, and she wouldn't have expected that an industry would be allowed get a way with the health and safety risks that the porn industry does.

Oh please! Be still my bleeding heart!

Stupidity or naivety may explain why she was more likely to take stupid risks, but this does not excuse them. Legally and morally once we are seen as adults we are responsible for our actions, idiocy notwithstanding. Either we’re free to screw up our own lives at eighteen or we’re not and you simply cannot have it both ways.

She had high-risk unprotected sex. While it was the first time that she had practiced that particular sexual act, it is not unfair to assume that it was not the first time she’d had high-risk unprotected sex. And ultimately while what happened to her was a terrible thing, she went into eyes open and I don’t think anyone has suggested that she was deceived at any time.

Also, given her present legal moves against the porn companies in question, I’m hardly surprised that she now says she believed that the porn industry was perfectly safe and that the actors would be cleaner than normal folk. And given that thousands of actors in the LA porn industry get regular checks and that given even with this, much publicised, outbreak was ultimately limited to four cases, it would not be unreasonable to say that even had she believed it, it would not have been an unfair assumption.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

While I’m not defending the lack of safeguards in the porn industry but you will however have to concede that this is a rather extreme example as it is an overkill brought about by years of lawsuits and unionisation in the entertainment industry.

Well "extreme" or not, it is a system put in place to guarentee (as much as possible) that the works on the film set, and those around the film (on lookers) are completely protected from any accidences, danger, or risk. Because an event it unlikely does not mean you should not have to take every protection against it. A fire will not likely start in the vast majority of night-clubs in Dublin this year but they all still have to meet very strict fire safety guidelines or be shut down.

The Corinthian wrote:

Oh please! Be still my bleeding heart!

The girl made one porn movie, did something she was told to do by the film director (or she wouldn't get paid) and now she is homeless, pennyless and HIV positive. She obviously didn't understand the risks she was exposed to, she was 19 for christ sake, still a teenager. She did what she was told by the film makers. SHe believed that the the porn industry was regulated to protect the actors, which is only half true. You have to understand a lot about the tests that are used, the loopholes in the industry, to know that the self regulation actually gives very little protection, something she obviously didn't know.

There was no proper system or safe guards making sure that this girl was not exposed to HIV as part of her everyday work, which when you think about it it is ridculous. Even a law saying that condoms must be used at all times would be a start. Imagine if as part of cost cutting a hospital told its staff that they would no longer be providing latex gloves to nurses or doctors who handle patents with open wounds. And if the doctors don't like it they can quit. There would be up roar.

The Corinthian wrote:

Stupidity or naivety may explain why she was more likely to take stupid risks, but this does not excuse them.

Excuse them? The girl is going to probably die a horrible death for doing something that was part of her job. What does she have to make an excuse for? Dying?

The Corinthian wrote:

Legally and morally once we are seen as adults we are responsible for our actions, idiocy notwithstanding.

Right now there are about 101 different laws and regulations protecting you at your work place. If you worked on a building site it would be illegal for the foreman to allow you on to the site without a hard hat, even if you claimed you didn't want to wear on. As I said before it is illegal in LA for a film director to let a stunt man do something that is not approved by the health and safty officer, even if the stunt man wants to do it. The modern work place is full of laws that are designed to protect you from danger, even danger caused by your own stupidity.

The Corinthian wrote:

lso, given her present legal moves against the porn companies in question, I’m hardly surprised that she now says she believed that the porn industry was perfectly safe and that the actors would be cleaner than normal folk.

She made that statement in an interview 3 days after she tested positive

Gurgle

pickarooney wrote:

There are other qualifications:
- not being a hideous troll (for female stars)

The evidence I've see suggests that thats not even a disadvantage. You need to research the topic more.

pickarooney wrote:

- not having a small langer (for the boys)
- not going soft despite performing all day and being watched by lots of people

OK, admittedly the career is not as open to men as women.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Well "extreme" or not, it is a system put in place to guarentee (as much as possible) that the works on the film set, and those around the film (on lookers) are completely protected from any accidences, danger, or risk. Because an event it unlikely does not mean you should not have to take every protection against it. A fire will not likely start in the vast majority of night-clubs in Dublin this year but they all still have to meet very strict fire safety guidelines or be shut down.

