'Hardcore Profits'

[rudi]

I meant to imply I don't think she's a good actor. I'm sure all those chaps in soaps think they're serious actors, but that's not what Mr Dover wanted, hence his probable failure.

[Jemble Fred]

Well maybe she's phoning it in on EastEnders, I wouldn't know as I gave up on that shit when Cathy Beale left and they had a dream sequence. I'd rather forget that I ever discovered Lawrence had been compelled to move to Albert Square at all, really.

The odd thing about Dover trying to act is that it's not as if his porn films contained any acting whatsoever anyway, they weren't narrative porn. Well I've only seen the one (honest), but I'm guessing they're all much the same – deeply depressing films of middle-aged housewives being paid not very much to be covered in his knobpoison.

The cross-over equivalent wouldn't be acting, but hosting the Daz Doorstep Challenge.

[rudi]

They're all pretty much identical and, yeah, there's no acting involved (admittedly that's kind of their raison d'etre).

He only ever has one line: "Cor, fuckin 'ell, thass luvvly" which he repeats ad nauseum.

Say what you like about the ubiquity of Private or the shiny unreality of yer Vivids and Evil Angels, but at least they put a bit of effort into it...

[Morrisfan82]

UK porn star Lindsay Honey (Ben Dover)

I can't get my head around the fact that his non-porn name sounds like a female porn name.

[rudi]

His dad's full title was Lieutenant Rock Phallus, so, y'know, he got off lightly I guess...

[evelyn_blake]

His son's a pretty decent actor though (His actual son, not his cock or anything). After basing a living on wasting sperm, seeing the one that didn't get away stealing the limelight must be galling. Everytime he sees him on the TV he probably gets a girl to try to lick him off and swallow him like he's the white, lumpy mess he should have been

It's slightly impaired Outnumbered for me knowing the older kid is Ben Dover's son. I keep trying to imagine what sort of exasperated face he'd pull if Hugh Dennis came back home after spending a fortnight fucking every supermarket worker in Winslow

[MuteBanana]

I skimmed through the Lindsay Honey doc and didn't see him, but was the son in it? I was hoping for some real life Outnumbered scenes between them, with Honey replacing Dennis.

[Pedro_Bear]

Goddamit. Now I am going to have to appear hypocritical as well as insane.

'sup? Part of the meta-mod team that currently presides over most chan jailbait boards keeping them clean from child porn. No stranger then to one-more-pixel-then-we-all-go-to-jail imagery, nor the distinction between content and context, the ~£250,000 a day business that is "child modelling" in this particular context, and the three stock arguments that paedophiles fall back on when they get up on their high horse and try to justify spamming pictures of abused little kids on a clearly designated pornography board.

(This isn't going to be about porn == enabling paedophiles, relax. For a start, it doesn't. The hardcore stuff isn't made initially for profit, nor as pornography, more as a sort of rape momento, and no number of external hardrives of kids in swimsuits is going to enable a sane person to cross that particular line. No, what enables on-line paedophiles is a sense of community, and then a sense of one-upmanship within that community, neither of which is directly triggered by pornography. All the more reason to burn their digital nests to the ground when you find them out on the http, and force them to scuttle off to the darknets where they belong. )

Also worth mentioning that I'm mates with cyber-stalking Nemesis off of Suicide Girls, several notorious camwhores of chan fame, and the very lovely Sasha Grey, none of whom I'd deny the cash they make and/or the attention they bask in from what they do. This may appear to conflict a bit later on when I start banging on about inherent exploitation, and I'm not entirely sure I'll resolve it.

As for "Hardcore Profits", it is a pile of shit from beginning to end. If you want to watch a balanced documentary about the pornography industry, with porno execs talking openly about profits and exploitation, Snuff: A Documentary About Killing On Camera is the one to acquire.

Further, as noted already here, so far "Hardcore Profits" hasn't even mentioned the simple fact that the same cocktail of signifers and exploitation drives almost every commercial, tv show, chart music act and cinematic release, despite the profit-orientated shift of everything towards that sales sweet-point of a 12 certificate, associated watering-down of content to match.

