Pay for porn. Hahaha. Thatâs a good one. Especially when there are tons of people who just record and post what they would be doing anyway for fun.
Good tips for tourists, but quality paysites are easy to find, and plenty of their content is even available as free samples.
What is impossible is hetero porn with a mutual focus on the womanâs pleasure. I know a producer or two has tried, but it never seems right/quality(?) enough to break into the mainstream content.
Even with âuserâ submitted content, I have to wonder if all parties involved know their image is being shared. Then what about age? Not only is there a moral problem there, but one slip up in your browser history could have huge implications.
What if one doesnât feel that capitalism is ethical?
Are you saying there IS an exception to Rule 34?
itâs weird. i recently noticed that a part of my preference for bdsm porn is that the woman is often really into it (and the ones where she isnât are not appealing to me). i donât know if youâd call all of it âpleasureâ unless you are into bdsm yourself, but thereâs definitely focus given to it.
it makes sense. if someone is just in it to make money, theyâd rather do three regular porns than get paid double (?) for bdsm. itâs a self-selection process. a few providers have been doing this with less kinky porn, but for some reason thereâs not so much of it. maybe the silly fake lesbian stuff is providing a simulacrum of it?
Itâs not every porn star who would have a reference to âTransmetropolitanâ painted on her tits.
In that case, in this society, one presumably has already come to some rough accommodation with it to even get to the point of being able to choose between sources of porn. Unless someone is trading charcoal drawings on handmade paper with their neighbors, or something like that.
You should join my co-op, they use only locally-sourced organic cucumbers and melons.
I see that âregulated by unelected bureaucratsâ is the new âethicalâ. Lovely. I was lacking that piece of information.
I get that Jiz wants to get paid for their work, but their argument falls flat when sites like PornTube are chock full of free samples, submitted by legitimate for-pay sites, that are presumably doing all of the recordkeeping that Jiz talks about. If ethical porn starts with paying for it, Jiz needs to talk to the porn producers, who apparently feel itâs a perfectly valid part of their business model to give it away for free.
Honestly, though, the validity of their argument is reduced to zero when Jiz saysâŚ
I once came across a video I was in that had been viewed over 50,000 times. If even a fraction of those views had been paid for,
Oh, that old saw? Look, if I stand in a Costco all Sunday giving out samples of my New Amazing Salsa, and at the end of the day, I have given out 50,000 samples and made no sales, what should I conclude? There are certainly sites out there that are showing Jizâs content without permission, and I acknowledge thatâs a problem, but if thatâs the problem, then the answer should be, âWatch porn through authorized channels,â which doesnât imply that youâre paying for it.
Frankly, itâs ironic that a porn actor is making this argument, since pornography was one of the first fields to embrace the fact that, on the Internet, nearly all content will be available for free, and there is little you can do about that. Porn has spearheaded the campaign against the argument that You Canât Compete With Free, by making Free an inherent part of its business model, and by and large, Porn seems to be doing okay for itself. The porn industry is bigger than it ever has been, and there is more legal, free porn available now than ever before. So the argument that âethical porn starts with paying for itâ is incomplete.
When I sign a contract, itâs between the producer and myself. For someone else to assume that right feels non-consensual.Yeah, welcome to business where everyone (including you) tries to exploit everyone else. Using the language of feminist consent theory to complain that your business contracts aren't being honored is pretty weird. If consent is so important, why are you playing a micro-capitalist?
The overall point of âsupport the media you like if you want to see more of itâ is well taken and should be applied to porn just like other kinds of music, film, literature, etc. But I think the author is kind of behind the times in her understanding of the âinformation economyâ. A lot of the arguments remind me of what record labels were saying 15 years ago.
Some in the porn industry have been on the cutting edge, creating sustainable business models out of subscriptions and patronage arrangements before Patreon and the like ever came on the scene. And there are plenty of crowdfunding campaigns to create porn as well. I think thatâs a much more promising direction than grousing about all the free content. Workers should be paid (well) for the work they do creating the porn, not how many copies are given out after the fact.
Never forget that the alternative to unelected bureaucrats is politicians. Then watch closely whoâs saying those words.
Bullshit. The generically-named garbage on streaming sites might not feature their names but discerning pr0n watchers care. Itâs in the filename because you want to know what youâre getting before youâre 6gb into the download. Many ethical producers like kink.com put the custodian of recordsâ name in the damn credits.
So is home made porn inherently unethical?
Genuine enthusiasm is the best turn on.
Have you coincided product placements to supplement monetization? Like maybe after youâre done you may want to get that taste out of your mouth with a charleston chew? Or use some Reddi Whip?
I would say this article generalises too much. Human traffickers charge for not just porn of victims but of the outright rape of them. And the advertising of legal and safe porn sites allow them to pay for themselves, mostly.
When it comes to piracy, look, the main reason why there is an underground world of pirated porn on BitTorrent is precisely because of the copyright prohibition that puts it underground in the first place. Abolish copyright and instead fund creative workers through assurance contracts (paid FIRST, work after), and the incentive of consumers to get stuff from underground goes away, meaning the mainstream stuff can be better regulated.
The parallel between this and the war on drugs is uncanny. Is it not true to say that both BitTorrent and drug dealers do not check for I.D. as long as there is no regulation? Is it not true to say that both BitTorrent and drug dealers mix unwelcome toxins with their underground products due to a lack of de facto regulation such as viruses and other addictive drugs, respectively? Is it not true to say that, like the war on prostitution as a matter of fact, it has caused workers nothing but misery and empty promises? Is it not true to say that they all fund nasty gangs, whether it be the Al Capone figure of Kim Dotcom or the Taliban who benefit from the untaxed, unregulated profits of Afghanistanâs heroin crop? Or indeed Chinaâs lethally aggressive capitalist state?
Copyright is like thinking you can replace your state currency with JPEG dollars and expect it to be stable. It just damn well wonât be.
If you get rid of it, and you instead allow workers, creative and sex alike, to name their prices beforehand and demand all the corporate actors pay their share into the Kickstarter/Patreon âpotâ, that is by far a more practical imposition of liberty for all. With copyright, nobody really has to pay up. With assurance contracts, the existence of creativity itself depends on them paying up.
