Messages

I think (hope) the Dems won't let Hillary run.

Why not? She seems like a good candidate and her re-election is fuelling momentum. She's popular, which her Senate constituency demonstrates. She's married to a former president who left office with a positive approval rating domestically, a budget in surplus and has good diplomatic ties with leaders in other countries.

If you asked me several months ago, I'd have said no. But considering the degree she's won in the mid-terms (67 per cent), I'd say she has a bloody good chance now.

Sure, the main Red States don't like her but I reckon, if she picks the right running mate, she'll get the majority of support.

My roommate and I are predicting a Clinton/Obama ticket in 2008 and a Giuliani/McCain ticket for the Repubs.

However, my favourite Senator who I think will make a bid for 2008 (and ildu left him off the list) is Russ Feingold. Out of all the political players in the US, Feingold has impressed me the most these last few years. Very intelligent, highly articulate and has a big set of balls.

You forgot Jon Stewart.

Nah, Stewart has said he's not running.

And besides, it's a bit like saying Christopher Walken is in the running for 2008. Not going to happen, no matter how much people wish it.

But speaking of which, my favourite Republican candidate for 2008... Denny Crane!

AP is reporting that Webb has won Virginia. Allen doesn't want to drag it out with a recount. MSNBC and CNN are carrying the report too.

Looks like the Democrats have control over both houses.

Tis a great day. My lunch will taste better than any meal I have ever had!

If the ability to follow a complex, fractured narrative has brought with it impatience and a diminished attention span then I don't think it should be considered an enchancement, particularly is thoughtless acceptance is riding alongside. The question should not be whether my Grandpa likes the Sopranos. We ought to be asking if our grandchildren will be prepared to watch The Big Combo or The Maltese Falcon. If their attunement to fast-paced mutli-threaded narratives blinds them to the value of a measured, atmospheric story then it will be a terrific shame.

You're missing Johnson's point. He's not out to say that this culture is supposed to replace past culture. He's saying that there's proof that such culture doesn't "rot the brains" like so many critics of TV would have you believe.

But following the logic of your post, are you saying that The Maltese Falcon has an atmospheric story and something like say The Sopranos or 24 doesn't? If you really do think this, I'll lend you my shovel so you can dig your head out of the ground.

I mean, you seem to think that a multi-track narrative sacrifices good plotting. It doesn't. You can have both, and shows like The Sopranos, 24, Six Feet Under, Lost, Arrested Development, The Office (both UK and US versions), The West Wing, Weeds, Scrubs, Deadwood, etc, etc are proof of this.

Damn it, someone tell me what's going on in Virginia! Why is it taking so long to count the last 1% of the vote?!

Great to see McCaskill in front. But still too close to call, apparently.

Likewise, Tester vs Burns.

Why is this taking so long!?!?! Why is CNN dickteasing me?!?!?!

i saw on an advert that macs wear cool clothes and pcs are all square and businessman like

i base all my future purchases on such ads because i am a hip consumer

yo dawg g mofo word BUY A MAC

DG:   careful with the argument that film has become complex.   Sure there are the exceptions: the occassional mind bender like Memento.  But overall Johnson stated that the medium has plateaued long ago.

Good point. I do reckon TV shows have become more complex than movies these days. I prefer watching shows like Huff or Arrested Development or The Office to 99% of what's at the cinema these days. In fact, it's very rarely I go to the movies or buy film DVDs. I'm more likely to buy a whole season of a quality TV show.

DG,
Hypertext novel? That's old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Warlock_of_Firetop_Mountain

It's interesting that you bring this up because Johnson uses the example of how he created pen-and-paper fantasy baseball games when he was a kid. Now there are programs that enable you to compile such statistics in an easier way. Likewise with the evolution from roleplaying/choose-your-own-adventure gamebooks to online hypertext novels like Ryman's work.

Also, you mention literature of the past as inspirational. Consider current day literature, such as Geoff Ryman's "253", which is a hypertext novel.

http://www.ryman-novel.com/

Consider how this is uses more complex functions than literature of the past.