So... yeah. Ignore this show. Back to porn. It is exploitation, it does exploit women performers more than their male counterparts, but then again it exploits four times as many male heavy-consumers than female ones. What, then, is the nature of this exploitation, and why are we all so seemingly vulnerable to it?

First of all, take a closer look at the idea that doing something that earns a lot of money over a short window of opportunity somehow negates concerns as to the nature of that activity where pornography is concerned. Hmm... how am I going to do this one without illustrations? Alright then, welcome to information about (and not a direct link to) the internet's slickest dodge of international law. It is not my recommendation that you visit this site, ever, despite the legality of the images in context. The /boy/ and /girl/ boards are "not for porn", they are moderated 24/7 almost, and all legally dubious photos are removed, as are sexual references to the models. The site transfers 60GB and hour at low peak, and 80GB per hour most other times, the demand for "child models" is huge. Uh, to appreciate fashion trends, obviously, especially the ones that involve little kids showing their naked arses, or draping curls over flat chests to cover nipples. So, fashion designers, developmental anatomists and hair stylists are the main clientelle here.

The source for almost all of the pictures is the extremely profitable "child model" industry, not to be confused by the less profitable child model industry. The most popular "modelling" site is Sandra's, turning over ~£24k per day through subscriptions. She started very young indeed, and stayed the course, her cut-off profitability point arriving this November when she finally turns 18. Filesharing sites and torrent trackers are bracing for the extra traffic expected due to the almost inevitable harcore debut.

So... what's exploitative about any of this, eh? You get your photogeneic kid to prance about nearly nude (or indeed circa 2000 actually nude before the mean USA put pressure on the ex-Eastern Block banks to stop you getting paid for it) and you print money. Actually, you get any kid to prance about nearly nude and those fashion enthusiasts will hand over $30 to get their eyes fed with something new. And hey, if they want to lay out between ten or as much as a hundred times as much, a "custom set" can be arranged, which might (will) include a changing room snapshot or two, or indeed fulfil all the legal requirements for artistic nudity, with "accidental" outtakes. Offhand, I cannot think of a popular "child model" without at least one custom set dripping through unmodderated or mod-complicit (i.e. soon to be burnt to ashes) image boards, and indeed the younger the model it seems, the more there are.

TL;DR? This'll be interesting: can we agree that this is an insanely profitable form of pornography that exploits the models?

And... before you reach for your keyboard to dodge the question by suggesting that I am implying that all porn is equivalent, I'm not. I'm starting with an example of porn that lame, sensational, do-nothing-of-value "Hardcore Profits" doesn't have the stomach for, and really needs if it wants to explore the money side of the industry, ditto people, naively perhaps, defending pornography as non-exploitative.


There is plenty more to tl;dr about this labyrinthine subject, from the pathology of voluntary camwhores (no, the thread doesn't need pictorial examples, oh privelidged information ones), the athleticism of professional pornography actresses, the honest pleasure enjoyed by consumers weighed up against the addiction associated with pornography, right through to human trafficing, the almost ubiquitous abuse of methamphetamine by American porn models, and the now studied effects of exposing children to a culture based on competatively selling bodies. Not to mention the very root causes of why such a very little thing could ever have become the eyemaze that it is in the first place. None of which is going to be found in "Hardcore Profits", obviously.

[Braintree]

Isn't one of the reasons women get paid so much more in porn is because the end result could see them pretty fucked up, proplapsed cunts and anuses let alone the STIs(which men can get too but Chlamydia, for example doesn't ruin male fertility like it does for women)

I'm not sure I agree with the porn=increased rapes but I do think, for some men(and maybe women) it gives a, somewhat, unrealistic view of sex in relationships or even one night stands. I don't think it will lead to unconsensual sex but more a case of women watching porn and recreating it, not because they want to but to keep the man happy and then men failing to understand why their next girlfriend doesn't take it up the arse.

