'Hardcore Profits'

[thugler]

Anyone watching/watched this shite? Seems to be a michael moore/morgan spurlock style documentary complaining about pornography being degrading to women, and it making a lot of money/businesses making a lot of money from it. No fucking shit. The man doing it is incredibly irritating, interviewing people and surprising them saying things like "'young whorebags in cunt city 4' isn't that demeaning to women?" or quoting statistics about pornography making a lot of money. He's currently blaming porn for all manner of things from kids failing exams TO AIDS, taking anecdotal evidence from all over the world with no evidence whatsoever.

edit: oh now he's blaming rape on porno.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Didn't that Dawn Porter one do a similar Ban Porn type show on BBC3 recently? She also seemed to think it was the blame for the majority of the world's ills.

And she didn't see any intellectual hypocrisy in her banging that drum whilst having done TV shows with the name 'Dawn Porter Gets Naked' that involved her and several other women undressing in order to raise awareness of things.

If I'm mixing that bint up with another, please let me know.

[boxofslice]

I turned off after about 15 minutes as it was irritating. The guy seemed genuinely surprised that people in the porn industry were in the business of making money. Not exactly eye opening stuff.

Seem to recall the Louis Theroux one from years back was far better.

[Nik Drou]

This thread reminds me of this synopsis I found online yesterday of a movie that's shooting this month and it's looking for runners, people.

Enrique Choval, a young Spaniard in his early twenties, suffers from a social behavior disorder, an addiction to pornography.

Enrique's gradual and (inevitable) addiction begins during his adolescence in Spain. He eventually moves on to his birthplace, London, in the hope to find his biological father and the possible reason for his disorder. With the help of Imagine Wilcox, an experienced feminist lawyer, they lead a class-action lawsuit against the porn industry for it to take its share of responsibility for Enrique's state of mind.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Snap. I was looking at that earlier. Sounds like a barrel of laughs.

[Retinend]

I wish someone would ask these people why it's degrading to the female performers and not the male. Also, the women earn about 10x more, so who's more exploited?

[Little Hoover]

That synopsis sounds like a good plot for a porn film.

[biggytitbo]

Was this one of those 'serious' documentaries that was really just as excuse to show lots of humping?

[Retinend]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mk52f/Hardcore_Profits_Episode_1/ it's on iPlayer now

some half-arsed introduction "big companies are cashing in" i.e. pay-per-view Sky channels and some scuzzy mobile phone companies. BREAKING NEWS.

some beardy twat spewing large numbers - porn is much worse if it's profitable for some reason

him taking the moral highground while embarassing a hotel manager with the names of porn movies they show on their TV's. As if this jerk has never jerked off in his life.

What does the title mean, anyway? "Woah, you made you hardcore profits, dude"

some old biddies interviewed now for no reason. Surprisingly, they think 'things have gone too far'. Hypocritical cunts - who was responsible for the baby boom then?

LMAO "sitting outside a church I can look at PORN on my laptop", why not go inside and really make your non-point?

Some wrinkly: "I don't think we want it rammed down our throats"

that's 5 minutes. what a load of shite.

edit: he's driving me mental with his "I'll read these rude words out in a wry monotone; this is all so very alien to me". I won't go on a rant about Judeo-Christian prudery, but... that's totally what this is.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

2 new uns...

I wish someone would ask these people why it's degrading to the female performers and not the male. Also, the women earn about 10x more, so who's more exploited?

In the show, they mentioned women having to do "around eighty shoots a year" to earn 'reasonable money', may we assume that's, say $100K. Are you suggesting men earn $10K for a similar amount of work?

And the other 'question' is even more bizarre. Who are "these people", the documentary makers? Isn't it obvious? Much of the art discussd in the show had titles that played on the degradation of women, no one's saying they don't like it up 'em, but you have recognise the existing power framework and porn's place within it. The genders aren't equal to begin with.

And what's wrong with "ancedotal evidence"? There's no perfect cause and effect equation for anything involving people who've any degree of free choice. Sure the guy presenting the show seemed naive, but he wasn't wrong. Is anyone suggesting it's a positive step, US porn being screened in mud-hut cinemas in Ghana? Is anyone demonstarting this scientifically?