Literature of the past? I meant contemporary literature as well. As long as it's "good"

Also, sure, that hyper-text novel seems nifty and all. But seriously, is that a modern-day, mainstream media among people of today? I'm not against new media, I'm against young people wasting away watching and reading popcorn pulp shit crap. If people can find alternatives to reading books, then be my guest. But that link of yours seems a tad far-fetched imho.

But the case could be made that people 50 years ago had their own popcorn pulpy shit and that the popcorn pulp shit had actually gotten smarter over the last 50 years.

As for hyper-text novels, no, there aren't that many hypertext novels. But consider how hypertext has transformed textual mediums. I now read most of my information online. I haven't disqualified books, mind you, because I still think there is value in literature. But my point was that our future seems to be evolving more to hypertext mediums.

As another example, consider how news blogs are becoming more popular and how newspaper readerships are in decline.

So, I don't think it's too far-fetched to say the medium is changing to something more complex and smarter.

First of all, I think a lot of people are disagreeing without considering what's really being discussed here. I'll get to my reply to certain individuals in a moment, but first....

Everyone, see Johnson on The Daily Show: http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=15541

And see him discuss his new book The Ghost Map:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P8shnNEXb4

I don't totally wholly disagree with what you're saying, but I must dispute a few things.

Viewers have to cling to the TV to catch what just happened in 24, or go online to read fansites, or rewind on their Tivo,   or ultimately buy the DVD and search through the bonus features.

I watched the first series of 24 without rewinding, or reading fan-sites. I also followed the story without remaining clinging to the TV (that is to say, I spent a good few minutes making fun of Jack's whispery voice during each episode). More significantly, Twin Peaks gave us a layered, fractured narrative in very much the same way, before fan websites, DVDs and Tivo.

But this only just highlights the evolution of how TV has become more complex. 24 is pretty much a higher step in complex narrative from Twin Peaks, especially since you now have a "real-time" element. What Evenwolf (and Johnson) is saying is that now we live in a world of greater interactivity and intertextuality. The Internet functions adjunct to current multi-narrative stories. It's an extension of the evolution of all our popular culture.

As another example, consider also that there is now a 24 video game.

It s not the case that TV execs avoided complex, violent, scandalous shows in the seventies because our moral standards were higher back then.     Its that mass audiences could not keep up with those stories because of a lack in technology and therefore:  a certain kind of intelligence.   

I can think of a number of violent, 'scandalous' and complex films from the 1970s, perhaps fewer TV programmes. I won't dispute the notion that a modern viewer is more attuned to fast, dynamic editing and fractured narrative structure, but I don't think that's necessarily a good thing, nor do I think it's been driven primarily by technology.

Whether or not it's a good thing is not what's being argued here. As Johnsons says in the book, it is not his position to debate the morality of such culture. What is being argued is that the technological aspects and progression of narrative has made us smarter.

A case in point that Johnson makes in regards to reality TV is that now you have people voting via mobile phones and the internet on who stays and who leaves. You also have internet forums devoted to such shows where fans can discuss the social dynamics/contestant technique/etc of such shows.

Likewise, compare the best films of the 70s (and I'm a big afficianado of films from the 70s, mind you -- Taxi Driver, The French Connection, The Godfather 1 and 2, etc) to the best films of today: Pulp Fiction , Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Memento, The Usual Suspects, Lord of the Rings, Fight Club, etc. The way of telling such stories has become more complex.

Johnson also backs up his findings with empirical evidence too.

I disagree entirely with the premise that TV is getting smarter.

Take a look at any recent programme about science. It presents what meagre facts it contains in as flashy a way as possible to avoid "losing the audience", and recaps over and over as if you didn't get it the first time. I watched an episode of Stan Lee's "reality" show recently. Recap, recap, recap.

But compare this to the type of documentary about science from the 50s.

Here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeqIY1Venfk

It basically presents the same meagre facts using the best engagement techniques of the 50s.