[clingfilm portent]

Isn't one of the reasons women get paid so much more in porn is because the end result could see them pretty fucked up, proplapsed cunts and anuses let alone the STIs(which men can get too but Chlamydia, for example doesn't ruin male fertility like it does for women)

I'm not sure I agree with the porn=increased rapes but I do think, for some men(and maybe women) it gives a, somewhat, unrealistic view of sex in relationships or even one night stands. I don't think it will lead to unconsensual sex but more a case of women watching porn and recreating it, not because they want to but to keep the man happy and then men failing to understand why their next girlfriend doesn't take it up the arse.

I think that's more to do with being a moron? I've watched copoious amounts of porn from a young age (I'm male I'll point out), and as I stand today I have more respect for women than ever. I think if you have a healthy and balanced view on the opposite sex as well as your own then you're fine. I think porn can breed new sexual desires, sure, but as a man you must have a dim view of women already if you're expecting a bloody good deepthroating and anal privileges right off the bat...

The problem is people are rubbish.

[Retinend]

a lot of words

I think you lost your own point. You were supposed to explain why pornography was exploitative, and why "it exploits... consumers". Whether or not this industry of suggestive child modelling is right or wrong is neither here nor there unless you can tie it to the discussion at hand.

[Braintree]

I think that's more to do with being a moron? I've watched copoious amounts of porn from a young age (I'm male I'll point out), and as I stand today I have more respect for women than ever. I think if you have a healthy and balanced view on the opposite sex as well as your own then you're fine. I think porn can breed new sexual desires, sure, but as a man you must have a dim view of women already if you're expecting a bloody good deepthroating and anal privileges right off the bat...

The problem is people are rubbish.

Yes! I do think it is a minority who may have the views I expressed above. I don't blame what it is going on in porn(I think 99% of time people choose to go into it) just the free, easy access to it and its availability to such young people, who are starting to form their views of sex and are easily led(or morons)

Yet I'd be the first to be screaming about human rights and the rights of the sane majority if it were to be restricted. That woman who tried to ban violent porn because her daughter was killed by someone who liked it was to me the same as banning cheese because her daughter was killed by a man who liked cheese. This man was clearly fucked up and I don't believe that his viewing habits encouraged him to do something he otherwise wouldn't have done.

[Pedro_Bear]

I think you lost your own point. You were supposed to explain why pornography was exploitative, and why "it exploits... consumers". Whether or not this industry of suggestive child modelling is right or wrong is neither here nor there unless you can tie it to the discussion at hand.

Sounds about right, although the latter is a ready demonstration of pornography that exploits the models despite the ready flow of cash it generates, and disposes of often pernicious "women's agency" counter-arguments.

Porn is exploitative of consumer's sexuality, and by that I don't mean orientation. Rather the way desire is expressed and represented over various contexts. Sexuality has an object - even if that object is the self - so it's relationship to consumer objects hasn't exactly gone unnoticed by folks wishing to use it in ways to drain cash out of us.

The staged dramas of porn would be readily ignorable where it not for the fact that they tap directly into something we don't have a lot of choice over. We don't choose our sexuality consciously, any more than we choose to feel fucking awesome abusing opiates.

The idea that because we respond positively to certain stimulii then it is fine to go ahead and turn that into a consumer product doesn't follow.

Why doesn't the same argument hold for heroin's effect on the limbic system and the rest? Clearly it's a matter of degree of perceived effect and/or consequences, but perceived by whom? Not the person getting autonomically high in either case. They'll hit that button as many times as they want to (given free reign), "it's their choice" as far as they are concerned, directed physiologically or not. Yet they must make a conscious decision to stop if they are not saturated.

The problem with porn is that the level of saturation required to force a stop in no way relates to deleterious physical warnings (again, with a consumer given free reign) because it's stimulating a person psychologically. Arguably consumer's other actions at the time of full consumption have a stop point to them, yet the trick of the trap isn't in any orgasm when considering porn in marketing, or repeat subscriptions to porn sites.

Pornography exploits a very compelling part of our psychology in ways that would be deemed obviously harmful if this had the physical effects of other products that exploit us physiologically. Our psychological health is very important, look at depressives. Porn is so compelling it is insanely profitable, so the negative effects of manipulation involved are overlooked in a consumer society, and this is besides the roles of gender in either porn or society.

