No more porn

[LaserGuy]

Got anthing which corelates well with the 1980's drop in less serious crime and the early 90's drop in more serious?

Clearly it was the Reagan revolution that brought about an increase in moral fortitude in the nation and reduced crime rates... (In all seriousness, I still think most of the trends can probably be explained purely in terms of demographics).

Back on the OP for a brief moment, here is a story about a sister school, the story is interesting only in its timing related to this thread.

If you're interested in the subject, there's a book called The Five Year Party: How Colleges Have Given Up On Educating Your Child and What You Can Do About It that has a very good discussion about sexual assaults on university campuses. The tl;dr is that alcohol is by far the largest contributing factor.

[Роберт]

If you're interested in the subject, there's a book called The Five Year Party: How Colleges Have Given Up On Educating Your Child and What You Can Do About It that has a very good discussion about sexual assaults on university campuses. The tl;dr is that alcohol is by far the largest contributing factor.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15265317

The largest contributing factor is a placebo? Interesting...

[LaserGuy]

If you're interested in the subject, there's a book called The Five Year Party: How Colleges Have Given Up On Educating Your Child and What You Can Do About It that has a very good discussion about sexual assaults on university campuses. The tl;dr is that alcohol is by far the largest contributing factor.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15265317

The largest contributing factor is a placebo? Interesting...

Well, based on that (very interesting, btw) piece, I guess I would say that the largest contributing factor is the culture surrounding alcohol consumption on campus.

[morriswalters]

LaserGuy I posted it because of the irony of it not because it provided any insight. I am steering well clear of that particular portion of the topic.

Azreal, the following is from the Canadian link that you provided, since you had implied that I hadn't read it fully I went back to see if I had missed anything, I hadn't. This type of drivel is representative of the non answers supplied by the papers. This is proof of the adage, opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. There is no consensus.

Homicide rates were high in the first three decades of this century. It might very well be that industrialization, massive immigration and poverty were factors that disrupted family structure and the social fabric. At mid-century, a new ethos emerged in our society, with strong families, disciplinary schools and religious fervour. Self-restraint was tantamount to good manners. The cultural revolution of the 60’s and 70’s, with liberalization and self-expression becoming the dominant ethos -- or pathos – has profoundly changed our society (Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985; Freeman, 2000). Crime rates, but also the rates of automobile accidents and suicides, increased rapidly. The late 1980s and 1990s, however, can be characterized by the progressive integration of a new ethos of moderation in drinking, drug use, sexual activity and even tobacco use. Many behaviours that were seen as acceptable or were not the object of public outrage only twenty years ago are now gradually integrated into our moral conditioning.

Right now I am trying to decide if I wish to create another person in the universe who thinks I am crazy, by forwarding this to a Sociologist to see what kind of feedback I get. Additionally I am mildly surprised that you find this idea so, ?challenging?. By any methodology you choose to use, computers and the internet have changed the world in ways that couldn't have been imagined before its existence. In addition between, television, video games, computers, and the internet, we have become a much more sedentary society and it shows in our waistlines.

[Azrael]

Right now I am trying to decide if I wish to create another person in the universe who thinks I am crazy, by forwarding this to a Sociologist to see what kind of feedback I get. Additionally I am mildly surprised that you find this idea so, ?challenging?. By any methodology you choose to use, computers and the internet have changed the world in ways that couldn't have been imagined before its existence. In addition between, television, video games, computers, and the internet, we have become a much more sedentary society and it shows in our waistlines.

My biggest issue? No one else seems to be even moderately willing to do any data collection. Or even apply the existing data. The digital distraction correlation relies on a tenuous (at best) tipping point at 1992 which you can't explain. If the buildup of this new digital diversion was beginning to have an effect, you'd see it -- but crime rates didn't slow as the inflection point was reached. Nor can it possibly explain the very similar trend in burglary, which peaked in 1980.

Great, you think that diversion has a factor? Look up the fucking data. Demonstrate something. Try this one on for size: Show the 1960-current year trend for obesity. Oh, wait, no. I'll do it for you:


Oh, wow. Look at that astonishingly flat growth in all demographics since 1980.

