As you might imagine, this is pretty big news at Duke right now. Duke freshwoman pays for college with work on the side as a porn star. It's a fascinating article.
I just don't have a problem with how she has chosen to support herself. Perhaps because it reminds me of the early story line in West Wing pilot...of course, she was a prostitute.
Raising the question: Which is more morally problematic, from the perspective of the woman herself--prostitution or porn? That is, from a woman's perspective, and if the pay were the same, would you choose prostitution or porn? So, here's the question: starting at a price of $1,000 per hour. Assume that neither involved an act you find repulsive in principle, though perhaps distasteful in actual practice. Assume finally that you, the woman, are neither particularly rich nor poor, and that you have no immediate desperate need of money.
Now, the price bid--starting at $1,000--is raised in $100 per hour increments. Would you choose FIRST (at the lowest price, as the price rises to the point where you consent):
A. Do an hour of porn (filming a sex act, or several, none of which you find inherently objectionable, but which are of course quite explicit, real sex acts, one sex partner who is of the opposite sex and not in any way physically repulsive )
B. Perform an hour of prostitution (a sex act, or several, none of which you find inherently objectionable, but which are of course quite explicit, real sex acts, one sex partner who is of the opposite sex and not in any way physically repulsive)
C. There is no price, ever, that would be high enough to induce me to choose A or B.
I am not sure I believe C, but it's a fair answer (the LMM chose C, but admitted that it would depend on desperation. That's why I'm ruling out desperation). But remember that choosing C means that you would not do just one hour of porn, or prostitution, for $100 million. I think that is a dubious claim.
Which of course reminds one of the old Winston Churchill story. (Or perhaps not Winston Churchill?) Should "haggling about the price" matter? But of course it does, because that is what changes a coercive transaction into a voluntary exchange. If a desperate woman sells herself for $1,000, it's coerced. If a rich woman sells herself for a couple of drinks and show, we think that's fine. If the woman is ABLE to haggle, it's voluntary.
Desperation is the key feature in two stories, the "Casablanca" story of Annina and Reneault (Annina is willing to sleep with Renault to obtain the exit visa, so she and Jan can escape to America, but Jan doesn't know), and this story (Robert Redford's character offers $1 million, and the husband does know, and approves), both of which involve "selling" the wife to someone in exchange for something of value. Annina is desperate; so is Diana (the Demi Moore character). The difference is that the husband is encouraging in the "Indecent Proposal" story, and the husband will be deceived and cuckolded in the "Casablanca" story.
To get through college, I worked on a crew clearing roads in swamp in central Florida. We used chain saws in knee deep mud. Sometimes there were dead things, not clear what they had been (raccoon? possum? dog?), but they were very nasty.
No normal porn (that is if there are no children, violence, etc) could be much more dehumanizing than that job. And I bet porn pays better, as it should.
And I have to laugh at the "peers" at Duke who aspire to connect with the woman. It's unlikely that the young lady is going to be interested in their puny assets, both because she is already tired and because...well, you know. As in this SMBC cartoon, "I thought it would be bigger."
A final point: we tend not to scorn the young guy who brags that he will seek out the porn star freshwoman for an assignation. The above survey, administered to most men, would not be very complicated. I expect that men IMAGINE themselves as porn stars, but that given the chance they would be reluctant on grounds of size and stamina to reveal themselves on camera. But heterosexual prostitution? The price might be negative. And if the starting bid is $1,000 for an hour the guy might just accept the proposition at the outset (remember, the client is of the opposite sex, and not repulsive).
So, we don't think badly of the male who accepts the $1,000, takes three shots of Cuervo, and then gets busy. Of COURSE that's what (single) men would do. Why is it so different for women? To put it another way, how would we react if the word got out that this freshwoman was a freshMAN porn star, a male? Would there be young ladies telling the reporter that they were going to get them a slice of that? Actually....at Duke at least...I think there would. Perhaps that's progress, of a sort.