TL;DR? The conscious consumer choice where pornography is concerned is to stop consuming it. That places pornographers above consumers where product is concerned. This is exploitation.

[Baxter]

_{I'm assuming this isn't another round of the the post-modern gibberish game.}

How is one to define what a 'positive response' is, I get the feeling that you're talking about base biological responses but it's total nonsense to use that as a measure if the stimulus doesn't inspire any 'deleterious physical warnings'.

Surely a better measure would be 'interference with normal functioning' which in terms of pornography abuse would have to be a pretty extreme case.

[Retinend]

The idea that because we respond positively to certain stimulii then it is fine to go ahead and turn that into a consumer product doesn't follow.

Hm, I don't agree with any of that. People don't have a choice about feeling hungry if they don't eat food. I suppose you could say that food manufacturers who sell food for profit ('a consumer product') are 'exploiting' our helpless, uncontrollable physiological desires for sustenance (or our positive response to certain stimulii, if you prefer), but you could argue back that people still have the unpleasant but simple choice to live off rain water and berries in the garden, and so are in reality only being offered and optional luxury.

Hard narcotics are dangerous because the choice to refuse them, once you're addicted, is much much harder one to make than the choice I described above. It's possible, but so psychologically challenging that the addict is able to be exploited by anyone who can supply them with their drug. (And obviously there are other issues which explain why they are illegal).

The relationship between pornographer and pornocrat is nowhere near the levels of dependence as drug dealer to junkie. If this needs to be explained: pornography is not physically addictive, and there is no potential physical harm as a result of consuming pornography (short of an hilarious lube/ superglue misplacement scenario such as the one featured in the classic teen comedy American Pie 2).

The pornographer-pornographee relationship is even less exploitative than the greengrocer-greengrocee analogy, as a lack of commercial food will result in poor nutrition, illness or death. A lack of pornography will result in more harddrive space and an improved erotic imagination.

Sorry if I've missed your more salient points, but your language doesn't help matters.

[Retinend]

And is the exploitation only monetary, then?

[Pedro_Bear]

Surely a better measure would be 'interference with normal functioning' which in terms of pornography abuse would have to be a pretty extreme case.

Alright, how do I put this? When we consume a product that gets us high physically first and foremost, there is a very ready saturation point, either because our system peaks and consuming more has no associated physical effect, or because  "interference with normal tollerable functioning" becomes so severe that we respond to it. The latter is self preservation.

The distinction to be made given free reign with a psychological stimulant is that there is no comparable psychological "warning point" at the point where self-harm occurs. We can ride right through that point and not even feel it consciously, not even recognise it's happening.

It's somewhat more complicated than this, because stuff we like physically is going to have an associated psychological pull as well, and visa versa. Hence smokers smoking way more than they need to get high, drunks continuing to drink, or mad Koreans playing Evercrack until they drop dead, that sort of thing.

Hm, I don't agree with any of that. People don't have a choice about feeling hungry if they don't eat food. I suppose you could say that food manufacturers who sell food for profit ('a consumer product') are 'exploiting' our helpless, uncontrollable physiological desires for sustenance (or our positive response to certain stimulii, if you prefer), but you could argue back that people still have the unpleasant but simple choice to live off rain water and berries in the garden, and so are in reality only being offered and optional luxury.

What garden? And where have you been for the past two years? The price of food has skyrocketed above wage increases for no more reason than to return money for corporate investors. We are very much being exploited by the domination of our food source by the food industry.

Now, the psychological tricks they pull to lull us into going along with it are beautifully exploitative, exquistitely so. My favourite one is when they aggressively raise prices out of the blue, and when people start moaning, cite some spurious horseshit about global demand, and then graceously "give in" to consumer pressure, and lower the increase to the size they actually wanted it in the first place. The net effect is we pay more for the same stuff, and feel good about it, too, or at least shut up about it. This is exploitation.