I never said that safety guidelines and procedures should not be present or not be strict, I simply pointed out that you gave an extreme example that amounted to overkill.

The girl made one porn movie, did something she was told to do by the film director (or she wouldn't get paid) and now she is homeless, pennyless and HIV positive. She obviously didn't understand the risks she was exposed to, she was 19 for christ sake, still a teenager. She did what she was told by the film makers. SHe believed that the the porn industry was regulated to protect the actors, which is only half true. You have to understand a lot about the tests that are used, the loopholes in the industry, to know that the self regulation actually gives very little protection, something she obviously didn't know.

So what if she was 19? What you tend to forget is that she was not the only one who did what they was told by the film makers - Jessica Dee did so too. So either we must accept that they are both equally responsible for their actions as adults or perhaps we should consider pushing the age of consent to 25. I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways.

Excuse them? The girl is going to probably die a horrible death for doing something that was part of her job. What does she have to make an excuse for? Dying?
Excuse her from the responsibility of the results of her own actions.

The modern work place is full of laws that are designed to protect you from danger, even danger caused by your own stupidity.

I never said that the porn (or any other) industry is well regulated; only that stupidity is no excuse to absolve someone from the consequences of their actions.

“Poor boy raped that woman, but he was only 19...” :rolleyes:

She made that statement in an interview 3 days after she tested positive

So what? Are you suggesting that the thought of suing didn’t enter her head by then?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

I never said that safety guidelines and procedures should not be present or not be strict, I simply pointed out that you gave an extreme example that amounted to overkill.

Well I am not sure how you define overkill. The number of people is determented by required is to cover as much as possible any potental danger. Like I said, is it overkill to expect night-clubs to meet fire-safety codes even though the odds of a fire happening are relatively small.

The Corinthian wrote:

So what if she was 19?

So she was niaeve and inexperienced, as all 19 year olds are.

The Corinthian wrote:

What you tend to forget is that she was not the only one who did what they was told by the film makers - Jessica Dee did so too. So either we must accept that they are both equally responsible for their actions as adults or perhaps we should consider pushing the age of consent to 25.

Or we could introduce proper state controlled regulation to protect the workers, as pretty much every other industry in the western world has.

The Corinthian wrote:

I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways.

What do I want "both ways"? Not following that at all, or the bit about "Jessica Dee did so too"

Excuse her from the responsibility of the results of her own actions.

Like I said, does she need an excuse to die from AIDS?

I never said that the porn (or any other) industry is well regulated; only that stupidity is no excuse to absolve someone from the consequences of their actions.

Absolve her from what exactly? What crime has she committed? Do you believe her behaviour was sinful or immoral?

So what? Are you suggesting that the thought of suing didn’t enter her head by then?

No I am suggesting that the statement that she believed she was in a well regulated industry that protected its works was not made up. People tend not to start planning eleborate lies to sue people a few days after they are told they are going to die.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Well I am not sure how you define overkill. The number of people is determented by required is to cover as much as possible any potental danger. Like I said, is it overkill to expect night-clubs to meet fire-safety codes even though the odds of a fire happening are relatively small.

Again, I never suggested is it overkill to expect night-clubs to meet fire-safety codes even though the odds of a fire happening are relatively small. I was referring to the other example that you gave that is overkill. However, to use your nightclub example, it would be the equivalent of expecting night-clubs to have about 4 cops, a health and safety inspector and a fire marshal present at all times.

So she was niaeve and inexperienced, as all 19 year olds are.

Then if all 19 year olds are so naive and inexperienced, then we should consider raising the age of consent. Apparently you consider them incapable of making adult choices.

Or we could introduce proper state controlled regulation to protect the workers, as pretty much every other industry in the western world has.