But if that hasn't put you off the idea: Match major crime reduction by state to show that the fatter states reduced crime further -- or else it's just another meaningless correlation. And you've got some work to do on the demographic factor. Then control for the digital part. And try to explain 1992?

Because so far, this has been nothing more than providing me with a somewhat diverting game of whack-a-mole.

[morriswalters]

Okay, this is going to take some time, let us start with obesity first. Statistics are going to be thin prior to 1980 because the problem wasn't really a problem then. First a cute little animated gif. Now some physical activity data from the CDC. Making the link to crime is going to be time consuming, the data isn't presented that way over time per state. But I saw it somewhere and I'll find it again.

Edit
Your graph was loading slow an I didn't see it. It's scale on the X axis seems to be designed to flatten the curve, my graph shows something much steeper since 1980. Go figure.

Edit 2
Oops, forgot the graph.

[Azrael]

Better yet: US Bureau of Labor has Time Use statistics, although the data only goes back to 2003. Maybe someone has longer-term data?

On the current path you might accidentally correlate being overweight with crime reductions, without being able to separate the second order causes of being overweight.

Edit
Your graph was loading slow an I didn't see it. It's scale on the X axis seems to be designed to flatten the curve, my graph shows something much steeper since 1980. Go figure.

That CDC chart scale is only 0-25%, not 0-100%. That's the primary cause of the visual differences in presentation.

[Роберт]

Well, based on that (very interesting, btw) piece, I guess I would say that the largest contributing factor is the culture surrounding alcohol consumption on campus.

That certainly sounds plausible and meshes with my own (very limited) knowledge of the subject.

[morriswalters]

Thanks for the chart, they pretty much settle it for me, but I will still try to look at obesity and crime, although fat people don't commit a lot of crime that requires sustained physical activity, since they can't sustain it. You don't see a lot of fat guys jumping over fences trying to elude the police. And most people can out run them.

Average number of hours per day watching TV and other leisure activities 6.25 hours a day, that averaged among the whole population. When looking at people who where actually doing the activities that number jumps up closer to 8, and that is about 90%. To me that seems to be a pretty substantial block of time. You know crime takes time.

In 1960 in my hometown there where 2 channels on the TV, as late as 1980 over the air was still king and their were 6 to eight channels. Programming started at 6AM give or take, it ended at 11:00 This got extended over time but they still went off. No video games, no arcades, the number of Movie screens available about a third as to what are available today and a significant number where within walking distance. Not much fast food and far fewer restaurants. Board games and cards were the primary sedentary activities. No cell phones and the party line was alive and well. When Mom said go out and play that meant to go out and find a way to amuse yourself. We had more time to get into trouble and we used it. I don't hold this up as a virtuous lifestyle, a lot of time it was boring, but the point being that you had to get up and go, there wasn't a whole lot else to do.

I suggest you now contrast this with the situation today. Quite a few of my contemporaries think that the average student today is not as dedicated as we were. I on the other hand admire them for being able to work in the midst of so many distractions carrying a significantly heavier load in terms of the information that they have to absorb. You seem obsessed with that 1992 date. I can suggest a physical analog if you wish. Supersaturation. You know that effect they demonstrate in the lab in high school, also seen with supercooled liquids. It only takes a small effect to destroy the equilibrium. The period of time that we are talking about represent, maybe, a culture that had become supersaturated. Now I don't think it's anywhere that simple. I've said multiple time that the s/n is covering up effects.

[morriswalters]

Read this if you wish, I can't make it out, it's statistics are blowing by me.

[Azrael]

It's certainly interesting, although I see a bit of a glaring mistake that does not appear to be corrected for. In tying game sales spikes (which fall around Christmas/Hanukkah) to drops in on-campus crime, they don't mention that on-campus populations fall dramatically over winter break. That seems like a glaring oversight.