But also, today we have shows that act as an intertext to this. Take, for example, the Look Around You series, which acts as a parody of educational documentaries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LqYBncyKpM

Parody is a type of intertext that Johnson talks about. It references not just the facts but the style of educational documentaries. And we understand this because we can make connections between such media.

No one would have even dreamed of making shows like this in 50s.

it's kind of like how The Daily Show's "America (The Book): A Citizen's Guide to Democracy Inaction" parodies civics textbooks.

Filling people's brains with a ton of buzzwords they barely understand and half-truths is hardly improving their intellect, nor does showing them increasing amounts of violence and garish, offensive behavior.  How can the Sopranos possibly be argued successfully to improve the human intellect?  Looks like the snake oil salesmen are back in town, Sheriff!

First of all, Johnson isn't a snake oil salesman and his books don't read like they were written by a crazy old man in a bar. He is a major science writer and a Distinguished Writer In Residence at New York University.

Second: I'm not too sure how "cognitive" and "mass communication" constitute buzzwords. My University professors all used the same words that Johnson used, so maybe they're snake oil salespeople as well. Better watch out, they might try and con you into buying the Brooklyn Bridge!

Third: the violence and offensive behaviour is more to do with the morality of such media, not the capability to enhance cognitive ability.

As for the Sopranos, consider all the connections people have to make to watch the show. 1) The way it uses several narratives that weave in between each other, 2) the way it calls back to information from previous episodes, 3) The way it incorporates psychology, 4) the way it makes references to external media, like numerous gangster films, 5) Consider also, how people can reference the show, such as the intro being parodied in Harvey Birdman and The Simpson.

In other words, people need enhanced cognitive ability to process the shows more so than people of 50 years ago. Try getting your 65 year old grandpa to follow what's happening in The Sopranos. I guaran-fucking-tee you he'll prefer Matlock.

For more information, consult the Intertestuality section of The Sopranos article on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopranos#Intertextuality

Yeah, I'm not gonna get on the tv-is-smarter-makes-smarter bandwagon just yet. I think the complexity and uniqueness of television broadcasting is a result of competition and the greater importance of the tv in our lives. In the 50-60's people would gather around the tv for an hour a day to watch simplistic broadcasting, because it was novel as well as standard. But nowadays people live through television to a larger degree, and they demand more complexity.

Why do people demand more complexity?

Johnson says because their cognitive functions are more enhanced.

I taught school for several years.  Trust me- this book get it wrong.  TV is not making anyone smarter.  I worry about the world- Are we going to produce the great scientists, humanists, thinkers, economists, writers, etc. if we  buy into this harmful nonsense.   

How can I trust you with you opinion when you've got NOTHING to demonstrate why the book has got it wrong?

But you want to talk great writers of today influenced by popular culture? Consider my friend B. Thompson Stroud, who is my favourite writer on the Internet. He has also written a book entitled Seven Hill City. He grew up on a steady diet of professional wrestling, baseball, and TV. A lot of this culture has influenced his works in major ways, especially the impact of professional wrestling on his book. Also, take a look at the online comic he co-writes, The Dugout, which is based upon his knowledge of baseball.

He is a great writer influenced by popular culture.

Consider Quentin Tarantino, writer and director of Pulp Fiction, who basically attributes the video store he used to work at as his film education.

Consider Jon Stewart, Emmy and Peabody-winning writer and presenter of The Daily Show, who uses a lot of pop cultural references to mock the politics of the day.

Consider Matt Stone and Trey Parker, who do the same thing.

Consider the creators of The Simpsons.

Consider Sasha Baron Cohen.

I just know that when I read great novels, I get a particular kind of inspiration that is more or less vital for my survival. I become encouraged, provoked, to think, instead of just catered for my immediate desire to make the time go faster.

But what you've described is pretty much what reality TV's voting system encourages people to do. It encourages them to think upon what they've seen and provoke them to make a decision. It's pretty much the same as you using the internet -- there are complex cognitive functions happening that force you to make decisions when you surf the net.

Also, you mention literature of the past as inspirational. Consider current day literature, such as Geoff Ryman's "253", which is a hypertext novel.

http://www.ryman-novel.com/

Consider how this is uses more complex functions than literature of the past.




