I think there's obviously the comparison of people being paid to perform sexual acts. I think they're both exploitative in slightly different ways. I think they both lead to victimization of women. I think pornography has the added punch of normalizing sexual violence on a large scale.

So I guess, no, I don't think there's a significant difference, though I do think they're different.

Do actresses in porn have pimps?

Allegations of porn actresses being forced to perform are going back at least until Linda Lovelace and Deepthroat.

Widespread enough to make dismissing it impossible. Technology seems to be making headway against this; micro-companies focusing on custom-ordered content where the women are answering to themselves (and taking the profits) are now becoming viable.

Agents count?

Skipped over this thread when the nutjobs got free and almost missed out on the nucular hot takes of racist Portland and Schrodinger's rapist.

I'm trying to figure out how the flow of conversation ITT went from "Vanilla ISIS acquitted" to "do porn actresses have pimps?"

Did I miss a post about the 55 gallon drum of lube?

I dunno how the conversation got here but I am sure there has been like 5000x more discussion on sexual slavery and exploitation than any other form of human exploitation over the history of the internet. Literally no one is going to get in a 500 post war about the morality of clothing made in Bangladesh...

Seems to be a discussion ender regardless of where it is discussed on the internet. Most people refuse to let themselves be led down an uncomfortable path via maieutics.

I'm guessing Gizmo brought the discussion here. Just taking a wild guess

Why should the 16 year old not go to jail if it is a crime? If a 16 year old boy robbed a store with an older person does that make him a victim? Why is it legal to have sex with another 16 year old? When you do away with logic it is hard to reach common sense.

Look I am not arguing against age of consent laws. But here is the thing, it used to be understood as common sense that it was very difficult for a man to have sex against his will with a woman, you know erections and all. It used to be understood that a boy having sex with an older non-teenage woman considered himself lucky, not permanently damaged.

I love me to death some Law & Order SVU, but liberals like creator Dick Wolf have radically changed the justice system. You younger folks may not know that pedeophila was previously defined as sexual interest in prepubescent children, not teenagers. Child porn was previously defined as images of children being sexual abused, not child nakedness or even children wearing bathing suits.

The failure to acknowledge that God, in her infinite wisdom, makes people sexual beings at ages 12-14 for the most part, and not on their 18th birthday does more harm than good.

Sorry for this thread highjack and I am done for now, but did you know in Los Angeles County if you are under age 18 and a prostitute you are no longer a criminal. You are a victim of child trafficking. You cannot be prosecuted or punished, sent to juvenile hall or rehab. You are not responsible for your actions. This is the same liberal denial of reality that has led to ducks on planes.

ducks on planes?

Look, I'm not arguing against age of consent laws but as a 43 year old man I just don't understand why I cannot have sex with a 14 year old.

- Wheel Gunner

We get it buddy. Them are the rules. Sorry.

I believe he's talking about emotional support animals being allowed on planes.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...in-popularity/

I don't think treating prostitutes who are under 18 as victims rather than criminals is a liberal denial of reality.

Wheel, giving you the benefit of doubt that you aren't looking to have sex with 16 year olds, you should look at the reality of something like 100,000 children forced into prostitution a year in the US and how they're with a bunch of dirty old men and it's not 18 year olds with 17 year olds as the big picture, and the ducks on planes (or the 17 year old charged as a sex criminal for having a naked picture of himself on his phone) are events so rare that they make the news.

oh boy are we gonna get a full "men cant be raped" lecture?

Hard to believe he actually asked why the 16 year old doesnt get in trouble....IDk. maybe because adults are considered more responsible for their actions than kids.

Good God, this thread has really gone off the rails.

A woman tried to have an opinion, so, y'know, completely justified.

alright alright I'm trying to think of a good segue from age of consent back to unwell-unregulated militias in Oregon. this is hard. where's Kelly Reichardt when you need her?

Yes, that's exactly what happened here. A woman had the nerve to post an opinion and rather than argue against it with logic, or explore the potential ramifications of her logic by applying it to other situations, people were just like "a WOMAN? You can't HAVE an opinion!" over and over.

Great ****ing post dude.

We should probably just stick with ducks on planes.

This is the bit you need to think about. Like, there are probably several dozen things in that post you need to think about, but this is the one that can get you to that Common Sense nirvana you seem intent on.

That's funny. I would think Wheel Gunner going hard in the paint for ****ing child prostitutes and then punishing them might have more to do with propping up weird sexist cults, but you're right, it's probably the person with an abundance of concern for protecting rape victims who's at fault here.

Preceded two sentences by... So rape victims should go to jail for being raped? That's your idea of logic and common sense?

idk about ducks on planes but i flew across the country with one of my dogs when she was a tiny puppy, in a soft little travel crate under my seat. i got tons of attention from people in the airport and she didn't make a peep on the flight. it was pretty cool, would recommend to all who are considering it.