Thanks to Gabriel Rossman, without in any way implicating him.
UPDATE: Follow-up post....
Raising the question: Which is more morally problematic, from the perspective of the woman herself--prostitution or porn? That is, from a woman's perspective, and if the pay were the same, would you choose prostitution or porn? So, here's the question: starting at a price of $1,000 per hour. Assume that neither involved an act you find repulsive in principle, though perhaps distasteful in actual practice. Assume finally that you, the woman, are neither particularly rich nor poor, and that you have no immediate desperate need of money.
Now, the price bid--starting at $1,000--is raised in $100 per hour increments. Would you choose FIRST (at the lowest price, as the price rises to the point where you consent):
A. Do an hour of porn (filming a sex act, or several, none of which you find inherently objectionable, but which are of course quite explicit, real sex acts, one sex partner who is of the opposite sex and not in any way physically repulsive )
B. Perform an hour of prostitution (a sex act, or several, none of which you find inherently objectionable, but which are of course quite explicit, real sex acts, one sex partner who is of the opposite sex and not in any way physically repulsive)
C. There is no price, ever, that would be high enough to induce me to choose A or B.
I am not sure I believe C, but it's a fair answer (the LMM chose C, but admitted that it would depend on desperation. That's why I'm ruling out desperation). But remember that choosing C means that you would not do just one hour of porn, or prostitution, for $100 million. I think that is a dubious claim.
Which of course reminds one of the old Winston Churchill story. (Or perhaps not Winston Churchill?) Should "haggling about the price" matter? But of course it does, because that is what changes a coercive transaction into a voluntary exchange. If a desperate woman sells herself for $1,000, it's coerced. If a rich woman sells herself for a couple of drinks and show, we think that's fine. If the woman is ABLE to haggle, it's voluntary.
Desperation is the key feature in two stories, the "Casablanca" story of Annina and Reneault (Annina is willing to sleep with Renault to obtain the exit visa, so she and Jan can escape to America, but Jan doesn't know), and this story (Robert Redford's character offers $1 million, and the husband does know, and approves), both of which involve "selling" the wife to someone in exchange for something of value. Annina is desperate; so is Diana (the Demi Moore character). The difference is that the husband is encouraging in the "Indecent Proposal" story, and the husband will be deceived and cuckolded in the "Casablanca" story.
To get through college, I worked on a crew clearing roads in swamp in central Florida. We used chain saws in knee deep mud. Sometimes there were dead things, not clear what they had been (raccoon? possum? dog?), but they were very nasty.
No normal porn (that is if there are no children, violence, etc) could be much more dehumanizing than that job. And I bet porn pays better, as it should.
And I have to laugh at the "peers" at Duke who aspire to connect with the woman. It's unlikely that the young lady is going to be interested in their puny assets, both because she is already tired and because...well, you know. As in this SMBC cartoon, "I thought it would be bigger."
A final point: we tend not to scorn the young guy who brags that he will seek out the porn star freshwoman for an assignation. The above survey, administered to most men, would not be very complicated. I expect that men IMAGINE themselves as porn stars, but that given the chance they would be reluctant on grounds of size and stamina to reveal themselves on camera. But heterosexual prostitution? The price might be negative. And if the starting bid is $1,000 for an hour the guy might just accept the proposition at the outset (remember, the client is of the opposite sex, and not repulsive).
So, we don't think badly of the male who accepts the $1,000, takes three shots of Cuervo, and then gets busy. Of COURSE that's what (single) men would do. Why is it so different for women? To put it another way, how would we react if the word got out that this freshwoman was a freshMAN porn star, a male? Would there be young ladies telling the reporter that they were going to get them a slice of that? Actually....at Duke at least...I think there would. Perhaps that's progress, of a sort.
Thanks to Gabriel Rossman, without in any way implicating him.
UPDATE: Follow-up post....
No comments:
Post a Comment
Do you have suggestions on where we could find more examples of this phenomenon?