[Retinend]

In the show, they mentioned women having to do "around eighty shoots a year" to earn 'reasonable money', may we assume that's, say $100K. Are you suggesting men earn $10K for a similar amount of work?

10x was plucked from the air, but men earn considerably less than the women. Men do work more, however, because the ability to fuck on camera is quite rare.

And the other 'question' is even more bizarre. Who are "these people", the documentary makers? Isn't it obvious? Much of the art discussd in the show had titles that played on the degradation of women, no one's saying they don't like it up 'em, but you have recognise the existing power framework and porn's place within it. The genders aren't equal to begin with.

They say that they find it 'degrading', but actually they find the idea of a woman having sex with lots of people on camera a more shocking and morally objectionable state of affairs than the man's (identical) situation. This is based on a double standard which should be challenged, not presumed as true.

And what's wrong with "ancedotal evidence"? There's no perfect cause and effect equation for anything involving people who've any degree of free choice. Sure the guy presenting the show seemed naive, but he wasn't wrong. Is anyone suggesting it's a positive step, US porn being screened in mud-hut cinemas in Ghana? Is anyone demonstarting this scientifically?

Anecdotal evidence is often shit because the person gathering the 'evidence' is pre-selecting people he knows will support his own skewed view. If he asked me I would say "I watch porn; I don't have AIDS, I have never raped anyone and I don't hate women", but instead he asks people which will give him what he wants to hear, and so will give his program more independent opinions, and thus a spurious air of authority. This program doesn't take anecdotal evidence from both sides of the argument.

The guy is wrong in my eyes (dunno what you're on about with the 'demonstrating scientifically' - are you saying that all opinions are subjective therefore useless?). I don't think porn in huts is positive or negative (I haven't seen this part yet). The pornography industry is not something I think is any 'better' or 'worse' than the music industry. Masturbation is what people do.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

They say that they find it 'degrading', but actually they find the idea of a woman having sex with lots of people on camera a more shocking and morally objectionable state of affairs than the man's (identical) situation.

The man's situation is not "identical", that's the point. If men and women had enjoyed equality in all things since the dawn of time, you may be right, but only then.

Anecdotal evidence is often shit because the person gathering the 'evidence' is pre-selecting people he knows will support his own skewed view.

That's also true of science. Commercial pharmocology is all about matching the symptoms to fit the drug. Medicalization's taken over everything we do, think and say.

This program doesn't take anecdotal evidence from both sides of the argument.

It may be reporting proportionally. And it's naturally 'against the tide', porn has boomed, so there's little need to big it up, it needs no help. This series attempts to deal with some of the consequences of that boom.

[Tiny Poster]

That's also true of science.

No, by definition it wouldn't be science if that were true.

[Retinend]

The man's situation is not "identical", that's the point. If men and women had enjoyed equality in all things since the dawn of time, you may be right, but only then.

It is identical. The only difference if how you (and virtually all of us on this planet) have been taught to view it. The female performers will be looked at more harshly by society than the men, but that's the problem of the society, not the performer.

That's also true of science. Commercial pharmocology is all about matching the symptoms to fit the drug. Medicalization's taken over everything we do, think and say.

No, scientists try everything to disprove their hypothesis and if they, or others, cannot, then they have a strong case to support it. It's the same for debates; although nothing can be totally ruled as a complete truth, beliefs like "treating races differently is wrong" are widely accepted, because the arguments against it are all illogical.

It may be reporting proportionally. And it's naturally 'against the tide', porn has boomed, so there's little need to big it up, it needs no help. This series attempts to deal with some of the consequences of that boom.

It deals with it in a specious and fallacious way, sure. I've read some convincing arguments against my position, which have made me consider how I justify my support of it, but this documentary doesn't. It just relies on the viewer being on his side from the start.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

Ha, sorry, scientists in no way try to disprove the drugs they're marketing don't work. Of course they cherry pick cases, though I agree this isn't "science" as science should be, but it is 'science', because it's what scientists do, certainly those involved in the pharmaceutical industry, because that's their job, to create products that'll sell, above and beyond products that work. They simply load the hypothisis they go to test. You really think they care whether Pantene is good for your hair? Or whether it 'works' in a limited fashion, this limited fashion being the criteria for the test, a test conducted 'scientifically' and thus rendering the product "scintifically proven".