Where have I said that they should not?

What do I want "both ways"? Not following that at all, or the bit about "Jessica Dee did so too"

Jessica Dee was in her mid-twenties at the time of the infection. She was older and certainly more experienced, but nonetheless apparently shared Lara Roxxx’s naivety where it came to the levels of safety in the industry. Yet there is no question that she holds a portion of responsibility for her own actions.

Morally and legally they are both seen as equally responsible for their own actions. If, as you contend, that Roxxx is not responsible due to age then we have to reconsider this equal level of competence.

A 19-year old is either to be treated as an adult or not. You simply cannot have it both ways. You decide.

Like I said, does she need an excuse to die from AIDS?

No but apparently you’re happy to absolve her from all personal responsibility on the basis of her age or naivety.

Absolve her from what exactly? What crime has she committed? Do you believe her behaviour was sinful or immoral?

If I walk out into the middle of the street without looking I am not committing a crime. It may be naive or stupid to do so, but if a car hits me then I must at least share some of the responsibility for what happens because as an adult in the eyes of Society I am responsible for the consequences of my actions - regardless of whether I am 18 or 81.

No I am suggesting that the statement that she believed she was in a well regulated industry that protected its works was not made up. People tend not to start planning eleborate lies to sue people a few days after they are told they are going to die.

Now who’s being naive? I suggest you go read a few Corpo case files.

rubadub

pickarooney wrote:

- not being a hideous troll (for female stars)

there is specialist mags and dvds just showing old hags and ugly women, saw them in the waiting room in the local garda station

pickarooney wrote:

- not having a small langer (for the boys)

again specialist, probably paid even more for having to go through the shame of millions of people seeing their face, saw these mags in the local church beside the missalettes

pickarooney wrote:

- not going soft despite performing all day and being watched by lots of people

viagra!

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

it would be the equivalent of expecting night-clubs to have about 4 cops, a health and safety inspector and a fire marshal present at all times.

I take it you don't know much about film sets ...

The Corinthian wrote:

Then if all 19 year olds are so naive and inexperienced, then we should consider raising the age of consent. Apparently you consider them incapable of making adult choices.

Where did she choose to get HIV? She choose to have sex with 2 men under the belief that the industry she worked in was properally regulated, a belief that was naive and not true. But like i have already pointed out how many 19 year olds do you know who fully understand (or are even expected to) the inner workings of an industries safety regulation.

Any other industry would have regulations and laws looking after someone like Roxx. It would be like giving out that a 19 year old checkout girl who dies in a fire should have brought her own fire-extiguiser and not assumed the Dunne Stores fire safty plan actually worked.

The Corinthian wrote:

Jessica Dee was in her mid-twenties at the time of the infection. She was older and certainly more experienced, but nonetheless apparently shared Lara Roxxx’s naivety where it came to the levels of safety in the industry. Yet there is no question that she holds a portion of responsibility for her own actions.

Both Dee and Roxx should have been protected by a proper regulation system. The failings of the industry regulation system is responsible for all the people infected, including James. Dee was possibly in a better position than Roxx, to know that the system that the industry claimed was in place didn't actually work, but not necessarilary so.

The Corinthian wrote:

Morally and legally they are both seen as equally responsible for their own actions. If, as you contend, that Roxxx is not responsible due to age then we have to reconsider this equal level of competence.

You are not legally or moraly responsible for dying on a job due to a regulation system failing. Like I said, is a girl who dies in a shop fire responsible because she should have known the fire system didn't work? Is Roxx responsible because she should have know that the screening system in place in American porn does not work well enough to stop things like this happening?

The Corinthian wrote:

A 19-year old is either to be treated as an adult or not. You simply cannot have it both ways. You decide.

Please tell me what I want it both ways? I don't even know what you mean by "it"

The Corinthian wrote:

No but apparently you’re happy to absolve her from all personal responsibility on the basis of her age or naivety.

Personally responsiblilty for what? What did she do that she deserved to get HIV.

