Quote:
Originally Posted by LizAEBN
I don't know Max, so I can't say anything about him personally. What I *can* speak to are my concerns as a citizen. And the question in this whole case for me is whether I am comfortable creating a boundary on what is obscene - and the Miller test maintains the standard of that which is "patently offensive."
Which keeps coming back to "for whom?" I can't speak for you about that - Stagliano clearly has had a successful career, so clearly, the community standard test doesn't work if people are buying it. Protect the kids, protect against non-consensual violence - but not on a basis of "I think it's icky."
|
Agreed. People should be able to do all the weird sick shit they really want to do.
The real problem I see (like in Julie's story about Max) is that there are girls doing things that they don't really want to do for whatever reason: money, pressure, whatever. It's the calculated coercion of women to do things that hurt them that bothers me. It's a "gentle" form of rape to manipulate the situation and apply pressure in the right ways in order to force someone's consent. But this is not a problem that can really be addressed in a courthouse. And when you add to that cocktail a woman who is unsure of herself and easily led, well...assholes get ripped and shit happens.
So yeah, I think that anybody should be able to get abused on camera if that's what they're really into. But unfortunately a lot of the time the women who really want that and the ones that are being coerced are actually one and the same- a lot of the attraction to that kind of shit is based in childhood trauma and other things that might skew one's judgement.
But- and that's a BIG BUT- I STILL think people should have the right to do what they want to. I don't want anybody coming along to tell me I can't enjoy MY freedoms- one of which is working in this business. I just wish there were more safety nets for these women and less predators masquerading as boyfriends, husbands, agents, directors, etc.