---------------

I'd like to point out to everyone that Johnson doesn't disqualify novels and media from our past -- such has their benefits. But what he is saying is that there is a negative association (TV and video games are making us dumber) with today's popular culture that is false.

And, for a good defense against the moral arguments against our popular culture, see this video of a debate between Bernie Goldberg and Jon Stewart:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/07/13/3541

Best quote:

Bernard Goldberg: Once upon a time... a drunk in a bar wouldn't use the F-word. Now... Chevy Chase goes to the Kennedy Center in Washington DC, at a gala where people are wearing gowns and tuxedoes, and calls the president of the United States a dumb-blank.

John Stewart: And once upon a time, Thomas Jefferson fucked slaves. I guess what I'm saying is yes, Chevy Chase used a bad word on TV .... but segregation no longer exists, slavery is gone. That's REAL culture and REAL vulgarity. This is just words.

I've also said time and time again that I reckon the violence on TV, video games, films is merely a reflection of society. Compare this to films and TV of several decades ago where apparently violence didn't exist much and black people and white people got along together in harmony during the 30s. Also, according to films of the 30s, slavery and the subjugation of black people was a good thing.

I mean, are people going to condemn a violent film like Spike Lee's Do The Right Thing on purely moral objections to "violence in films" when it presents a fairly accurate representation of tense race relations?

The problem is that our nostolgia for the past clouds our eyes to what's happening now. While I don't think we should disqualify past culture, I think we can't condemn present popular culture on purely moral grounds. And while I can't say that all our culture is perfect, I do think it has become more honest and more advanced than several years ago.

Great book, Evenwolf! One of my favourites!

One part of the book I found most fascinating and mind-blowing was where he makes a convincing case showing how reality TV shows and Pokemon are proof that our society is becoming smarter. Sure, we regard it as crap, but the crap has gotten smarter compared to similar shows from the 50s. In other words, the crap has gotten more complex.

Also, check out the author's blog: http://www.stevenberlinjohnson.com/

Studies have shown that kids nowadays need to process, filter and absorb much more information than their parents did when they were young, resulting in a wider database of information, but less memory to recall that information. So we end up knowing a little about everything. There have also been a lot of studies supporting positive aspects in games and entertainment, for example the correlation of FPS games to the processing speed of shapes seen with the eye and reaction speed, and the adaptation speed to various technical interfaces.

One of the thing the book discusses is that it's not the information as such, but the mechanisms used to present the information and engage the reader.

For example, books used to be the main textual medium. But now people are engaging with the internet because the way it presents information (Johnson uses intertextuality, such as hyperlinking, as an example) is more engaging.

Like Evenwolf said, he also compares the narratives of TV Shows over the last few decades and demonstrates how TV plots have become more complex. Take a show with a single narrative, such as Dragnet, and look at the evolution to Starsky and Hutch to Hill Street Blues to something with several narratives happening at once, like The Sopranos or 24.

Yeah, first thing I thought of when I saw that thing was Obi being hunted by Borat.

Read you on the condescending thing, I didn't intend it as such. I have a hard time being polite in some ways, I consider much beating-around-the-bush to be hypocritical, really. I ment what you read: I've read a lot of posts by you, not only on the girl game maker thread that made me want to pull my hair out (a lot of pulling) because of the attitude. I'm just glad this isn't at all like this, for whichever reasons, and I'd be happy if it continued like that. That's all. I don't want to make this a discussion about your internet habits, just a sidepoint.

Okay, I get what you're saying. While I don't mean for some of my posts to be hair-pulling (though I can understand how they can be seen that way), I strive more so for a direct honesty, regardless of attitude. If I think something sucks, I'll say it sucks. Much the same way you consider beating-around-the-bush to be hypocritical.

But, upon re-reading your previous post, I do understand there's a genuineness to what you were saying, which I do appreciate. I can't guarantee all my posts won't make you pulling your hair out. But I am glad you can see gentleman within the goofball.

