Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2ndChance
Okay so I new to this stuff and I have to say. So long and the acotrs and models know what theyare getting into so what it's entertainment and art as far as I am concerned.
I am throughly convinced that a great deal of society when it comes to sex general is (how do you spell it) pschytsofrentic. And it appears to me that part of the adult industry is too.
|
I don't really see how discussing sexual ethics is schizophrenic, perhaps you misunderstand the
characteristics of disorder, or you're just trying to say "society has a weird attitude about sex" using a polysyllabic word.
Anyhow, my point in this discussion was that it's not simply, "are the models really being sexually assaulted or not?", I see it as an issue of how the content of some fantasy sites are framed.
You can and should have hot fantasy play that still discusses boundaries, consent, and safety. I'm not anti-fantasy site in the least bit, but I do think it's important to make clear that it is strictly fantasy. For the "pure fantasy" crowd, it shouldn't be a worry to "ruin the fantasy" with a disclaimer, right? But for people who really want to break into a woman's home and rape her while she's asleep, if a disclaimer ruins the fantasy for them, do you care? In my mind, a disclaimer and some honest kink advice benefits the best of the crowd, and keeps away the people I wouldn't want to be catering to in the first place.
To try another angle/question on the content framing issue, let's pretend that another hotly debated site, Little April, was worded differently.
Let's say it started out with a consenting, paid, over-18 model. All the same type of stuff was shot, she left with a smile on her face after a job well done. That's the point, according to a lot of people here. "Hey, she's legal, she got paid, and she's happy with the work, right?"
But, would everyone feel the same way if the text selling the site claimed that she was 14 years old and that masturbating for her horny daddy? I don't know if that would legal or not in the US, but *theoretically* speaking, would people promote a site that looked like CP, talked like CP, arguably encouraged CP, but wasn't actually CP?
Sometimes, copy *is* king.