Should smut performers be mandated to wear condoms by law?

And what term do you use to describe yourself and your sins?

An addict an a sinner. A honest representation of my status and actions, just like the term “smut performer.”

I’m not a porn aficionado, but I’m working under the assumption that the people who engage in sex acts on camera are not paying each other. Perhaps I’m wrong, but someone watching pornography is not watching a person who has paid for sex. The one paying is the one watching, not the one doing. Prostitution is paying for doing.

This is all irrelevant anyway, because the real reason that it is legal is because the demand is so staggering. If we really want to end pornography, the only way is to end the demand by changing the culture. The culture won’t be changed by the mix of confusion and condescension that you’re expressing here.

Then perhaps you should avoid throwing stones after judging others.

Are you really incapable of distinguishing between the act and the person? Pornography is smut, the people who “act” in it are smut performers, they perform acts of smut. I’m not throwing stones, and I’m not judging the people, only the acts. You’re inability to understand that isn’t really my problem.

The men and women who “perform” in pornography are both paid for the act. They are paid to perform a sexual act. That is the literal definition of prostitution. They are not paid directly by the people who purchase the pornography, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are literally paid to have sex with someone. The fact that both of them are being paid doesn’t make it any better, it makes it worse, as now you have two instances of prostitution going on.

I do not know the inner workings of porn production either, but I see no legal reason why the financier and producer could not himself also be the lead actor. Yes, I realize that would not be the case across the board. But even so, I’m pretty sure it would still be illegal for a third party to pay for some other guy to meet up with a prostitute. So who is paying the bill doesn’t strike me as the most relevant aspect regarding the act’s legality.

I’m not trying to be flip or cute or confusing or condescending. I am sincerely confused myself as to how one act (prostitution) is almost universally panned as illegal and immoral while the other (pornography) is legal and considered by so many to be no big deal. The only discernible difference I see between the two is that one is recorded and distributed while the other is not.

Why do you single out porn? There are a myriad of things that are immoral in our society with others being equally guilty. Some people don’t have the same beliefs or values as you. Do you judge everyone who believes differently from you? You sound like the caricature of the ultimate Catholic who sits there and judges everyone and everything, damning them all in the process. You don’t know why some people appear in porn. I read an article recently about a girl who did porn years ago, go out and went for a nursing degree. When the word got out that she used to do porn, no one wanted to sign off on the hours that she completed. Without that, she can’t practice as a nurse. So guess what? She’s going back to porn because she make money from it. There have been plenty of performers who did porn for sad reasons that eventually got out of it. Do you still consider them to be “smut performers?” Traci Lords was a 16 year old runaway who got into drugs and did porn while still a minor. She cleaned herself up and became a successful actress. How do you judge her? My “inability” is to understand how some are so self-righteous that they can dare to ultimately judge others.

PREACH!!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Well, yeah. That’s what I’m saying. And somewhere I’ve heard a saying that a fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but rather only in expressing his opinion, however confused it might be.

To Tim’s credit, he didn’t ultimately judge the state of their soul or relationship with God

Of my entire post, that’s the only thing you comment on? :shrug: That only reinforces for me that I am right and there is no counterargument to my point. :wink: :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

I single out porn because it is the sin that has the greatest direct impact on my life. I’ve been trying to overcome an addiction to it for the last four years, so excuse me for being harsh. More importantly, I’m singling it out because that’s what this particular topic is discussing.

Since you seem to have missed it the previous times I’ve said it, I’m not judging the people, only the act. I pity the people, sand pray for them to escape that life. With that said, I’m not going to hold my tongue and pretend that pornography isn’t smut.

Again, let me be as clear as I can. I AM NOT JUDGING THE MEN AND WOMEN, ONLY THE ACT. I am pointing out that the act is illegal according to the legal definition of prostitution, but that is a judgment all people are supposed to make. The demand not to judge deals with the state of a person’s immortal soul, not with a given act that person is committing. If you still somehow cannot understand the distinction, I’m sorry I can’t help you. There is literally no clearer way to state it that I’m aware of. This is not a matter of being self-righteous, it’s a matter of clearly acknowledging the reality of pornography as smut.