Now on to more serious matters...

What I said is that what you see on screen might not be as 'clean' as it might seem. It's a whole different mood when you think that this person on screen isn't enjoying consensual sex with a partner, but is stoned demolished and thinking about god knows what while 3 people who would never get hard if it werent for miracle blue pills just keep plugging away until a director says cut for lunch.

I do agree that not everything in front of the camera is peachy, but what I'm saying is I think it's not to the extent that is being purported in this thread. That's why I stated that it's more of a myth that porn is driven mostly by drug use. Hence why I had an issue with 2ma2's claim that "the most common factor is drug abuse". I mean, if someone makes a big claim like that you'd think "Okay, where's this statement come from? What makes it true?"

First of all, thank you, DG for posting lucidly and clearly on the subject, without any snarky 'this is the internet!' humour and stuff, for the first time in ages it's been a joy to read one of your posts.

Firstly, while I'm pleased you thanked me, I find it a little backhanded and condescending. This thread is being well-discussed on a good topic. The other thread, the "debate" about the all-girl game creation group, was a nightmare. I felt I posted appropriately.

Secondly, DICK JOKES!!!1!

I'd like you to consider two things:

You are providing facts about the american porn industry. In other parts of the world (read: former eastern bloc for example) things aren't as... transparent, industrious and clean as this. A lot of the porn, especially online, is fringe porn (because internet users are sexually problematic, different discussion) so there's a lot of stuff you... wouldn't want to see out there. And it includes drug use, underage participators, non-consentual intercourse and worse. I'm just saying, it pays to remember the US aren't the only ones making porn, but they really are the only country with a prevailing porn industry, in true american-way fashion.

While I agree that my post covers mainly the US porn industry, I still see your post as speculation. Do you have anything to back up what you're saying? Any reports that show that drug use is directly linked to people entering into non-consentual intercourse for commerical film products?

See, I'm not oblivious. I do agree that it happens. But just not to the degree that you and 2ma2 suggest. However, if you can provide something to back up your position, I would concede to it.

The other thing:

Besides the pragmatist approach shown in the cited reports -which aren't incorrect as far as I can tell -  consider the mental state in which a woman must be to participate in sexual acts, some of them highly specialized or odd, on screen. It might be for money alright, but a lot of people would resort to drugs (I wouldn't say heroin, but coke, even crack is said to be quite hot in the industry still) just so they can do what they do on-screen. I can tell for certain I've seen women stoned the hell out of their minds in porn, and it's no big secret. Whatever gets you through the day, right? They need the money, right?

Once again, this is speculation. Also, this doesn't demonstrate illicit drugs as a motivating factor for people entering the porn industry. Your view only shows that drugs sustain people who are already participants.

"I still think that you are extending "grey areas" of an industry to the whole industry."

But that's what I said when bringing up the discussion in the first place. As spoken; I will not say that all porn is forced sex, but consent can be motivated by a variety of reasons, upon which all ain't that morally justifiable. And the most common factor is drug abuse.

Where's your proof that the most common factor is drug abuse? Show me a report that links the two. If you're going to make a claim like that, provide evidence.

I checked the US Meese commission report on the porn industry, published in 1986. This was just after cocaine usage peaked in 1982.

One of the things that the Meese report says is this:

Economic Circumstances

If it is not possible to speak with certainty about the family backgrounds of the young women and men who become "models," it nevertheless seems clear what chiefly motivates their decision to appear in sexuallyexplicit material: financial need. As one former model put it when asked why most women enter nude modeling:

    A lot of women are hurt or crazy women under stress. Yes, most women come in under a lot of stress. They're usually desperate when they first come in-maybe they need money for some emergency, like I did, or they've gone as long as they can doing odds and ends or working at (menial) jobs, and they finally just have to pay their bills. I met a woman whose kid was in the hospital, and I met lots of women who were financially strapped. There were also many illegal aliens there who couldn't work regular jobs even if they had the skills because they didn't have their green cards.... [T]hey certainly know how to get you to do what they want. Some women are so bad off that they just go immediately into hard-core films.[984]

One prominent model recently described her entry into the business in similar though less sympathetic terms.