Given the annual dip they're studying falls at the end of the holiday season, I wonder if you could find the same correlation in other consumer indexes? For that matter, the spikes in crime fall during the longer days of summer, when more students are out of school. I'm just a little skeptical that none of these larger factors seem to even be mentioned.

[morriswalters]

Yes, evidently the idea arises from penal theory, the idea that if they are locked up they can commit no crime.

[Agrajag619]

Porn should not be shown on campus because of porn's effects on the women who act in it, rather than on the people who watch it. The woman in Deep Throat is one example, but I think a strong case could be made that lots of porn is exploitative and that women who act in porn have probably been sexually abused in the past and are likely to suffer from depression and substance abuse, even if they make porn voluntarily. Porn is destructive to those involved, and for that reason it is immoral for an institution to promote its consumption.

[gmalivuk]

It's pretty damn presumptuous of you to claim that all women in porn, even those doing it voluntarily, are secretly depressed and/or drug addicts. Porn *can* be destructive to those involved, and such porn absolutely shouldn't be the kind shown on campus, but it takes more than your broad proclamations to make it actually true across the board.

[Thesh]

I've seen quite a few interviews with porn stars, and I don't get the impression that the stereotype of abused, drug addict, depressed, etc. etc. is predominant. Sure many say they got into it because they needed the money, but they stay because they actually enjoy it (I'm not joking, people like having sex). I'm sure there are many porn stars that fit some or all of those descriptions, but I'm not so sure it's the majority.

[HungryHobo]

Reminds me of a facinating old ask/tell on SA a few years back (archived now so i can't find it) by someone working as a stripper.

She explained about how it meant she was getting out of college with a significant nest egg rather than debt, hours that were easy to work around etc, overall a facinating thread talking about how she got into it, what security was like, what the workplace was like etc up to the point where some woman started berating her because, "how could you do that" "as a woman, why why why why" despite the fact that she'd explained her reasons very well, working short hours for high pay.

Just because you wouldn't chose to do something doesn't mean that perfectly sane people won't choose it.

Slaves used to be used to pick cotton, slaves still are used for similar tasks in many places, the work isn't fun, I wouldn't choose to do it myself unless I had few other options, that doesn't make using *all* similar products, even those that almost certainly were not made by slaves immoral.

[morriswalters]

Just out of curiosity, have any women chimed in to this conversation, or has this been a purely male conversation? I don't know the posters well enough to know.

[omgryebread]

Just out of curiosity, have any women chimed in to this conversation, or has this been a purely male conversation? I don't know the posters well enough to know.

I posted way back on page 1. Then the conversation turned into people flinging data at each other and that's not really an argument, and certainly not one that interests me.

But yeah, I don't have a problem with the concept of porn. I do not like (as in personal preference) the vast majority of porn. I think most porn is problematic, and I think some porn is extremely troubling.

I wouldn't want to be associated with a public screening of pornography. I don't think university administration should ban it unless it's really problematic. Rape porn, either depicting a fictional rape or a film, like the one in question here, in which participation wasn't consensual, shouldn't be shown. Even porn understood to be consensual but is exceedingly abusive, I'm comfortable with banning.

That being said, my understanding of the original conversation was that this was the student body voting on whether or not to continue the screening. That's totally fine, and I would vote to end the screening.


As for porn actors and actresses, and really sex workers in general, they aren't all abused and disadvantaged, of course. There's a weird situation in which some people see the disadvantaged and abused sex workers and assume it's all bad. On the other hand, there are people, well meaning and sex-positive feminist people, who don't consider that there are a lot of sex workers who are disadvantaged and would really rather not work in the industry.

[curtis95112]

Porn should not be shown on campus because of porn's effects on the women who act in it, rather than on the people who watch it. The woman in Deep Throat is one example, but I think a strong case could be made that lots of porn is exploitative and that women who act in porn have probably been sexually abused in the past and are likely to suffer from depression and substance abuse, even if they make porn voluntarily. Porn is destructive to those involved, and for that reason it is immoral for an institution to promote its consumption.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/greta/2012/04/23/sex-workers-an-invitation-to-tell-your-stories/

The comments section of this post may interest you.

