Originally posted by Kung Lek
alright marmen,
I wonder about someone who can't bother to look at the spelling of the name of the person he's replying to.
perhaps i should have said"provides listings of professionals who provide services to people who are looking for those services in context to their personal kink.
Yeah, that sounds like a more accurate characterization as far as I've been able to tell.
in regards to pornography sites, I think that perhaps you are being a little naive.
A great deal is not know of how or where pornography site acquire the material they publish on the web. For all you know, those people may look it, but in fact not be of age. As well, tehy may also not be consenting.
That's true, of course. In fact, if someone *did* hire me to design a porn site, I think I would have them sign some sort of statement that all images were legally obtained. I'd do this both for legal and moral reasons.
And if I found out that the statement was false, you bet I'd drop the site and notify the appropriate authorities.
In fact, I believe there are laws in the US that require just such a statement.
It is not unheard of for instance that prostitutes can fall in debt for drugs for instance and in effect be forced to perform sexual acts to pay those debts.
I'm not sure that's necessarily nonconsensual. It would depend a great deal on the circumstances.
Whether it is or not, however, doesn't affect the present argument.
The same could be of people who are administered the so called "date rape" drugs suchs as rohypnol and then used to make pronography.
From the little I know of Rohypnol and similar, this is unlikely. Someone drugged with one of these drugs would probably not be in any condition to model for a photo session.
While I'm sure there are some pornographers out there who do legitmately deal their wears with all the guidelines of teh laws adhered to. It is just as likely that more nefarious deeds are occuring as well.
Sure it is. But that's true in any industry. I don't think pornography has a special claim on this -- the issue seems to be something of a red herring.
anyway, I sited the dentists as an example and not as a fact. I did say "i.e". Perhaps I should have said "hypothetically"?
Yes, you should have, or perhaps you should have omitted it altogether. Your example was a poor one, as it was informed by inadequate understanding of the material. Thus, it was no example at all, merely a gross distortion of the sort that we'd scream about if Putman or Bannon did it.
BTW, "i.e." means "that is". "For example" is "e.g.".
Anyway, coincidence? Maybe, But i am just wondering and I do find it contradictory to be offering access to pornography sites while on the other hand racing against the so called evil that they are in some cases part and parcel of.
And thereby falls your argument -- that "in some cases". Consider: Enron was bad, but does that mean all energy companies are bad? Of course not. Does that mean that (e.g.) fighting child porn while working for Enron is contradictory? Again of course not.
The situation is similar here. Legit porn isn't much more closely related to child porn than energy trading is. Too many people have a reflexive reaction to the mere mention of *any* pornography, a reaction which I believe is unjustified.
Best,
Marnen Laibow-Koser
marnen@marnen.org