    I had a sugar daddy who was, you know, keeping me. Paying for everything. I didn't need a dime of my own and never had to work. Then I guess his wife found out, and he ran back to her, breaking it off with me. I was out in the cold. Then a friend of his asked me if I was interested in doing some masturbation stuff on video. I needed the money and said okay.[985]

Although not a universal feature of models' accounts,[986] with striking regularity they speak of money and dire financial need as critical factors in their decision to model.[987] In the words of one now famous former model who was "literally starving" when he made an X-rated film: "It was either make that movie or rob someone"[988] As a representative of United States Prostitutes Collective put it: "For women working in the sex industry, prostitution and pornography are about money, not sex "[989] Not surprisingly, Professor Russell found that women who had been asked to appear in pornography were significantly poorer than other women in her sample.[990] From what we have learned about the rigors and risks of sex modeling, it is difficult to imagine any overriding motive other than serious economic need for such a momentous decision.[991]

Consider this: nowhere in that section does it say that drug use is a motivating factor. it's just simply finacial needs: pay the bills, buy food to eat. No where does it mention anything to do with pre-existing drug use as a decision to enter into the industry. And you'd think that something as negative as drugs were a motivating factor, they'd mention it in this section. It is, after all, a Reagan-era government report. And critics have said it's heavily biased towards the anti-porn movement. But no mention of drugs in Economic Circumstances!

Now consider what the same section says about drug use within the industry at the time:

Drug Use

Along with the insidious threat of infectious disease, models face a more overt challenge to their physical health: drug use, and in particular, use of cocaine. Few aspects of the world of pornographic modeling seem less free from doubt than the dependence of most performers, at one time or another, on cocaine. The view of one prominent model that in her world "everybody goes through a drug stage"[1036] is perhaps overstated; but involvement of a substantial majority of performers in the use of cocaine seems highly probable.[1037] In the opinion of at least one model, drugs are necessary in her work because "you have to hide, you have to keep your feelings and emotions from being completely destroyed. Each day [in the industry] erodes them away."[1038] It is true that Mr. Les Baker, President of the Adult Film Association of America labelled the problem of drug abuse in his industry a "misconception," contending that such abuse "is a universal problem and we of the A.F.A.A. just a small part thereof."[1039] For him drug usage by pornographic models is simply part of an infection spreading through the whole "entertainment industry."[1040] William Margold put it somewhat more positively:

    I know that drugs are in my industry. I know that drugs are in almost any form of creative people. Some people seem to need them to do whatever they have to do.[1041]

We of course are in no position to compare the severity of drug abuse in the pornography industry with that in other fields; it is sufficient simply to note that by all accounts such abuse exists and inflicts serious damage on those it touches.[1042]

Notice that: the report doesn't compare drug use in the porn industry to any other industry at the time. Also, while they have individual testimony from porn actors with drug problems, no where does it mention any force of drugs within the industry. It existed, but it pretty much existed in many industries in the US anyway, not just porn!

But to be fair, the report contains a section on organised crime within the industry, and cocaine distributed to models to "lower their inhibitions and to create a dependency". Funds from films were also used to finance drug smuggling.

But keep in mind, it was the 80s and there's no quantifiable data to show what percentage of the industry were using drugs or how this compares to other creative industries. I mean, how does cocaine usage in the adult film industry compare with the normal film industry? In fact, I think it's fair to say a lot of people, not just in the adult film industry, were jacked up on coke and had a dependency. (And my figure from 1982 is proof of this).

However, I still think it's a myth to say drug use is the most common reason why porn models "give their consent". As the Meese report says, it's mostly financial need and nothing to do with supporting a drug habit. I think if supporting drug habits were a major factor for models to enter the industry, there'd be some mention of it in the Economic Circumstances section.

