Comment by AlecSchueler | Hacker News Reader

Comment by AlecSchueler | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> You have to imagine that they are using some expanded definition of abuse to arrive at that 90% number that is not in line with the average person's views.

They define it as non-simulated harm. So the difference with Dexter is that in that case the actors pretend to have been injured, but in pornography the women are actually being injured. I guess most people's definition of "acting" would inlude something liek "pretend" or "make-believe."

> From the article: A significant amount of content amounted to torture. The report warned that any kind of so-called contract was void in legal terms, because a person could not consent to torture and sexual exploitation and trafficking.

It comes down to their legal definition of consent. One can not legally consent to being murdered for example. If a movie was made where someone was murdered then that would be illegal regardless of the contract in play. In France one can not consent to being tortured or abused, and most of the popular videos they looked at showed actresses being subject to actual torture or abuse.

But they don't actually murder people to make movies. When you watch Rambo are people actually being shot? Do you think they are actually torturing people to make extreme porn? Are people actually being whipped or is it just faked like professional wrestling in the United States?

But my point stands that they are probably using a very narrow definition to produce this extreme result like using a very narrow definition of consent or very wide definition of abuse such as mostly using verbal abuse to constitute abuse, which is hardly abuse if you are an paid actor and it isn't real.

> Are people actually being whipped or is it just faked like professional wrestling in the United States?

Yes, it's my belief that they're actually being whipped and that that is the major difference. Do you believe otherwise? Pro wrestlers generally go to great lengths not to injure each other. In pornography the audience will copmlain that the violence is fake if the whips aren't real.

> But they don't actually murder people to make movies. When you watch Rambo are people actually being shot?

No, I don't, that's why I'm not coming here to share research about the abuse being routinely inflicted on actors during the filming of Hollywood films.

> they are probably using a very narrow definition to produce this extreme result

The study is linked in the article and I've told you the definition they're using. I'm not sure why you have to continue with conjecture as to what they're "probably" saying.

>Do you believe otherwise?

I referenced the documentary "Kink" from 2013 above about the BDSM studio with the same name. They have a part about how you smack somebody that it sounds good but isnt painful. Its a skill to learn.

The whole perspective is counterproductive though. Pain can also be really pleasant if done right. Anyone who ever scratched an itch should understand that.

This is likely a good illustration why simplifications are utterly counterproductive. You cant go for some simple checklist of what to ban. While BDSM stuff looks rough the actual dangers in sex work are too rough and unprepared sex leading to something ripping. That can be really hard to identity on video and horrific for that person.

Which makes this so counterproductive. Signaling towards easy to visualize stuff means you have the exact opposite effect of the claimed intention. You dont go after known bad actors but people with spotless records that make sure to take care of the people they work with. Kink might waterboard you safely if you are into this sort of stuff but there wont be any surprise genuine attacks and pressuring by psychos with big dicks that sends you to the doctor like you will find it in some mainstream porn.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com