|
In my opinion, how porn actresses are treated on set is irrelevant to the material that is being produced. For instance, if I see a film in which an animal is abused I understand that it's pretend and that the Humane Society disclaimer in the closing credits is only a formality. But I can still take exception to the way that abuse is portrayed.
I don't know if the cognitive dissonance here is related to age or what, but the level of female degradation in porn has increased significantly both in extremity and in proportion to the total amount of porn produced than it was when I first watched pornography in the early 1980s. That's not to say that porn has not always been somewhat degrading to women, I mean, it has never been made *for* women and has always been predicated on the use of females as sexual objects.
If an individual finds it degrading to women and prefers something more democratic in their pornography they should be able to say so without being told they are wrong. I mean, like I said, I like it (in some circumstances) but I still understand that portraying a woman as collection of random holes to violently stuff gigantic cocks into is more than a little hostile.
As for softcore porn, when I think of softcore, I think of fuzzy lens sexcapades like the old Emmanuel movies in the 80s that used to show on HBO in the middle of the night. Those weren't made for women, either.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
|