Now let's look at today. A lot has changed since the 80s in the US. The spread of AIDS in the US lead to the deaths of numerous actors, which shows how intravenous drug use is detrimental to the industry. Now if you're a the owner of porn business, wouldn't you go out of your way to stop intravenous drug use so that you models wouldn't infect each other (occupational hazzard?).

There's now an Adult Industry Medical Health Care Foundation, established in 1998, with a view to decrease the spread of STDs in the industry. While their website doesn't seem to mention any programs to stop drug use, they do offer porn companies industry-standard health checks for all workers. Like I said, STDs like AIDS are detrimental to the industry and if I were the owner of a porn empire I'd make damn sure there'd be nothing to cause a decline within my industry. Porn moguls know that drugs are bad for their business and have admitted so (see the above Meese section on Drug Use). There was already an AIDS scare in 2004 that resulted in four infections and a two month industry-led moratorium on production while they got everyone checked. It's doubtful the industry would support anything that would hurt their business in this way. That's just logical.

But for more proof, consider my home state: Queensland, Australia. We have a legalised sex industry, complete with government regulated standards. This includes health checking for STDs and drug use. The sex workers even have a union, if my memory serves correctly. But the main thing is this: no drugs in the industry. It's legitimate and clean (though some might have moral objections).

I've said it before; porn is exploitive. There are better ways out there to make a living. I don't recommend to anyone to enter the industry because I feel giving up your dignity isn't worth it for that particular industry. That's my choice and my value. However, it is not my right to make decisions for others. If other people choose to enter the industry, that is their decision. However, I think it is a myth to say that people most commonly enter the industry to support drug abuse. And the evidence I've provided demonstrates this. In fact, I've even provided sections from a heavily biased Reagan-era anti-porn report that show there's no proof that people enter the industry because of drugs.

Unless of course, you can provide a report that states the opposite, 2ma2.

And in this case, choosing to do sex films to buy food and pay rent is NOWHERE IN THE SAME LEAGUE OF EVIL as a bunch of people forcing you down, raping you and filming it.

Yeah, I agree with Nacho -- you might find such videos on porn sites but those videos still constitute rape because sex is being forced. Like you said, "she doesn't know what's going on at all" and it's taking advantage of her. Hence, it's rape.

2ma2, I think you know perfectly well what I mean when I say "consentual sex" and "pornography". When I say pornography, I'm talking studio-based pornography, where it's a part of an actual commercial enterprise that utilises proper actors and actresses a la Boogie Nights. Not "hey lets get a chick so drugfucked that she passes out and we film us having sex with her" videos. To me, the video you suggest don't constitute what I'm talking about in terms of willingly giving consent to participate in sex for a film.

What I was objecting to was the bringing of pornography into this discussion at all.

Ah, I understand. I brought porn into the discussion to demonstrate why exploitation of such rape and assult videos are morally bad without question, why the exploitation is so sinister compared to exploitation in other areas.

Perhaps it was a little tasteless to bring pornography into the comparison but I was just trying to show another situation where sexual gratification was being filmed and acceptable in society to draw a conclusion.

Can you condemn all "legitimate" pornography as exploitative on the grounds that some within the adult industry have been exploited, or corrupted, by unscrupulous individuals?

Isn't that like burning down your house because a turd is floating in your toilet bowl?

Doesn't pornography, at its basic commercial level, exploit the need for the quick, sexual fix that its consumers pay for?

Exploitation, by it's most basic definition, exists in almost every industry. Just in different, and thus, maybe more acceptable forms.

But this is my point: rape videos AREN'T an industry.

My comparsion is thus: despite all the exploitation and corruption and unscrupulous individuals, pornograhy still relies upon people who have given consent. Although a dirty industry, it still relies upon people exercising their right to choice.

People filming rape relies upon people who DO NOT give their consent. No right to choice has been given -- in fact, it has been taken away. Sex has been forced, not chosen.

In regards to the porn industry, you can make critisisms upon moral grounds, but people in the industry can still exercise their human rights. Victims of rape can't.