The financial dominance of the food industry over independent competition renders consumer choice in the product of food almost non-existent. An average allotment garden is not going to provide a year round source of food, a nice present from the tyrannies of Monarchy and Feudalism, where we made up the balance by working the fields owned by power for a subsistence share of the yeild, supplemented in our "spare time" by the strip of land they graciously let us have to grow our own food. Access to food has been the weapon of power since the beginning of civilisation. The modern equivalent just doesn't have a head you can cut off in a revolution.

The relationship between pornographer and pornocrat is nowhere near the levels of dependence as drug dealer to junkie. If this needs to be explained: pornography is not physically addictive, and there is no potential physical harm as a result of consuming pornography (short of an hilarious lube/ superglue misplacement scenario such as the one featured in the classic teen comedy American Pie 2).

Yeah, that's what I said, but you missed the important bit about what part of us that is manipulated by pornography.

The pornographer-pornographee relationship is even less exploitative than the greengrocer-greengrocee analogy, as a lack of commercial food will result in poor nutrition, illness or death. A lack of pornography will result in more harddrive space and an improved erotic imagination.

We indulge in pornography when it is presented to us in any of it's forms. The food analogy is that we are always hungry for it, cannot be sated, and always eat all the food we encounter, regardless of any negative effect this has, because we don't perceive the effect in the same way as "I'm full, I'm going to stop".

The consumer choice is not a positive "I will now consume some pornography", it is "I should probably be getting on with something else right now" or whatever. Our choice is to stop consuming. This places us squarely in the position of being exploitable by people providing us with product.

Our psychological health is inbalanced by consuming pornography, which we do by default when it enters our range of detection. No, it's not on a scale whereby if you don't stop you'll drop dead, but this "pull" is what is used against us by people flogging product.

And is the exploitation only monetary, then?

And what is money? It's our time and labour for almost all of us.

Regardless. You don't need a person with the Internet Disease to be committing suicide in front of you to recommend that they lay the fuck off the internet for a few days, their psychological health is clearly warped by the eyemaze they do not even recognise is making them even more unbalanced. A depressive banging on and on and on in the same endless way about the things that make them depressed instead of looking for solutions is not going to stop being depressed, they will distort themselves further and further.

These revelations are obvious to... who? Almost anyone else effected by the distortion. More importantly, they are not obvious to the distorted person.

In the case of pornography, the distortion is of our sexuality, what objects we focus it on, and ultimately how we express this vital part of ourselves. It is not obvious to the consumer of pornography that a distortion is occuring.

Now, I'm not saying that it creates monsters or stupid shit like that. But, if the argument is "pornography doesn't exploit the consumer", then it simply isn't true, it distorts the consumer despite themselves. Pornography consumption distorts our sexuality to consume more pornography.

The question for the informed consumer then becomes: "Should I care?" and the only way to determine this is... to ask people who are effected by our sexuality. If it's no-one, then we can't really answer the question, unless we have some sort of Narcissistic personality disorder.

And who uses pornography the most? People whose sexuality affects no-one: married people.

TL;DR? A consumer who cannot make an informed choice about their consumption is always exploited by the seller. A product that distorts a consumer effects the people subjected to this distortion, in the case of pornography, our sexuality is directed towards consuming more pornography and away from the people around us. How much consuming porn is going to effect our life then is up to those people.

TL;DR?DR? If s/he asks you to stop, they fucking mean it. They're concerned about the distortion of your sexuality away from them and onto the pornography. They probably won't express it this way at 3am in the morning. For some people, the distortion inherent in consuming pornography feels like you're cheating on them, because you are, you just don't feel it.

PROTIP: if you're really into porn, date a camwhore, their sexuality is always far more fucked up than anything you can compete with, and you'll never have that scary 3am argument. Pics or it didn't happen.

[Retinend]

TL;DR? A consumer who cannot make an informed choice about their consumption is always exploited by the seller. A product that distorts a consumer effects the people subjected to this distortion, in the case of pornography, our sexuality is directed towards consuming more pornography and away from the people around us. How much consuming porn is going to effect our life then is up to those people.

You're taking for granted that pornography unhealthily 'distorts' a personality.