It is "very risky" to jump out of a plane, but you assume that the company who is providing sky diving is properally regulated and that you are actually relatively safe, as safe as it can be. Yes there is a small chance things will fail, but are you saying that a sky diving company can put a rolled up coat in your shoot and it is your fault if you die?

The Corinthian wrote:

If I walk out into the middle of the street without looking I am not committing a crime. It may be naive or stupid to do so, but if a car hits me then I must at least share some of the responsibility for what happens because as an adult in the eyes of Society I am responsible for the consequences of my actions - regardless of whether I am 18 or 81.

If a building site foreman tells a builder to get up on a building roof, is it wrong for the builder to assume the building site is actually safe? Should he assume the foreman hasn't a clue about safety, and if the building collapses on top of him is it his fault for being stupid enough to trust his boss?

Roxx was told that there was a proper screening and regulation system in place in teh porn industry, a claim that the porn industry maintains to today. Yes she was stupid to believe porn producers, but are you really saying the industry has absolutly no responsiblity to her and the others infected?

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

I take it you don't know much about film sets ...

I suspect I know as much as you.

Where did she choose to get HIV? She choose to have sex with 2 men under the belief that the industry she worked in was properally regulated, a belief that was naive and not true. But like i have already pointed out how many 19 year olds do you know who fully understand (or are even expected to) the inner workings of an industries safety regulation.

Then raise the age of consent, revoke their right to vote and keep them safe at home.

Any other industry would have regulations and laws looking after someone like Roxx. It would be like giving out that a 19 year old checkout girl who dies in a fire should have brought her own fire-extiguiser and not assumed the Dunne Stores fire safty plan actually worked.

What law specifically protects 19-year olds over other workers?

Both Dee and Roxx should have been protected by a proper regulation system.

Again, I’ve never claimed otherwise.

You are not legally or moraly responsible for dying on a job due to a regulation system failing. Like I said, is a girl who dies in a shop fire responsible because she should have known the fire system didn't work? Is Roxx responsible because she should have know that the screening system in place in American porn does not work well enough to stop things like this happening?

No but some jobs are implicitly more hazardous than others. And ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law if you’re an adult.

Please tell me what I want it both ways? I don't even know what you mean by "it"

Either 19-year olds must be treated as adults or they are too naive to be treated as adults.

Personally responsiblilty for what? What did she do that she deserved to get HIV.

When does responsibility for the concequeces of your actions become deserving the worst to happen?

It is "very risky" to jump out of a plane, but you assume that the company who is providing sky diving is properally regulated and that you are actually relatively safe, as safe as it can be. Yes there is a small chance things will fail, but are you saying that a sky diving company can put a rolled up coat in your shoot and it is your fault if you die?

Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no regulation in the porn industry? While hardly foolproof, the measures that are taken are hardly a ‘rolled up coat’ either.

If a building site foreman tells a builder to get up on a building roof, is it wrong for the builder to assume the building site is actually safe? Should he assume the foreman hasn't a clue about safety, and if the building collapses on top of him is it his fault for being stupid enough to trust his boss?

It is wrong for the builder to assume that it will always be completely safe. No matter what, accidents will always happen.

Roxx was told that there was a proper screening and regulation system in place in teh porn industry, a claim that the porn industry maintains to today. Yes she was stupid to believe porn producers, but are you really saying the industry has absolutly no responsiblity to her and the others infected?

No I never said that. I said that she is not without responsibility either.

BuffyBot

So she was niaeve and inexperienced, as all 19 year olds are.

Naive enough not to know that taking two strange men's unprotected dicks in her behind didn't come with some risk? :rolleyes:

Sleepy

Wicknight, I see your point that the industry could probably have stricter screening standards, yet you have to remember, porn actors are, by the very nature of the type of people attracted to those jobs, going to have more sex outside work, that most normal people. Short of watching the actors 24/7 and having an AIDS Test directly before each shoot (which is ineffective anyway as one can be a carrier for some time before standard testing will show positive) what can the industry be expected to do?