[FrancisDrake]

I believe, I stand by, and I enjoy the current approach all countries take on porn; I dislike, I stand against, and laugh at the arbitrary, frivolous, pathetic need to place a righteous importance on something so unimportant.

[Lucrece]

"Many a porn star's life is a sad chronicle of crime, drug addiction or mental illness leading to an early death caused by AIDS, violence or drug overdose".
Wow, talk about a stereotype. I've been in the industry for over 12 years. I never considered myself an idol or a role model. In fact I made a promise to myself that I would never fall pray to the (ahem) crime, drug addiction, mental illness, violence, etc." That type of behavior happens in any occupation and not just porn.
What some of you don't realize is that porn is the only outlet some closeted men have who are still afraid to come out. Being from a very tiny town in nowhere Pennsylvania, basically amish country, porn was all I had to relate to when it came to gay sex.
Porn has been a very positive part of my life. I've met fascinating people and I've traveled the world. It's opened so many doors for me like doing theater and independent films. I've been very fortunate and I do my part to give back to my community. For the past three years I've had the honor to walk with team "Club Us" in the S. Florida AIDS walk. We've been the top fundraising team for years and I've used my status to personally raise $3500. This Sunday, I'm going to hold my drug addicted, crime spreading, mentally ill head high as I walk with my team in the AIDS WALK.

-Greg Grove, AKA Matthew Rush

A response from a porn star on an article I read earlier. I believe it's the same in straight porn -- figures like Sasha Grey have discussed the reasons why they went into porn, and what they got out of it. She got a nice acting gig on Entourage (as a sympathetic character no less), and developed a bunch of connections she would otherwise have not seen if she went the more traditional, overcrowded routes in the entertainment industry.

Some directors can be exploitative of naive talent, but that's pretty much the case in ALL industries, especially entertainment.

It's pretty demeaning to people who do porn for self-expression and the communal experience to dismiss them as some horror show in waiting or to claim them damaged goods.

[MarkSmash]

You'll also need to come up with a strategy to counter emotional appeals your opponents will no doubt be making. "The data refutes this" can hold little influence on subjects like rape where the personal narratives people hold on the subject will compel them to side with what leaves that narrative intact. It doesn't matter if you prove there's no increase in rape if you fail to win over the people who might have a distaste for porn, especially hardcore, if they wish to hold their pet theories because their life experiences confirm those theories regardless of how widely applicable the theories are.

I think Lucrece is correct; you need to deal with more that just statistics when you talk with people about this issue. Arguments can be broken down into three areas: Logos (logic and reasoning -- this page's speciality), pathos (appeals to emotion) and ethos (appeal to authority - i.e. the Pope, Kinsey etc). While much ink on this thread has been spilled on logos and ethos, it will be the pathos argument that will win or lose the day for you.

Thus far in this discussion, I think we have the logos argument pretty well summed up: there is no evidence of harm of watching pornography, besides possibly mild carpal-tunnel syndrome. Keep the data in your back pocket should the argument come up.

Let us turn to the world of pathos. The first thing you should do is consider your audience which, for the most part, will be one other person. It would be a mistake to consider them your opponents. Instead, consider them to be concerned people and acknowlege their concern. The fact that they are motivated enough care passionately about this issue is, in itself, worthy of respect.

Second, acknowledge that the issue you are discussing is important and that people's attitudes toward sex and its portrayal in all its forms can dig up very strong feelings (both pleasant and unpleasant) for some people.

If you feel that you've developed sufficient rapport, ask them what their personal attitude toward sex is. Judging from what you have said, OP, perceptions of sex is the root cause of this conflict. This will inform you of the best way to proceed in the discussion. As you address their concerns, refrain from being judgemental. As Abe Lincoln famously said: "I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends."

Some pathos arguments you will come across (feel free to add):

1. Sex is dirty and shameful (insert other terms, i.e. sinful).
2. Sex should be in the realm of a monagmous relationship like marriage, for the express purpose of producing children.
3. Focusing too much on sex during university takes away from focus on study.