Retinend - No, it's not the "identical". Men and women aren't equal. I'm not talking morality, it's plainly political.

[Tiny Poster]

You're confusing business/marketing with the scientific process.

[thepuffpastryhangman]

I'm making a distinction being pure scientific enquiry, or research and 'what scientists do'. Who funds 'science'? Isn't most 'science' undertaken on behalf of/funded by commercial/business interests? And isn't science used to blind/baffle and sucker aboard consumers with it's white-coated aire of legitimacy? At the very top end, sure, a few uber boffins are doubtless pushing the frontiers of understanding, but for every one of those, there's fifty thousand buck-takers queuing up to put their name and their college's name to any manner of commercal enterprise. They're not searching for a theory of everything, and neither is this show.

[Tiny Poster]

And isn't science used to blind/baffle and sucker aboard consumers with it's white-coated aire of legitimacy?

Pseudoscience, used by marketing departments, attempts to use the language of science in order to impress consumers. By definition this is not science, and the claims used by such companies and individuals is what damages the reputation of legitimate science. Scientists don't run big businesses and don't decide what products to sell and market. They do... science.

[thugler]

There are a ton of reasons why this guy is completely wrong, and he seemed to be to be wilfully ignoring the facts in favour of cherry picked anecdotes, sometimes including himself pushing those he was interviewing to answer in the way he wanted. Claiming that porn is degrading to women because it calls them 'sluts' and such is complete nonsense and a ridiculously one sided view. Why is a man being called a stud better than a woman being called a slut.

Not to mention that pornography trades on fantasies, no shit the actors and actresses in them aren't going to be concerned with portraying anything other than people who enjoy lots of fucking, not bloody role models. He fails to mention that female performers make much more money than male ones, male pornstars are a rarity compared to women. Large businesses are behind porn because it makes money because people like masturbation, not to push their agendas against women through the content.

Though extreme porn does exist and some of it's attitudes/content may be objectionable to some, those concerned are consenting adults, and I've seen numerous studies that show reduced incidences of rape in correlation to the rise in pornography. In fact I heard no mention of any actual studies or science in the entire program. If the bloke in the program actually bothered to research his worries his questioning tone and approach would be challenged significantly.  Eventually the thing descends into him blaming pretty much any accusation he can get hold of on porn. From self harm, rape, aids, and pretty much every societal problem. It's a really shoddy documentary, even compared to Moore/Spurlock type fair. I'd not be surprised if this guy turned out to be some sort of christian activist.

Whats the fuss about '80 shoots a year'. So what, 80 days work at the most? sounds like a pretty sweet deal. It's very easy for some arsehole like this to take the moral highground and assume that they don't enjoy their jobs also.

And what's wrong with "ancedotal evidence"?

Quite a lot when it's ALL from the same side of the argument, ALL unchecked rumours with no source, and very likely ALL cherry picked by the documentary maker.

This might as well have been an anti-porn propaganda film. STOP WANKING! You're FUELING AIDS!

[Tiny Poster]

Not only does he start out with the premise 'porn=evil', he's made this with no grey areas whatsoever. The only decent point he makes is about big companies hypocritically denying they make any money from pornography whatsoever. Although going "you won't see them admitting that in their family friendly adverts" is fucking ridiculous.

[Retinend]

This might as well have been an anti-porn propaganda film. STOP WANKING! You're FUELING AIDS!

It was. That's why it was 'revealing' things which were so fucking "duh" to anyone under 50. It's target audience are people who were still getting used to phones without wires, and thought computers were fancy typewriters which probably give you cancer. Why doesn't it ask any young people for their opinions? Probably because no one's so unrealistically prudish as to want to censor the web/ petition credit companies to refuse pornographers' business (which was what he was ridiculously hinting at), and even if they were, they would have realised long ago that the battle was lost. This program should have been made at the turn of the century.

The program also makes out as if pornography was a tiny market before the internet.