As for Traci Lords, I am quite happy for her. Last I heard she has managed to stay free of the industry. I’ve heard of many other men and women who manage to leave the industry. I could not be happier for those people if I tried, because they’re finding a way to escape the horrific chains that pornography has placed on their lives. I am envious of their ability to detach themselves from that industry.

If one wanted to be uncharitable, they could easily make reference to those who live in glass houses not throwing stones…

Prodgl is not judging any person; you can see that in his posts. He’s not being uncharitable at all; if anything, he has been extremely

He rightfully judges the sin. Porn is smut. What’s the problem with referring to it as such?

Smut is rightfully condemned and yes, the moral thing to do is judge. Judge the industry, judge the acts. Only by a proper and prudent judgment will we get rid of this scourge.

Call a spade a spade, and smut smut. It’s not an indictment of the people. We are sinners just like them. But to hell with the sin itself; may it disappear from the face of the earth.

How does that even apply here? Are you trying to say I’m wrong for saying that pornography is wrong? Your own posts seem to recognize its abusive and exploitative nature, so what exactly am I doing that would beg that comparison?

Just to be clear, I’m not judging you. Having said that, you’re a hypocrite. I’m not making any judgement on you, but if you truly believe that pornography is equal to prostitution, then the only right thing to do is turn yourself in to the authorities today and serve the prison sentence you deserve for your four years of crimes. But I’m not judging you. Just your actions.

Wait, has this been the disconnect the whole time?

I’m not saying the act of consuming pornography is equivalent to prostitution. I’m saying that the act of producing pornography is equivalent.

Both are horrifically immoral, don’t get me wrong, but the production of pornographic content is literally the legal definition of prostitution. The producer pays an actor (or multiple actors) to perform a sexual act. The only thing that makes it different is that one instance is recorded, published, and sold, whereas the other isn’t.

As for being a hypocrite, I do not meet the definition. A hypocrite thinks something is okay for himself, but wrong for others. I believe that it is just as wrong for me to consume pornography as it is for anyone else, more so in fact because I’m aware of the fact that it is wrong. I am also actively trying to stop, not continuing in the act thinking that it’s okay for -me- to keep doing it.

The argument can be made that the performers are performing something equivalent to prostitution, as they are receiving payment for the performance of sexual acts, with the additional component of public exhibition that moves it to the realm of pornography. He is referring to the producers and performers, not the viewers.

Prodgl has admitted only to viewing it, not producing or performing in it. So the arguable equivalence to prostitution does not apply. Viewing pornography or watching a prostitute doing her job through a peephole does not make one guilty of the equivalent of prostitution.

None of this constitutes a defense of that scourge called pornography/smut. But if making an argument, please ensure your logic is solid.

Really? Because, and forgive me for making crude assumptions, I was under the impression that the point of viewing pornography is ultimately to engage in a “performance” of one’s own. Again, I may be wrong. But it’s just a little too convenient to say that “those people” are criminals for making money off of a sexual performance, while “little old sinful but not criminal me” isn’t participating in criminal behavior by spending money to achieve sexual satisfaction, just because the money spent is merely the monthly Internet service bill.

If one truly believes that pornography is criminal in the same sense as prostitution is, and has participated in pornography as a user (customer), then he should put his money where his mouth is and turn himself in, and serve the prison sentence that he deserves. Otherwise he is just spouting confused, subjective, self-serving nonsense.

If the production of pornography is the legal definition of prostitution, then being a customer of pornography is literally the same as being the customer of a prostitute. Both a prostitute and his/her customer are guilty of a crime. You are imagining a non-existent law against pornography. If you think the law SHOULD exist, then stand up for what you believe in by serving the prison sentence you are due for your four years worth of crimes. You might actually achieve sainthood by being a witness to the world of the evil of pornography. Or you could just continue confuse moral and civil law and make the Church look ridiculous.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.