Once we have compiled a reasonably comprehensive list of Pathos arguments you are likely to encounter, we can start developing counter-arguments for them. Any counter-argument should be grounded in compassion and understanding.

Second, we should start developing some pathos arguments. If you can speak from personal experience with respect to these arguments, the stronger they will be. Some arguments you might want to try (again, feel free to add):

1. Pornography can be seen as instructional. By exploring what pleases your partner, you can build a stronger relationship with that person. By denying the instructional value of porn, you rob people of the tools one could use to build levels of intimacy.

2. Everyone wants to be proficient at sex, to not be proficient will lead to feelings of insecurity, inadequacy and damaging to one's self-worth. Porn de-mystifies the sex act and enables people to engage in the act with more confidence.

If you have time, watch the movie Kinsey. Pretty awesome.

[MarkSmash]

But yeah, I don't have a problem with the concept of porn. I do not like (as in personal preference) the vast majority of porn. I think most porn is problematic, and I think some porn is extremely troubling.

Sorry, I have to ask. Are there specific porn movies that have the 'omgrybread seal of approval' that you would suggest as an alternative to 'Deep Throat'?

There's one that I've seen that is called 'House of Dreams, directed more like an art film than a conventional porn. Awesome soundtrack, sharp editing, no dialogue yet with an interesting themes of curiosity, desire, dreams and taboos.

[gmalivuk]

that you would suggest as an alternative to 'Deep Throat'?

Personally, I would put forth a great deal of porn, including some of the shittier stuff, as an alternative to one where the actress was by all accounts coerced against her will to perform sex acts on camera.

[omgryebread]

I'm not sure how valuable an omgryebread seal of approval would be. I don't really watch porn, so I don't have specifics anyway. When I do, it's amateur lesbian porn mostly.

That being said, watching actual rape (which Deep Throat is), is out of the question. Actors being totally willing is the very minimum baseline.

It also depends on venue. I have no particular problem with an individual watching rape fantasies. I question a student organization that sponsors screening any porn at all, and I would have serious objections if I was part of a student organization that did so.

[MarkSmash]

that you would suggest as an alternative to 'Deep Throat'?

Personally, I would put forth a great deal of porn, including some of the shittier stuff, as an alternative to one where the actress was by all accounts coerced against her will to perform sex acts on camera.

Again, I would have to ask for specific titles, especially if such titles supported the 'porn is instructional' or 'portrays healthy sex relationships' arguments potentially put forward by the OP.

[MarkSmash]

I'm not sure how valuable an omgryebread seal of approval would be. I don't really watch porn, so I don't have specifics anyway. When I do, it's amateur lesbian porn mostly.

That being said, watching actual rape (which Deep Throat is), is out of the question. Actors being totally willing is the very minimum baseline.

It also depends on venue. I have no particular problem with an individual watching rape fantasies. I question a student organization that sponsors screening any porn at all, and I would have serious objections if I was part of a student organization that did so.

My mind immediately went to loaves of rye bread being used in the most inappropriate fashion in a German bakery with a sweaty wood-fired oven. Plus lesbians.

Wow. I now hate caraway seeds in my rye bread for yet another reason.

With respect to your argument of questioning a student organization that screened porn, can you flesh out the reasons why you would consider this to be inappropriate? Other posts have alluded to this as well, so I can see this is definitely an argument the OP will have to prepare for as well.

[omgryebread]

As long as it was a black rye like Pumpernickel, that would be pretty hot. I'm not much of a fan of multi-grain rye.


The reason I don't really like a student organization screening porn is that the purpose of a student organization is to represent the students. I suppose I should clarify: I don't care if the Student Porn Watching Association of The University of Wherever screens porn. That's cool, and it's probably a good thing that the university supports a group of students getting to watch porn.

However, it seems to me this is a project of a much broader organization, one that purportedly represents the students of the university. Two things are important here. Firstly, what is the value of an organization doing this? Is this not something better suited to a smaller student club? Secondly, if students decide they don't like it, for whatever reason, they have no obligation to support it. The harm it does or doesn't cause is irrelevant. If the majority of students don't like it, they don't have to support it.