[Sanguine Penguin]

I watched about 10 minutes of this and decided that the interviewer was following a rather narrow and specific agenda and as such it seemed to me that it was more propaganda than documentary (as thugler has already mentioned).
So I put some porn on and had a wank instead.


Earlier tonight there was a decent documentary on BBC4 following UK porn star Lindsay Honey (Ben Dover) as he attempts to make the switch to mainstream acting.
I-Player linkoid
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mg9dd/Rich_Man_Poor_Man_Ben_Dover_Straightens/

[rudi]

Was it decent though? I struggled to see the point of it. He's not going to become an acrtorrrrrr as:

1. He knows fuck all about plays. "I don't wanna do them, y''know, Proust or Shakespeare plays". Actors/directors etc share a common language, a bond of sorts defined by actors they admire, canonical works etc, they get work by knowing each other and through recommendations and just being in the same gang. Not knowing owt about the business would be enough of an obstacle, but professing (and I believe him) to not really giving a fuck that he doesn't know is professional death.

2. He's not willing to see his income fall. You're just going to walk into a major part are you Lindsay? One that pays as well as your bloody awful porn "films"?

He's just playing at it, liking the idea of being an actor but not really needing to act. I'm sure (as, admittedly he claims to want to do) he could do fine in a soap; after all, the quality of the writing and acting is uniformly shit (shout, cry, glare, cut!), but then if that's all it was about, why the documentary? "I want to be in a soap" isn't nearly the same as "I want to be a serious actor"; Josie Fucking Lawrence is in one, for yahweh's sake...

[Jemble Fred]

Is she??? You mean the wonderful RSC actress and world-class comic improviser? Fucking hell. Ah well, I suppose it comes to the best of 'em when the brickwork needs repointing or something.

I'd have been happier if she went into porn though (preferably about 15 years ago).

[rudi]

Is she??? You mean the wonderful RSC actress and world-class comic improviser?

That may be your opinion (certainly not mine), but she's shouting and gurning with the best of them of Eastenders currently.

I'd have been happier if she went into porn though (preferably about 15 years ago).

Oh god no. No! NOOOO! Maybe when she reached orgasm she'd shriek one of her "hilarious" songs - that'd be extra-erotic.

[Jemble Fred]

NOT AN IMPROV FAN THEN?


_{EDIT: Caps lock error. Actually, I prefer it like that.}


Besides the single word 'wonderful', it's not actually my opinion that Lawrence was in the RSC, and is a serious actress and respected veteran comic improviser, that's what she is whether you like her work or not.

The EastEnders thing is a bit disappointing, but then after Sophie Thompson all bets were off, I don't think any new casting could surprise me.

[Sanguine Penguin]

Was it decent though? I struggled to see the point of it. He's not going to become an acrtorrrrrr as:

I meant decent in that it was quite well made (although the narrator did attempt to get in more than his fair share of double entendres) and unlike Hardcore Profits it was very much non-partisan. I found it interesting to see how the different elements of showbiz reacted to him ie. the actors mostly being quite accepting and welcoming and the agents to a man/woman/thing refusing to touch him with the proverbial barge pole for fear that just being associated with him would somehow destroy their careers.

[rudi]

The "wonderful" is kind of the important word when discussing appreciation of the skills of the lady though, surely?

Am I an Improv fan? If it's good, but it rarely is in my experience (and that's as much a limitation of the format/genre than any great slur on those who do it).

[rudi]

I meant decent in that it was quite well made (although the narrator did attempt to get in more than his fair share of double entendres) and unlike Hardcore Profits it was very much non-partisan. I found it interesting to see how the different elements of showbiz reacted to him ie. the actors mostly being quite accepting and welcoming and the agents to a man/woman/thing refusing to touch him with the proverbial barge pole for fear that just being associated with him would somehow destroy their careers.

Oh right, fair enough.

[Jemble Fred]

The "wonderful" is kind of the important word when discussing appreciation of the skills of the lady though, surely?

It was the only part of what I wrote that was opinion though – you originally suggested she wasn't a serious actress, which is evidently not the case as the briefest look at her CV would prove. You can hate everything she's ever done, but it's nonsensical to suggest that she's somehow not a real actress just because she doesn't fulfill the requirements of the Rudi-personal-taste-o-meter.