You're also widening this debate past pornography, and into ideology if you're trying to argue that food manufacturers do exploit their customers. There are, of course, degrees of exploitation, at one end you have white lies, marketing tricks and on the other blackmail and drug dependence. They're not all the same, however. In my opinion, the pornographer has no more exploitative power (i.e. very very little) than the supermarket, as the compulsion to buy is so easy to resist.

I asked 'is the exploitation only monetary?' because I wasn't sure if you thought that it affected the consumer otherwise. You clearly do. I, and I presume someone as savvy as yourself, have never paid for pornography, but you would still consider me exploited - so this is not an argument about producer-consumer dependence, is it?

"our sexuality is directed towards consuming more pornography and away from the people around us"

for all your high-minded smokescreening, this is a bit of a classic anti-porn argument, which is comforting for me. Personally, I think porn is a very inferior 'alternative' to sex, and watching porn too much guilts me into doing more social things. This quote paints pornography as addictive, which is another classic argument. It's not, at least not without the aid of some compulsive disorder, in which case you could argue that shoes, DVDs, toenail clippings or whatever are equally addictive.

[Baxter]

...toenail clippings...are equally addictive.

[thugler]

Isn't one of the reasons women get paid so much more in porn is because the end result could see them pretty fucked up, proplapsed cunts and anuses let alone the STIs(which men can get too but Chlamydia, for example doesn't ruin male fertility like it does for women)

I'm not sure I agree with the porn=increased rapes but I do think, for some men(and maybe women) it gives a, somewhat, unrealistic view of sex in relationships or even one night stands. I don't think it will lead to unconsensual sex but more a case of women watching porn and recreating it, not because they want to but to keep the man happy and then men failing to understand why their next girlfriend doesn't take it up the arse.

I was under the impression that you had to take STI tests to be in a porn film. Not sure about the prolapsed cunts and anuses thing, I wasn't aware that it was a common injury.

I've seen numerous studies that point to porn availability and use decreasing incidences of rape.

As for the rest of it, I don't really see any evidence of that. Plenty of my age group saw hardcore porn as youngsters and don't expect it to be a realistic portrayal of sex in real life. It's a fantasy, and they are acting on some level, is the impression I always got.

This is a pretty common argument used by the anti porn brigade. And personally I don't buy it.

[Shaun]

Surely it's obvious that porn exploits women? I had to check the dictionary to make sure I hadn't somehow lived for nearly 22 years without understanding what "exploit" means, but it means what I thought it did. Of course the same definition covers pretty much all capitalist endeavour, so I think the question is really about whether it exploits women more than is acceptable to society, and I don't think it does. I think there are more dangerous or potentially psychologically damaging professions for which people receive less compensation which society has no problem with.

Obviously porn featuring people who didn't consent or are too young or otherwise mentally capable of consenting is wrong, but that's true of just having sex with those people as well and that doesn't make all sex wrong. I sometimes wonder if the "porn abuses women [and implicitly not men]" types of people realise how much variation there is. How about femdom? CFNM? Male gay porn? The latter at least seems quite improbable.

[Pedro_Bear]

You're taking for granted that pornography unhealthily 'distorts' a personality.

>>You're taking for granted that heroin unheathily 'distorts' a person's limbic system.

Consumption of pornography does exactly that to fucking work the way it does. That feeling when consuming porn? Guess what? That's a rather important part of your pyschological make up turning cartwheels.

You're also widening this debate past pornography, and into ideology if you're trying to argue that food manufacturers do exploit their customers.

You brought food into it. How many days without food will a civilised population be deemed ungovernable? That's how important keeping the serfs fed is to the people in power.

There are, of course, degrees of exploitation, at one end you have white lies, marketing tricks and on the other blackmail and drug dependence. They're not all the same, however.

Uh... not equivalent, perhaps, but they are exploitation.

In my opinion, the pornographer has no more exploitative power (i.e. very very little) than the supermarket, as the compulsion to buy is so easy to resist.

Yeah, but that misses the point. The trick of the trap is that it is sprung by the consumer, not the producer, yet the trap is there. That's the point. Porn has a trap to exploit.