As for why I personally wouldn't want a student organization to support it, it's because I dislike most porn. I think it shows sex in an unhealthy manner, it tends to treat women as the object rather than the subject (Even porn that's not about straight out objectification does this a lot. A lot less attention is paid to the male face and body), which is a problem since the student organization is probably at least 50% female. Then I just think it portrays the students in a stupid way. I want people to think of my university as a place of learning and all that jazz. I like presenting at least a veneer of professionalism. A student organization I'm a part of screening porn indirectly conveys my support, which I don't want to provide.

[HungryHobo]

However, it seems to me this is a project of a much broader organization, one that purportedly represents the students of the university. Two things are important here. Firstly, what is the value of an organization doing this? Is this not something better suited to a smaller student club? Secondly, if students decide they don't like it, for whatever reason, they have no obligation to support it. The harm it does or doesn't cause is irrelevant. If the majority of students don't like it, they don't have to support it.

the problem with that line of argument is that you tend to get the exact same argument from the Young Christians Student Society when the student union hands out free condoms ,holds sexual health classes, screens brokeback mountain or otherwise violates their moral codes.

"I think it's immoral or wrong or indecent so a society which is supposed to represent me shouldn't do it, leave it to [insert other group here]"

and the counter argument is the same "just don't partake of it, nobody is forcing you to go"

[MikeArsenault]

I can totally understand the kitschy/ironic aspect of having 70's porn playing in a theatre, but much of the pornography produced during that era was made by damaged individuals being exploited by other damaged individuals. Putting them on parade for group amusement seems wrong. The adult entertainment industry of today is different because a) it is way more of a corporate endeavour and b) there are more well-adjusted people working in that industry. When you look at interviews with many modern porn actors, for example, they aren't all "A bloo bloo bloo pass me my heroin syringe" It's all about money and business and using the opportunity as a stepping-stone for new vistas. If anything, it makes me sad that human sexuality still remains a commercial commodity in this day and age, and that there seem to be so many opportunities for people to choose this line of work.

I mean, I get it. I don't think a career in porn is something to aspire to, but I won't judge people who make that choice. It's just that, in the case of Deep Throat, Linda Lovelace was not a willing participant. There was nothing glamorous or empowering in what she was forced to do in that movie. There was nothing positive at all. She was raped, exploited, and continued to be exploited for years after that movie was made. The last adult film she ever made she was so stoned on weed mixed with painkillers she scarcely remembers making it.

I don't think statistics on whether or not watching porn increases or decreases the proclivity of rape/abhorrent behaviour really matter here. What matters is that, by showing this film, you are basically saying "To hell with all of the pain and misery you went through Ms. Lovelace, we are going to drink and laugh and have a good time while we watch you systematically get raped." It's an offense against compassion and human dignity. She wasn't some aspiring starlet who had the guts to try her hand at the adult film scene. She was a lost soul. She managed to find happiness far later in life, but that doesn't give people the right to glorify this film. Especially when the facts behind its creation are so easily found.

My advice to the OP would be to accept the ban and counter-propose some more modern porn as a replacement. XXX Bat-Man as counter-programming to the Dark Knight Returns, perhaps?

[HungryHobo]

My advice to the OP would be to accept the ban and counter-propose some more modern porn as a replacement. XXX Bat-Man as counter-programming to the Dark Knight Returns, perhaps?

Did you read the thread?

they're not fighting to show the origional movie.

[MarkSmash]

However, it seems to me this is a project of a much broader organization, one that purportedly represents the students of the university. Two things are important here. Firstly, what is the value of an organization doing this? Is this not something better suited to a smaller student club? Secondly, if students decide they don't like it, for whatever reason, they have no obligation to support it. The harm it does or doesn't cause is irrelevant. If the majority of students don't like it, they don't have to support it.

the problem with that line of argument is that you tend to get the exact same argument from the Young Christians Student Society when the student union hands out free condoms ,holds sexual health classes, screens brokeback mountain or otherwise violates their moral codes.