If you want to blame anyone for this, blame the fúcktard that brought in the disease for having had unprotected sex/needle sharing when his job required that he be even more careful than the rest of us.

Your example of a checkout girl in Dunnes is not a fair comparison to the case in question. Unprotected sex carries a high risk of contracting STD's. Scanning items at a checkout does not carry a high risk of starting a fire.

The girl should have known what she was getting herself into. If she didn't, then as an adult, she bares some of the responsibility for being ill-informed, and imho, more responsibility than her employer. For a comparison I've never heard of a racing car driver having to be told that because he's driving very fast any accident with that car is going to be potentially fatal. Likewise, why should a porn "star" have to be told by their employer that because they're having unsafe sex, that any accident with the screening process is going to be potentially fatal?

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

I suspect I know as much as you.

Apparently not

The Corinthian wrote:

Then raise the age of consent, revoke their right to vote and keep them safe at home.

Or put in place proper health and safety regulations :rolleyes: YOu seem to expect that everyone in work should assume no health and safety laws apply to them. Should I bring a fire extinguisher to work because I shouldn't assume the my company will provide one :rolleyes:

The Corinthian wrote:

What law specifically protects 19-year olds over other workers?

What are you talking about???

You claimed that she should have known that the regulations set up by the porn industry didn't work. I counter that how many 19 year olds understand the inner workings of the health and safe regulation in any job, be it Dunne Stores or a porn set. Now you are going on about why should 19 year olds be treated any differently. What are you on?

The Corinthian wrote:

Again, I’ve never claimed otherwise.

You have repeatable claim she and she alone is totally responsible for her own health and safety at work. If that is the case then what is the point of health and safety regulations. Who would be responsible for them??

The Corinthian wrote:

No but some jobs are implicitly more hazardous than others. And ignorance is no excuse in the eyes of the law if you’re an adult.

Ignorance is not an excuse if you break the law. Please tell me what law she broke?

Ignorance is not a justification for an industry to ignore the health and safety of its workers. Like I have said (and you have continued to ignore) if a worker in Dunne Stores burns to death in a fire because the store has no fire system set up, is the worker responsible because she assumed they did?? How about if she is told they do have a safety system set up. Is her ignorance in the lack of quality of the safety system at her job justification for her burning to death?

The Corinthian wrote:

Either 19-year olds must be treated as adults or they are too naive to be
treated as adults.

Every single adult in pretty much any industry in the western world is protected again unsafe job requirements except the porn industry. Justify that.

The Corinthian wrote:

When does responsibility for the concequeces of your actions become deserving the worst to happen?

When does a company or industry have a responsiblity to protect its workers from life threatening hazards? If a man walks onto a building site and crane falls on top of him is it simply a concequence of his actions?

The Corinthian wrote:

Are you suggesting that there is absolutely no regulation in the porn industry? While hardly foolproof, the measures that are taken are hardly a ‘rolled up coat’ either.

The entire point is that Roxx was told there was regulation and that regulation failed her. If there was no regulation at all you could claim she was stupid to do the job with no protection. But she was told there was protection. You seem to believe that a 19 year old should have known the ins and outs of the medical procedures and safety tests well enough to know they didn't work. Do you know the ins and outs of your fire code in your office? How about in your local pub? Or do you just assume they have to meet a certain standard by law?

The Corinthian wrote:

It is wrong for the builder to assume that it will always be completely safe. No matter what, accidents will always happen.

If a builder was told he didn't need to wear a hard hat and then something fell on his head would he be responsible for this??

Zombrex

Sleepy wrote:

Short of watching the actors 24/7 and having an AIDS Test directly before each shoot (which is ineffective anyway as one can be a carrier for some time before standard testing will show positive) what can the industry be expected to do?

The prostitution industry in Nevada has had very strict state controlled regulation since the early 80s. There has never been a reported case of a protitute getting or given HIV to any one. There is absolutly no reason why the porn industry should not be held to the same high standards of health and safety.