You think I'm condoning pornography due to the fact that there's consent? I don't. I just said I understand why exploitation in pornography more acceptable compared to a rape video -- making a comparison. I don't think they're on the same level, and you've got to agree there. Sure, Tiffany Big Tits might do porn to support her smack habbit but that's VERY different to someone being held down and raped while filmed. In the former, there's a choice happening, even if guided by an addiction it's still a choice made. My point is that latter is way degrading to the point of abhorrent because the victim is deprived of a basic human right. A porn actor isn't so much a victim -- you could argue that most porn actors arrived in the industry due to poor choices and thus their own responsibility.

To look at it in terms of ethics, which is what you want to do, let me put it this way: a pornography actor places a value judgement upon what their dignity is worth in terms of a dollar value. It may not be right, but that stretches more into questions of morals than ethics. Meanwhile, a rape victim is deprived of making a value judgement on their dignity because their dignity is unwillingly being exploited. Perpetrators who film rape deprive their victims of keeping their dignity and that's fucking inhumane.

Let me put it this way: do you consider a video of a rape less, more, or equally exploitive as a pornographic film?

I can understand there are grey areas in pornography, but you can't tell me that such grey areas put porn on equal footing with rape videos. No way!

I guess that's my problem with such videos: they exploit to the point that they degrade and without consent. Pornography I can understand because, although it's degrading, the people involved have given their consent to appearing in the video. In video showing rape or assault, there is no consent. It degrades a person without respect for their choice to retain dignity. No one should have to go through that.

I'm not too sure because I'm not familiar with Spanish media law. Out of curiousity, could you point me to an English language website on your media law?

Anyway, despite the Spanish law, my comments were made in reference to the video that Timosity was talking about, which was filmed in Victoria, Australia so the media law there applies.

Also, in reference to the kid that got teabagged, it'd also depend on where he lived whether the recording of such was illegal.

However, this is all a very minor issue in this discussion because despite the legality it's still a dumb and terrible thing to do.

[videotaping without consent]

Here's the grey area: The rape is a crime. Video recording it isn't a crime. Publishing it on the internet is a crime. (Just to note, video-taping it is stupid since it can be introduced as evidence in a court trial for the actual rape).

Not sure about this Daniel... Video recording a crime (in this way, voluntarilly, I mean) and doing nothing about it (tell the rapists to stop, or call the police, for example) is a crime in my country, since you are denying help (I assume that the "raped" asked for help, or that he shows enough disturbing to being considered as in need of help, no?)

In this special case (if the video is how I imagine it...) you are not being just a witness of a crime (If you record a crime accidentally, sometimes you can be excused to act, if it' s prooven that there is a primal fear acting on you that disables you to act, for example, if you think that the criminal has seen you and could threaten you...), but also you are a collaborator, you knew the rape was going to happen, and you picked up a camera to participate in the exploitation, summing up to the act of rape, the humilliation of being recorded, so, double crime for you.

Makes sense?

No, no, you've misunderstood my point. What you're describing has nothing to do with the actual videotaping of the crime. What you describe is the same thing as watching a crime and doing nothing about it. It's a way of condoning a crime and it's known as "being an accomplice" to rape. (Keep in mind, I know very little about this, since I'm not a lawyer. Just a journalist and have studied media law).

What you're talking about is very different to what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is the act of videotaping without consent.

I re-chekced my media law. It's allowable here in Queensland to use a recording device to record without consent. Likewise, in Victoria and Western Australia. In NSW, it's illegal to do so. The law is different in the various states of my country.

And I don't know how it is for other countries and their states. I do know a lot of states in the US allow people to record without consent.

But since the video Timosity was talking about was recorded in Victoria, it's not illegal to record such a video. However, it is illegal to publish it since the victim obviously wouldn't give her consent. The only way you could allow the publication of such is if the content meets certain criteria, such as if it's in the public's interest (which it isn't).

Like I said, though, this is a completely different to what you're talking about. You're talking about witnessing a rape and not doing anything about it. What I'm talking about relates to the media itself and the publication thereof. It's a different charge.

And like I said, despite the legality of recording such a video, you'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to record something like that because it can easily be used against you in a court of law.