I asked 'is the exploitation only monetary?' because I wasn't sure if you thought that it affected the consumer otherwise. You clearly do. I, and I presume someone as savvy as yourself, have never paid for pornography, but you would still consider me exploited - so this is not an argument about producer-consumer dependence, is it?

"our sexuality is directed towards consuming more pornography and away from the people around us"

for all your high-minded smokescreening, this is a bit of a classic anti-porn argument, which is comforting for me. Personally, I think porn is a very inferior 'alternative' to sex, and watching porn too much guilts me into doing more social things.

Well, then... you know porn exploits us. You've felt it doing so, and reacted against it. I've felt it too. We've all felt it, it's part of the draw.

This quote paints pornography as addictive, which is another classic argument. It's not, at least not without the aid of some compulsive disorder, in which case you could argue that shoes, DVDs, toenail clippings or whatever are equally addictive.

We're talking about stimulii that tap into our sexuality, how we shape and express our desire. Most things don't, they're just neutral. You can like something or enjoy something or even want something without desiring it on an emotional level. It's when something contains a stimulus that taps your sexuality, you can't help but like, enjoy or want it thanks to your desire being fuelled.

Short term it's no big deal, the distortion is minimal and localised, but given free reign, you'll warp. Consumer products that encourage us to distort in this manner do so to enable long term, free reign, continued consumption. They exploit our lack of psychological self-harm warning system.

Conceivably there is a sexual fetish that revolves around toenail clipping. What distinguishes the act from one of personal grooming to one of personal fetish is that the latter includes a focus of desire directed towards this activity or the objects it involves. Hence "fetish", or sexual disorder.

The most freakout fetish you can stomach, the one that you just can't fucking believe anyone could do that to themselves, let alone get off on it? 'sup? Exactly the same distortion of desire is at work as with consumption of pornography, and given free reign, we can approach similar levels of obsession.

The extreme is not the issue though, and the fact is most of us don't have free reign, and never will, what with having to do other stuff.

The issue is whether consumer products that encourage us to harm ourselves should be permitted to continue to be legally sold i.e. endorsed by social norms. Currently, the profits made by pornography completely override that concern, along with all the other concerns the industry generates. The analogy is cigarettes, and the same side-stepping, profit-protecting control of the public arguments surrounding harm are employed, usually invoking a highly selective advocacy of "personal choice" which, of course, conceals information that would actually permit an informed choice to be made.

A product that made consumers depressed or violent would be clamped down on, no matter how willing people were to purchase it. Why then diminish sexuality from concerns of manipulation? It's one of the best emotions, the last one we'd want shredded simply to make someone else rich.

[Retinend]

Anyone see the second part? More bullshit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00mngvp/Hardcore_Profits_Episode_2/

[DanRev]

the three stock arguments that paedophiles fall back on when they get up on their high horse and try to justify spamming pictures of abused little kids on a clearly designated pornography board.

Just out of interest, what are these arguments? Apologies if they've already been mentioned but there's lots of words.

[Baxter]

Normalising their perversion as a sexuality, Pure Aestheticism & Freedom of Expression?

[Pedro_Bear]

(1) ZOMG Freedomz of speech includes the criminal distribution of rape momentos guise

(2) should be paedomania, or paedosexual, not -philia, or self-serving fantasies to the effect that it's a sexual orientation

(3) pre-sexual children are in fact sexual

Of the three, (1) is the most prevelant among teens who swap cp (2) is the easiest to troll with and/or close down, and is the one used by slightly older guys spying on their neighbour's kids (3) is so paradoxical as to cause brain seizure, thank you Kinsey.

[Pedro_Bear]

Normalising their perversion as a sexuality, Pure Aestheticism & Freedom of Expression?

Guessing, are we, "Smarties" Baxter?

[Baxter]

Kids'll do...Oh wait that's Dairylea.

[Suttonpubcrawl]

Kids'll do...

When adults aren't available, eh?

[Baxter]

Yeah, I realised that was there almost as soon as I posted it, but I really wanted to get the smarties/dairlea confusion in there which I felt was funnier unto itself and because it links to a previous post.

Do you think that such an obvious sub-pun compromises the humour?