Sleepy wrote:

The girl should have known what she was getting herself into.

She was told that the industry had proper screening for HIV, that they had a system that would protect her. That system doesn't work. Whos fault is that? Hers for believing them?

Put it another way, were you even told that your company had fire extinguers in your office, or did you just assume it? If they didn't actually have any fire system set up (which would be illegal btw) would you be responsible if you died in a fire.

Or put it another way, did you ask to get a detailed copy of the health and safety regulations when you started your last job? Or did you just assume they would meet a safe standard.

It think this holyer than thou attitude taken by people like TC is pretty hypocritical. How many people here demand to see the details of their offices fire, electrical and safety plans. How many people have even checked if their office has a first aid kit. I would say very few because we all assume, rightly, that work places in Ireland have to meet a high standard of health and safety.

This poor girl was told that the industry she worked for had a screening system in place that would protect her against HIV. She believed her employer. You all seem to think for that niavety she deserves to die from AIDS. TBH that attitude disgusts me.

BuffyBot

This poor girl was told that the industry she worked for had a screening system in place that would protect her against HIV.

I would hope that most people, in this day and age, know that the only (and not even always successful) way of avoiding STD's is to practice safe sex. I would hope that anyone who enters the porn industry and has unsafe double anal penetrative sex with two people she doesn't know, would have thought "Hold on..this might not be the best of ideas".

You all seem to think for that niavety she deserves to die from AIDS.

Nope. I don't think that. I do think that she has to take some element responsibility for the consequences of her sexual behaviour.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

Apparently not

I’m sorry; the subtlety of my last comment was lost on you. I’m accusing you of bluffing knowledge in the area in question.

Or put in place proper health and safety regulations :rolleyes: YOu seem to expect that everyone in work should assume no health and safety laws apply to them. Should I bring a fire extinguisher to work because I shouldn't assume the my company will provide one :rolleyes:

Again, what does this have to do with her age? I have never objected to proper safeguards, only your singling out one individual on the basis of age.

You claimed that she should have known that the regulations set up by the porn industry didn't work.

Where did I say this? Feel free to point it out.

I counter that how many 19 year olds understand the inner workings of the health and safe regulation in any job, be it Dunne Stores or a porn set. Now you are going on about why should 19 year olds be treated any differently. What are you on?

Reality it would appear.

You have repeatable claim she and she alone is totally responsible for her own health and safety at work.

Where did I say this? Where did I say or even infer that she is totally responsible for her own health and safety at work?

Ignorance is not an excuse if you break the law. Please tell me what law she broke?

Did you miss my response where I pointed out that breaking the law was irrelevant or are you just not reading?

Every single adult in pretty much any industry in the western world is protected again unsafe job requirements except the porn industry. Justify that.

That’s seriously questionable, both the lack of standards in the porn industry as are the apparently pristine standards elsewhere.

When does a company or industry have a responsiblity to protect its workers from life threatening hazards? If a man walks onto a building site and crane falls on top of him is it simply a concequence of his actions?

Again, where have I absolve anyone from responsibility. Last time I looked you weer the only one doing that.

The entire point is that Roxx was told there was regulation and that regulation failed her.

Yes. Boo-hoo. However your sympathy for her is entirely based upon her age and how she was obviously too young to make a mature decision. This is what I am contesting. Not the standards, not the culpability of others, but that she was snow white. Perhaps she once was, but she drifted.

If a builder was told he didn't need to wear a hard hat and then something fell on his head would he be responsible for this??

If a meteorite hit him would it still be the employer’s fault?

Zombrex

BuffyBot wrote:

I would hope that anyone who enters the porn industry and has unsafe double anal penetrative sex with two people she doesn't know, would have thought "Hold on..this might not be the best of ideas".

If you do you are very very naieve. Considering most of the people I lived with in college believed that you could only get AIDS if you were gay, or that pulling out protects you against STDs, it is frankly impressive that this 19 year old girl inquired about the HIV screening in the industry at all.