"I think it's immoral or wrong or indecent so a society which is supposed to represent me shouldn't do it, leave it to [insert other group here]"

and the counter argument is the same "just don't partake of it, nobody is forcing you to go"

That's a solid point, but I'm not sure that line of reasoning would be very successful in changing minds. If someone makes for the moral high ground (propriety, status, morality), the only way to have a chance of convincing them is to climb higher rather than attacking them.

What about this line of reasoning. We are students of the 21st century. We believe that sex is healthy and an important part of our lives. Not only do we celebrate sex through movies, art and literature, we also commit ourselves to leaving behind the shame, body-hatred, bigotry and false propriety of the past.

We are students. We enjoy sex. (Get over it.)

P.S. While I respect your suggestion of Batman XXX as a replacement movie, I cannot support it as there isn't the recommended daily serving of dark rye bread and lesbians required to make quality entertainment.

[MikeArsenault]

My advice to the OP would be to accept the ban and counter-propose some more modern porn as a replacement. XXX Bat-Man as counter-programming to the Dark Knight Returns, perhaps?

Did you read the thread?

they're not fighting to show the origional movie.

Sorry, that's what it looked like at first blanche. I went back and re-read the very first post and it looks like the theatre director won't show the movie no matter what, and the OP's issue was with other groups at the campus using the theatre director's decision as a means to ban the event altogether. Hmm, in that case I really have nothing more useful to add, as I can't make a positive argument in favour of the event.

[ddxxdd]

OP, If you're trying to argue in favor of the event, I would like to point out thatstuntwoman Gabriella Cedillo ended up comatose and nearly died in the making of Transformers 3, and yet it was still released. I also heard that Roger Moore's stunt double nearly died in the parachute scene in The Spy Who Loved Me.

People don't care about the backstory behind the making of a movie. It does not matter how many times the make-up artist stubbed her toe, or who got raped in the process of making the film. The end product is the end product, and that's what you're supposed to enjoy. People wouldn't care if everybody consented and had a good time while filming a movie that glorified rape; it's all about the end product, and the themes, motifs, and enjoyability of the final product.

[gmalivuk]

People don't care about the backstory behind the making of a movie.

Uh, yes they do. And stuntpeople being injured is not even a little bit remotely the same as an actress being raped, because stuntpeople consent to do a job that carries some risk.

If you argue to a bunch of people who obviously do care about the backstory that "people don't care about the backstory", how long do you think they'll take to realize you're completely full of shit?

[Lucrece]

The same can be said of blood diamonds and the clothing marginalized children made for you as near indentured servants. It doesn't remove the moral dilemma even if you rationalize it away.

[ddxxdd]

Uh, yes they do. And stuntpeople being injured is not even a little bit remotely the same as an actress being raped, because stuntpeople consent to do a job that carries some risk.

1. Did you know about any of those other movies that I mentioned that had behind-the-scene tragedies? Did learning about these tragedies affect how you perceive these movies now?

2. The movie has already been made; showing the film will not unrape the actress. These behind-the-scene stories are for the DVD extras, but they have no impact on the enjoyment of a film.

3. A stuntperson may know the risks of his profession, but she certainly did not consent to being put in a coma for 6 months.

[gmalivuk]

they have no impact on the enjoyment of a film.

And as I've already said, this is just plain false.

[Azrael]

These behind-the-scene stories are for the DVD extras, but they have no impact on the enjoyment of a film.

For you. Really, you're arguing about your own empathy levels.

To absolutely dismiss the notion that the behind the scenes bit doesn't matter in it's entirety, all you have to do is look at documentaries. Funny thing, people start caring about stuff that actually happened.

[aoeu]

These behind-the-scene stories are for the DVD extras, but they have no impact on the enjoyment of a film.

For you. Really, you're arguing about your own empathy levels.

To absolutely dismiss the notion that the behind the scenes bit doesn't matter in it's entirety, all you have to do is look at documentaries. Funny thing, people start caring about stuff that actually happened.

I'd attribute that more to touching piano music than what really happened.