People seem to be forgetting that she was told there was a HIV screening system in place.

A blood transfusion is a incredably unsafe idea unless the blood has been screened. Would you refuse to have a blood transfusion in hospital before you have seen and had time to study the ins and outs of the hospitals blood transfusion set up. Would you even ask if they did screen the blood? I doubt it, you like most people would assume the hospital is not allowed to perform procedures that are actually unsafe. If you got HIV from infected blood due to a totally inadequate screening system at the hospital would that be your fault?

BuffyBot wrote:

Nope. I don't think that. I do think that she has to take some element responsibility for the consequences of her sexual behaviour.

She should have know that when she was told they screened actors for HIV that the screening system they used does actually work very well?

Put it this way, if you were told by your employer to handle dangerous chemicals with gloves he provided and the gloves actually did **** all to protect you, is that your fault for being stupid enough to actually do what you were told by your employer?

BuffyBot

If you do you are very very naieve. Considering most of the people I lived with in college believed that you could only get AIDS if you were gay, or that pulling out protects you against STDs, it is frankly impressive that this 19 year old girl inquired about the HIV screening in the industry at all.

I can't speak for your college friends do or don't believe. To be honest, it's neither here nor there, because none of them (as far as I know) are active in the porn industry.

Let's look at the gay porn industry for example (by this, I mean the mainstream gay porn industry - there is a whole barebacking subculture which is another topic altogether). It has HIV screening too, yet most studios insist that condoms are used for penetrative sex scenes. Many of the actors insist on them too - simply because having unprotected sex with strangers carries risks, not matter how many safeguards are put in place.

Now as I said, this woman went along and took part in some extremely hazardous and unsafe sexual activity (by choice), and paid a terrible price for it. It's a shame, but I still maintain she is certainly responsible to some extent.

Zombrex

BuffyBot wrote:

Now as I said, this woman went along and took part in some extremely hazardous and unsafe sexual activity (by choice)

.. after being reassured that the industry screens actors (after she in fact was screened herself). It seems to me her only fault was believing her employeer. How many 19 year olds don't accept (or even understand) the health and safety advice given to them by their employer?

Like I said, would you turn down a blood transfusion? If you got HIV from a blood transfusion that was not screened properly would that be your fault?

Another example is tatoo parlors, which AFAIK are not particularly well regulated. Does that mean if a 19 year old gets a tatoo and as a result gets HIV from an unclean needle is she totally responsible for that? The parlour has no responsibility, even if they claimed they took measures against HIV transfer over needles?

It should not be the employees responsibity to make sure there employeer is being unsafe or could that something they do on the job could kill them. That is exactly why we have so many health and safety laws in this country and others. An employer should not be allowed to put an employee in the position of accepting a risk or not getting paid. This girl was told to do this scene by her employer. If she refused the movie would not be made and she might even have been in breach of her contract (as has happened to other porn stars who refused to do things in a scene).

That is even before we get to the fact taht she was told HIV screening was in place, just like we are all told blood transfusion screening is in place.

I would really like to see if someone can claim that they believe this girl is responsible for getting HIV but then claim somone recieving a blood transfusion is not responsible if they get HIV from that.

Gurgle

Any employer must take reasonable precautions to protect its workers from workplace accidents / hazards.

Why is a 19yo porn star catching HIV any different from a 19yo bricklayer falling off scaffolding and ending up paralysed ?

People are injured and killed in the workplace all over the world every day. Why should anybody be more entitled to protection than anyone else ?

As a general rule, you get extra money for more dangerous jobs. Ever heard of a bricklayer on a €69k salary ?

wicknight wrote:

I would really like to see if someone can claim that they believe this girl is responsible for getting HIV but then claim somone recieving a blood transfusion is not responsible if they get HIV from that.

wtf are you talking about ?
She took a risky high paying job and lost to the statistics!

Do people get paid for taking blood transfusions ?
Do they do it for fun ?